PS3 EndWar is 360 port

By Wesley Yin-Poole - 03/06/2008 - 4:26pm GMT

90-strong PS3 port team 'doing really well now' despite experiencing 'a little trouble' at beginning.

The Xbox 360 and PS3 versions of upcoming console-only RTS Tom Clancy's EndWar will be "identical" when the game launches this October or November, despite the PS3 port team experiencing "a little trouble at the beginning" of the game's development.

EndWar, a near future strategy game which can be played completely through voice command only, is due out on both the Xbox 360 and the PS3 simultaneously this October or November. Despite the fact that the lead version is on the Xbox 360 and that the development team found the Unreal Engine 3 "a great fit" with Microsoft's console, Julian Gerighty, editorial content director at Ubisoft Shanghai revealed to VideoGamer.com at Ubidays last week that the dedicated 80 or 90 strong PS3 team "is doing really well now" with the port.

Gerighty said: "Because we have to have feature parity there's no difference in features. The way we've developed it was with Unreal 3 and we found it a really great fit with Xbox 360. PS3 team had a little trouble at the beginning but they're doing really well now. The lead version is the 360. They'll be identical when they finally launch."

He added: "There's a whole separate team of another 80, 90 guys working on it. It's really decent. And all they have to do is port it. It's a big team."

Check out our hands-on impressions of Tom Clancy's EndWar right here.

Stumble It!Share on Facebook Digg Story RSS

Latest Top Stories:

I hate ports!!! With a passion! Im sorry but game devs do earn a fair bit of money from games, so why are they not making the game on there own individual ports. Nuttin against 360, great console, but im get...

- RecoN

Gamerwillz wrote at 19:43 on 03 June 2008

Stupid move! Ubisoft better choose the PS3 as a lead platform!
SteveO wrote at 19:56 on 03 June 2008

Why would they do that when PS3 is third in the console race? LOL I think PS3 fans need a reality check!
trace wrote at 20:42 on 03 June 2008

because leading on the ps3 not only makes the ps3 version better than it would be if it had just been ported, it makes the 360 version slightly better than it probably would have. several developers have said this and burnout paradise is a great example
OMEN wrote at 22:27 on 03 June 2008

uhhh stupid ignorant people,PS3 is the most powerfull console in the planet earth,
that why.
360 alredy used showed all 100% of what it can do and ps3 only showed 40% so u do the math PS3 will get even better.
PS3 is third in the console race?thats not true ps3 is kicking ass in USA and in the world so get your facts right SteveO.
SteveO wrote at 23:43 on 03 June 2008

OMEN "stupid ignorant people" ???

PS3 currently is last in the console race that IS a fact. Xbox has twice as much memory which is why ps3 can't handle games like command and conquer 3, that IS a fact. PS3 has the most powerful processor but not the using 40% is nothing to be proud of because developers have said before it will be lucky to reach 50% to 60% because of the shortcuts used in development. i.e. RAM. forcing them to burn memory to the disk which slows down framerates and forces users to download large chunks of memory to their hard drives i.e. Devil may cry.

Any wonder why xbox is number 1 with developers
Eight Ball wrote at 00:56 on 04 June 2008

U plonker, ps3 has the same amount of ram, 360 has a unified ram system which takes large chunks of data slowly, ps3 has it's memory split in between graphics and system, this structure takes smaller chunks of data but a lot lot faster, which actually when the maths is done, outweighs 360's ram performance, developers are just slowly getting used to it as it is a new way of doing things.

360 does in fact have 10mb of embedded ed flash ram but that is irrelevant in comparison because the ps3's unique architecture eradicates thee need for it.
superdynamite wrote at 04:11 on 04 June 2008

looks like I'll be cancelling my pre-order. No ports for me. Have never met a port I liked. They all stink.
omen wrote at 04:29 on 04 June 2008

SteveO your full of shit and everybody who realy knows about ps3 and 360 will laught at your stupid face.
COD4 was made on ps3 not 360 and that why is better than halo3.

the 360's Xenos has a unified pipeline, that means that each of the 48 shaders can do either pixel or vertex operations. This means that generally the Xenons can be pushed to the "MAX", with all 48 shaders busy, rather than on the PS3 where some of its fixed shaders are likely to be unused YET and "surpass Xenons."
The PS3 was designed for the SPE's to supplement graphical processing, so the PS3 is capable of producing better graphics than the Xbox 360.
the ram is the same u tard tard,and ps3 has a faster ram than 360
all FACT,not BS like u,u'll see just whait till xmas and 2009.
oh and gta has better graphics on ps3 than 360 it has been confirmed by IGN and a lot of sites.
Putty Man wrote at 08:43 on 04 June 2008

Holy heavens, 90 guys just to port it across!

The PS3 must be an absolute dog to develop for, or else Ubisoft employees are very very lazy.
RecoN wrote at 10:28 on 04 June 2008

I hate ports!!! With a passion! Im sorry but game devs do earn a fair bit of money from games, so why are they not making the game on there own individual ports. Nuttin against 360, great console, but im getting tired of ports from the 360 onto the PS#.

Each console should have the quality they both deserve! I agree that if the versions were not a port, each console would have a better version. Argh! Il be crossing this off my list im afraid until devs give console owners what they want!
It doesnt matt wrote at 10:35 on 04 June 2008

LOOK at all the idiots trying to give all the tech info. Once again "even ign say that gta is better on ps3 " Who cares. IGN did not make the game YOU did not make the game. Going by the ups and downs on both consoles the game is good. Its also FACT that the game isnt even 720p native on ps3 but it is on 360. Who cares.

PS3 jealous. Stop crying you idiots. YOU come on moaning about ports. If Ps3 is that good as YOU say then why are the top devs using the 360 as a majority. You can say all you want about ps3 just getting used to it. So why dont they just work with it then.

You should be happy that now with next gen consoles we can get games like this. All you do is try to find a reason to slate the 360. Stop being so narrow minded and enjoy the games you get, if you think ps3 is soo good dont you think that most devs would have started using it by now NO because the ps3 set - up is too time consuming and cost more. ITs all about COST at the end of the day. Fanboys are sad sad people. That goes for 360 and ps3 and wii owners. Well maybe not WII people cause they seem to be happy with what they got. why cant 360 and ps3 people be like that.
SteveO wrote at 11:18 on 04 June 2008

PS3 Cell is limited to 256, now cows may say BUH GPU CAN WRITE ON CELLS BANK thats true, with a cost of bandwidth, making have performance isssues, developers try to avoid it,

Cell can only write on 256, simple, which means ps3 has 256 of ram. 360 cannot only do 50%-50% for cpu and gpu, but it can do limitless ways, such as 30%-70%or 70%-30%, with the same performance cost. ps3 does have faster ram, but that speed will be useless when the ram is in overload,making it have to use something called Virtual memory, and i have expierienced this, its really bad especailly during gameplay,

thus, 360 ram can be used in many different ways, ps3 can only use 256 for system(CELL) 256 for gpu(RSX), if one of these banks dont have enough ram for a specific task, then ps3 will suffer greatly while 360 can be something like 256-256 or 300-212 or 212-300..... in so many differnt ways that has the exact same performance with eachother,

This is why developers still at this stage prefer xbox
SteveO wrote at 11:40 on 04 June 2008

You cannot simply put a ferrari sports engine into a toyota pick up truck and expect it to go faster, it isn't as simple as that. The ps3 chip is no different, it is by far the most powerful but unfortunately it is not supported. Sony addmitted they cut back on RAM because they were afraid of production costs at the time because PS3 was already far too expensive.

In 2 - 3 years time xbox will be releasing their next generation console and Dell are also speculating about making one. I can't see how ps3 claim that their console will be future proof against the new generation when they have so much competition in the current gerneration??

It looks like developers have already hedged their bets and do not see the point in wasting their time with the cell.
OMEN wrote at 18:16 on 05 June 2008

SteveO,
just be quiet your burning your self realy bad.
u dont know crap about ps3 OR 360.
Nick wrote at 02:06 on 05 October 2008

ps3 has been outselling the 360 in Europe since October 2007 and has 14.4 million sales global. 360 has 20 million and considering the 360 came out more than a year before and was out sold completely in a shorter time by Wii. And the ps2 has sold 140 million while the Xbox sold 24 million. Wii has sold 29 million Game Cube sold 21 million.

So if you take total units sold by PlayStation 154 million for both respective systems and it would be 254 M if you count he original PlayStation sales. That leaves MS at 44 Million for the last two gens. Nintendo at 50 Million for the last two gens and PlayStation at 154 so even if you combine N and MS total at 94 Million that means Sony is still ahead 60 million and that's still more than either of their total units sold.

So lets not try to make points about who is selling more product because Sony will always win.
McCracken wrote at 02:17 on 05 October 2008

By future proof they mean they could easily have people send in their playstation's for a fee to have the ram upgraded to more memory its not rocket science and could be done and they would make a profit. In fact MS just did something similar with the 360 and the cpu I believe.