Support NeoGAF

[nynt9]

Whenever the subject of an Xbox One game performing worse than its PS4 counterpart, someone inevitably brings up the argument "The lazy devs are to blame!". For some reason, the developers are selectively lazy when it comes to the Xbox One version? And not just a few developers, but developers from Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Konami, Square Enix and a bunch of other small companies. Are all these developers lazy (considering they all had games that performed better on the PS4)?

It's a given fact that the PS4 has better hardware than the Xbox One, so I guess the argument is that "if the devs worked harder, they would be able to make the inferior hardware of the Xbox One perform identically to the PS4 version"? But then, considering the hardware differential, couldn't they make the PS4 version even better? Unless they decide to gimp the PS4 version, wouldn't there almost always be small differences between the versions? Does this train of thought even hold water? Because more time spent on development can't overcome, for example, the 32MB ESRAM being unable to hold certain types of rendering buffers in 1080p. So, doesn't that mean regardless of how hard devs work, it won't make a difference?

Basically, I'm wondering if there is anything to this argument, or if it's just mindless comments thrown out to justify the poor performance of Xbox One versions of multiplats by blaming it on devs.

Edit: A lot of people seem to be missing the bolded part.

 

[StevieP]

No lazy devs, just opportunity cost. They'll never perform identically but the cost of making ports perform better to take advantage of the slightly more customized hardware usually outweighs the benefits.

 

[QuickSilverD]

I remember the PS3 also suffered a lot because of these "lazy dev" porting job

 

[Oddduck]

I've always seen people argue how Wii U third party games sold badly because they were "lazy, poor ports". But the reality is, third party ports are selling poorly because they are on Wii U. Shit, even some of Nintendo's first party games aren't selling that great on Wii U.

 

[nynt9]

No lazy devs, just opportunity cost. They'll never perform identically but the cost of making ports perform better to take advantage of the slightly more customized hardware usually outweighs the benefits.

But that goes into my second question - maybe no matter how hard the devs work it won't matter because power/architecture differential?

Edit: would you argue that a WiiU version of a game running worse than the PS4 version is because "lazy devs" - this is a more extreme version of the same argument.

 

[GhostTrick]

Lazy devs is just a term to say that it's because of the dev team. Of course, it's not about devs being lazy, but sometimes, you have a small team, with a small budget and very few time to do your job. So it's likely the product won't be as polished as it should be.


Now of course, even with the best team and all the time available, you can't do miracles if the hardware don't follow.

 

[methane47]

Maybe not specifically for XBO ports.. but what other explanation can you give PC ports that are fixed within hours by random people on the internet?

There are only a couple possible explanations.
1) Lazy Devs?
2) Ignorant Devs?
3) Spiteful Devs?

Lazy is the least bad of the three

 

[SwiftDeath]

There are some cases where I do feel like developers had dropped the ball on things [30 fps caps on PC versions, game-breaking bugs, whatever the hell Infinity Ward did to Ghosts, and whatever the hell Dice or EA's QA? did to BF4]

But it's never "lazy" so much as likely mistakes or lack of time/quality control in these cases

 

[JordanN]

Video games are often made by 20 to 100 people.
You have senior programmers, environment artists, QA, producers, marketing managers etc.

I don't get how everyone one of those people are lazy. Maybe some are, maybe some aren't. You could say this about every job though ( lazy filmmakers? lazy automotive industry?)

But everyone is working towards a deadline and receive "x" amount of budget to do so.

 

[Sir_Crocodile]

Lazy devs is generally shorthand for "the publisher did not put the time/money/both into this project necessary for it to reach to a satisfactory conclusion"

 

[David___]

It was a stupid argument last gen and its a stupid one now.

 

[Tsundere]

Lazy? Hardly, developers are worked hard, very hard.

It's about lack of time/prioritization.

 

[nynt9]

Maybe not specifically for XBO ports.. but what other explanation can you give PC ports that are fixed within hours by random people on the internet?

There are some cases where I do feel like developers had dropped the ball on things [30 fps caps on PC versions, game-breaking bugs, whatever the hell Infinity Ward did to Ghosts, and whatever the hell Dice or EA's QA? did to BF4]

But it's never "lazy" so much as likely mistakes or lack of time/quality control in these cases

Sure, bad ports are a clear sign of developer incompetence (maybe not laziness), but is [multiplat game X] running at [lower framerate/resolution] on XB1 compared to PS4 really "lazy devs"?

 

[VideoGameCzar]

Looking a large number of games released with countless problems...I would say yes. Most developers these days seem to have the "fix it later" philosophy.

 

[213372bu]

Whenever the subject of an Xbox One game performing worse than its PS4 counterpart, someone inevitably brings up the argument "The lazy devs are to blame!". For some reason, the developers are selectively lazy when it comes to the Xbox One version? And not just a few developers, but developers from Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Konami, Square Enix and a bunch of other small companies. Are all these developers lazy (considering they all had games that performed better on the PS4)?

It's a given fact that the PS4 has better hardware than the Xbox One, so I guess the argument is that "if the devs worked harder, they would be able to make the inferior hardware of the Xbox One perform identically to the PS4 version"? But then, considering the hardware differential, couldn't they make the PS4 version even better? Unless they decide to gimp the PS4 version, wouldn't there almost always be small differences between the versions? Does this train of thought even hold water? Because more time spent on development can't overcome, for example, the 32MB ESRAM being unable to hold certain types of rendering buffers in 1080p. So, doesn't that mean regardless of how hard devs work, it won't make a difference?

Basically, I'm wondering if there is anything to this argument, or if it's just mindless comments thrown out to justify the poor performance of Xbox One versions of multiplats by blaming it on devs.

Mostly, this is one of the dumbest arguments ever.

However if we look at some of the simulator games on Steam...

EDIT: The dumbest argument ever being "Lazy Developers" are to blame.

 

[t_wilson01]

"Lazy dev" is just BS. I'd like to see anyone who says that do a better job.

 

[Vinterbird]

Maybe not specifically for XBO ports.. but what other explanation can you give PC ports that are fixed within hours by random people on the internet?

Their are only a couple possible explanations.
1) Lazy Devs?
2) Ignorant Devs?
3) Spiteful Devs?

Lazy is the least bad of the three

Time and money.

Calling developers lazy is a terrible thing. They work their ass off for far less then comparable positions in other industries and have to face stuff like "lazy devs" and whatever else internet harassment is out there.

It must suck trying to do what you love and then getting called lazy afterwards.

 

[Amir0x]

Whenever the subject of an Xbox One game performing worse than its PS4 counterpart, someone inevitably brings up the argument "The lazy devs are to blame!". For some reason, the developers are selectively lazy when it comes to the Xbox One version? And not just a few developers, but developers from Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Konami, Square Enix and a bunch of other small companies. Are all these developers lazy (considering they all had games that performed better on the PS4)?

It's a given fact that the PS4 has better hardware than the Xbox One, so I guess the argument is that "if the devs worked harder, they would be able to make the inferior hardware of the Xbox One perform identically to the PS4 version"? But then, considering the hardware differential, couldn't they make the PS4 version even better? Unless they decide to gimp the PS4 version, wouldn't there almost always be small differences between the versions? Does this train of thought even hold water? Because more time spent on development can't overcome, for example, the 32MB ESRAM being unable to hold certain types of rendering buffers in 1080p. So, doesn't that mean regardless of how hard devs work, it won't make a difference?

Basically, I'm wondering if there is anything to this argument, or if it's just mindless comments thrown out to justify the poor performance of Xbox One versions of multiplats by blaming it on devs.

It's always contextual. But even in the most extreme cases, sometimes it's not "lazy devs" but "frustrated dev who was forced into a corner by an unrealistic deadline by a greedy publisher", it's rarely so cut-and-dry as "this developer had a multitude of employees who were so lazy that the game suffered as a result."

Sometimes when you see a gulf as large as, say, Metal Gear is between PS4 and XBO, you'd wonder if they could have done more... but no matter what, there were probably circumstances that made that impossible, like Konami desperately needing some revenue and so not enough time to get the XBO version improved to that point before release. That's just a random theory, because no matter what there will always be a big gap between PS4 and XBO games, but how big depends on the circumstances.

 

[Data West]

I remember one of the Vigil developers in the Darksiders 2 thread said there was NO screen tearing in the console version. Of course, Darksiders 2 had shit tons of tearing.

Lazy is probably better than being deceitful. Also kind of bothers me how many devs will start posting on Gaf when their game is close to coming out and the week or second week after its out... And then vanish.

 

[AppleMIX]

Maybe not specifically for XBO ports.. but what other explanation can you give PC ports that are fixed within hours by random people on the internet?

There are only a couple possible explanations.
1) Lazy Devs?
2) Ignorant Devs?
3) Spiteful Devs?

Lazy is the least bad of the three

Or they lack the man power and budget to do it properly.

 

[StevieP]

But that goes into my second question - maybe no matter how hard the devs work it won't matter because power/architecture differential?

No amount of work will make a wii u perform like an xbox one, no amount of work will make an xbox one perform like a ps4, no amount of work will make a ps4 perform like a half decent pc. The amount of work required to overcome any power defecits to make a better experience (ie "optimizing" per platform) equates to the amount of money and manhours spent. That doesn't mean you can overcome the defecits that exist, but that better results cost money that many publishers deem not-so-well-spent. Especially when taking into account any non-exclusives. A shoestring budget and tiny team means Arkham Origins on wii u controlled, looked and performed worse than Arkham City on the same console. Not because the console became less capable, but because the amount of time, effort and money spent were much lower. Why? Not lazy devs. Not even the fact that it was a different port team (though that can play a small part). It was opportunity cost.

 

[zenosparadox]

Programming is a skill, but people rarely get everything right the first time around due to the collaboration required across various teams.

Devs always struggle with the balance of getting things into a "good enough" state (this definition varies from publisher to publisher) as quickly as possible or spending the time (i.e. money) to iron out all the issues.

Lazy devs is a lazy argument because these people cannot fathom how technical, complicated and difficult programming can be. It would be like explaining partial differential equations to someone who just completed 2nd grade math. You are unable to be a part of the conversation.

But software development is a skill, and managers/budgets/executives can make or break a project. You have to be on or connected to the dev team to know if a product is broken due to the project being rushed or due to general incompetence. I would bet that the average project struggles with a bit of both.

EDIT: Devs that lie is another thing altogether. I think transparency is a good thing some of the time, but that is up to the companies involved.

 

[GhostTrick]

Sure, bad ports are a clear sign of developer incompetence (maybe not laziness), but is [multiplat game X] running at [lower framerate/resolution] on XB1 compared to PS4 really "lazy devs"?

It depends of the game I'd say. As much as I heard about, there's a noticeable power difference between PS4 and Xbox One. For games that arent much demanding, you can expect parity, but for more demanding games, it's normal to see differences.

 

[funkystudent]

I guess lazy would be a word for any developer that shipped a PS3 shooter with aim and shoot on L2 / R2 and not L1 / R1.

 

[tearsofash]

I'd rather use terms like "poor development situation" instead of jumping straight towards "lazy." The former indicates development was borked, but doesn't sound like a personal attack against devs. From what I've read most "lazy dev" situations come from a publisher or a higher up demanding something be cut to get the game out of the window.

 

[McSpidey]

I remember the PS3 also suffered a lot because of these "lazy dev" porting job

PS3 is a special case because devs managed to rescue a relatively poorer GPU by using the otherwise underused/spare (and difficult) CELL SPEs as a GPU pre/co processors to help close the gap. Thus more effort could theoretically help make cross platform games better.

 

[Shaanyboi]

It's one of my most-hated terms... Considering how much some developers are killing themselves trying to reach deadlines, trying to work under the resources and time allotted, it boggles my mind when people say this shit.

 

[lord pie]

'Lazy Devs' is my most hated comment. It shows a spectacular level of ignorance toward the development process, and how hellishly difficult it is.

 

[VideoGameCzar]

"Lazy dev" is just BS. I'd like to see anyone who says that do a better job.

Thats nonsense. So I should be okay with them releasing a game with countless bugs just because I don't make games myself? I guess you use that logic with everything then? You go out to eat and they give you a raw steak, You're okay with it because you're not a chef and have no right to say that it's raw?

 

[Damian.]

Sometimes it is an argument. See Notch and Bioware.

 

[icespide]

such an ignorant, stupid comment

 

[hodayathink]

Sure, bad ports are a clear sign of developer incompetence (maybe not laziness), but is [multiplat game X] running at [lower framerate/resolution] on XB1 compared to PS4 really "lazy devs"?

Generally speaking, that stuff isn't even "incompetence" so much as it is a lack of funds. They're not bad at their job, it's just they only have so much time/money, which means things have to get prioritized.

 

[zma1013]

I don't think any devs are really lazy, these people work incredibly hard. If their work suffers, it's usually because of publishers pushing unforgiving budgets and deadlines and/or overly-ambitious goals forcibly scaled down because of limited hardware.

 

[EvB]

I thought Lazy Devs was the phrase used when the Ps4 version was only a little better than the Xbox One version, not the other way round?

 

[silver.tongue]

Whenever the subject of an Xbox One game performing worse than its PS4 counterpart, someone inevitably brings up the argument "The lazy devs are to blame!". For some reason, the developers are selectively lazy when it comes to the Xbox One version? And not just a few developers, but developers from Ubisoft, EA, Activision, Konami, Square Enix and a bunch of other small companies. Are all these developers lazy (considering they all had games that performed better on the PS4)?

It's a given fact that the PS4 has better hardware than the Xbox One, so I guess the argument is that "if the devs worked harder, they would be able to make the inferior hardware of the Xbox One perform identically to the PS4 version"? But then, considering the hardware differential, couldn't they make the PS4 version even better? Unless they decide to gimp the PS4 version, wouldn't there almost always be small differences between the versions? Does this train of thought even hold water? Because more time spent on development can't overcome, for example, the 32MB ESRAM being unable to hold certain types of rendering buffers in 1080p. So, doesn't that mean regardless of how hard devs work, it won't make a difference?

Basically, I'm wondering if there is anything to this argument, or if it's just mindless comments thrown out to justify the poor performance of Xbox One versions of multiplats by blaming it on devs.

Edit: A lot of people seem to be missing the bolded part.

Same argument was also used to talk about PS3 ports last gen.
It is a thing, but people use it a lot more than they should.

Just like the PS3 was, the Xbone is just a lot more complicated to dev for than it's direct competition. This gap is something that should diminish as tools get better. "Lazy devs" will get less lazy I guess.

The problem is that the Xbone is also "weaker" than it's biggest competition, and this is not going to change. Lazy devs will forever be lazy here.

 

[KillerDark]

No lazy devs, just opportunity cost. They'll never perform identically but the cost of making ports perform better to take advantage of the slightly more customized hardware usually outweighs the benefits.

First post nails it.

 

[LCGeek]

The phrase gets used way too much now.

There are times it's legit but there are other times where the devs are not at fault for how things turned out. I do not blame devs for a lack of funding or when the team is being given a task they really aren't cut out for.

Though If I hear a devs reasons for not doing things at times I will go after them if it's clear they simply just half assed it or didn't bother to listen to fan response on issues and let them fester.

 

[DodgyGeezerFella]

"Lazy devs" must be a fucking horrible thing to hear after spending .... weeks ? Crunching their arses off to get a game shipped.

Most of the time it probably comes from deadlines, technical hurdles, or in the case of why XBone games aren't 1080p like PS4 counter-parts, reality of the hardware .....

 

[prag16]

"Lazy dev" is just BS. I'd like to see anyone who says that do a better job.

While "lazy dev" argument is usually BS, so is this counterargument.

If an NFL kicker for your favorite team shanks a potentially game-winning 35 yard field goal, and you are upset at the kicker for this result, I'd be justified in saying "Well, I'd like to see YOU make the kick."

 

[ttech10]

Is there really any other excuse for why some bugs still exist in games like Skyrim?

Ones like a quest item stuck in a wall, or retrieving a quest item before accepting the quest that disallows you to turn in the quest item. These things are known and easy to replicate, but they refused to fix them, whereas they were some of the first things fixed in community patches for the PC.

It obviously doesn't mean all devs are lazy or that it's the answer to everything, but they do exist.

 

[BHZ Mayor]

Clearly no one in this thread has played the Smackdown/WWE 2K games.

 

[soultron]

If you don't understand the constraints and reality of game development and production and still speculate like you do, it only makes you look silly.

 

[SEGAvangelist]

I don't see the "Lazy devs" argument that much, and I feel most anyone who sees that argument ignores it, unless the game truly is a shitty port.

 

[Disaster Nebraska]

No lazy devs, just opportunity cost. They'll never perform identically but the cost of making ports perform better to take advantage of the slightly more customized hardware usually outweighs the benefits.

Boom.

If you take the argument to the absurd, you could - given enough time and programming talent - make a game on PS1 that looks nearly as good as an early PS2 game, or something like that. Take it further: you COULD program a game for a specific PC architecture that looks just as good as games running on twice the hardware (power wise). Though there's a limit, I don't think devs ever truly "maximize" hardware, and that's just how it is. Are they lazy, then, when they don't do so?

I think the term "lazy devs" is a real thing but not in this context. IMO, it's real if we're talking about a dev that ships a broken product. For instance, I might call DICE "lazy devs" for the state BF4 was in when it launched but I wouldn't call DICE lazy devs simply because of the resolution disparity between the X1 and PS4 versions.

Lazy devs is just something people with a persecution complex say when they don't like a game performing worse on their system.

 

[prag16]

"Lazy dev" is just BS. I'd like to see anyone who says that do a better job.

While "lazy dev" argument is usually BS, so is this counterargument.

If an NFL kicker for your favorite team shanks a potentially game-winning 35 yard field goal, and you are upset at the kicker for this result, I'd be justified in saying "Well, I'd like to see YOU make the kick."

The "I'd like to see you do it better" rebuttal (when used inappropriately, which it usually is) is one of the worst non sequiturs seen on the internet.

 

[knerlington]

I remember the PS3 also suffered a lot because of these "lazy dev" porting job

Well during that generation it was true a lot of the time.
The hardware was very different between the two and because of that it would require a lot of work/more work to get a game developed for the 360 running as well on PS3.
PS3 has more power in total and quite honestly no single game on 360 even comes close to a few of the titles on PS3. Which further proves that the "lazy dev" comment was actually valid during that time.

This time around though Xbox One and PS4 are VERY similar in their architecture, but with the difference being that PS4 has ~50% more raw power. Something that you can't keep up with no matter how hard you work. Dev's might of course find new ways to improve both performance and quality of games on Xbox One, but they will sure as hell not halt the development improvements on PS4. If the gap was rather small in terms of raw power it would be valid to say such things, but since the gap is quite big it's obvious that Xbox One simply can't keep up. It can't deliver the same performance and graphical quality like PS4 assuming the PS4 is being put to the test. If it's a less advanced game with older graphical features etc. you could say that it was an act of lazy devs if they were to perform and look very different.

 

[Storm Chamber]

Lazy devs - no

Lazy decisions.....

 

[DodgyGeezerFella]

Is there really any other excuse for why some bugs still exist in games like Skyrim?

Ones like a quest item stuck in a wall, or retrieving a quest item before accepting the quest that disallows you to turn in the quest item. These things are known and easy to replicate, but they refused to fix them, whereas they were some of the first things fixed in community patches for the PC.

It obviously doesn't mean all devs are lazy or that it's the answer to everything, but they do exist.

Probably because the community patch doesn't require any significant testing procedures or certification to get released, whereas an "official" one probably does (although that seems to vary by publisher, and can be quite expensive from what I've read over the years, but again that depends on the publishers rules).

 

[Concept17]

It could apply to some indie devs, perhaps, but not many. Terrible games are usually a result of not enough time or money, or not very good developers/artists.

 

[ShOcKwAvE]

I had a thread about this a while ago...not knocking you, just providing for reference:

Stop Calling Developers Lazy