Valve explains why they stay away from the PS3 |
Ó
How come we've yet to see Valve develop something for the PS3? Being one of the better game developers out there, you'd think they'd be one of the first to get in line tweaking with the PS3's hardware. Apparently, that's not the case as they seem to find it too complicated.Tom Leonard, Valve Game Designer, had this to say when asked about this very issue over at E3:
The PC and the 360 are just more straightforward. We can focus on what we want to do, which is make game experiences, instead of sweating bullets over obscure architectural decisions they make with their platform... I didn't come into this business in the 90s because of some technical fetish. I came in because I wanted to give people experiences that made them have fun.
Oh. Somehow I thought they'd be more up to the challenge. Guess you can scratch out that Left 4 Dead item on your PS3 wishlist then.
Related Articles:
Via Loot Ninja
25 Jumps Custom firmware 5.50GEN-D now out
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
who needs them, I'm perfectly fine with my inFamous and we're still getting Prototype. Honestly the only good games that I find FUN are exclusives. (and notice im saying GOOD games as in other people may like them just "I" don't as so theres no fanboyism in this comment.) I'm not gonna miss 'em, after all thats why I don't own a 360 anymore, it was a "FPS Box" to me, the only genre (sue me) I don't like
it looks to me like Valve is just too lazy.
But it's cool, I'll just get the games for PC, like I do most other 360/PC games. I do think it'd be a bit annoying for PS3 only users.
roflmao what a douche. Sounds like more of a excuse not to go through the hard work to adapt to the PS3.
Well that's just Prime
The difference is that Valve has to make games for more than one console instead of just one like the developers of Killzone.
True, Killzone 2 probably wasn't the greatest example. ;)
However, other devs that have worked with all 3 consoles say the PS3 isn't that difficult, also Sony has released tools, or so I've read about, that set up PC-like environments that make it easy as pie.
I stand with my original statement: it's just laziness/lack of motivation.
By all 3 consoles, I meant the PS3, 360, and of course the PC, which isn't a console, but you understand what I mean. Just in case anyone's too technical here, haha. ;P
Valve is pretty old school as far as their game design goes. not saying they are not innovative, but the feel of their games are old school. They know how the hardcore gamer thinks. Not surprising that their programming logic is old school too. I hope they dont get left for dead as technology grows though. processors will eventually all go similar to the cell, with a crazy hierarchy and multiple thread processing. If they are not learning how to do it now, they might be hurting in the future. They are all Beasts of Gaming though, so they should be fine...
The basic architecture will remain core, not cell.
Pure lazyness on the side of Valve.
He mentions "I didn't come into this business in the 90s because of some technical fetish". In the 90s you had the Amiga, the PC, the Sega Mega Drive and the Super Nintendo. Each and every one of those used a different programming language.
In todays age, you have the PC and XBox which use the same language, and then the ps3 and the Wii which use other languages. Pure lazyness valve, whats happening now is no different to 10 or more years ago. If anything it was worse 10 years ago.
If you dont have people that know how to program in other languages then you fail at games development.
Thus proving that guy who made Everyday Shooter is a a better developer than all of Valve
You fail at life. Idiot. I for one am not gonna miss having valve games on my PS3, I buy them for my pc. Tell me, if they fail at game development how come nearly every game they've made is legendary to all hardcore gamers...fool.
Like I said over a year ago, they're a bunch of lazy pricks. Honestly, they're the only dev I know who are still crying about how hard it is to develop for PS3. If Crytek can bring Crysis 2 to PS3 and 360, then...
And I still play a lot of Valve games on my PC. They suck when it comes to developmental priorities. Look at the reception of Portal and the Episodic content from HL2. Then look at Left 4 Dead. Rather than doing the smart thing and pleasing fans by actually working on Portal 2 and Episode Three, they decide to go against their own release strategy and release the L4D expansion pack known as L4D2, and all you have to do is go to their forums to see nothing but whining about L4D2's existence.
L4D1 wasn't even that great. No challenge at all, even on Expert. If you had 3 other [intelligent] people with mics, you could easily blaze through the missions. The campaigns were short, tedious, and had no real difference between all the levels. Start at point A, move to point B and activate this thing or climb this latter, which alerts 3 hordes, move to point C which is the safe room, repeat 4 more times until you get to the final mission, which then point C is the evacuation zone.
Like 6 guns, 5 enemies, and four campaigns which take 10-20 minutes to beat on Expert unless you wanna do a speedrun, it's just too tedious. They could of just done DLC, but they said all the content of L4D2 is too much for L41.
And then I looked at TF2. Almost all the classes have been updated, given new weapons and abilities, a crapload of new maps, etc. etc.
Valve, you just ain't got it. They weren't lying when they called themselves insane.
and I forgot to talk about their Source engine. It sucks. More CPU dependent than GPU dependent, which makes no sense when they claim they want many gamers to be able to run the Source engine games. The visuals, even with the latest version of the engine, "Source 2008", doesn't even look impressive at all compared to other graphically-charged engines of today. Even Unreal 3 engine tops it. You won't be seeing Source 2.0 until Half-Life 3, which I predict will ship in 2014.
Valve are lazy and are making stupid excuses, if its so difficult to do then why are smaller companies making fine games on the PS3, also I met a guy (freelance developer) who worked with Gabe Newell on a UT game and he told me that Gabe Newell was the biggest quote/ F**KTARD that he has ever worked for....
Can't say I'm bothered at all. All Valve do is make FPS games and I can't stand that genre so they certainly don't rank highly on my fave developers list. I owned a couple of them as a freebies when I upgraded my PC a while ago but I found the games dull as heck.
I would laugh if we soon hit a new generation of consoles. Then they're out of business, at least concering consoles.
Seriously, what lazyness. Not only that they loose a hefty amount of money, but they are also laying against the progress of technology. They're like conservative christians, only in gaming.
Apple has made this mistake, they moved away from RISC Processing to CISC Intel Cores - Much more power, but little more performance. You used to have a dual 800mhz Powermac that would well outperform a 2ghz pentium. I think, with the PS3 Cell, many will look at incoporating it, as prices drop - coz IBM is still developing this tech (along with Toshiba and Sony). Unix is rocking on RISC chips, OSX is still somewhat compatible, and soon enough, Windows will need more than Intel can Provide (short of putting 10x 20 core processors in to your rig, hehe). RISC/CELL is the way the world needs to go to see REAL improvement in the World of Gaming.
"You used to have a dual 800mhz Powermac that would well outperform a 2ghz pentium."
The PowerMac could outperform an apparently more powerful Pentium PC for specific applications only, namely PhotoShop and another digital processing application (can't remember the name).
This was because Photoshop was optimized specifically for the Altivec instructions within the PowerPC processors, and therefore ran far better on Macs than on PCs. That's why whenever you saw Apple 'proving' the Mac was more powerful than the PC, they *always* used Photoshop (surprise, surprise ;)).
For every other application, including games, the PC outperformed the Mac, and over the years, the PowerPC fell further and further behind Intel. Hence with the arrival of multicore CPUs, Apple switched to the more powerful Intel processors.
Also, I don't believe Cell is the model for CPUs of the future. Yes, the trend is for more cores, but it's for multiple *identical* cores, not a main core with numerous but different 'support' cores. And the RISC/CISC argument has been running for decades :), one isn't better than the other, they both have advantages and disadvantages.
is so 2006. There are plenty of PSN games where devs didn't have a problem "sweating bullets over obscure architectural decisions"
"They're like conservative christians, only in gaming. " - Way out of line dude...
True be told, they're really only hurting themselves. It's the nature of the business to progress as technology improves and they are simply saying "No, we don't want to progress and better our development and we don't want the $ from the PS3 community that is pretty much guaranteed. No thanks."
well firstly you will have to take it from a profit standpoint a modern game now costs over 10 million to produce and the additional months for testing on the ps3 will significantly increase this figure so if the ps3 does not make enough money then time and money will be wasted.
next l4d is only arnd 5 gigs so the blue ray would be a little overkill with nothing to fill the big gaping hole.
secondly dont use graphics as a way to criticize the engine
because the game industry is being F***ed in the ass constantly by ea and its graphic pushing fetish that would crush any small time competition and effectively push games cost higher and kill innovation because of the risk if the game fails which it will because the game will copy the most successful game of the genre to hopefully make money.
anyway i dont think a large number of games is developed for multiplatform including the ps3 because the ps3 will require alot more work
Valve are pretty crappy developers ya know...They aren't going to do anything on the PS3 because they simply can't and they also can't be bothered to TRY or LEARN how. Come on if EA teams can dev for PS3 then surely valve can...
Anyways, the stuff they release on PC and 360 is extremely buggy, they make great games but they are filled with a huge ammount of flaws. I've yet to play a valve game where I havent experienced loads of bugs that valve just dont ever fix.
As expected. It's just that they aren't skilled enough to work on the PS3. Left 4 Dead is not all that. tried it, got bored after the 1st level out of 4? Wow.
Every single valve game is just like the last.
Has the industry stuck with one single technology? No! So yes, VALVE is quite lazy. They haven't just *****ed about Sony, they just seem to whine and complain more than most devs. I am by no means anti-VALVE, but it makes them look like naive little children. It is embarrassing to say I am a fan of any of their games because of the things they complain about. They act like they are perfect and their shyte doesnt stink.
x86 architecture is not going to be around forever, once that changes, are they going to continually *****? Yes, Sony does need to make their tools more user friendly so devs can harness the power of the console much faster, but companies like VALVE are not helping by sitting their and complaining, while everyone else is doing their damnedest to make full use of the hardware.
I am favoring the 360 much more than any console on the market, but after the lineup revealed for the rest of the year, and next year .... I just may pickup a PS3 in the near future.
Valve has not been all that good anyway there More a 3rd rate games anyways.
Last Good game they made was Counter Strike.... O wait NO.. they did not make that game, Some guy who made a patch for Half life made it then Valve Ripped that guy off.
Yea i could care less if they make games for a Real system like PS3.
cant compare EA to valve
EA is prob third biggest in the industry behind microsoft and nintendo who have bucketloads of money and so does EA
hacked steam CS accounts FTW
My comment was on them being too lazy to learn other programming languages idiot. Learn to read.
How good their games are or aren`t means nothing. Especially when their entire basis for "staying away from the ps3" is because of it apparently being "too hard to program for.
So once again, I repeat: THEY FAIL AT GAMES DEVELOPMENT.
Miclowgunman hits the nail on the head. I think people have forgotten that Valve only exists today because they make a bang-up mod to the Quake engine. In a time when EVERYONE had their own mod of the Quake engine that was going to "change the world", Valve's mods actually DID (with Half Life 1). ....Thereafter, they worked closely with iD to get the latest engine builds for HL2, etc. ....But, at the end of the day, they are just another 'modder' company (at least that's how they started out). So, I think, it stands to reason that when faced with the concept that they might have to "dig deep" into their (borrowed) engine in order to get it to run on a customized hardware ---they cower in fear. Which is really nothing to respect, because there are a whole legion of other developers that face that challenge (and reap the rewards or failures thereof).
Of course they are lazy....they have been developing on PC's their entire career, and 360 is basically like programming for a PC.
I am glad they are just staying out of it, instead of making *****ty ports of games.....
Valve may have mod'd the quake engine for HL1....but HL2 was run on the Source engine, which was completely built from the ground up by Valve and was a highly acclaimed engine for it's time.....
Not sure what you are talking about....
for a start rex, the ps3 is not keeping up with the other two, but bear this in mind that there are about 20 million ps3's in circulation so i think that the likes of valve are shooting themselves in the foot!
as for Valve, i just don't get why they don't want to get to grips with the ps3! If they've not got a "technical fetish", then Valve needs to close up shop now as this is how games and consoles evolve!
one - they're lazy.
two - they lack talent. Developers time and time again explain that the PS3 just forces you to think differently about how you code something, that it isn't as straight 1, 2, 3 as PC deving. Valve is can't get off their a$$es and learn something new, instead focusing on doing the same ol crap they've been doing for years and porting it to the 360.
I think begining this generation and shining more in the next that you'll see more and more devs rise to fame for actually taking a grasp on new technology and making wonderful games on it where as aging devs like valve will still be stuck in their own little worlds where they want to keep to windows95 and single cored, simple to program for cpus.
They'll fall behind working on the last century's technology. What kinda pro's are these? An old dog has to learn new tricks or be put to death. They'd best higher more talented programmers if they want to stay afloat.