NJ5 said:
We don't know Valve's reasons for not targeting the PS3. Maybe they don't think the extra expense is worth it. Maybe they don't have room for expansion. Maybe it's cheaper to outsource ports to other parties who have already hired PS3 developers. No one gives console-exclusive developers shit for not targeting the PC (even when they do, they usually bring late ports with often excessive hardware requirements). Why does Valve get so much shit for not targeting the PS3? Perhaps people should blame Sony for their sucky architectures.
|
I think the reason is that although the PS3 has the smallest install base, it's still a large group of gamers. We all know Valve has money...I agree that it may be a little too expensive to port to the PS3 due to architecture and that's probably why they don't do it. However, if they're 'outsourcing' their ports for the 360 to EA, and EA develops for the PS3 also, then how come they don't also have EA port to PS3? Is it a matter of EA just simply swapping formats and printing discs, whereas with the PS3 there would actually be a little work involved? In which case I could understand.
The architecture is a pain at the moment, I'll give you that. But it's also clear that it's not going to change. We can almost be certain the PS4 will have an upgraded cell chip, so the architecture will be similar. We can also assume the PS4 will be a bit cheaper since I'm assuming it'll be just an upgraded PS3. In that sense, we can assume that the PS4, while it may not be in first place, won't be lagging behind the other companies as much because of the same reasons (price), and will have a larger install base. It's safe to assume they'll have a better chance next gen of being higher up on the food chain, which means more consoles out and at least a little higher demand. Why wouldn't companies want to learn the architecture now so that in the future it's not an issue? At the same time, we could also assume that maybe Valve will stay away from Sony forever...we don't really know=P
