By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Phrancheyez on 29 March 2009
Edit Thread
djs said:
Onyxmeth said:
djs said:
Sardauk said:

Publish also on the 360 and make money... what is wrong with that ?

Any fanatic having a problem with that ?

 

Same could be said about Valve! But it's not the case...

Valve has gone on the record stating they do not have the resources to make a PS3 port of Left 4 Dead. However I'm fairly sure that if EA were interested they could port it themselves the same way they ported the Orange Box over. The only reason the 360 has a port of L4D is because of the relative ease of porting between the 360 and PC. It would have been stupid for them not to.

 

 

If it is true then Valve doesn't deserve the anti-PS3 title that was given earlier!

 

Onyx, with all due respect..Valve can go on record saying whatever they want..money buys resources, and Valve has a ton of money, so porting L4D to PS3 isn't an issue of having resources.  Valve does not like the PS3 - any statement to the contrary is simply false. 

The sad part is, so many people will continue to 'trickle-in' complaints about L4D on the PS3..then what happens?  EA is like, 'Ahh, what the hell, they still want it on PS3 a year later - let's make a quick port.'  Then what happens?  It comes out decent quality, probably not as good as the original in some way, and is seen as a PS3 failure because they thought a year-late game for full price is a good idea.  All I'm saying is that after a year of being out, Bioshock dev's must have missed the memo about the game costing only $40 brand new on 360 when they released the PS3 version, and the $60 price tag has a lot to do with the fact that most people consider it's port to the PS3 a failure in terms of sales.  I don't want a L4D port..it's a fun game, but I don't know if I could handle the drama that would ensue on here...