Valve didn't want to work on the PS3 because Sony made the idiotic decision to go with the Cell at the expense of developers. Then they had the gall to tell people in interviews that they purposely made it harder for developers. I mean with HD game development already causing many studios to shut down why would the morons at Sony possibly think it was a good idea to help increase those costs?

If anything the rest of the industry should have turned their backs on Sony like Valve did and it would have resulted in the collapse of the PS3. It would probably be pretty eye opening to see the amount of needlessly wasted dollars and time spent on HD game development because of Sony.

It's especially funny to read the recent statements of a Sony rep trying to make it seem like everything is wonderful with developers and that Sony is only looking out for their best interests when it's obvious by their past decisions that it's a blatant lie.

I think developing for PS3 would be a waste of resources. They're PC centric developers, and given the similar architectures between PC and Xbox 360, porting is a piece of cake and very cheap. Free money, basically.

I wonder why my message got moderated? I said just about the same thing as you said. I guess truth and neutrality has no place in here anymore. Anyway what you said is what I think too.

ROFFL!!! He thinks im a XBOT!! ROFFL!!!

Yeah especially by those that want to paint Valve as the villain in all this.

I hate valve because of their stance that "Ps3 is too hard to develop for so we won't do it." Yes they have a right to not do work they don't want to. But I have a right to not buy their games. I used to be able to get over the how horribly ugly their games look. But I refuse to buy games from a company that is as I see it LAZY. If everyone refused to do stuff that was "hard" we wouldn't have nearly as much shit in the modern age as we do. Great men have tried their entire lives(Even if they keep failing) to achieve something. Look at Da Vinci. He tried to create a flying machine his entire life. Failed the whole time to. But i'll be damned. Many many MANY years later. Others built upon what he found. And now we can go into space. So FUCK YOU valve for not having the balls to push the video game industry forward. You lazy assholes.

Who gives a flying pig, If I wanted valve games I could just buy em on PC there's more than enough exclusives for my ps3 to play as we speak.

Valve had made a number of rumblings about the PS3. They didn't like the architecture, which TBH as a PC based developers was understandable. From the point of view of Valve, and Epic and others, the PS3 was about as odd an architecture as you could imagine. The 360, despite having clear differences from PC, was a much easier target to transition to.

However, it's pretty clear that there has been a huge shift, starting way back with Halo on the Xbox, for exactly the types of games many of these PC developers make towards consoles. Epic and some embraced this early, as did Valve porting Half Life to Xbox pretty well.

However, it wasn't until the 360 that we saw a decisive shift, with Epic and others clearly more focused on the console than the PC.

Valve however, in no small part due to Steam, have remained PC centric and have used the 360 as an easy money machine, as their games can be delivered on the 360 easily and without much additional effort to Valve.

This I think was fair enough, and although maybe Gabe shouldn't have been quite so frank about his view of the PS3 architecture with respect to where Valve was, I think there decision to not invest in PS3 is pretty understandable.

Now however, the PS3 is really finding it's feet, and big FPS titles are selling a fair chunk of their total sales on that platform now. Like any sensible company Valve will be tracking the evolving market, and will of course revisit the issue of supporting PS3.

EA's port showed that, in principle, getting Source and Valve games wasn't necessarily going to be that hard. Remember EA were working with code that wasn't their own, yet they delivered what is actually a not bad port despite the bashing it took.

I think that where Valve to hire some PS3 specific engineers they could support PS3 without excessive cost, and it wouldn't surprise me if they did decide to start supporting PS3 as the return looks now like it could be worth the effort.

Looking at LFD 1&2 on 360, you have to figure there is a pretty big chunk of potential sales on PS3 that they could leverage. And given Valve operate on their own Source platform, once they did properly enable it on PS3 getting both past and future games on the PS3 would be easy.

Time will tell. But Valve are a smart company, and if the PS3 install base and support for FPS/Online titles is suitable, they will surely look to transition their assets over to that platform.

Personally, I'd love to see Valve on PS3 because on PSN, unlike Live, they could allow mods and access to user created content. They've remarked more than once they'd like 360 customers to get the access PC customers have to extended content - for example on PC I have way more campaigns/maps installed that ship with the game, for zero extra cost - and on PSN that would be possible as it is with UT3.

That's definitely something that could prove a worthwhile venture if Valve decide to support the PS3.

In this case they are a fighter but they already have an amazing sword (PC market) so they have no reason to change into a fighter/rogue because learning the bow is counter to their long term interests. They don't scale their engine beyond a couple of cores because thats what their market has and they follow a GPU first, CPU second model of development like a typical PC developer. If they go Rogue then they also have to chang their allignment from lawful good to more chaotic neutral which means they lose the technical support of Microsoft.

I didn't say that everyone would be better off sticking with PC/360 and leaving the PS3 out of it. However Valve makes games which scale from lower end laptops all the way up to significant and powerful computers, from DX9.0c to DX10.1/11. Bioware doesn't do this and if they spend more time on another platform it takes away time they can spend optimising their primary platform which is also responsible for significant revenues in the case of Steam and they would not be wise to make it appear that they are sacraficing an ounce of quality for console ports as PC gamers are a sensitive and whiney bunch.

Btw, one could argue that Dragon Age: Origins would have sold better on 360 if it was exclusive and completely offset the lost sales on the PS3 as that SKU sold quite poorly. So in that case Bioware may have actually been better off going PC/360 rather than doing all 3.