By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - PS3 success forces Valve to "re-evaluate" support for sony`s box

KZ2 on 23 August 2008

Well I guess this game must not be good enough for the PS3. If it was a good game it would be console exclusive for PS3



Around the Network
perpride on 23 August 2008

Eat it Valve. EAT IT. I remember all the fucking drama we had to go through with the Orange Box.

While I will never complain about more games coming to PS3, I could give a fuck less if Left 4 Dead is ported at this point because the PC version will be superior to both console iterations.



dbot on 23 August 2008
Geldorn said:
starcraft said:
KBG29 said:
Well at least someone at valve has their hear out of the ass. These PC 360 centric devs are funny in my mind. They have been given an oppertunity to learn how to program games on PS3 which will transition directly into future products, as Cell like architectures are the future of the PC market, yet they are continually hesitent on PS3 cause of that achitecture. Valve had better get the ball rolling or they will find them selves far behind many of their competitors that are already begining to understand development in a parrallel processing enviornment.

I thought Sony was getting out of the Cell business in many respects because they and their fans seem to have been the only ones that ever thought Cell-like architectures are where the PC market is going.............

At the end of the day there is no spinning it.  Superior versions of, and in this case exclusive versions of Valve games are just another by-product of Microsoft's intelligent decision to make the Xbox 360 PC developer friendly.

 

 

Actually, Sony is not getting out of the Cell business. They're getting out of the Cell manufacturing business. Which is a massive difference. They've basically completed the shift from doing everything (from design to implementation) of their chips to merely doing the design work and letting someone else do the building.

(And yes, Cell was not a Sony only product, but it was at the very least a Sony idea originally)

 

As to the second bit - I feel that if MS hadn't done so (made the Xbox 360 dev friendly) they'd not be in the position they are in today so it definitely payed off. Though obviously some of the 'superior' versions are mainly so because the ATI chip in the 360 is just well, better than the Nvidia chip in the PS3.

In a way Sony is being vindicated here as they manage to create console titles that are graphically on par or better (dependend on whose goggles you are wearing) than the best the Xbox 360 has to offer. Despite the PS3 having a weaker GFX chip. So in the end it turns out that the Cell fanboys where right - it does make a positive difference (with the caveat you have to put in more work to get that result).

Without the Cell there would be no titles that could compete with the 360 graphically. At all.

Perhaps you intende to post this on BruceonGames blog forum.  Many people would disagree/argue your point.

On Topic: Valve sucks.  Portal is great.  I will "re-evaluate" my support of Valve based upon their future PS3 offerings.

@Starcraft - KBG29 was just noting the future direction of PC CPU's is a massively multi-core architecture.  Intel will be selling 10 core CPU's within the next couple of years.  The future of PC computing improvements is no longer based upon the clock cycle, but how many threads of execution that can occur per cycle.  Kind of like the Cell architecture (that Sony is still firmly behind).

 



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

Aj_habfan on 23 August 2008

I really have no interest in this game (not my kind of genre), but it would be great if it still make its way to the PS3.

I think this is also a great example of why sales of a console do matter, even for fans.



Geldorn on 23 August 2008
dbot said:
Geldorn said:
starcraft said:
KBG29 said:
Well at least someone at valve has their hear out of the ass. These PC 360 centric devs are funny in my mind. They have been given an oppertunity to learn how to program games on PS3 which will transition directly into future products, as Cell like architectures are the future of the PC market, yet they are continually hesitent on PS3 cause of that achitecture. Valve had better get the ball rolling or they will find them selves far behind many of their competitors that are already begining to understand development in a parrallel processing enviornment.

I thought Sony was getting out of the Cell business in many respects because they and their fans seem to have been the only ones that ever thought Cell-like architectures are where the PC market is going.............

At the end of the day there is no spinning it.  Superior versions of, and in this case exclusive versions of Valve games are just another by-product of Microsoft's intelligent decision to make the Xbox 360 PC developer friendly.

 

 

Actually, Sony is not getting out of the Cell business. They're getting out of the Cell manufacturing business. Which is a massive difference. They've basically completed the shift from doing everything (from design to implementation) of their chips to merely doing the design work and letting someone else do the building.

(And yes, Cell was not a Sony only product, but it was at the very least a Sony idea originally)

 

As to the second bit - I feel that if MS hadn't done so (made the Xbox 360 dev friendly) they'd not be in the position they are in today so it definitely payed off. Though obviously some of the 'superior' versions are mainly so because the ATI chip in the 360 is just well, better than the Nvidia chip in the PS3.

In a way Sony is being vindicated here as they manage to create console titles that are graphically on par or better (dependend on whose goggles you are wearing) than the best the Xbox 360 has to offer. Despite the PS3 having a weaker GFX chip. So in the end it turns out that the Cell fanboys where right - it does make a positive difference (with the caveat you have to put in more work to get that result).

Without the Cell there would be no titles that could compete with the 360 graphically. At all.

Perhaps you intende to post this on BruceonGames blog forum.  Many people would disagree/argue your point.

 

The people on beyond3d seem to agree with me on this one though. And, frankly, I'll take their words over the average console fan any day.

 



Around the Network
dbot on 23 August 2008

@Geldorn - Don't post about concepts that you don't understand. This thread has nothing to do with a hardware comparison. Many threads have been created on that topic.



Thanks for the input, Jeff.

 

 

Onimusha12 on 23 August 2008

The PS3 is successful?



JGarret on 23 August 2008

@Onimusha

It depends on your point of view, I guess.



bardicverse on 23 August 2008

Hmm I don't know if its a money matter, because he'd then want a version made for the Wii, which he didn't mention at all. It might just be that he's realizing that the PS3 didn't crash and burn outright, which it initially looked like, but is just taking longer to build steam (no pun intended). PS3 is currently running at a pace equal to or better than the XB360 in sales, and while the PS3 has a while to catch up to WW LTD 360 sales, the scales are beginning to tip in its favor.

It isn't surprising to see devs change their tune, as it happened with that one guy on the Spore team who claimed the Wii to be "A piece of shit. It's 2 Gamecubes duct taped together". He was last seen kissing Nintendo's ass.



Torillian on 23 August 2008
Onimusha12 said:
The PS3 is successful?

Where did anyone say that? 

 



...