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

Forums - Sony - Valve shuts out "Too Complicated" PS3

everdom on 10 June 2009

This thread is absolutely rediculous on so many levels, and people really need to start looking at what theyre saying and actually attempt to base it on fact.

Do the people whinging about valves lazyness realise the constant updates that TF2 has been getting? A lazy dev would have left it as it was at launch, hence valve is NOT a lazy dev.

They are a dev that can make more money working on PC/360 exclusively as opposed to PC/360/PS3. And yes, that is a result of the PS3's architecture whether you like it or not!

Its stupid that fans of the company that made the PS3 (which i do like actually) are trying to diss on the company that made steam, which may one day be the solution to PC game pirating.



Around the Network
perpride on 10 June 2009
Cueil said:
perpride said:
This is the same company that is releasing an expansion pack as a sequel right?


This is the same company that has given it's users more content than many firms have sold to their users

 

The company that remains one of the only ones to still complain about PS3 being too complicated? I mean, a freaking monkey would have wrapped its mind around the technology at this point.



everdom on 10 June 2009

some of the stupidity in this thread is seriously depressing..



Reasonable on 10 June 2009

To be fair, even as a PS3 owner (and PC player for Valve games) I see their point of view.

They're primary a PC developers, and I'd reckon that most of their sales/income still comes from PC.

They operate Steam, which is actually a combination of Live, PSN and XBLA delivering both content delivery and community services - in a very real sense they are MS competition on PC for Live.

Their games are built on an in-house engine developed primary for PC.

Now, due to 360 architecture is is relatively easy for them to put games on 360. I hesitate to say everything the develop on PC results in a game on 360 for free, but it's clear the cost is fairly minimal next to the PC development anyway.

PS3 is a different story. Look at U3 when first put on PS3 (another PC orientated engine that underpinned Gears of War) - it didn't run too well.

So Valve have a choice, lose the revenue from PS3 but save costs and keep their engine support and development easier, or put in serious effort and ramp up for PS3.

Clearly, right now, they are comfortable to lose the revenue vs saving the costs. Valve are almost certainly cash rich, and I can see what they'd go that way. Remember titles like Half Life 2 sold over 6M at retail on PC plus apparently a fair bit in addition on Steam. Each HL2 episode is selling more than most full FPS titles. They are getting the income generated via steam, etc.

They have no pressing need to complicate their lives, even if it does mean missing out on probably a nice amount of PS3 based sales.

I admit its easier for me to accept this since I'm not missing out on the games as I play Valve games on my PC, but its a fair point and doesn't, I believe, come from any MS or 360 bias. Getting revenue from the 360 is easy for them - fish in a barrel you might say. The PS3 is a different story due to its architecture (which has clearly given all PC orientated developers a headache).

I don't think this means the PS3 architecture is wrong or the 360 is right. It simply means if you are a great PC developer the 360 is a piece of cake and the PS3 is not.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

areseris on 10 June 2009
BMaker11 said:
Reading this thread, I've seen a lot of "They are crap devs" and being responded by "Have you played Valve games?"

They aren't crap devs, because their games are great, but for them to completely shun out the PS3 because "they don't feel like sweating bullets" or "it's not worth it" is BS.

Some people have overexaggerated and said "Maybe they don't want to switch from PC code to the 'uber hard, technically difficult, hard to develop for (oh, 2007, I hear you calling), obstacle, different architecture, blah blah blah Cell' that is the PS3". Honestly, I don't want to call them crap, but their reasoning behind not developing for the PS3 IS crap. I've seen nightsurge say that their sentiments are actually shared by MANY multiplatform developers. To that I ask, who?

Square? EA? Tecmo? Ubisoft? Rockstar? Hell...D3 (Dark Sector)? Even the devs that make crappy games and are from legit "crap devs" can put games on the PS3 without complaining about it. All the great games that have come out for the PS3 this year without a single "it's too hard to code for" should show that "it's too hard" IS in fact a sign of laziness if someone wants to still use that excuse. If it "wasn't worth it", even booboo games like Blood of the Sand and Afro Samurai wouldn't have been released on it, because it was too hard to "make game experiences". But no, Capcom with SFIV and RE5, Konami with MGS4 and continued support with MGS: Rising, Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed 2, etc. have shown that "too hard to develop for" is a thing of the past. To that, I say:

Valve, you are lazy developers

 

So is it safe to say that Hideo Kojima is lazy since he won't bring MGS4 to the 360/PC?

Is it also safe to say that Tetsuya Nomura is lazy since he won't (refuses) bring FFvXIII to the 360/PC?

Why are these 3rd party developers making exclusive games?

I guess their excuses for not developing for 360/PC (whatever those excuses may be) are just crap and not real reasons...  they must be lazy.

 



Around the Network
JEDE3 on 10 June 2009
areseris said:
BMaker11 said:
Reading this thread, I've seen a lot of "They are crap devs" and being responded by "Have you played Valve games?"

They aren't crap devs, because their games are great, but for them to completely shun out the PS3 because "they don't feel like sweating bullets" or "it's not worth it" is BS.

Some people have overexaggerated and said "Maybe they don't want to switch from PC code to the 'uber hard, technically difficult, hard to develop for (oh, 2007, I hear you calling), obstacle, different architecture, blah blah blah Cell' that is the PS3". Honestly, I don't want to call them crap, but their reasoning behind not developing for the PS3 IS crap. I've seen nightsurge say that their sentiments are actually shared by MANY multiplatform developers. To that I ask, who?

Square? EA? Tecmo? Ubisoft? Rockstar? Hell...D3 (Dark Sector)? Even the devs that make crappy games and are from legit "crap devs" can put games on the PS3 without complaining about it. All the great games that have come out for the PS3 this year without a single "it's too hard to code for" should show that "it's too hard" IS in fact a sign of laziness if someone wants to still use that excuse. If it "wasn't worth it", even booboo games like Blood of the Sand and Afro Samurai wouldn't have been released on it, because it was too hard to "make game experiences". But no, Capcom with SFIV and RE5, Konami with MGS4 and continued support with MGS: Rising, Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed 2, etc. have shown that "too hard to develop for" is a thing of the past. To that, I say:

Valve, you are lazy developers

 

So is it safe to say that Hideo Kojima is lazy since he won't bring MGS4 to the 360/PC?

Is it also safe to say that Tetsuya Nomura is lazy since he won't (refuses) bring FFvXIII to the 360/PC?

Why are these 3rd party developers making exclusive games?

I guess their excuses for not developing for 360/PC (whatever those excuses may be) are just crap and not real reasons...  they must be lazy.

 


How do you people not understand simple logic. MGS4, Insomniac, and many other things are completly different. These games you bring up are probablly contracted by Sony. Thus it being impossible to bring it to the 360. They never once said "We can if we want... but the 360 sucks so we wont" Which is basically what Valve has said for years. WHEN THEY HAVEN'T EVEN MADE AN ATTEMPT!



.jayderyu on 10 June 2009

Valve is basicly saying that yes the PS3 is powerful. But the performance vs the work on returns isn't worth enough to develope for. From a PC developer this makes sense.

It's one of the additional reasons why N64 wasn't all that much.



Squilliam: On Vgcharts its a commonly accepted practice to twist the bounds of plausibility in order to support your argument or agenda so I think its pretty cool that this gives me the precedent to say whatever I damn well please.

areseris on 10 June 2009
JEDE3 said:
areseris said:
BMaker11 said:
Reading this thread, I've seen a lot of "They are crap devs" and being responded by "Have you played Valve games?"

They aren't crap devs, because their games are great, but for them to completely shun out the PS3 because "they don't feel like sweating bullets" or "it's not worth it" is BS.

Some people have overexaggerated and said "Maybe they don't want to switch from PC code to the 'uber hard, technically difficult, hard to develop for (oh, 2007, I hear you calling), obstacle, different architecture, blah blah blah Cell' that is the PS3". Honestly, I don't want to call them crap, but their reasoning behind not developing for the PS3 IS crap. I've seen nightsurge say that their sentiments are actually shared by MANY multiplatform developers. To that I ask, who?

Square? EA? Tecmo? Ubisoft? Rockstar? Hell...D3 (Dark Sector)? Even the devs that make crappy games and are from legit "crap devs" can put games on the PS3 without complaining about it. All the great games that have come out for the PS3 this year without a single "it's too hard to code for" should show that "it's too hard" IS in fact a sign of laziness if someone wants to still use that excuse. If it "wasn't worth it", even booboo games like Blood of the Sand and Afro Samurai wouldn't have been released on it, because it was too hard to "make game experiences". But no, Capcom with SFIV and RE5, Konami with MGS4 and continued support with MGS: Rising, Ubisoft with Assassin's Creed 2, etc. have shown that "too hard to develop for" is a thing of the past. To that, I say:

Valve, you are lazy developers

 

So is it safe to say that Hideo Kojima is lazy since he won't bring MGS4 to the 360/PC?

Is it also safe to say that Tetsuya Nomura is lazy since he won't (refuses) bring FFvXIII to the 360/PC?

Why are these 3rd party developers making exclusive games?

I guess their excuses for not developing for 360/PC (whatever those excuses may be) are just crap and not real reasons...  they must be lazy.

 


How do you people not understand simple logic. MGS4, Insomniac, and many other things are completly different. These games you bring up are probablly contracted by Sony. Thus it being impossible to bring it to the 360. They never once said "We can if we want... but the 360 sucks so we wont" Which is basically what Valve has said for years. WHEN THEY HAVEN'T EVEN MADE AN ATTEMPT!

 

...wait... but now I'm confused... Sony said on numerous occassions they don't buy exclusives.  How can they be "probablly contracted by Sony" if that's something Sony simply doesn't do?

 



JEDE3 on 10 June 2009

Who said anything about buying?



TheSteve on 10 June 2009

How can Valve "not have tried" to put anything on PS3?

I see Orange Box PS3 in a ton of bargain bins.



Believing in the PLAYSTATION®3......IS.......S_A_C_R_I_L_E_G_E