| TheSteve said: How can Valve "not have tried" to put anything on PS3? I see Orange Box PS3 in a ton of bargain bins. |
Hint: It wasn't valve.
nightsurge said:
They are not the only ones. They are also not saying that they couldn't do it, just that it would not be worth it to them. |
PS3 has one of the biggest open dev communities in the world. It's also fueld by second party devs like Insomniciac and Naughty Dawg. They've achieved some major milestones on the PS3, so there are libraries a plenty. I would suggest (provided you are a coder or have a development fetish) that you check it out. That excuse is old...l
-- Nothing is nicer than seeing your PS3 on an HDTV through an HDMI cable for the first time.
Doesn't really matter to me, I got a powerful gaming pc if I ever want to play valve's games but I'm really not a big fan of fps-genre (which majority of valve games are).
JEDE3 said:
|
Ahhh... so, that other company put it on there in secret, with no effort from Valve. It's called "outsourcing," and was done to try and give PS3 owners the best version of the game they could by giving the product to a team with PS3 experience to develop. Valve went out of their way to get the game on PS3, then dedicated time and effort to try and fix the problems with the PS3 version. EA produced it, yes, and it sold horribly and underperformed to a criminal level... Still, there's your Valve game on your Sony system, and probably all the reason Valve needed to say "nah... not worth it." You can't say they didn't "try," or are "lazy"... the fact is, it's NOT WORTH THEIR TIME.
Believing in the PLAYSTATION®3......IS.......S_A_C_R_I_L_E_G_E
Just to clarify a misconception that I see being spewed out every few threads. PS3 is NOT deliberately made hard to code for. It is just different than a normal PC.
XBOX has a celeron running at 700 MHz and a directx7 graphics card. It was a straight up PC in a console box.
XBOX360 is less closer to a PC architecture wise but it still at heart is very similar. XBOX360 has a triple core CPU with identical cores and a DirectX 9+ card.
Microsoft has also made X360 SDK similar to gaming for windows since they OWN both. Microsoft makes more money via PC/windows than with XBOX. They have a vested interest in making games for both and easier to port code from one to the other. Every Microsoft published game ends up being made for the PC as well for a reason.
Ps3 on the other hand has a non-uniform architecture when it comes to teh cores. It has one general purpose CPU and 7 SPUs that are more special purpose. This is different to code for than 3 identical cores.
I guess Sony could have made things easier by designing an SDK that masked some of the complexity but that would also result in code that is not properly optimized. Anytime there is an abstraction layer it results in sub-optimal coding. Microsoft had no trouble doing that since they have to take care of their windows gamers as well however, the fact that the design choices made when XBOX360 was designed lessen the impact due to the abstraction layer helped them greatly.
One thing that happens with
Actually, EA went out of their way to get the game on the Ps3.
| Reasonable said: 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. |
THIS is the answer. Why can't people understand that there are different perceptions of cost v.s. reward. It would be like blasting Blizzard for not putting Diablo II on a console. Can it be done? Sure. Is it worth it? Nope.
What a crappy excuse. You have hundreds of game that prove these developers are full of BS or just Pro Microsoft and are hating on the PS3.
Well, I think it it equally crappy then, that MGS4 isn't on 360, that Wii doesn't get major 3rd party support, and that the PC doesn't get all games for both HD consoles. Let's keep it fair here.
I chose the PS3, Valve didn't. It's not a big deal. Valve games are meant to be played on the PC anyway. They are doing you a favor by not putting stuff on the PS3.
Personally, I think Sega and all the other companies moaning about PS3 price cuts are "hating" on the PS3 far more - seeing as how they aren't the ones who would be bleeding money from such a manuver.
Can we let this go?
| Crazymann said: Well, I think it it equally crappy then, that MGS4 isn't on 360, that Wii doesn't get major 3rd party support, and that the PC doesn't get all games for both HD consoles. Let's keep it fair here. I chose the PS3, Valve didn't. It's not a big deal. Valve games are meant to be played on the PC anyway. They are doing you a favor by not putting stuff on the PS3. Personally, I think Sega and all the other companies moaning about PS3 price cuts are "hating" on the PS3 far more - seeing as how they aren't the ones who would be bleeding money from such a manuver. Can we let this go? |
Your first paragraph = bullshit.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
