@Xoj

ok yes he did trash talk the PS3, the 2007 no good games except for MGS4 and that got delayed again PS3.

He never said that in 2008 or 2009 did he? Please the hole reason to attack Value is no VOID, oh and Gearbox also trashed PS3

"I thought the performance was a little slower on the PS3, but it Looked better. The colors were nicer, I thought the image looked better on PS3. It was a trade-off between the performance and the visuals. And I like visuals"."

OOH!

I agree. However I also believe that if the PS3's architecture were as easy to program for as the 360, then they wouldn't have needed lots of money and time to craft the standard ports.

Sure, Valve COULD develop equal ports on the PS3, but for it to be optimized for the console, it would take extra time and extra money for them to achieve the desired retults.

If you know anything about how involved, time consuming, and maticulious Valve is about their major games(with the apparent exception of L4D2, which seems like an uncharacteristicly quick and hastily built expansion pack), then you'd know why they might not think it was worth the extra months per game to build, imo.

When you're already rich, and you're already famous, and you have nothing to prove, and all you want to do is create the next epic game, is it worth putting that off for 6 months to make an extra 1 percent meaningless profit margin on an old game, and develop a port using developers who are so good, it is damn criminal to waste their time on redundancy?

That's why it's not worth it, imo.

That's just it.  I've seen plenty of games with the performance of L4D2 on the PS3 already.

Most of the early ports on the PS3 don't even use the SPUs, which is the "tricky" (lol) part.  If you don't include the SPUs, the PS3 is basically a 360, but with 1 core instead of 2 (I would say the 360 has 3, but really the OS, and audio, etc. SDKs of the PS3 does most of the "hard" work on the SPUs for you, so basically one of those 360 cores is used up doing something abstracted away by the PS3 OS already).

A LOT of 360 games don't use more than 1 core for the game.  L4D2 is scalable, since it runs on PCs... I'm certain this means that it can be scaled down to work on a single core, and a different GPU.

On top of that, as to using the SPUs being hard... what a joke.  If any professional engineer said that to me I would laugh at him.  Sure, its harder than the 360... marginally.  Its like saying "threading is hard"... yeah sure, if you just learned C++ and haven't done a shred of real programming yet.  

Using them efficiently, to best the performance of the 360... yeah that requires some effort.  But... that isn't what most devs are trying to do, is it?  Best the 360 with the PS3 version?  They should be trying to make them identical (MS would whine if they were too different, you know, and not allow the game to be published on the 360, which would cost the dev/publisher a truckload).  

Not hard.  Saying otherwise == BS, pure and simple.

That's what I'm saying though.  Look at the PS3 numbers relative to the 360 numbers.  The "HD only" marketshare is like 44/56.  You really think there isn't enough money to justify a port at this point, given that every other dev does it, and especially given Valve's track record, and pretty much guaranteed big sales on every platform?

It doesn't make sense.  There is something funny going on.  That's really all I'm saying, if you can see through all the technobabble I usually can't help but post. ...something smells funny, with Newell and his minions.

I applaud Gearbox-guy, for pointing it out.

@Procrasitnato

Thats nice that youv seen plenty games with performance of L4D2 on PS3.

But again

PS3 and PC are VERY different coding, you cant just port it over and get good results, do you really want another orange box on PS3? It was an insult to PS3 owners IMO.

You can be the best coder in the world but the more you code the less features you can put in game, if you have say 100 days till launch (i know its a bit off but still) on PS3 you will spend 60 of those days coding it so it wont lag and run decent, with no new features, no flaming ammo, no new game modes half of the campaigns, while 360 you can do all that in 60 days and polish the game.

Okay...Pitchford was making off the cuff remarks about Valve's Steam platform...now he's making comments about Valve's lack of support for the PS3...WTF...why is that of any concern for him? I'm starting to regret buying Borderland, and I'm definitely NOT going dual platform with the PC for this game...

Sorry man, you're just plain wrong.  The Orange Box port was done as cheap as possible, by a dev house who underpitched the job just so they could have work.  It wasn't because it was hard -- it was because most of the money just kept that studio alive, rather than actually being invested in a serious PS3 version.  It was literally a hack job, probably done by just a couple guys as fast as possible, so they could avoid not having to work fast food for a while.

Okay I went a little far there, but seriously... all that dev had to do was hire one smart engineer, that knew how to read SDK docs and samples.  But they didn't.  They used the garage team, because they underpitched themselves into getting the contract.  They had to do it the way they did, because EA took advantage of their (business people's) stupidity... which is kinda their job, as a money-making publisher, sadly.

Orange Box PS3's badness had nothing to do with the PS3, really.  It had everything to do with one company taking advantage of the other, and consumers, for a quick buck.  Pretty common story, actually.

It was, after all, a port.  Cutting features had nothing to do with it.  The 360 and PC versions had already been made by Valve.  The porting team overestimated their skillz, and underpitched their budget amidst a sea of people willing to do a decent port.  EA wasn't thinking "sweet, these guys will for sure make the best port, and for cheap", they were just thinking "Woo, cheap... if it sucks... oh well.".

... it doesn't matter when he said it matter that he said it, in court or any place, if he said it was trash and disaster so much they should remade it.

and by the looks of it,  and of course he wasn't go into all that then, then making excuses, PR thing how they can make ps3 game no one have cared about it.

was he talking about borderland he is right. borderland does look better, but there is a performance hit.

Valve games are overrated. Half life 1 and 2 were good yeah, episode 1 and 2.. weren't that good.

I dislike teamfortress 2. I think killzone got the class based system right. Well until all the modern warfare players complained about practically everything that made it great and unique.

Left 4 dead... I got sort of bored with it after 2 days. It's fun in lan but even in co-op with people you know online.. it just isn't as interesting as it should be.

Anyways I have a pc so I don't care that much, and I support steam. I can still comment on what this gearbox dude is saying if I want to though :p

Pretty much the only people losing out here are ps3 owners who don't want to / can't play it on another platform. It sucks for ps3 only owners, but it really doesn't strike me as a big deal. Yea, Valve is arrogant by bashing the ps3 but I mean look at where they're at. Their bread and butter is on PC with their own very successful distribution platform.

Kind of an aside, but I figure that most gamers who frequent a gaming forum own a halfway decent PC or X360.