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

Forums - Sony - President of Gearbox questions Valves lack of PS3 support.

Garnett on 05 November 2009

@Proc

 

Yes that was my point, you dont want another meh port do you?

 

@XOJ

First of all he is talking about PS3 only 2 (TWO MONTHS) after it launched,mind you EVERYONE agrees that PS3 SUCKED back then, back when it FIRST LAUNCHED, Back before GOOD GAMES were exclusive for it.

 

Your just finding reasons to TRY and hate on value, i myself said that PS3 sucks back in Monday 15-Jan-2007, did you forget PS3 back then had no games? Lair was meh are flopped PSN was barely online, there were NO good PS3 exclusives at the time and multiplats were running shitty on the PS3.

 

That PS3 did suck and he wasnt wrong about it, but give me an article where he says "PS3 slim is an epic fail" or "PS3 still has no good games in 2009" or "PS3 is hard to dev for" that dates 2009, you wont be able to because those reasons are now void.

 

Oh trash and disaster? They should redo it? THE FUCKING SLIM JUST RELAUNCHED, THEY DID REDO IT,He was RIGHT! SONY DID REDO THE PS3 LAUNCH.



*Remember when the world was supposed to end on May 21st, 2011? Well click here to see our short parody video of it [not]ending*

Around the Network
Citan on 05 November 2009

I dont need any valve game on my PS3, but maybe someone does?



heruamon on 05 November 2009

Anybody want to buy my copy of borderland for the 360?



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

Kasz216 on 05 November 2009
heruamon said:
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...

Why are you regretting it?  It's a great game.  Though the ending is REAALLY stupid.



Kasz216 on 05 November 2009
Procrastinato said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Procrastinato said:

"More difficult" is relative.  Don't make me explain that, man.

It just isn't that hard for a skilled engineer who can read SDK docs.  PS3 ports used to be cruddy because it was EASY to port games to the PS3, as long as you took a quality hit.  Thus publishers paid for the cheap port, and PS3 gamers suffered, because publishers believed they could get more bang/buck for a quickie.

The reason devs have made shoddy ports to the PS3 is because they weren't given the money to port the game -- which would have also hurt the 360 version, had it not been the lead SKU on so many crossplat games.  Devs are not EVER lazy.  Even Valve's engineers, who, btw, are not Gabe Newell.  Trust me on this one.

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 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.

The "something funny" is that they are a PRIVATE company making all sorts of money already.

It's make Epic a bunch of money if they would of made a Wii only Unreal engine.  They didn't.  You know why?  They didn't want to.  They were already making PLENTY on PS3/360 engine leasing and private companies are subject to the whims of their owners/developers and the way they would rather spend their time.



Around the Network
heruamon on 05 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
heruamon said:
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...

Why are you regretting it?  It's a great game.  Though the ending is REAALLY stupid.

Well...for one, I've got alot of games on my plate for the holiday season, with 2 in the FPS genre, so do I really need a 3rd one?  That's an underlying reason, but I'll freely admit that the primary reason is I have a problem with Pitchford's attacks on the Valve...I'm not sure what his problem is, but as a consumer, I vote with my dollar, and while borderland was okay, and I was even thinking about getting it on the PC to co-op with friends...like I will for L4D2...I'm choosing not to...so, if anybody with a 360 wants this game, we can work something thru paypal.  I'm posting it on Amazon while it's still a top 10 title... 



"...You can't kill ideas with a sword, and you can't sink belief structures with a broadside. You defeat them by making them change..."

- From By Schism Rent Asunder

RVDondaPC on 06 November 2009

Valve is dumb to alienate a whole console's fanbase. A very large loyal and outspoken fanbase. As well as the company which is one of the biggest players in the whole industry. Makes no sense really.



Carclis on 06 November 2009

It couldn't be too hard to be a talented developer for the PC platform when' you've been developing for it for that long and you don't have any limitations to work within.



Procrastinato on 06 November 2009
Kasz216 said:
Procrastinato said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Procrastinato said:

"More difficult" is relative.  Don't make me explain that, man.

It just isn't that hard for a skilled engineer who can read SDK docs.  PS3 ports used to be cruddy because it was EASY to port games to the PS3, as long as you took a quality hit.  Thus publishers paid for the cheap port, and PS3 gamers suffered, because publishers believed they could get more bang/buck for a quickie.

The reason devs have made shoddy ports to the PS3 is because they weren't given the money to port the game -- which would have also hurt the 360 version, had it not been the lead SKU on so many crossplat games.  Devs are not EVER lazy.  Even Valve's engineers, who, btw, are not Gabe Newell.  Trust me on this one.

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 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.

The "something funny" is that they are a PRIVATE company making all sorts of money already.

It's make Epic a bunch of money if they would of made a Wii only Unreal engine.  They didn't.  You know why?  They didn't want to.  They were already making PLENTY on PS3/360 engine leasing and private companies are subject to the whims of their owners/developers and the way they would rather spend their time.

They didn't want to what?  Make some, relatively, easy money?

I guess you're right.  I would say their time making a port would net them a lot more money for their time than making a new game would, but... I gues L4D2 really is just an expansion pack of an upgrade, so maybe not.



 

Kasz216 on 06 November 2009
Procrastinato said:
Kasz216 said:
Procrastinato said:
ZenfoldorVGI said:
Procrastinato said:

"More difficult" is relative.  Don't make me explain that, man.

It just isn't that hard for a skilled engineer who can read SDK docs.  PS3 ports used to be cruddy because it was EASY to port games to the PS3, as long as you took a quality hit.  Thus publishers paid for the cheap port, and PS3 gamers suffered, because publishers believed they could get more bang/buck for a quickie.

The reason devs have made shoddy ports to the PS3 is because they weren't given the money to port the game -- which would have also hurt the 360 version, had it not been the lead SKU on so many crossplat games.  Devs are not EVER lazy.  Even Valve's engineers, who, btw, are not Gabe Newell.  Trust me on this one.

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 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.

The "something funny" is that they are a PRIVATE company making all sorts of money already.

It's make Epic a bunch of money if they would of made a Wii only Unreal engine.  They didn't.  You know why?  They didn't want to.  They were already making PLENTY on PS3/360 engine leasing and private companies are subject to the whims of their owners/developers and the way they would rather spend their time.

They didn't want to what?  Make some, relatively, easy money?

I guess you're right.  I would say their time making a port would net them a lot more money for their time than making a new game would, but... I gues L4D2 really is just an expansion pack of an upgrade, so maybe not.

Yeah, why else don't you think Epic didn't do it?  A Wii specific engine would net millions opon millions more then a basic porting of a couple valve games.

As for L4D2 being an expansion pack... dude you've lost it.

It's funny.  You often complain and say the reason the big budget games don't go to the Wii is because "the programmers don't want to work on it."

Yet when a company, actually run by programmers say "We don't want to waste our time on a port to a system we think is unsuccessful" your all up in arms about it suddenly.

It really shows your colors as a biased fanboy.

The truth is, Valve's main developers don't want to do it themselves, nor do they want to hire anybody, because they'd rather make new games... because it's more satsifying for them.

Aslo, no a port wouldn't make them more money.  Because a port does nothing to help the dominance of Steam.  It they hired another B-list team to do a port as temorary work.  Sure they could make some money, but then they wouldn't be any better then EA.


Some developers just aren't into the PS3.  Deal with it.  For some people it's not about "how challenging and itneresting the numbers are" it's "How interesting is my final product."

The true test of devleopment is how fun the thing is.