PS3 Development For Dummies: Is Valve Being Lazy Or Are They Biased?

Why would a company risk millions because of brand loyalty? They are making good money with the 360/PC and they don't want to break the mold.

Gabe Newell is loyal to microsoft, it was never a secret and there is nothing wrong with that, Hideo Kojima refused to have his main game ported a non sony console and nobody complained, let the guys work just for the PC/360.

I'm not sure I can agree with any notions that the PlayStation 3 is too hard to develop for, honestly. /andrastes_cow

Have you ever programmed a game for the PS3?

well valve is smaller than naughty dog and usually has many things going on at once, MGS 4 and Kz2 both took over 3 years with really big budgets so idk.mayceV

Naughty dog is a first party developer, they can have all the cash they want they want for their games, Valve on the other hand actually has to earn some cash

Konami making MGS4 PS3 only is far dumbed move than Valve not bothering with PS3.

Valve is petite company and they play their cards well, they simply do not have resources to develop for PS3 properly without sacrificing their other projects or the soul of their company, either of those is hardly acceptable

You make it sound like developers are obligated to develop for the PS3...

Valve doesn't push technology, they have low development costs compared to some, they won't have the sort of costs that push developers to seek out a broader audience.

From the day the PlayStation 3 launched, all the way up until now, we've heard all of the excuses and reasoning behind why several companies choose not to develop for the platform (or they do attempt and seem to fall flat on their faces). Everything from the online play features to blaming it on the system architecture itself, these certain developers have chosen to place blame on the PlayStation 3 for not being all there. I'm not sure I can agree with any notions that the PlayStation 3 is too hard to develop for, honestly. After seeing beasts like Killzone 2, Uncharted 2, Metal Gear Solid, and lots more shine as revolutionary steps forward in gaming, it's hard to believe that anyone else developing for the PlayStation 3 are giving their best effort when they can't get a smooth running game developed for it. One guilty party in this is Valve. http://www.analoghype.com/2009/11/ps3-development-for-dummies-is-valve-being-lazy-or-are-they-biased/andrastes_cow

Guerilla had 3+ years to develop (and focus primarily on) Killzone 2 for the PS3 Valve never had anywhere near that time to develop for the PS3 let alone focus solely on the PS3. How can you say you can't agree with the PS3 being to difficult to develop for when you have never developed for it? The most successful games when it comes to pushing the system were developed with plenty of time devoted to JUST learning the PS3 architecture. Resistance, Killzone 2, Uncharted. All of these games got underway before we even knew anything about the PS3 and all these developers had no distractions from additional SKUs. Once again, Konami spent 3+ years on MGS4 solely focused on the PS3. off of the top of your head, can you name a more than 2 multiplatform PS3 titles that run as well as Killzone 2 or Uncharted 2? Or just name one third party PS3 exclusive that spent less than 2 years in development that runs smoother?

Oh please. Enough with this Valve is loyal to MS crap. Valve is and has been primarily a PC developer and they prefer the 360 because it and desktop PC's share hardware that is extremely similar. Therefore, it is easier to port PC games to the 360 without spending millions of dollars to rewrite the game's code.. Plus, lets not forgot the 360 has a larger fan-base.

So, for valve this is the picture:

360= low cost, high return.

PS3= high cost, low return.

Gabe Newell is loyal to microsoft, it was never a secret and there is nothing wrong with that, Hideo Kojima refused to have his main game ported a non sony console and nobody complained, let the guys work just for the PC/360.

AgentA-Mi6

Konami making MGS4 PS3 only is far dumbed move than Valve not bothering with PS3.

Valve is petite company and they play their cards well, they simply do not have resources to develop for PS3 properly without sacrificing their other projects or the soul of their company, either of those is hardly acceptable

AdrianWerner

They are by far not a petite company, on the contrary, they are probably the biggest in PC industry along with blizzard, except that they dominate the shooter genre while blizz dominates the dungeon crawler genre and chinese people (WOW).

Oh please. Enough with this Valve is loyal to MS crap. Valve is and has been primarily a PC developer and they prefer the 360 because it and desktop PC's share hardware that is extremely similar. Therefore, it is easier to port PC games to the 360 without spending millions of dollars to rewrite the game's code.. Plus, lets not forgot the 360 has a larger fan-base.

So, for valve this is the picture:

360= low cost, high return.

PS3= high cost, low return.

They are by far not a petite company, on the contrary, they are probably the biggest in PC industry along with blizzard, except that they dominate the shooter genre while blizz dominates the dungeon crawler genre and chinese people (WOW).

DoomZaW

By console standarts Valve is small, their games rarely have half of staff typical console ones do.And also..Blizzard is by console standards pretty small too. SC2 has at most 1/4 staff of what AAA consoles games have

let them be like that if they dont want to work on the ps3 who cares

Gabe Newell = MIcrosoft Millionaire. That's all you really need to know.

i couldn't care less about valve not developing for the ps3. Coming from someone who owns a 360 and a ps3 and have played valve games, i can safely say that the ps3 owners aren't missing out on alot here. I'm not saying that their games are "meh", but it isn't anywhere near "ps3 only owners sure are missing out"

Gabe Newell = MIcrosoft Millionaire. That's all you really need to know.

KukicAdo

Gabe Newell = MIcrosoft Millionaire. That's all you really need to know.

KukicAdo

valve is all about PC gaming. they make games for the PC first then port them to consoles as an afterthought. saying that valve is biased towards microsoft is rediculous. also that article is silly, here's something that made my blood boil:

"I won't outright call Valve lazy, but the after market support they promise for some of their titles (and ultimately doesn't end up delivering on) doesn't help much in proving their case."

people act like Valve is a brand new developer and their first game is the orange box for the consoles. they have offered more free support for their games then any other developer in existance. they just stick to offering that support for their PC games only.

Who wants to play a valve game on the consoles anyway, thats just wrong.

hooray another ignorant lets bash valve because they wont develop for our system even though we have no idea how a business works thread.

valve is a pc company, not a MS company, their focus is the pc since their games almost sell double on the pc as they do on the consoles.

they make a pc game first, all their resources are dedicated to the pc. the 360 is similar to the pc which makes it a good investment since porting is easy and doesnt 'cost' much in resources. so its a given it will be on the 360 since the return would be worth it.

the ps3 however requires a much bigger initial investment for porting. and the sales simply arent there. the OB sold 500k on the ps3. while selling 1m on the 360 and over 2-3m on the pc. so why would they waste money time and resources that could be used on those systems just to port a game to a system its not going to sell on anyways. its simply not worth the return on investment.

maybe if they were a bigger company or if the pc wasnt their platform, wed see a ps3 port but right now its hardly worth it from a business choice.

idk why i posted this it will just be ignored by ps3 fanboys who some how feel insulted because valve insulted their hardware you know because god forbid a developer give their opinion on a piece of hardware right?

[QUOTE="AgentA-Mi6"]

Gabe Newell is loyal to microsoft, it was never a secret and there is nothing wrong with that, Hideo Kojima refused to have his main game ported a non sony console and nobody complained, let the guys work just for the PC/360.

rogerjak

Gabe Newell = MIcrosoft Millionaire. That's all you really need to know.

KukicAdo

It isn't lazy, it is just Valve running a smart business that isn't wasting its resources on unnecessary and ultimately not that profitable products. KingsMessenger

That's because Valve doesn't know how to code games properly. They're pretty overrated and all they make is FPS after FPS. One trick ponies Valve is imo.

Konami making MGS4 PS3 only is far dumbed move than Valve not bothering with PS3.

Valve is petite company and they play their cards well, they simply do not have resources to develop for PS3 properly without sacrificing their other projects or the soul of their company, either of those is hardly acceptable

AdrianWerner

[QUOTE="DoomZaW"]

They are by far not a petite company, on the contrary, they are probably the biggest in PC industry along with blizzard, except that they dominate the shooter genre while blizz dominates the dungeon crawler genre and chinese people (WOW).

AdrianWerner

By console standarts Valve is small, their games rarely have half of staff typical console ones do.And also..Blizzard is by console standards pretty small too. SC2 has at most 1/4 staff of what AAA consoles games have

Are you sure about those numbers? Last time I checked, Valve was at 250, Naughty Dog was at 100, Polyphony Digital was around 115, Insomniac was around 180, Bioware was around 500, Crytek was at 550 and Blizzard was at 4600 (though this includes all the server and maintenance personell as well as worldwide localization and product support).

That's because Valve doesn't know how to code games properly. They're pretty overrated and all they make is FPS after FPS. One trick ponies Valve is imo.

Aku101

people just need to leave valve alone

theyre satisfied with making their fps on PCs and 360 and theyre probably aware that they only have a limited market on ps3, other than mw2 none of the other fps are selling that high on ps3

as for gabe and his comments on the Cell and whatever else ps3 related, i dont expect much from a PC developer with no console experience calling themselves a "console developer"

I love it when ignorant people discuss computers :D The Source engine is a PC engine. it was not designed for an architecture like the PS3. The Xbxo 360 works because its so similar to the PC. They have a completely valid point because in order for the engine to run as well on the PS3 it would take some major overhauls. Overhauls which are not worth the userbase of the PS3.

If Naughty Dog and Santa Monica can make games that look incredible and run perfectly then Valve should be able to as well. NAPK1NS

If Naughty Dog and Santa Monica can make games that look incredible and run perfectly then Valve should be able to as well. NAPK1NS

You used two 1st party companies, developers owned by Sony and given unlimited resources to develop for the PS3, as a counter argument to a 3rd party developer choosing not to work on PS3?

Honestly...

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

That's because Valve doesn't know how to code games properly. They're pretty overrated and all they make is FPS after FPS. One trick ponies Valve is imo.

DarkLink77

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Aku101"]

That's because Valve doesn't know how to code games properly. They're pretty overrated and all they make is FPS after FPS. One trick ponies Valve is imo.

SilverChimera

[QUOTE="mayceV"]well valve is smaller than naughty dog and usually has many things going on at once, MGS 4 and Kz2 both took over 3 years with really big budgets so idk.DoomZaW

Naughty dog is a first party developer, they can have all the cash they want they want for their games, Valve on the other hand actually has to earn some cash

[QUOTE="NAPK1NS"]If Naughty Dog and Santa Monica can make games that look incredible and run perfectly then Valve should be able to as well. AnnoyedDragon

You used two 1st party companies, developers owned by Sony and given unlimited resources to develop for the PS3, as a counter argument to a 3rd party developer choosing not to work on PS3?

Honestly...

Wait, are you saying Sony has unlimited resources or they don't budget their investments in titles?

Honestly... :P

Would it be better if he used Insomniac?

[QUOTE="Aku101"]

That's because Valve doesn't know how to code games properly. They're pretty overrated and all they make is FPS after FPS. One trick ponies Valve is imo.

DarkLink77

I wouldn't worry too much about that comment. Aku thinks all of Valve's games play the exact same...

Actually I think he made the comment of Deus Ex playing the same as Doom as well.

*looks at all of valves money*, naw they are definitely smart not to waste thier time.

[QUOTE="DarkLink77"][QUOTE="Aku101"]

That's because Valve doesn't know how to code games properly. They're pretty overrated and all they make is FPS after FPS. One trick ponies Valve is imo.

Kickinurass

I wouldn't worry too much about that comment. Aku thinks all of Valve's games play the exact same...

Actually I think he made the comment of Deus Ex playing the same as Doom as well.

Wait, are you saying Sony has unlimited resources or they don't budget their investments in titles?

Honestly... :P

Would it be better if he used Insomniac?

asylumni

Every single Insomniac PS3 game is Sony published, I believe 2nd party is the term used. They may not be owned by Sony but they are most definitely treated like a 1st party developer.

Anyway you know what I mean, how many developers can afford to pour $20+ million into a game these days and keep it exclusive to the smallest console install base? Their resources are practically unlimited, they are given everything they need to make a game for the PS3. Yet people criticise Valve for not overhauling their engine for one platform, an architecture that will be irrelevant in a few years because Cell development has stopped.