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

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="NielsNL"]

Why are they risking millions again? Other companies achieve platform parity AND make money, both on the PS3 and 360 versions of their games. That alone makes any excuse Valve or fanboys here come up with a fallacy.

Who said anything about independent devs? The studios operating under the wings of the big publishers are proving that multiplats can be roughly equal in terms of game performance and that money can be made from both versions. Didn't EA'sannualfinancial report show that they make more money from the PS3 than the 360 (I could be wrong about that though)? I'll give you that there's additional risk when a smaller company has to make an investment, but how much factual risk is there?How likely would it be for games by a renowned studio like Valve to not sell well enough on the PS3 to earn back the investment? Not very if you ask me. Especially with the install base growing relatively rapidly as it is now.

I would say it is highly unlikely that Valve couldn't earn a lot of money by also working with the PS3.

NielsNL

Valve has and always will be lazy. How they keep selling games is beyond me. How many graphics engines did they make over their existence? 2 or 3? They copy and paste games... Only to put a new coat of paint on. L4D, L4D2 anyone?

Only time I ever enjoyed their games was when Half Life came out and L4D...

Time is passing them by. They can't keep up.

[QUOTE="NielsNL"]

I would say it is highly unlikely that Valve couldn't earn a lot of money by also working with the PS3.

SpruceCaboose

You mean the orange box? Reviews all over the web told that the PS3 version was inferior to the 360 version. You reap what you sow I guess, consumers aren't that stupid. I'm sure that L4D would sell on the PS3 if it was done right. Can't prove it though, but I am convinced of it.

Valve has and always will be lazy. How they keep selling games is beyond me. How many graphics engines did they make over their existence? 2 or 3? They copy and paste games... Only to put a new coat of paint on. L4D, L4D2 anyone?

Only time I ever enjoyed their games was when Half Life came out and L4D...

Time is passing them by. They can't keep up.

Truth_Hurts_U

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="NielsNL"]

I would say it is highly unlikely that Valve couldn't earn a lot of money by also working with the PS3.

NielsNL

You mean the orange box? Reviews all over the web told that the PS3 version was inferior to the 360 version. You reap what you sow I guess, consumers aren't that stupid. I'm sure that L4D would sell on the PS3 if it was done right. Can't prove it though, but I am convinced of it.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="NielsNL"]

I would say it is highly unlikely that Valve couldn't earn a lot of money by also working with the PS3.

NielsNL

You mean the orange box? Reviews all over the web told that the PS3 version was inferior to the 360 version. You reap what you sow I guess, consumers aren't that stupid. I'm sure that L4D would sell on the PS3 if it was done right. Can't prove it though, but I am convinced of it.

Multiplayer focused shooters do ok on the PS3, but much much better on 360/PC. The PS3 would receive the least focus because it would sell the least and would be of no significance. It's not worth the effort from a small dev that is still trying to make new games and support current ones.

Valve has and always will be lazy. How they keep selling games is beyond me. How many graphics engines did they make over their existence? 2 or 3? They copy and paste games... Only to put a new coat of paint on. L4D, L4D2 anyone?

Only time I ever enjoyed their games was when Half Life came out and L4D...

Time is passing them by. They can't keep up.

Truth_Hurts_U

It highly amuses me that the console industry is racing to the cliff edge; and yet people are criticising those who won't join them in line for the jump.

For an explanation of this post read my responses on this page.

[QUOTE="NielsNL"]

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"] Based on the PS3 sales of some other Valve games, I say it is fairly likely it was not worth investing in. SpruceCaboose

You mean the orange box? Reviews all over the web told that the PS3 version was inferior to the 360 version. You reap what you sow I guess, consumers aren't that stupid. I'm sure that L4D would sell on the PS3 if it was done right. Can't prove it though, but I am convinced of it.

I own OB for PS3 and it wasn't that bad indeed. Loadm times sucked a bit though.

But the returns on OB, a game that was widely known to be an inferior port and was released when the installed base on the PS3 was relatively small, are no indication of the earnings a well performed game launched today could generate.

[QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

Valve has and always will be lazy. How they keep selling games is beyond me. How many graphics engines did they make over their existence? 2 or 3? They copy and paste games... Only to put a new coat of paint on. L4D, L4D2 anyone?

Only time I ever enjoyed their games was when Half Life came out and L4D...

Time is passing them by. They can't keep up.

AnnoyedDragon

It highly amuses me that the console industry is racing to the cliff edge; and yet people are criticising those who won't join them in line for the jump.

For an explanation of this post read my respondes on this page.

I own OB for PS3 and it wasn't that bad indeed. Loadm times sucked a bit though.

But the returns on OB, a game that was widely known to be an inferior port and was released when the installed base on the PS3 was relatively small, are no indication of the earnings a well performed game launched today could generate.

NielsNL

[QUOTE="NielsNL"]

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"] Based on the PS3 sales of some other Valve games, I say it is fairly likely it was not worth investing in. tempest91

You mean the orange box? Reviews all over the web told that the PS3 version was inferior to the 360 version. You reap what you sow I guess, consumers aren't that stupid. I'm sure that L4D would sell on the PS3 if it was done right. Can't prove it though, but I am convinced of it.

Multiplayer focused shooters do ok on the PS3, but much much better on 360/PC. The PS3 would receive the least focus because it would sell the least and would be of no significance. It's not worth the effort from a small dev that is still trying to make new games and support current ones.

Well, I do have to agree on online oriented shooters catering more to 360/PC owners. Still, there are FPS's on PS3 that sold pretty well. Valve has its reputation, sotheir gameswould most probably sell just as well.

Blame Sony how do you work that one out? Sony cant go and steal Microsofts development methods can they. They can not use the same software or hardware due to copyright, get a clue please. jwsoul

You get a clue

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="NielsNL"]

You mean the orange box? Reviews all over the web told that the PS3 version was inferior to the 360 version. You reap what you sow I guess, consumers aren't that stupid. I'm sure that L4D would sell on the PS3 if it was done right. Can't prove it though, but I am convinced of it.

NielsNL

Multiplayer focused shooters do ok on the PS3, but much much better on 360/PC. The PS3 would receive the least focus because it would sell the least and would be of no significance. It's not worth the effort from a small dev that is still trying to make new games and support current ones.

Well, I do have to agree on online oriented shooters catering more to 360/PC owners. Still, there are FPS's on PS3 that sold pretty well. Valve has its reputation, sotheir gameswould most probably sell just as well.

The point though is that they would have to hire a PS3 development team, or take a ton of time from working on other things to learn the PS3 architecture, because unlike the 360, which was made to be an easy PC port, the PS3 is not. So it's not just that they would have to "spend some money", they would have to hire an entire development team, or spend a ton of time on something in which they could be developing/supporting other games. They are not a huge developer as others are.

Who said anything about independent devs? The studios operating under the wings of the big publishers are proving...

NielsNL

[QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

Valve has and always will be lazy. How they keep selling games is beyond me. How many graphics engines did they make over their existence? 2 or 3? They copy and paste games... Only to put a new coat of paint on. L4D, L4D2 anyone?

Only time I ever enjoyed their games was when Half Life came out and L4D...

Time is passing them by. They can't keep up.

SpruceCaboose

They were founded in 1996. They managed to come up 2 game franchise in all this time. Half Life and Left 4 Dead. The time between Half life and L4D is roughly 10 years. So in 10 years they finally got some motivation to create something new. It took them 6 years to come out with a sequel to Half Life.

I don't know about you... But they are lazy in my eyes.

I'll say it again.

When non-professionals can create content that is better than the developer content, there's something wrong with that studio.

Valve's 1 game + 10 years of mods aren't of the quality to be on such a beast like ps3.

[QUOTE="jwsoul"]Blame Sony how do you work that one out? Sony cant go and steal Microsofts development methods can they. They can not use the same software or hardware due to copyright, get a clue please. The__Havoc

You get a clue

Too bad that statement is 100% pure bullflop.

I'll say it again.

When non-professionals can create content that is better than the developer content, there's something wrong with that studio.

Valve's 1 game + 10 years of mods aren't of the quality to be on such a beast like ps3.

Phacet

But lair and haze are? Those games aren't even as good as the 1 game. They are still playing catchup.

[QUOTE="Phacet"]

I'll say it again.

When non-professionals can create content that is better than the developer content, there's something wrong with that studio.

Valve's 1 game + 10 years of mods aren't of the quality to be on such a beast like ps3.

tempest91

But lair and haze are? Those games aren't even as good as the 1 game. They are still playing catchup.

Lair > Haze > E.T. > anything valve has or ever will do.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="Truth_Hurts_U"]

Valve has and always will be lazy. How they keep selling games is beyond me. How many graphics engines did they make over their existence? 2 or 3? They copy and paste games... Only to put a new coat of paint on. L4D, L4D2 anyone?

Only time I ever enjoyed their games was when Half Life came out and L4D...

Time is passing them by. They can't keep up.

Truth_Hurts_U

They were founded in 1996. They managed to come up 2 game franchise in all this time. Half Life and Left 4 Dead. The time between Half life and L4D is roughly 10 years. So in 10 years they finally got some motivation to create something new. It took them 6 years to come out with a sequel to Half Life.

I don't know about you... But they are lazy in my eyes.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Phacet"]

I'll say it again.

When non-professionals can create content that is better than the developer content, there's something wrong with that studio.

Valve's 1 game + 10 years of mods aren't of the quality to be on such a beast like ps3.

Phacet

But lair and haze are? Those games aren't even as good as the 1 game. They are still playing catchup.

Lair > Haze > E.T. > anything valve has or ever will do.

People with actual credibility disagree with you.

[QUOTE="Phacet"]

I'll say it again.

When non-professionals can create content that is better than the developer content, there's something wrong with that studio.

Valve's 1 game + 10 years of mods aren't of the quality to be on such a beast like ps3.

tempest91

But lair and haze are? Those games aren't even as good as the 1 game. They are still playing catchup.

[QUOTE="Phacet"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

But lair and haze are? Those games aren't even as good as the 1 game. They are still playing catchup.

tempest91

Lair > Haze > E.T. > anything valve has or ever will do.

People with actual credibility disagree with you.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Phacet"]

I'll say it again.

When non-professionals can create content that is better than the developer content, there's something wrong with that studio.

Valve's 1 game + 10 years of mods aren't of the quality to be on such a beast like ps3.

BiggGaming

But lair and haze are? Those games aren't even as good as the 1 game. They are still playing catchup.

You have no point. He's saying those games are unworthy, but terrible games such as Lair and Haze are? Also, Uncharted 2 has won nothing yet. It's a great game, but has nothing on Half Life or Half Life 2.

]And Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Episodes 1 and 2, Counter Strike, Left 4 Dead 1 and 2, Team Fortress, their Steam service, etc are all just lazy? Please. You don't make that many beloved games and a top of the line service by being lazy. You get games like Big Rigs when you are lazy. SpruceCaboose

Valve only came up with Half Life and Left 4 Dead franchises. All the rest are mods and 1 student project.

They have no creativity... So they buy it... Then copy and paste it.

Where is Episode 3 by the way? Guess they are to busy playing around on their arcade machines.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Phacet"]

Lair > Haze > E.T. > anything valve has or ever will do.

BiggGaming

People with actual credibility disagree with you.

I didn't say me did I?

[QUOTE="Phacet"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

But lair and haze are? Those games aren't even as good as the 1 game. They are still playing catchup.

tempest91

Lair > Haze > E.T. > anything valve has or ever will do.

People with actual credibility disagree with you.

Credibility? LOL Where do you think you are?

[QUOTE="BiggGaming"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

People with actual credibility disagree with you.

tempest91

I didn't say me did I?

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]]And Half-Life, Half-Life 2, Episodes 1 and 2, Counter Strike, Left 4 Dead 1 and 2, Team Fortress, their Steam service, etc are all just lazy? Please. You don't make that many beloved games and a top of the line service by being lazy. You get games like Big Rigs when you are lazy. Truth_Hurts_U

Valve only came up with Half Life andLeft4 Deadfranchieses. All the rest are mods and 1 student project.

They have no creativity... So they buy it... Then copy and paste it.

Where is Episode 3 by the way? Guess they are to busy playing around on their arcade machines.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="Phacet"]

Lair > Haze > E.T. > anything valve has or ever will do.

Phacet

People with actual credibility disagree with you.

Credibility? LOL Where do you think you are?

In a dark storm holding a torch.

[QUOTE="BiggGaming"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

But lair and haze are? Those games aren't even as good as the 1 game. They are still playing catchup.

tempest91

You have no point. He's saying those games are unworthy, but terrible games such as Lair and Haze are? Also, Uncharted 2 has won nothing yet. It's a great game, but has nothing on Half Life or Half Life 2.

Your only flaw is interpreting SW as the majority of console gamers. For the most part, console gamers are not demanding multi-million dollar games. The publishers are pushing them out because, like in the movies, they often think the Michael Bay way, that bigger and more flashy is better. Plenty of smaller games do fine on consoles, but the hype and salesmanship is all behind the huge games, and as such the SWites take that to mean only the big flashy games are worth playing. Granted they are at fault some too, but by and large, the mega-publishers are to blame for starting this trend. SpruceCaboose

The publishers are simply responding to consumer expectation. Static hardware means few excuses not to utilize it, when every user within the install base shares the same specification there is little justification not to take advantage of it. Sure you get cheap downloadable games and the odd niche title like Disgaea, but full mainstream games that make up the majority will always have that hardware utilization expectation.

The 1st party don't help either, they want to flex the hardware muscle of these systems to impress consumers enough to transition to the next generation. Sony's first party lineup doesn't consist of value games, they are all large budget blockbusters. Before this generation even started Sony was promising hardware capabilities its hardware could never deliver, putting developers in a difficult position.

But then look at PC gaming, who are the developers catering to this platform? Valve, Stardock and Blizzard. All developers that under utilize hardware, if you look at any of their games; they are for the most part lower than console capability. Not utilizing the latest tech brings down costs and lower system requirements broadens the audience, this is the way to go for sustainable development, the way that other person just mocked.

Valve sticking with older engines and polishing them is not lazy, it is what has given them the control to be able to say no to a platform like the PS3. Developers that have taken the rout to push hardware have put themselves in a position were they cannot say no, they have to go cross platform to ensure they break even. That's why a game like Torchlight is popular and successful without stepping foot on a console, while a similar game like Sacred 2 had to go cross platform.

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="BiggGaming"]We are obviously not talking about you than?

BiggGaming

I didn't say me did I?

It's called an implication, if you don't get who I am implying has credibility, you can use your imagination. (Hint: it's people outside of System Wars who have professional careers centered around gaming and the quality thereof.)

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="BiggGaming"]Yawwwn Uncharted 2. Haze was UBISOFT by the way.

BiggGaming

You have no point. He's saying those games are unworthy, but terrible games such as Lair and Haze are? Also, Uncharted 2 has won nothing yet. It's a great game, but has nothing on Half Life or Half Life 2.

Nope, because opinion can't be fact, but it also can't be argued as infallible as you presume it to be.

Where are your games you developed if it is so easy? How about your multi-national online distribution network? Your anti-Valve stance is obvious and laughable, and I am not even a Valve fan. Their games are always top notch, and have been for over a decade. SpruceCaboose

You know why Valve made steam? So they can sit back in their office chairs and spin in circles... While the money they get from royalties keeps rolling in.

If you think their games are top notch I think you were left in the 1990's. :P Then they were mind blowing.

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Where are your games you developed if it is so easy? How about your multi-national online distribution network? Your anti-Valve stance is obvious and laughable, and I am not even a Valve fan. Their games are always top notch, and have been for over a decade. Truth_Hurts_U

You know why Valve made steam? So they can sit back in their office chairs and spin in circles... While the money they get from royalties keeps rolling in.

If you think their games are top notch I think you were left in the 1990's. :P Then they were mind blowing.

well..considering the FPS genre as a whole seems to have regressed by about a decade this gen, this means Valve is still ahead of general industry :D

AdrianWerner

Who plays FPS any more? It's all about 3rd person.

:P

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Your only flaw is interpreting SW as the majority of console gamers. For the most part, console gamers are not demanding multi-million dollar games. The publishers are pushing them out because, like in the movies, they often think the Michael Bay way, that bigger and more flashy is better. Plenty of smaller games do fine on consoles, but the hype and salesmanship is all behind the huge games, and as such the SWites take that to mean only the big flashy games are worth playing. Granted they are at fault some too, but by and large, the mega-publishers are to blame for starting this trend. AnnoyedDragon

The publishers are simply responding to consumer expectation. Static hardware means few excuses not to utilize it, when every user within the install base shares the same specification there is little justification not to take advantage of it. Sure you get cheap downloadable games and the odd niche title like Disgaea, but full mainstream games that make up the majority will always have that hardware utilization expectation.

The 1st party don't help either, they want to flex the hardware muscle of these systems to impress consumers enough to transition to the next generation. Sony's first party lineup doesn't consist of value games, they are all large budget blockbusters. Before this generation even started Sony was promising hardware capabilities its hardware could never deliver, putting developers in a difficult position.

But then look at PC gaming, who are the developers catering to this platform? Valve, Stardock and Blizzard. All developers that under utilize hardware, if you look at any of their games; they are for the most part lower than console capability. Not utilizing the latest tech brings down costs and lower system requirements broadens the audience, this is the way to go for sustainable development, the way that other person just mocked.

Valve sticking with older engines and polishing them is not lazy, it is what has given them the control to be able to say no to a platform like the PS3. Developers that have taken the rout to push hardware have put themselves in a position were they cannot say no, they have to go cross platform to ensure they break even. That's why a game like Torchlight is popular and successful without stepping foot on a console, while a similar game like Sacred 2 had to go cross platform.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

well..considering the FPS genre as a whole seems to have regressed by about a decade this gen, this means Valve is still ahead of general industry :D

Truth_Hurts_U

Who plays FPS any more? It's all about 3rd person.

:P

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"]Where are your games you developed if it is so easy? How about your multi-national online distribution network? Your anti-Valve stance is obvious and laughable, and I am not even a Valve fan. Their games are always top notch, and have been for over a decade. Truth_Hurts_U

You know why Valve made steam? So they can sit back in their office chairs and spin in circles... While the money they get from royalties keeps rolling in.

If you think their games are top notch I think you were left in the 1990's. :P Then they were mind blowing.

which are even more primitive shooting-wise..ehh

AdrianWerner

Some of this gens highest scoring games are 3rd person shooters. Sure you can see more going on and takes out from the "real" feeling. But I love seeing my character getting shot or blow up with a nade.

***My god I'm horrible to day***

Edits left and right... Sucks being sick.

Some of this gens highest scoring games are 3rd person shoots. Sure you can see more going on and takes out from the "real" feeling. But I love seeing my character getting shot or blow up with a nade.

Truth_Hurts_U

I agree with most of what you say, but I still don't think it is the general marketplace that is pushing these games. With the 1st party games I agree, the manufacturers want to push, but games with lower budgets can and do succeed on consoles. The Halo series is one that almost mirrors your Valve analogy. Bungie keeps and refines their engine where possible, which helps keep costs down and speed up. Other companies reuse their engines or sell their engines to studios. That is the way that makes sense, and the market supports these games just fine. IMO it is the publishers (and sometimes ambitious developers) who decide to forgo smart fiscal planning and make a huge, way over-produced $20-$50 million dollar epics. And yes, I don't think gaming can support that model for long until gaming becomes more mainstream. SpruceCaboose

Have you also noticed there is a considerable burden on Halo to push its graphics? Reach is being hyped as a graphics title, a new engine, they may have stuck with the more sustainable method before but not anymore. Where did this push come from? Competition with Sony certainly, but I do feel the gamer themselves do play a part.

In the end it is a difference of opinion, I'm not saying you're wrong; only that I think consumer expectation does play a part. Whatever the case I do think consoles are worse off in regard to this, the evidence being 3rd party exclusivity almost completely drying up on consoles.

The main problem is this isn't sustainable for the 1st party, inevitably the costs will catch up with them. Maybe you can keep a game like GT5 exclusive because its name will sell, but try investing that much money into a new IP. It might sell two million if it is lucky? Costs are going up next gen, can they really afford to pour $30 million into a title and keep it exclusive to one audience? On launch when the install base is tiny? A cross platform game can justify that budget, a cross platform game can justify higher because it has three or more audiences to tap. When cross platform games surpass the quality of exclusives because they can afford it; what then? What will the 1st party do to differentiate themselves?

This is why it is important developers focus on lowering costs and keeping them low. Lower costs are more important than Cell, a powerful GPU or any gimmick they can strap onto their system. I wish SW would recognise that instead of getting into fights over whose system is more powerful.

So? They are great, but they are all very primitive when it comes to actual shooting mechanics and AI. FPSes degenerated, but TPSes are just as bad. Great games, just outdated as hell when it comes to shooting mechanics

AdrianWerner

Whats the diff how you shoot? 1st person your limited on where you can see. 3rd you're field of view is expanded. A side from that there really is no difference. AI IMO is way better in 3rd person shooters. Because they take cover, flank and are generally more on screen at any 1 time. Because of the vast area you can see and are ableto hide behind cover. 3rd person games are more tatical in nature. First person are more run and gun.

Clearly Valve is biased against the PS3.

Whats the diff how you shoot? 1st person your limited on where you can see. 3rd you're field of view is expanded. A side from that there really is no difference. AI IMO is way better in 3rd person shooters. Because they take cover, flank and are generally more on screen at any 1 time. Because of the vast area you can see and are ableto hide behind cover. 3rd person games are more tatical in nature. First person are more run and gun.

Truth_Hurts_U

Of course TPSes have their strenghts too, I'm just complaining about shooting mechanics themselves. Which modern games (both FPSes and TPSes) generaly have on the level of 1998 games

[QUOTE="skektek"]

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

More Sony published titles? People keep relying on games Sony directly funded as a counter argument to 3rd party decisions.

Come on, what are the PS3 utilizing games developed by companies in Valve's position? No Sony involvement.

kolkov01

You are faulting Sony for helping developers? Wow you really are a die hard fanboy ;)

so if sony aids them its bad??? could EA not get the same help if it asked Sony on the games they publish?? Its true that PS3 is difficult to develp for and some aid from Sony is advantagous. Still people with skills can make a good game if they know what to do, and know where to get help.

You wanna know the truth about why Valve doesn't develop for ps3, its because theyre racist cause the ps3 is black