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

[

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.

Ravenlore_basic

it's not a question of sony aiding devs being a good or a bad thing it's a question that he's comparing a sony aided dev to a non-sony aided dev, one of them has an advantage over the other.

And I seriously doubt sony would aid any dev that would refuse to develop exclusively for the PS3

[QUOTE="skektek"]

...Valve dragged kicking and screaming into the mulicore age despite Gabe Newell's pessimistic, pants pissing, predictions.

AnnoyedDragon

If you still feel the need to insult them for not catering to your platform of choice, how about clarifying some of those questions I asked earlier?

You have given examples of Sony supported projects doing well on the PS3, now let's see the ones that did well in Valve's position.

No Sony support, no 3rd party engine, show me companies in Valve's position that have excelled with PS3 development.

/facepalm

You and your strawmen.

This isn't just about the PS3, this is about all multicore architectures.

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Yeah it is ridiculous. A better analogy of multi-core/thread vs single core/thread development would be a car with an automatic transmission vs a standard. Sure the standard is harder to initially learn but once you grasp it's intricacies you will get better performance and fuel economy.

The point is that multicore computing is the future, you can embrace it and prosper or ignore it and get left behind.

AdrianWerner

Also your analogy is ridiculous, PS3 doesn't offer any advantage, just more hassle. Remember: Valve is primarly a PC dev. Tell me exactly what advantage would PS3 hardware offer compared to PC? None. No matter how good you are at PS3 coding it will still result in something vastly inferior to what you can do with PC hardware. So why bother?

And I'm still waiting for a list of all those devs who invested so much into PS3 and has such miraclous results because of it

Gabe Newell was speaking of multicore architectures in general, citing the 360 specifically. Don't be so quick to crucify the PS3.

Specifically the PS3 has better 32 bit FP performance than the PC. Generally the PS3 has the same benefit that every other console has: a homogeneous development environment.

Ninja Theory, Media Molecule, Sucker Punch, Gorilla, Naughty Dog, From, Kojima Productions, Insomniac, Polyphony Digital, Evolution Studios, Sega WOW.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

Yeah it is ridiculous. A better analogy of multi-core/thread vs single core/thread development would be a car with an automatic transmission vs a standard. Sure the standard is harder to initially learn but once you grasp it's intricacies you will get better performance and fuel economy.

The point is that multicore computing is the future, you can embrace it and prosper or ignore it and get left behind.

skektek

Also your analogy is ridiculous, PS3 doesn't offer any advantage, just more hassle. Remember: Valve is primarly a PC dev. Tell me exactly what advantage would PS3 hardware offer compared to PC? None. No matter how good you are at PS3 coding it will still result in something vastly inferior to what you can do with PC hardware. So why bother?

And I'm still waiting for a list of all those devs who invested so much into PS3 and has such miraclous results because of it

Gabe Newell was speaking of multicore architectures in general, citing the 360 specifically. Don't be so quick to crucify the PS3.

Specifically the PS3 has better 32 bit FP performance than the PC. Generally the PS3 has the same benefit that every other console has: a homogeneous development environment.

Ninja Theory, Media Molecule, Sucker Punch, Gorilla, Naughty Dog, From, Kojima Productions, Insomniac, Polyphony Digital, Evolution Studios, Sega WOW.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

...Valve dragged kicking and screaming into the mulicore age despite Gabe Newell's pessimistic, pants pissing, predictions.

skektek

If you still feel the need to insult them for not catering to your platform of choice, how about clarifying some of those questions I asked earlier?

You have given examples of Sony supported projects doing well on the PS3, now let's see the ones that did well in Valve's position.

No Sony support, no 3rd party engine, show me companies in Valve's position that have excelled with PS3 development.

/facepalm

You and your strawmen.

This isn't just about the PS3, this is about all multicore architectures.

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.

Ravenlore_basic

People are not saying Sony support is bad, they are saying you cannot use games that received significant Sony support as a counter argument to developers that receive no support.

It's in response to people who insult Valve and then refer to games like Killzone 2 and Uncharted 2 as examples of how it is done, both Sony financed games. Valve would not receive the same support because they would only be porting, not developing exclusively which Sony would invest in. They are on their own, so games that received significant Sony support are not a counter argument.

What would be a counter argument is if you showed examples of developers in Valve's position who did transition over to PS3 development well, which brings me to...

/facepalm

You and your strawmen.

This isn't just about the PS3, this is about all multicore architectures.

skektek

No, this is all about PS3, multicore architecture is just your means of criticising Valve. You relied on an outdated article to claim Valve won't touch multicore architecture and you used that as their reason they won't touch Cell. When I showed they were multicore optimizing their games that argument fell apart, it meant that their problem was just with Cell, so you fell back on petty insults.

...Valve dragged kicking and screaming into the mulicore age despite Gabe Newell's pessimistic, pants pissing, predictions.

skektek

As for your logical fallacy claim, why would I need to divert attention from an argument I clearly have already addressed? If we are going to declare petty tactics; how about the first time I presented that question? You know what I was talking about, kolkov01 even explained it, but did you answer? No, you ignored the question. Your above quote was such a useless comment I posed the question again, which you declared strawman for an argument I already addressed. :roll:

Admit it, this fallacy claim is just an effort to avoid answering the question again while trying to make me look in the wrong. I'll be logging for the night soon, when I log back on tomorrow I expect a response to that question.

No Sony support, no 3rd party engine, show me companies in Valve's position that have excelled with PS3 development.

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]

...Valve dragged kicking and screaming into the mulicore age despite Gabe Newell's pessimistic, pants pissing, predictions.

skektek

If you still feel the need to insult them for not catering to your platform of choice, how about clarifying some of those questions I asked earlier?

You have given examples of Sony supported projects doing well on the PS3, now let's see the ones that did well in Valve's position.

No Sony support, no 3rd party engine, show me companies in Valve's position that have excelled with PS3 development.

/facepalm

You and your strawmen.

This isn't just about the PS3, this is about all multicore architectures.

You do realize that Valve has long been one of the devs that best takes advantage of multicore processors on the all-powerful PC, right? Their engine and their games have utilized multicore better than Crytek, better than GSC Gameworld, better than pretty much every other FPS on the PC since 2004 save ArmA2's engine, and -that- one people aren't inclined to call well-optimized.

No? You didn't know that? Why are you talking?

edit: Oh wait, it's you again. You did this almost exactly a year ago, so you DID know all this because I tossed it in your face the last time you did. Show me somebody that does multicore better than Valve on any of the platforms they have experience, and try to use more variety than the word 'strawman.'

No, this is all about PS3, multicore architecture is just your means of criticising Valve. You relied on an outdated article to claim Valve won't touch multicore architecture and you used that as their reason they won't touch Cell. When I showed they were multicore optimizing their games that argument fell apart, it meant that their problem was just with Cell, so you fell back on petty insults.AnnoyedDragon

If Sony's first party shares their knowledge of developing for the console maybe the third party will become more willing and better overall.

Gabe Newell was speaking of multicore architectures in general, citing the 360 specifically. Don't be so quick to crucify the PS3.

Specifically the PS3 has better 32 bit FP performance than the PC. Generally the PS3 has the same benefit that every other console has: a homogeneous development environment.

Ninja Theory, Media Molecule, Sucker Punch, Gorilla, Naughty Dog, From, Kojima Productions, Insomniac, Polyphony Digital, Evolution Studios, Sega WOW.

skektek

Are you living under a rock? /facepalm

CELL's SPEs ares not the only stream processor array in the market place. G8x = NVIDIA Geforce 8 and above.

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

patzcool

DELL XPS gaming PC in black.

Uh, I don't know much about any console architecture, or valve for that matter. But if Valve is the awesome developing team that I think they are (based on praise from this board and the games they have made) shouldn't they be able to make at least one decent game for the PS3? If they are so fantastic, why can't they make one game for the PS3 that is decent? Surely a group that is so talented can learn to work with a challenging console (because it is apparently difficult to work with) right? I mean, if you have limited resources, and you have a console that is difficult to develop for, then I would understand refraining from touching it. But valve is credited with for creating some of the best games ever made, aren't they? Surely people who are that good can make something decent on the PS3, right? Don't flame me if this sounds stupid, as it probably does. I know very little about game development or console architecture, so I'm not really educated on this topic. It's just my rather ignorant view on this whole debate. I would love to see Valve work their magic (or at least port L4D2) on the PS3.tylergamereview

[QUOTE="tylergamereview"]Uh, I don't know much about any console architecture, or valve for that matter. But if Valve is the awesome developing team that I think they are (based on praise from this board and the games they have made) shouldn't they be able to make at least one decent game for the PS3? If they are so fantastic, why can't they make one game for the PS3 that is decent? Surely a group that is so talented can learn to work with a challenging console (because it is apparently difficult to work with) right? I mean, if you have limited resources, and you have a console that is difficult to develop for, then I would understand refraining from touching it. But valve is credited with for creating some of the best games ever made, aren't they? Surely people who are that good can make something decent on the PS3, right? Don't flame me if this sounds stupid, as it probably does. I know very little about game development or console architecture, so I'm not really educated on this topic. It's just my rather ignorant view on this whole debate. I would love to see Valve work their magic (or at least port L4D2) on the PS3.DarkLink77

[QUOTE="CannedWorms"]

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.

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.

[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="The__Havoc"]

[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. tempest91

You get a clue

Too bad that statement is 100% pure bullflop.

And why is that?

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

[QUOTE="The__Havoc"]

You get a clue

The__Havoc

Too bad that statement is 100% pure bullflop.

And why is that?

Ninja Theory, Media Molecule, Sucker Punch, Gorilla, Naughty Dog, From, Kojima Productions, Insomniac, Polyphony Digital, Evolution Studios, Sega WOW.

skektek

All got money from Sony, so it was PS3 investing into them, not them investing in PS3.

All aside from Sega Wow, but let's be honest...VC is a great game, but it's not that good graphicaly

And there's no point in learning PS3 architecture, it's still vastly inferior power-wise to PC and you won't get long term benefits from it as Sony will likely once again create something very new with next console.

Uh, I don't know much about any console architecture, or valve for that matter. But if Valve is the awesome developing team that I think they are (based on praise from this board and the games they have made) shouldn't they be able to make at least one decent game for the PS3? If they are so fantastic, why can't they make one game for the PS3 that is decent? Surely a group that is so talented can learn to work with a challenging console (because it is apparently difficult to work with) right? I mean, if you have limited resources, and you have a console that is difficult to develop for, then I would understand refraining from touching it. But valve is credited with for creating some of the best games ever made, aren't they? Surely people who are that good can make something decent on the PS3, right? Don't flame me if this sounds stupid, as it probably does. I know very little about game development or console architecture, so I'm not really educated on this topic. It's just my rather ignorant view on this whole debate. I would love to see Valve work their magic (or at least port L4D2) on the PS3.tylergamereview

[QUOTE="tylergamereview"]Uh, I don't know much about any console architecture, or valve for that matter. But if Valve is the awesome developing team that I think they are (based on praise from this board and the games they have made) shouldn't they be able to make at least one decent game for the PS3? If they are so fantastic, why can't they make one game for the PS3 that is decent? Surely a group that is so talented can learn to work with a challenging console (because it is apparently difficult to work with) right? I mean, if you have limited resources, and you have a console that is difficult to develop for, then I would understand refraining from touching it. But valve is credited with for creating some of the best games ever made, aren't they? Surely people who are that good can make something decent on the PS3, right? Don't flame me if this sounds stupid, as it probably does. I know very little about game development or console architecture, so I'm not really educated on this topic. It's just my rather ignorant view on this whole debate. I would love to see Valve work their magic (or at least port L4D2) on the PS3.DarkLink77

Careful with generalisations. Some non-gaming PC developers(e.g. CyberLink, Corel, TMPGEnc) supports NVIDIA CUDA, ATI Stream and Toshiba Spurs Engine (quad-SPE based CELL). With Toshiba Spurs Engine, its support was the linked with the Windows PC market.

You make it sound like every developer has an obligation to develop for the PS3.

Valve is small. So they didn't make Left 4 Dead for the PS3. Big deal. They've said it more than once that they dislike developing around the PS3's difficult architecture.

[QUOTE="The__Havoc"]

[QUOTE="tempest91"]

Too bad that statement is 100% pure bullflop.

surrealnumber5

And why is that?

Pretty much screams he can't handle the truth.

/facepalm

You and your strawmen.

Or....does M$ have money? PCFr3ak89

[QUOTE="PCFr3ak89"]Or....does M$ have money? SpruceCaboose

[QUOTE="SpruceCaboose"][QUOTE="PCFr3ak89"]Or....does M$ have money? blue_hazy_basic

these threads make me laugh, calling valve lazy or biased just lacks common sense, the most logical explanation is money, the 360 is cheap to develope for and gives a high return on there investment because it has a high software attach rate, the ps3 ,on the other hand, is expensive to develope for and offers a lower return because it's software attach rate is low compared to the 360, it makes sense for a business to favour systems that offer the greatest return on your investment, things would be completely different if the PS3 had been designed in the traditional fashion, blame SONY for making there consoole so expensive and time consuming to develope for, is hideo kojima lazy for not bringing MGS 4 to 360? of course not, so why are valve accused of being lazy for not bringing there games to PS3, it works both waysdelta3074

Well, Gabe Newell's comments do indicate a certain amount of bias. I mean, if most other devs are anything to go by, there's more money to be made from multiplats.

At any rate IDK and neither does anyone else around here.