So why doesn't Valve like Playstation?

Valve do not only dislike playstation 3 or sony, they generally hate Japan for some unknown reason.therealnerdd

Maybe the next version of the source engine will have better cross-platform capabilities (easier to port across to360, PC orPS3)

Why is it ok for japanese developers to dis the 360 but when Valve does it for the PS3 all of a sudden they are lazy? lol. It's ridiculous. Maybe they feel they don't need to. It's quite possible that the cost of customizing the source engine to work on the PS3 is too much compared to what they would get back.

I know, I know, I'm trying to make sense. I'll go back to playing Mass Effect now.

heretrix

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

Why is it ok for japanese developers to dis the 360 but when Valve does it for the PS3 all of a sudden they are lazy? lol. It's ridiculous. Maybe they feel they don't need to. It's quite possible that the cost of customizing the source engine to work on the PS3 is too much compared to what they would get back.

I know, I know, I'm trying to make sense. I'll go back to playing Mass Effect now.

therealnerdd

It's harder to develop on and when the ported the Orange Box to the PS3 it didn't work very well. They just aren't good at developing on the system from the sound of it. Understandable, and as long as they still make quality games on the PC I'll be happy.

I mean, the Ps3 is the future of gaming, is any other console running on blu-ray?

Why does Valve like living in the passt with with 360 and PC? M$ pay-off?

[QUOTE="therealnerdd"][QUOTE="heretrix"]

Why is it ok for japanese developers to dis the 360 but when Valve does it for the PS3 all of a sudden they are lazy? lol. It's ridiculous. Maybe they feel they don't need to. It's quite possible that the cost of customizing the source engine to work on the PS3 is too much compared to what they would get back.

I know, I know, I'm trying to make sense. I'll go back to playing Mass Effect now.

heretrix

Cows generally have a really nasty attitude towards Valve.

It's not just about not wanting to learn new technology, but it also has to do with the fact that it costs alot more to utilize new technology and we all know money doesn't grow on trees.

I remember somebody from Valve saying they when they do a PS3 game, they want to do it right. Perhaps they don't have the funds to do it right at the moment?

[QUOTE="heretrix"]

[QUOTE="therealnerdd"] bs! what japanese developer dissed the 360?therealnerdd

As for people having a vendetta, that's a joke.Dead Rising did really well here, NG 2 was crap and the rest are JRPGs which have never really sold all that well here. It has nothing to do with a developer being Japanese.

What is Nintendo? A Norwegian company or something?

Cows generally have a really nasty attitude towards Valve.

It's not just about not wanting to learn new technology, but it also has to do with the fact that it costs alot more to utilize new technology and we all know money doesn't grow on trees.

I remember somebody from Valve saying they when they do a PS3 game, they want to do it right. Perhaps they don't have the funds to do it right at the moment?

Tragic_Kingdom7

Gabe Newell is a lazy fatass and doesn't want to mess around with code in a different way than he is used to.

[QUOTE="therealnerdd"]Valve do not only dislike playstation 3 or sony, they generally hate Japan for some unknown reason.SparkyProtocol

Because teh cell is so powerful and almighty that the Valve devs literally p****d their pantsin fear the first time they got their hands on it.Just to be on the safe side,their PS3 dev kits are now locked away in the basement.So they won't be making any PS3 versions of their games for a while.

Because it's not easy developing games on it, for them at least. A shame really, such a great dev.

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

Cows generally have a really nasty attitude towards Valve.

It's not just about not wanting to learn new technology, but it also has to do with the fact that it costs alot more to utilize new technology and we all know money doesn't grow on trees.

I remember somebody from Valve saying they when they do a PS3 game, they want to do it right. Perhaps they don't have the funds to do it right at the moment?

heretrix

Well, I'm not saying that theyare hurting for cash, just that they don't have the kind of funds to pump into "done right" PS3 development that Sony 1rst party devs do.

Sony decided developers were obligated to work on a **** to develop for architecture that would likely never be used for gaming outside of the Playstation platform.

So why would a primarily PC based developer put up with that when they have a PC like console to choose instead?

Cows generally have a really nasty attitude towards Valve.

It's not just about not wanting to learn new technology, but it also has to do with the fact that it costs alot more to utilize new technology and we all know money doesn't grow on trees.

I remember somebody from Valve saying they when they do a PS3 game, they want to do it right. Perhaps they don't have the funds to do it right at the moment?

[QUOTE="Tragic_Kingdom7"]

Cows generally have a really nasty attitude towards Valve.

It's not just about not wanting to learn new technology, but it also has to do with the fact that it costs alot more to utilize new technology and we all know money doesn't grow on trees.

I remember somebody from Valve saying they when they do a PS3 game, they want to do it right. Perhaps they don't have the funds to do it right at the moment?

Cheesehead9099

I'm a PS3 only owner, so I mean fanboys. If I use an animal term, I'm talking about rabid fanboys.

The PS3 is a difficult console to get used to.

That's not opinion, that's not talking out my behind, that's fact. Square have said it, Kojima have said, Sony themselves brag about it, they think it means their system is more powerful (ironically, the most powerful system the PC, is the easiest to develop for).

So then, you have a console with the lowest userbase of the next generation consoles and the PC. It also (according to Activision) has the highest licensing fee costs, giving developers the highest development costs and the lowest possible revenue base. Oh, and it's also the hardest to develop for.

So no, Valve doesn't seem lazy to me. They seem sensible. Why would you bother struggling to develop software for a system with the smallest userbase, highest royalty fees and most difficult architecture? Why are they pegged as 'lazy' for failing to do this, they're a business, not a government department or charity. They have no obligation to provide their services if they feel the reward is not there.

Gabe Newell is a lazy fatass and doesn't want to mess around with code in a different way than he is used to.

shakmaster13

From what I heard, the PS2 is harder to develop games on than the PS3 and yet Valve made Half Life for the PS2 so I doubt that the PS3's architecture is the reason they won't make games for it.

I hate valve, Sony needs to stay away from anything to do with valve.djsifer01

From what I heard, the PS2 is harder to develop games on than the PS3 and yet Valve made Half Life for the PS2 so I doubt that the PS3's architecture is the reason they won't make games for it.

JesusHWChrist

because its haaaaarrrrrdddd and we don't wannnnnaaaaa!!!!!

- that's why. basically.

because its haaaaarrrrrdddd and we don't wannnnnaaaaa!!!!!

- that's why. basically.

SaudiFury

[QUOTE="JesusHWChrist"]

From what I heard, the PS2 is harder to develop games on than the PS3 and yet Valve made Half Life for the PS2 so I doubt that the PS3's architecture is the reason they won't make games for it.

Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="JesusHWChrist"]

From what I heard, the PS2 is harder to develop games on than the PS3 and yet Valve made Half Life for the PS2 so I doubt that the PS3's architecture is the reason they won't make games for it.

SaudiFury

[QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

because its haaaaarrrrrdddd and we don't wannnnnaaaaa!!!!!

- that's why. basically.

Danm_999

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="SaudiFury"]

because its haaaaarrrrrdddd and we don't wannnnnaaaaa!!!!!

- that's why. basically.

SaudiFury

Basically, they are lazy.

Wait, let me defend myself before you flame me.

Basically you all agree that it is easier to port to 360 rather than PS3 as it is easier to develop for. Now, in my book, if someone refuses to do something that might require a bit more effort than usual, I think that's lazy.

Basically, they are lazy.

Wait, let me defend myself before you flame me.

Basically you all agree that it is easier to port to 360 rather than PS3 as it is easier to develop for. Now, in my book, if someone refuses to do something that might require a bit more effort than usual, I think that's lazy.

i won't say they are lazy (although they are), but i guess they want the best results when the minimum effort>>>>>> they are lazy... sorry but this is the only explaination.

I mean, the Ps3 is the future of gaming, is any other console running on blu-ray?

Why does Valve like living in the passt with with 360 and PC? M$ pay-off?

Coffeemakes

They dont have enough resources to start developing on PS3 or else they are just happy working on PC/360..

I mean, the Ps3 is the future of gaming, is any other console running on blu-ray?

Why does Valve like living in the passt with with 360 and PC? M$ pay-off?

Coffeemakes

For the very same reason Activision dont...

Far more expensive to make games for PS3 with the worst sells between X360 and PC ( even with the later 2 piracy being high).

PS3 screwed big time this gen.... At least for me. An X-PS fan... I cant wait for next Gen of consoles... really..

I mean, the Ps3 is the future of gaming, is any other console running on blu-ray?

Why does Valve like living in the passt with with 360 and PC? M$ pay-off?

Coffeemakes

i won't say they are lazy (although they are), but i guess they want the best results when the minimum effort>>>>>> they are lazy... sorry but this is the only explaination.

2mrw

They would only be lazy if they sat around and did nothing.

[QUOTE="2mrw"]

i won't say they are lazy (although they are), but i guess they want the best results when the minimum effort>>>>>> they are lazy... sorry but this is the only explaination.

dc337

They would only be lazy if they sat around and did nothing.

i won't say they are lazy (although they are), but i guess they want the best results when the minimum effort>>>>>> they are lazy... sorry but this is the only explaination.

2mrw

Because Gabe Newell is the laziest of lazy devs and doesn't want to spend time on learning to understand a new architecture. Any self respecting dev IMO should enjoy the challenge offered by something like a totally different approach to game development, like the cell architecture offers.

Because Gabe Newell is the laziest of lazy devs and doesn't want to spend time on learning to understand a new architecture. Any self respecting dev IMO should enjoy the challenge offered by something like a totally different approach to game development, like the cell architecture offers.

NielsNL

[QUOTE="NielsNL"]

Because Gabe Newell is the laziest of lazy devs and doesn't want to spend time on learning to understand a new architecture. Any self respecting dev IMO should enjoy the challenge offered by something like a totally different approach to game development, like the cell architecture offers.

Danm_999

From a commercial perspective it's pretty sensible, I agree. But from an engineering perspective (I'm an engineer too) I don't understand that a dev wouldn't be excited by something new.

Aside from that, I think I've read here and there on the net that it's very likely that pc's will also evolve towards a cell type architecture over time. So investing in getting a solid knowledge base for it by developing for PS3 might not hurt on a commercial level in the long run as well.

And what do you mean by if the money isn't there? I would think Valve is pretty healthy financially.

Valve is a small dev (only around 70+ employees), they don't have the rescources to go exploring the PS3. Remember its Sony's fault for making the PS3 hard to develop for, its architecture makes it hard to port games to it on the other hand PC-360 port and vice versa is a lot less time and money consuming as they have similar architectures. So go blame Sony for making the PS3 hard to develop for.

[QUOTE="Danm_999"][QUOTE="NielsNL"] If the money isn't there, why should he? He's not running a charity.NielsNL

From a commercial perspective it's pretty sensible, I agree. But from an engineering perspective (I'm an engineer too) I don't understand that a dev wouldn't be excited by something new.

Because it's a bad investment?

Because Sony have deliberately made the PS3 difficult to develop for?

Wouldn't you, as an engineer, be angry at a manufacturer of a tool for making something deliberately difficult to use with no discernable advantage to that complexity?

Aside from that, I think I've read here and there on the net that it's very likely that pc's will also evolve towards a cell type architecture over time. So investing in getting a solid knowledge base for it by developing for PS3 might not hurt on a commercial level in the long run as well.NielsNL

I doubt it. Intel's Core i7 for example is evidence that's not the way the market is going, especially not for gaming.

There was a buzz Apple was going to use it in some of their computers, but that hasn't really panned out.

Sony also dropped out of developing the technology about a year ago IIRC.

And what do you mean by if the money isn't there? I would think Valve is pretty healthy financially.

NielsNL

There's little to gain. The PS3 has a smaller userbase, its royalty fees are the highest, and its the most difficult (and thus expensive) to develop for.

Obviously Valve has made the decision the revenue they'd generate is not worth the expenditure they'd need.