Valve, your thoughts on why they hate the PS3?

[QUOTE="yarou1000"]

There is so much untapped potential in the PS3, and Valve instead chose to work with the XBox 360 which except for RAM is a system with weaker parts...

i think valve is just being lazy, your thoughts SW?

KHAndAnime

Yeah,

I've said this before. these are the typical excuses.

1.Third party devs are lazy.

2.Blame the casuals

3.I have a powerful PC anyway

4.claim graphics king over the PC, but hide behind it when the PS3 comes short.

escept for ram 360 is weaker?

sorry no the gpu in the 360 is simple fact better regardless of suppliment from the cell its still weaker then the 360 gpu, its online is better as well...so yeah cpu is all the ps3 has, and to get any thing valve makes onto it its gonna take years of rewriting all their tools and software.

WilliamRLBaker

Obviously the PS3 is the more powerful console, people need to get over this FACT already. Another FACT people need to come to terms with is most powerful =/= best. Xbox was more powerful then the PS2, yet it did worse.

Also Live being better then PSN is subjective and not factual at all. 90% of the stuff LIVE offers is useless or I can't even use it(since I'm in Canada). The ONLY thing LIVE has over PSN for me is cross game chat, which isn't worth the monthly/yearly fee.

I said few times and i say now, they are addicted to DX that only xbox can deliver them, did they ever made something without DX? (PS3 Orange Box don't count, EA port it for them)

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Valve doesn't "hate" the PS3. Developing for 360 and PC is just a preference. Same as Naughty Dog and Polyphony developing only for PS3 and not the other platforms.

SolidTy

Naughty Dog and Polyphony aren't doing anything just as a preference. They are Sony.

they're just unfamiliar with how to develop for the ps3. and if they can do what they know how to do on the pc/360 and they make enough money by doing it (which they certainly do), they have no reason to trouble themselves with the ps3

There is so much untapped potential in the PS3, and Valve instead chose to work with the XBox 360 which except for RAM is a system with weaker parts...

i think valve is just being lazy, your thoughts SW?

[QUOTE="WilliamRLBaker"]

escept for ram 360 is weaker?

sorry no the gpu in the 360 is simple fact better regardless of suppliment from the cell its still weaker then the 360 gpu, its online is better as well...so yeah cpu is all the ps3 has, and to get any thing valve makes onto it its gonna take years of rewriting all their tools and software.

Obviously the PS3 is the more powerful console, people need to get over this FACT already. Another FACT people need to come to terms with is most powerful =/= best. Xbox was more powerful then the PS2, yet it did worse.

Also Live being better then PSN is subjective and not factual at all. 90% of the stuff LIVE offers is useless or I can't even use it(since I'm in Canada). The ONLY thing LIVE has over PSN for me is cross game chat, which isn't worth the monthly/yearly fee.

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

[QUOTE="AdobeArtist"]

Valve doesn't "hate" the PS3. Developing for 360 and PC is just a preference. Same as Naughty Dog and Polyphony developing only for PS3 and not the other platforms.

badtaker

Naughty Dog and Polyphony aren't doing anything just as a preference. They are Sony.

I don't quite follow. I don't think Valve or Kojima are lazy, I think every company has a preference though. However, I just wanted to point out his example didn't work, since he was unaware of Sony's Companies. He was wrong, and he just needed to understand he was wrong, that's all. Those devs he used are Sony, so of course, Sony makes games for itself, just as Nintendo, Capcom, etc.

Adobe has been around for years, so I was surprised to find he never learned this information.

I don't even use the lazy argument regarding companies.I hope that clears things up?

As far as differences though, I think what people notice is that in the Valve vs. Kojima case for example, Kojima is making an Upcoming Xbox game, Metal Gear Rising. Sure, it's also on PC and PS3, but it's on 360 as well. The other issue is that Valve has said the PS3 is too hard to work on, and other devs are well past that since we are in year 3 of the PS3. Regarding the Nameless Japanese devs you mention, unless you get specific, I can't comment. However, if a game was Japanese centric, and not going to be made for a market outside of Japan, considering the 360's sales are so poor in Japan, it's probably just fiscal sense. Conversely, when we look at the PS3's install base, it's much much more evened out, at about 30 million. About 5-6 million less than the 360. So, devs skipping over the PS3 may actually be losing out on money, when they can clearly make games on both machines. Just looking at the demographics.

That's not to say that I have made any lazy arguements, but rather, I'm just showing you what I see in the industry as truthfully as I can say. I have a 360, so It doesn't matter to me, but since I'm quite knowledgable in these matters, it's not to hard to see what's going on in some situations. :P

valve is just lazy and they dont want to work on ps3 coz its too different from 360/PC

Valve strikes me as lazy, they say the PS3 is too difficult to develop games for. But there are so many other developers out there willing to put in the extra effort to develop a mulitplatform game for the PS3. But Valve hasn't really made anything good other than Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead. (All of their games feel the same too.)

Valve's been getting lazier with each passing year, just look at their games, they went from fully fledged GOTY full package experiences to games that feel like mods. They're still great at what they do but they aren't the monster they once were.

I still love them tho, Steam owns, and even tho I said their games feel like mods, they're still really fun mods.

Hmm I thinky PS3 owners are overreacting. Its not about Valve not liking PS3. The support for 360 Valve games is lackluster at best. This is explained very easily. Valve loves to tinker. They love patches and content updates, which are two things made difficulty by both MS and Sony. On PC there are no hurdles in the way for them to do with their games what they want. They can respond to bugs and exploits immediatly instead of in a few weeks when a patch goes through MS. So if there was a problem with their game they would get bad press for a few weeks before the patch would get to the player.

Valve strikes me as lazy, they say the PS3 is too difficult to develop games for. But there are so many other developers out there willing to put in the extra effort to develop a mulitplatform game for the PS3. But Valve hasn't really made anything good other than Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead. (All of their games feel the same too.)

GeoffZak

Seems obvious to me, they don't want to put to spend the money to maybe break even. If software sales get better for the PS3 I would think Valve would start putting games on the system but at this point there is nothing to gain.

I don't give a damn if they hate the PS3, they are freaking godly imo. Their past record of quality games and support of the PC community and the holiday Steam sale invalidates anybody's criticism towards them as far as I'm concerned.

There is so much untapped potential in the PS3, and Valve instead chose to work with the XBox 360 which except for RAM is a system with weaker parts...

i think valve is just being lazy, your thoughts SW?

yarou1000

Kojima is making an Upcoming Xbox game, Metal Gear Rising. Sure, it's also on PC and PS3, but it's on 360 as well.

SolidTy

There is so much untapped potential in the PS3, and Valve instead chose to work with the XBox 360 which except for RAM is a system with weaker parts...

i think valve is just being lazy, your thoughts SW?

yarou1000

[QUOTE="yarou1000"]

There is so much untapped potential in the PS3, and Valve instead chose to work with the XBox 360 which except for RAM is a system with weaker parts...

i think valve is just being lazy, your thoughts SW?

argryqwe

[QUOTE="argryqwe"][QUOTE="yarou1000"]

There is so much untapped potential in the PS3, and Valve instead chose to work with the XBox 360 which except for RAM is a system with weaker parts...

i think valve is just being lazy, your thoughts SW?

kidcool189

I think they just dont like it. They might not even have a reason, they just dont.

They hate the PS3? When the **** did that happen!?!ZookGuy

[QUOTE="SolidTy"]

Kojima is making an Upcoming Xbox game, Metal Gear Rising. Sure, it's also on PC and PS3, but it's on 360 as well.

AdrianWerner

As far as directing games, he's out of that game now....maybe one day he will direct again, but he's not directing anything that we know of right now.

But he is producing that RISING, along with a few others. In fact, MGS PSP, he also is writing along with producing.

Laziness and inability to work outside of their own structure.

It was too hard for them, so they decided to bash it.TintedEyes

And I bet you have a Ph.D in CS somewhere to prove your statement, right? If you think it' so easy, then why don't you go help them?

They don't hate anything, and they aren't lazy. There are a lot of companies that make PC/360 multiplats and ignore PS3, Valve is hardly alone in that. The reasons we all know already, PS3 is different, and as such more expensive to develop for. Since not all devs have unlimited resources they have to prioritize, it's just good business.ManicAce

You may call them lazy sure, but why would their go out their way when they are doing so well with just PC/360? Just to please a lowest common denominator that by the looks of it doesn't even appareciate their games that much?

Yes, Valve is lazy. Their products are shoddy, badly made and steam is a joke, its worse then PSN. I would pay for PSN I would (with money I earned from my paper route) before I downloaded steam on my computer. Also chess takes no skill, deus ex is copy of doom and Valve is a one trick pony... alextherussian

ZOMG....aku!? :shock:

I don't think they'd ever have to do much to port a game from PC/360' to the PS3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but EA ported the entire Orange Box itself, right? Once again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I can't believe how many times the word "lazy" was said in this thread. A company makes decisions based on their bottom line, not on whether they feel like working hard. For them time is money, and they figure the amount of money they would spend to target PS3 wouldn't be worth the original sales revenue. That's it.

I can't believe how many times the word "lazy" was said in this thread. A company makes decisions based on their bottom line, not on whether they feel like working hard. For them time is money, and they figure the amount of money they would spend to target PS3 wouldn't be worth the original sales revenue. That's it.

Teufelhuhn

Bitter fanboys just need to make pitiful excuses. Its easier for them than to actually accept reality. You don't see 360 gamers disparaging Blizzard for not releasing Warcraft games on 360, or trashing Insomniac for R&C being only on PS3.

[QUOTE="ManicAce"]They don't hate anything, and they aren't lazy. There are a lot of companies that make PC/360 multiplats and ignore PS3, Valve is hardly alone in that. The reasons we all know already, PS3 is different, and as such more expensive to develop for. Since not all devs have unlimited resources they have to prioritize, it's just good business.Dystopian-X

You may call them lazy sure, but why would their go out their way when they are doing so well with just PC/360? Just to please a lowest common denominator that by the looks of it doesn't even appareciate their games that much?

Well, yeah. I thought Valve cared about the gaming community more than any other developer and wanted to help gamers? If that was true they wouldn't shun a console.

I can't believe how many times the word "lazy" was said in this thread. A company makes decisions based on their bottom line, not on whether they feel like working hard. For them time is money, and they figure the amount of money they would spend to target PS3 wouldn't be worth the original sales revenue. That's it.

Teufelhuhn

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

I can't believe how many times the word "lazy" was said in this thread. A company makes decisions based on their bottom line, not on whether they feel like working hard. For them time is money, and they figure the amount of money they would spend to target PS3 wouldn't be worth the original sales revenue. That's it.

AdobeArtist

Bitter fanboys just need to make pitiful excuses. Its easier for them than to actually accept reality. You don't see 360 gamers disparaging Blizzard for not releasing Warcraft games on 360, or trashing Insomniac for R&C being only on PS3.

You were wrong earlier in this thread (Regarding Sony's Polyphony and Sony's Naughty Dog Studios), and you are wrong again about the Ratchet remark. Ratchet is owned by SONY. It couldn't be on any other non Sony platform.

However, Insomniac is free to develop whereever they want, so you could have said "...or trashing Insomniac for not making other games on other platforms...", and that would have been valid.

You're point is spot on though, but the lack of understanding properties confuses me.

For the record, I'm not one of these lazy word throwers, I just don't want people to confuse properties and companies all over the place. The other day people were saying Shiggy Miyamoto created Metroid, and he didn't, so I needed to fix that too.

Well, yeah. I thought Valve cared about the gaming community more than any other developer and wanted to help gamers? If that was true they wouldn't shun a console.

Pixel-Pirate

Dude they're not charity workers...they're not going to port their games to the PS3 out of the goodness of their hearts. Like any company in the video game industry they face some very harsh economic realities, and the good will of the PS3 community isn't going to magically pay their bills.

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

Well, yeah. I thought Valve cared about the gaming community more than any other developer and wanted to help gamers? If that was true they wouldn't shun a console.

Teufelhuhn

Dude they're not charity workers...they're not going to port their games to the PS3 out of the goodness of their hearts. Like any company in the video game industry they face some very harsh economic realities, and the good will of the PS3 community isn't going to magically pay their bills.

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

I can't believe how many times the word "lazy" was said in this thread. A company makes decisions based on their bottom line, not on whether they feel like working hard. For them time is money, and they figure the amount of money they would spend to target PS3 wouldn't be worth the original sales revenue. That's it.

argryqwe

[QUOTE="argryqwe"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

I can't believe how many times the word "lazy" was said in this thread. A company makes decisions based on their bottom line, not on whether they feel like working hard. For them time is money, and they figure the amount of money they would spend to target PS3 wouldn't be worth the original sales revenue. That's it.

kidcool189

Sony said they made the PS3 hard to dev for on purpose! Id say Sony's arrogance could be a factor.navyguy21

Valve didnt even make PS2 games......... That excuse is just a scape goat.

Truth is Gabe Newells used to work for microsoft which is why they make PC and xbox 360 games. They are biased.

valve are not lazy, they just don't want to take the risk with the PS3, it costs more to develope for and has a lower softwrae attach rate, there is no gaurantee you can recoup your developement costs through sales, the 360 however is cheap as chips to develope on and has a high software attach rate, meaning they spend less and get more money back,basic business, the 360 equals low cost and high return, the ps3 equals increased cost at lower return, also MS has been known to offset some of the development costs of games on the 360, hell the practically funded the PS3 version of ToV, so going with Ms was the smart thing to do from valves point of view, the ps3 is a great machine and can probably do better graphics than the 360, but is it worth the risk with such a low software attach rate? do developers really want to spend more money and get less back in return? the answer to both those questions from a business perspective is Nodelta3074

Will you stop using that excuse, its already been disproven by that fact that every other 3rd party makes multiplatforms for the PS3.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]Sony said they made the PS3 hard to dev for on purpose! Id say Sony's arrogance could be a factor.RadecSupreme

Valve didnt even make PS2 games......... That excuse is just a scape goat.

Truth is Gabe Newells used to work for microsoft which is why they make PC and xbox 360 games. They are biased.

Valve isn't lazy. Not wanting to wase your time on a platform that is not of important to you or part of the skill set you crafted for your employees isn't lazy, its just business. Its not like Valve is working with the PC, 360 then porting to DS here. The 360 is so close to what they're use to and the fanbase is so receptive to them, they just do it due to not being an inconvience. PS3, well, Valve has made it clear they don't care to learn, I don't see a problem with that looking at their profit margins.

[QUOTE="delta3074"]valve are not lazy, they just don't want to take the risk with the PS3, it costs more to develope for and has a lower softwrae attach rate, there is no gaurantee you can recoup your developement costs through sales, the 360 however is cheap as chips to develope on and has a high software attach rate, meaning they spend less and get more money back,basic business, the 360 equals low cost and high return, the ps3 equals increased cost at lower return, also MS has been known to offset some of the development costs of games on the 360, hell the practically funded the PS3 version of ToV, so going with Ms was the smart thing to do from valves point of view, the ps3 is a great machine and can probably do better graphics than the 360, but is it worth the risk with such a low software attach rate? do developers really want to spend more money and get less back in return? the answer to both those questions from a business perspective is NoRadecSupreme

Will you stop using that excuse, its already been disproven by that fact that every other 3rd party makes multiplatforms for the PS3.

[QUOTE="RadecSupreme"]

[QUOTE="navyguy21"]Sony said they made the PS3 hard to dev for on purpose! Id say Sony's arrogance could be a factor.delta3074

Valve didnt even make PS2 games......... That excuse is just a scape goat.

Truth is Gabe Newells used to work for microsoft which is why they make PC and xbox 360 games. They are biased.

Glad you noticed I didnt call them lazy or stupid because in all I unlike cows recognize that they make great games. But the problem comes when they talk trash about a certain console and then people try to defend them from other bashing. That is hypocrasy. Lazy would be dumb to say, but calling them biased is the truth. Why do you say you do not disagree with them being biased? Is that not what they are?