Valve....Stupidity or laziness?

What kind of self-respecting gamer doesn't have a gaming PC ?anshul89

Yes 

First off shame on anyone posting in this thread including me. This is a complete troll thread.

Anyone that honestly thinks that about Valve either A) needs a straight jacket B) stop sneaking onto their mommies PC and posting troll threads or C) STOP gaming........forever.

Half Life 2, Portal, Team Fortress 2, Counter Strike, Left 4 Dead, Portal and so on add in games like that and do not forget their Steam system they created and anyone that does not think Valve is amazing is just fanboy looney toons to the point of no return.

STOP always blaming the devs and maybe think it is Sony's fault.... bad console for development and bad sales = Developers not as interested

What kind of self-respecting gamer doesn't have a gaming PC ?anshul89

[QUOTE="anshul89"]What kind of self-respecting gamer doesn't have a gaming PC ?odin2019

I got a pc and I play games on it but the requirements for todays games are too much and my laptop is only a year old.  You tell me?  I don't wanna pay for a new graphics card along with a new processor just to play left 4 dead on pc when I feel like my laptop outta be able to handle the game seeing as its only a little over one year old.

a 6800gt for a game like far cry 2 or crysis isn't very much.  trying to play new pc games on a laptop is like trying to play ps3 games on a psp.  a decent desktop from a year ago still runs new games with ease

How about this topic? Valve....Brilliant or Awesome!?

L4D should have been a $9 Counterstrike Mod, and then should have been over and done with.

Valve needs to get to work on HL2 : Episode 3. Now.

haha looks like Gabe hurt a ps3 fanboys feelings

What kind of self-respecting gamer doesn't have a gaming PC ?anshul89

They're too busy. They have stated that they don't have the resources to work on a PS3 port.  Too busy updating and making games.

EA will porbably port it if they want to, but it will porbably suck like the Orange Box did on PS3.

I'm not a PC gamer and if I didn't have a 360 right now, I would take advantage of the holiday sales and pick up a 360 just for this game.  Can't wait for November 18.

L4D should have been a $9 Counterstrike Mod, and then should have been over and done with.

Valve needs to get to work on HL2 : Episode 3. Now.

efrucht

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they working on Ep. 3 now?  Isn't L4D being developed by Turtle Rock Studios?

It wouldn;t make much sense from financial perspective. Valve already had their hands full with PC version of L4D, even 360 version is handled by outside dev. If you would throw PS3 version too, I doubt the game would make it in time for 2008 release, missing the cruicial holiday rush.

ANd with the game being on both Xbox360 and PC(and it doesn't require powerful PC), almost every potential customer of L4D can get it. There aren;'t that many PS3 owners without 360 or decent PC. 

Valve seems like the kind of developers that are scared to venture in and invest in completely new things munu9

[QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"][QUOTE="3picuri3"]

I think the real question here is this: 

Is Sony stupid or just lazy.

 

for the first gen ever Sony decided to make a console without meeting with developers first. this is something they always did in the past, got feedback to see what was wanted in the next console from developers. they skipped that this time because they had their own business interests ranked above developers in terms of importance. it's a shame, could have been an awesome gen for all gamers had Sony not been so arrogant.  

3picuri3

what the hell does that have to do with anything? the fact is Sony used to meet with developers to ask them what they wanted, they got what they wanted in terms of hardware for the PS2 - the architecture, or the way in which one codes and interacts is a different thing altogether. 

i don't recall reading articles of developers saying they were offended by Sony's lack of interest in consulting them during PS2 development (because they did) but i've read a hell of a lot this gen from developers (particularly japanese devs) that they were offended at Sony's arrogance with the PS3 development. not a single roundtable discussion was held with developers which was a tradition for the PS1/PS2 generations.

it's the principle, the idea, that offended and put off developers. whether or not the PS2 was easy to work with is a moot point. it's not about that in the least. people were more willing to work with Sony with the PS2 because they had a better attitude that gen and reached out to developers while the console was being created. didn't happen this gen. not even a group email. nada.  

and tell me, did the architecture for the PS2 put off developers? was the PS2 one of the most prolific consoles ever in terms of the scope of it's library? compare that to this gen and try to tell me Sony's relationship with 3rd party developers didn't suffer due to their approach this gen.  

[QUOTE="munu9"]Valve seems like the kind of developers that are scared to venture in and invest in completely new things AdrianWerner

How is it a "silly port". If the game could make them millions I see no problem. I LOVE Valve to death, but hey b**** and moan about the PS3. Millions of dollars could make up for their "headaches".

heeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllllllllll no. sony did NOT do what developers wanted. the ps2 was famous for being a pain in the ass to work with. it became prolific because a couple of groups got middlewares together (say, Renderware!) that made it easier to put games on the ps2, combined with the fact that millions of people would buy even mediocre titles, so you almost HAD to release on there - and with the huge userbase's sales, it would end up being worth the effort. it was never easy, nor was it 'what developers wanted' by any stretch of the word. the ps3 is a continuation of that mindset, except now the developers had another large competitor they could also develop on - the 360. if the ps3 massively outsold the 360 again, you wouldn't be seeing nearly the same lack of ps3 support as you do.Makari

The PS2 and  PS3 were pain in the asses to develop for. Sony can't rely on devs to flock to the PS3 due to a large user base anymore.

But hopefully in the long run it will pay off this gen similar to how it did last gen.

What kind of self-respecting gamer doesn't have a gaming PC ?anshul89

college students like me?

What kind of self-respecting gamer doesn't have a gaming PC ?anshul89

college students like me?

Clearly if there was much profit to be made on the PS3 valve would port (or most probably EA).

Besides the Orange Box sold double figures worth more on the PC, than the console versions combined.

Clearly the most profit is coming from the PC version, and it'll be the same for ALL Valve games.

Why? Easy.

Its where their main player and user base is.

Clearly if there was much profit to be made on the PS3 valve would port (or most probably EA).

Besides the Orange Box sold double figures worth more on the PC, than the console versions combined.

Clearly the most profit is coming from the PC version, and it'll be the same for ALL Valve games.

Why? Easy.

Its where their main player and user base is.

skrat_01

Wait a minute there, skrat_01, are you honestly telling me that PC gaming isn't dying? :o

Maybe source engine just doesn't sit well with PS3 architecture, L4D with dozens of enemies on the screen at once could prove to be even trickier than TOB, so it wouldn't be shocking if they wanted to see it become a success on PC/360 first before investing more to it.

EA could do it just for the nickel and dime but Valve might not even have any programmes with know-how on PS3, I mean have they ever even made any PS3 games?

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Clearly if there was much profit to be made on the PS3 valve would port (or most probably EA).

Besides the Orange Box sold double figures worth more on the PC, than the console versions combined.

Clearly the most profit is coming from the PC version, and it'll be the same for ALL Valve games.

Why? Easy.

Its where their main player and user base is.

Hexagon_777

Wait a minute there, skrat_01, are you honestly telling me that PC gaming isn't dying? :o

With no ps3 port of the game it leaves me to one of question is valve stupid or just plain lazy?  You got millions of ps3 owners willing to easily give you $60 for a decent port of the game.  Is it that hard to make the game for ps3?  Is it not a wise move to make the game for ps3 to make millions more?

I don't think MS is paying to have the game be exclusive for 360 but I'm pretty sure Valve just doesn't like ps3.  This is pretty much the only game that I want that ps3 doesn't have.

odin2019

[QUOTE="odin2019"]

With no ps3 port of the game it leaves me to one of question is valve stupid or just plain lazy?  You got millions of ps3 owners willing to easily give you $60 for a decent port of the game.  Is it that hard to make the game for ps3?  Is it not a wise move to make the game for ps3 to make millions more?

I don't think MS is paying to have the game be exclusive for 360 but I'm pretty sure Valve just doesn't like ps3.  This is pretty much the only game that I want that ps3 doesn't have.

skektek

PC devs have probably been working with multiple processors longer than 360/PS3. They're not really scared, they're practical. 

Tell me, was the Cell architechture developed with gaming in mind? No, it wasn't. Why should a dev throw hundreds of man hours to learn an overly-complicated for nothing architecture, when they can do the same for less time/money?

Look at Killzone 2. It looks fantastic. All it took was Sony's full backing and one of the biggest budgets in gaming history. Who knows how many copies they'll have to sell to break even?

ive said it before and i will say it again.

VALVE ARE LAZY

i dont belive for a second that a talented team like valve who have been voted the best by many ppl are finding the ps3 'too hard' to develop for.

if smaller third party devs can do it and valve cant well... valve should be ashamed of themselves and walk away with their heads down.

ive said it before and i will say it again.

VALVE ARE LAZY

i dont belive for a second that a talented team like valve who have been voted the best by many ppl are finding the ps3 'too hard' to develop for.

if smaller third party devs can do it and valve cant well... valve should be ashamed of themselves and walk away with their heads down.

 

superjim42

By their standards they are a very small developer.

EA does the PS3 porting.

Now clearly the porting of L4D does not seem to justify the profit too be made, hence why there isnt one.

Business is business.

Besides the PS3 has extremely difficult architecture to code for (its not as if this is not well known); its the most difficult by a huge margin, and if the OB is any indication, it does not seem to go down well with the source engine.

A company will go to lengths to port, if there is an audience to cater too make profit off. 

Other than that they are not lazy - PC gamers know this well. They just don't seem interested in the PS3, and the majority of the PS3 playerbase is not interested in them - so it seems.

Honestly its no surprise.

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="odin2019"]

With no ps3 port of the game it leaves me to one of question is valve stupid or just plain lazy?  You got millions of ps3 owners willing to easily give you $60 for a decent port of the game.  Is it that hard to make the game for ps3?  Is it not a wise move to make the game for ps3 to make millions more?

I don't think MS is paying to have the game be exclusive for 360 but I'm pretty sure Valve just doesn't like ps3.  This is pretty much the only game that I want that ps3 doesn't have.

SteezyZ

PC devs have probably been working with multiple processors longer than 360/PS3. They're not really scared, they're practical. 

Tell me, was the Cell architechture developed with gaming in mind? No, it wasn't. Why should a dev throw hundreds of man hours to learn an overly-complicated for nothing architecture, when they can do the same for less time/money?

Look at Killzone 2. It looks fantastic. All it took was Sony's full backing and one of the biggest budgets in gaming history. Who knows how many copies they'll have to sell to break even?

KZ2 will have to sell around 2 million copies to completely break even and make profit. 2 million copies = 120 million dollars. More than enough to pay for expenses like shipping, retailers, development costs, and employees. I'm no expert, but there may be more costs of course :P. It won't be hard to make the money back, it's just a matter of 'will enough people buy the game in order to make a HUGE profit.

Example: Halo 3 took 30 million dollars to make and MS spent $20 million on advertisement (50 million total). They made that money back when the 2 millionth copy sold. The profit was enourmous in the end of course.

Now with KZ2, I'm sure they will break even no problem, it's just unseen that they will make a huge profit similar to other blockbuster titles. Also, it's said that KZ2 budget is $40 million. That's not money spent, it's the total budget. I'm sure it will go up a bit if it hasn't already.

PC devs have probably been working with multiple processors longer than 360/PS3. They're not really scared, they're practical. SteezyZ

Tell me, was the Cell architechture developed with gaming in mind? No, it wasn't. Why should a dev throw hundreds of man hours to learn an overly-complicated for nothing architecture, when they can do the same for less time/money? Look at Killzone 2. It looks fantastic. All it took was Sony's full backing and one of the biggest budgets in gaming history. Who knows how many copies they'll have to sell to break even? SteezyZ

 heeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllllllllll no. sony did NOT do what developers wanted. the ps2 was famous for being a pain in the ass to work with. it became prolific because a couple of groups got middlewares together (say, Renderware!) that made it easier to put games on the ps2, combined with the fact that millions of people would buy even mediocre titles, so you almost HAD to release on there - and with the huge userbase's sales, it would end up being worth the effort. it was never easy, nor was it 'what developers wanted' by any stretch of the word. the ps3 is a continuation of that mindset, except now the developers had another large competitor they could also develop on - the 360. if the ps3 massively outsold the 360 again, you wouldn't be seeing nearly the same lack of ps3 support as you do.Makari

either way you spin it I see this as Sony's fault and not Valve. 

[QUOTE="Makari"] heeeeeeeelllllllllllllllllllllllllll no. sony did NOT do what developers wanted. the ps2 was famous for being a pain in the ass to work with. it became prolific because a couple of groups got middlewares together (say, Renderware!) that made it easier to put games on the ps2, combined with the fact that millions of people would buy even mediocre titles, so you almost HAD to release on there - and with the huge userbase's sales, it would end up being worth the effort. it was never easy, nor was it 'what developers wanted' by any stretch of the word. the ps3 is a continuation of that mindset, except now the developers had another large competitor they could also develop on - the 360. if the ps3 massively outsold the 360 again, you wouldn't be seeing nearly the same lack of ps3 support as you do.3picuri3

either way you spin it I see this as Sony's fault and not Valve. 

I see it as both. Mostly Sony's for creating the Cell with other assets in mind outside of gaming. But Valve's b****ing and moaning is annoying and it certainly doesn't help their image (but what do they care, as long as they can stay on familiar grounds and make tons of money).

Bethesda and IW, both originally PC devs, develop for all 3 platforms like it's nothing. (ID as well)

People do want to play their games on PS3, but Valve mainly want to save themselves the headache.

TC do you think you know what's better for Valve than Valve do?speedsix

[QUOTE="superjim42"]

ive said it before and i will say it again.

VALVE ARE LAZY

i dont belive for a second that a talented team like valve who have been voted the best by many ppl are finding the ps3 'too hard' to develop for.

if smaller third party devs can do it and valve cant well... valve should be ashamed of themselves and walk away with their heads down.

skrat_01

By their standards they are a very small developer.

EA does the PS3 porting.

Now clearly the porting of L4D does not seem to justify the profit too be made, hence why there isnt one.

Business is business.

Besides the PS3 has extremely difficult architecture to code for (its not as if this is not well known); its the most difficult by a huge margin, and if the OB is any indication, it does not seem to go down well with the source engine.

A company will go to lengths to port, if there is an audience to cater too make profit off.

Other than that they are not lazy - PC gamers know this well. They just don't seem interested in the PS3, and the majority of the PS3 playerbase is not interested in them - so it seems.

Honestly its no surprise.

valve a small developer? i dont hink so mate.

steam a success, half life series success, portal, team fortress etc etc

are you telling me they are the same small team back from half life 1 days???

:roll:

we have independent third party devs smaller than valve doing ps3 ports/games and valve isnt....

LAZY

[QUOTE="speedsix"]TC do you think you know what's better for Valve than Valve do?skektek

Well personally I'm glad the decision makers at Valve are in charge of their development and not the TC.

Oh and a massive LOL at all the posters in this thread calling a development team LAZY. Yes I'm sure Valve are shunning millions of $ in income purely for the fact that they are simply too lazy :lol: Seriously, some people really do not have the first clue how a modern development house or in fact any business works.

Valve is just being lazy, but quite frankly I don't blame them. Put yourself in their shoes for a second.

Your a dev making tens of millions, if not hundreds of millions, by making games with hardware architecture that is very familiar to you and easy to use. Then somebody comes up and says, "Hey, if you spend way more time and money on this platform that doesn't move nearly as much software you could possibly make another couple of million (providing the consumers don't purchase it for the other platforms like normal). You'd think to yourself, "hmmm, take it easy and rake in the bucketloads of cash or work really hard and maybe eke out a relatively small profit?"

Then you'd probably tell the person to STFU and go get you a margarita (or beverage of your choice). When you're already rolling in cash from doing what you love, what's the point of busting your back for a little bit more?

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="superjim42"]

ive said it before and i will say it again.

VALVE ARE LAZY

i dont belive for a second that a talented team like valve who have been voted the best by many ppl are finding the ps3 'too hard' to develop for.

if smaller third party devs can do it and valve cant well... valve should be ashamed of themselves and walk away with their heads down.

 

superjim42

By their standards they are a very small developer.

EA does the PS3 porting.

Now clearly the porting of L4D does not seem to justify the profit too be made, hence why there isnt one.

Business is business.

Besides the PS3 has extremely difficult architecture to code for (its not as if this is not well known); its the most difficult by a huge margin, and if the OB is any indication, it does not seem to go down well with the source engine.

A company will go to lengths to port, if there is an audience to cater too make profit off.

Other than that they are not lazy - PC gamers know this well. They just don't seem interested in the PS3, and the majority of the PS3 playerbase is not interested in them - so it seems.

Honestly its no surprise.

valve a small developer? i dont hink so mate.

steam a success, half life series success, portal, team fortress etc etc

are you telling me they are the same small team back from half life 1 days???

:roll:

we have independent third party devs smaller than valve doing ps3 ports/games and valve isnt....

LAZY

What does those games being a success have to do with Valve's size? It has been proven time and time again that small studios can make excellent games.

I'm not saying they are the same size as they were all those years ago when they made Half Life but because they've had many successes doesn't automatically mean they've grown exponentially.

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="speedsix"]TC do you think you know what's better for Valve than Valve do?speedsix

Well personally I'm glad the decision makers at Valve are in charge of their development and not the TC.

Oh and a massive LOL at all the posters in this thread calling a development team LAZY. Yes I'm sure Valve are shunning millions of $ in income purely for the fact that they are simply too lazy :lol: Seriously, some people really do not have the first clue how a modern development house or in fact any business works.