Valve....Stupidity or laziness?

[QUOTE="myke2010"]

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?

TREAL_Since

LMAO. Perfectly put. 

Ok, we can spin this as much as we want.

Sony is lazy for throwing together the PS3. They've been working on this Cell thing with IBM and other companies for years, with no real product in sight. Instead of going to the drawing board and developing an architecture perfect for gaming needs, they threw together a product that included the Cell and BluRay to help recoup their R&D costs, gamers and game devs be damned.So lazy. :roll:

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"][QUOTE="myke2010"]

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?

SteezyZ

LMAO. Perfectly put. 

Ok, we can spin this as much as we want.

Sony is lazy for throwing together the PS3. They've been working on this Cell thing with IBM and other companies for years, with no real product in sight. Instead of going to the drawing board and developing an architecture perfect for gaming needs, they threw together a product that included the Cell and BluRay to help recoup their R&D costs, gamers and game devs be damned.So lazy. :roll:

Sony isn't lazy for this. They just made a bad decision gaming wise. Instead of looking out for the devs they looked out for other assets outside of gaming (Blu-Ray, deal with IBM, other Sony hardware). For them the PS3 was not soley planned for gaming only. You can't call them lazy for this, but it was a big blow to devs no doubt.

Also, did you even read his post or did yuo just stop at "lazy"? He makes much sense. I'm not dogging Valve, I understand why they wouldn't want learn the new cell architecture. But I also think it's lazy when other devs like Bethesda do it.

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

superjim42

And it really makes no sense for Valve to make PS3 versions. Why would they? Potential profits aren;t big enough to justify putting all the resources into it (not just making, but also teaching Valve staff how to do it)when the same resources could be spent doing other things.

Plus making it on PS3 would be dead boring anyway, like every port job is 

Hey you know what? This keeps the competition between the Xbox and PlayStation very healthy. It gives another plus point for someone to own a 360. Just like Sony secured exclusive Mirror's Edge DLC, only Xbox and PC get Fallout 3 DLC. Without this sort of competition, Sony and Micro$oft wouldn't be on their toes! I wouldn't want to see MGS 4 ported to 360, neither would I like to see Mass Effect 2 come to PS3!

However, if someone must shoulder the blame it is probable Sony. Valve knows what its doing; they know that they aren't going to starve by not making a PS3 port. Time and time again Xbox 360 has always won out in the multi-plat sales, so I guess they feel they've got the majority of console owners covered.

Sony never resolved the difficult development issues. Granted, now the devs are getting more used to it, but Left 4 Dead has already been in the works for some time now. TC said that at least millions will purchase it should it come out on PS3? Fat chance. You hardly speak for the PS3 community. Not only would the Xbox 360 version sell better, you'd be lucky to even hit 500k in my opinion.

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

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".

It's silly when it comes to being a "new and risky thing" when compared to behemot that making STEAM was, he was suggesting Valve likes to play it safe, I just showed he was wrong.

And make millions, I guess they just decided they can make even more money by putting all their people into projects other than PS3 L4D.

And sure..valve moans about PS3, but I'm also getting tired of cows constantly crying every time a game doesn't make it to PS3. They act like devs have some sort of obligation to support them (and they then prove how much of hypocrites they are by whining then PS3 game gets ported to 360) 

Also, I'd like to add that Valve are mostly allowed to do as they please. They aren't ususally forced by their publisher to go multiplatform like IW (Activision).TREAL_Since

[QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]Also, I'd like to add that Valve are mostly allowed to do as they please. They aren't ususally forced by their publisher to go multiplatform like IW (Activision).AdrianWerner

simply both valve have said time and time again that they find PS3 architecture too hard to program for and that it would take too much time and/or money. that is pretty much stupid and lazy mixed into one. A game as good as L4D would easily sell alot but because it too hard to program for your not going to do it? alot of devs have shown that once you get your head around the PS3's architecture programming the second time around is a breezeRagashahs

I'm sure Valve is looking to grow their business and aren't lazy, but they gotta be smart about it. PS3 for them required the biggest investment while offering the smallest customer base. Passing on it is not stupid or lazy, it's playing it safe which can often be smart.

It's a new franchise, the concept is quite different with coop being the main thing. Right now it's easy to say it's going to be succesfull, but they had to make this decision a long ago when they had no idea how it would turn out.  Valve might not be the smallest dev, but they are still too small to just risk it.

 

It's silly when it comes to being a "new and risky thing" when compared to behemot that making STEAM was, he was suggesting Valve likes to play it safe, I just showed he was wrong.

And make millions, I guess they just decided they can make even more money by putting all their people into projects other than PS3 L4D.

And sure..valve moans about PS3, but I'm also getting tired of cows constantly crying every time a game doesn't make it to PS3. They act like devs have some sort of obligation to support them (and they then prove how much of hypocrites they are by whining then PS3 game gets ported to 360) 

AdrianWerner

This is SW what do you expect :P? I think Lems would be the same way if it were the other way around. Fanboys.

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]Also, I'd like to add that Valve are mostly allowed to do as they please. They aren't ususally forced by their publisher to go multiplatform like IW (Activision).skektek

arrogance 

[QUOTE="speedsix"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]Nobody is infallible to mistakes and you don't need any particular qualification to point out mistakes.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 are one of the biggest developers out there, they certainly didn't get where they are being lazy or apathetic.You even commented that all Valve had to do was outsource the development, so you comments about being lazy don't make any sense.

PS3 owners will pin the blame on anyone except Sony

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

Valve are one of the biggest developers out there, they certainly didn't get where they are being lazy or apathetic.You even commented that all Valve had to do was outsource the development, so you comments about being lazy don't make any sense. PS3 owners will pin the blame on anyone except Sony. speedsix

[QUOTE="speedsix"]Valve are one of the biggest developers out there, they certainly didn't get where they are being lazy or apathetic.You even commented that all Valve had to do was outsource the development, so you comments about being lazy don't make any sense. PS3 owners will pin the blame on anyone except Sony. skektek

But what if that particular new technology really isn't that exciting to them? They see the Cell as a burden (as do many other devs). Just because it's new doesn't necessarily make it exciting to everyone.

If anything, the PC always offers new and exciting technology since it constantly changes. Over the life of the Source engine, we've seen the move from single core processors to dual and quad, we've see the change of OS from XP to Vista, we've seen the idea of multiple parallel graphics cards with SLI, the move to DLC...they have enough on their plate, and instead of churning out a sub-par port, they're continuing down their own path. They don't have the PS3 in their plans since they're busy on other things, it's as simple as that.

Why aren't people jumping all over other devs like Blizzard for ignoring all consoles? They could be making millions more, they must be lazy!!!

[QUOTE="speedsix"]Valve are one of the biggest developers out there, they certainly didn't get where they are being lazy or apathetic.You even commented that all Valve had to do was outsource the development, so you comments about being lazy don't make any sense. PS3 owners will pin the blame on anyone except Sony. skektek

Stupidity or laziness? Why not both? This is a company led by Gabe Newell, afterall.

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="speedsix"]Valve are one of the biggest developers out there, they certainly didn't get where they are being lazy or apathetic.You even commented that all Valve had to do was outsource the development, so you comments about being lazy don't make any sense. PS3 owners will pin the blame on anyone except Sony. SteezyZ

But what if that particular new technology really isn't that exciting to them? They see the Cell as a burden (as do many other devs). Just because it's new doesn't necessarily make it exciting to everyone.

If anything, the PC always offers new and exciting technology since it constantly changes. Over the life of the Source engine, we've seen the move from single core processors to dual and quad, we've see the change of OS from XP to Vista, we've seen the idea of multiple parallel graphics cards with SLI, the move to DLC...they have enough on their plate, and instead of churning out a sub-par port, they're continuing down their own path. They don't have the PS3 in their plans since they're busy on other things, it's as simple as that.

Why aren't people jumping all over other devs like Blizzard for ignoring all consoles? They could be making millions more, they must be lazy!!!

[QUOTE="SteezyZ"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]Outsourcing development so they don't have to be bothered to learn something new is the epitome of apathy. Instead of approaching new technology with excitement and enthusiasm they approach with fear and trepidation.skektek

But what if that particular new technology really isn't that exciting to them? They see the Cell as a burden (as do many other devs). Just because it's new doesn't necessarily make it exciting to everyone.

If anything, the PC always offers new and exciting technology since it constantly changes. Over the life of the Source engine, we've seen the move from single core processors to dual and quad, we've see the change of OS from XP to Vista, we've seen the idea of multiple parallel graphics cards with SLI, the move to DLC...they have enough on their plate, and instead of churning out a sub-par port, they're continuing down their own path. They don't have the PS3 in their plans since they're busy on other things, it's as simple as that.

Why aren't people jumping all over other devs like Blizzard for ignoring all consoles? They could be making millions more, they must be lazy!!!

Stupidity or laziness? Why not both? This is a company led by Gabe Newell, afterall.

Timstuff

it's obvious why he makes cows like you so angry.

because he's a brilliant man with an accomplished past that makes incredible AAA games - and his opinion differs from yours on the PS3.

it's like all traditional SW arguments. Cow gets offended because Lemming says something that Cow doesn't agree with. It's all just petty jealousy at the end of the day, we can't kid ourselves.

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

Stupidity or laziness? Why not both? This is a company led by Gabe Newell, afterall.

3picuri3

it's obvious why he makes cows like you so angry.

because he's a brilliant man with an accomplished past that makes incredible AAA games - and his opinion differs from yours on the PS3.

it's like all traditional SW arguments. Cow gets offended because Lemming says something that Cow doesn't agree with. It's all just petty jealousy at the end of the day, we can't kid ourselves.

Yep.

But i must say..what was a funny photoshop!, lol

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="SteezyZ"]

 

But what if that particular new technology really isn't that exciting to them? They see the Cell as a burden (as do many other devs). Just because it's new doesn't necessarily make it exciting to everyone.

If anything, the PC always offers new and exciting technology since it constantly changes. Over the life of the Source engine, we've seen the move from single core processors to dual and quad, we've see the change of OS from XP to Vista, we've seen the idea of multiple parallel graphics cards with SLI, the move to DLC...they have enough on their plate, and instead of churning out a sub-par port, they're continuing down their own path. They don't have the PS3 in their plans since they're busy on other things, it's as simple as that.

Why aren't people jumping all over other devs like Blizzard for ignoring all consoles? They could be making millions more, they must be lazy!!!

Makari

buh buh buh, teh cell has powah, sony told me so, i men obviously its lazy cuz sony says teh cellz is the ultimate anything /sarcasm

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

The more platforms they try to develop simultaneously for, the lower the quality of the final product.

Valve doesn't make 'decent' ports of games. They make awesome games, and they do whatever it takes to make said games awesome, even if it means only 2 platforms at a time.

[QUOTE="odin2019"]

I'm pretty sure Valve just doesn't like ps3.

standarddamage

Nothing personal, Odin, but where have you been. Valve has come right out and said they don't like the PS3, and added that they couldn't figure out why anyone would invest in it. They struggled with the Cel when they released The Orange Box.

Valve had nothing to do with the PS3 version Orange Box. They made EA do it. Which will explain why the PS3 version is by far the worst version.

I think they realized their mistake later on.. I vaguely remember reading a rep from Valve mentioning that a PS3 version was being considered.MyopicCanadian

I read about that, also. If it does happen, EA will be porting it, and you know what happened with the Organge Box when EA got their hands on it.

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]Valve openly admitted to not liking the PS3 ages ago due to its overly complicated architecture. They can achieve the same and more with far less work on the Xbox 360 and the PC.odin2019

You might be able to achieve the same and more with just making the game but you won't when it comes to sales.

Valve has said openly that they do not want to spend the extra time and money to learn the PS3, when the knowlegde has no use outside of the PS3. The 360, and PC are virtually the same, development wise. I happen to agree with them.

As far as sales go, games sell better on the 360. Even PS3's exclusives do not sell as well as games on the 360. With all of the extra time, and money that it takes to do something on the PS3, that can be done a lot easier, cheaper, and faster on the 360, it doesn't seem worth it.

Take off your fanboy goggles they are giving you tunnel vision. Valve's laziness expands beyond just choosing whether or not to port a single game (which they could outsource and make many of your points moot), this is about Valves poor attitude as a developer in general.skektek

[QUOTE="skektek"]Take off your fanboy goggles they are giving you tunnel vision. Valve's laziness expands beyond just choosing whether or not to port a single game (which they could outsource and make many of your points moot), this is about Valves poor attitude as a developer in general.Makari

what skektek says is correct in some sense.

valve does not want to stick its toes out into the wider technological environment and instead chooses to sit back in its bubble of easy development routes. pc and xbox360 is the ovious choice cos its easier for them.

i just think its a shame that smaller companies than valve are bothering to learn the ps3....even if they release a game which is a flop they tried! valve cant even do that.

gabe newell should just carry on sittin on his a$$ and eat those pies sent to him from m$ :lol:

Ok I just returned Resistance 2 and got a full price gift card and I'm using that gift card to get Left 4 Dead.  Can't wait.  Valve are awesome in supporting their games and community.  I can't wait for all the stuff they'll make available for Left 4 Dead like different episodes, maps, weapons, etc.  And I'm also interested in what the PC modding community will create.

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="skektek"]Take off your fanboy goggles they are giving you tunnel vision. Valve's laziness expands beyond just choosing whether or not to port a single game (which they could outsource and make many of your points moot), this is about Valves poor attitude as a developer in general.skektek

You're not really doing anything to disprove his point while at the same time you aren't doing anything more then expressing an opinion that state, "Valve's laziness expands beyond just choosing whether or not to port a single game (which they could outsource and make many of your points moot), this is about Valves poor attitude as a developer in general."

Valve is a PC developer. 360 lucked out by having the right architecture and since Valve makes games that can run on machines that don't need to be high end 360 becomes a viable option. PS3 does not. Its a completely different architecture and Valve isn't going to mess with that. They are PC devs first. PS3's architecture is so much different. Gabe has said previously that he does not like the PS3 do to its design architecture.

Its not about being lazy its about preference and efficiency. Tell me why Valve would take the time with PS3 when they could be working on their next PC project? Finishing PC games and doing the quick and easy port to 360 isn't by any means a demanding process.  It took 3 people to port Far Cry 2 from PC to 360. It took 14 devs to port it to PS3.

They create PC games which luckily for the 360 are an easy affair for the 360 to get ports. The PS3 isn't as lucky. It just as simple as that. 

what skektek says is correct in some sense.

valve does not want to stick its toes out into the wider technological environment and instead chooses to sit back in its bubble of easy development routes. pc and xbox360 is the ovious choice cos its easier for them.

i just think its a shame that smaller companies than valve are bothering to learn the ps3....even if they release a game which is a flop they tried! valve cant even do that.

gabe newell should just carry on sittin on his *** and eat those pies sent to him from m$ :lol:

superjim42

What does MS have to do with Valve?  

[QUOTE="Hexagon_777"]Valve openly admitted to not liking the PS3 ages ago due to its overly complicated architecture. They can achieve the same and more with far less work on the Xbox 360 and the PC.BobHipJames

Gabe Newell said exactly the same thing about multicore processors versus single core architecture. And I mean the same damn thing. What's he doing today? Found the next big thing to cry about.

Fast forward to today.  Most processors are multicore processors now.  Video game code can only be broken up into so many smaller tasks to take advantage of multiple cores.  The cell is TOO parallel of an architecture for games to make full use of, and the cell NEEDS all its execution units for the CPU to shine.  The cell performs quite well in areas where that can happen(ie their blade servers and such), games just isn't one of them.  The reward(performance gains) aren't worth the risks(extra dev time and money) when it comes to the cell, that really shouldn't be that hard to understand.

what skektek says is correct in some sense.

valve does not want to stick its toes out into the wider technological environment and instead chooses to sit back in its bubble of easy development routes. pc and xbox360 is the ovious choice cos its easier for them.

i just think its a shame that smaller companies than valve are bothering to learn the ps3....even if they release a game which is a flop they tried! valve cant even do that.

gabe newell should just carry on sittin on his a$$ and eat those pies sent to him from m$ :lol:

superjim42

You're not really doing anything to disprove his point while at the same time you aren't doing anything more then expressing an opinion that state, "Valve's laziness expands beyond just choosing whether or not to port a single game (which they could outsource and make many of your points moot), this is about Valves poor attitude as a developer in general."

Valve is a PC developer. 360 lucked out by having the right architecture and since Valve makes games that can run on machines that don't need to be high end 360 becomes a viable option. PS3 does not. Its a completely different architecture and Valve isn't going to mess with that. They are PC devs first. PS3's architecture is so much different. Gabe has said previously that he does not like the PS3 do to its design architecture.

Its not about being lazy its about preference and efficiency. Tell me why Valve would take the time with PS3 when they could be working on their next PC project? Finishing PC games and doing the quick and easy port to 360 isn't by any means a demanding process. It took 3 people to port Far Cry 2 from PC to 360. It took 14 devs to port it to PS3.

They create PC games which luckily for the 360 are an easy affair for the 360 to get ports. The PS3 isn't as lucky. It just as simple as that.

Blackbond

now you say valve is only a pc developer....cool

so what about the other devs that use to be pc only and transitioned onto multiplat console development? are you telling they found it somewhat easier than valve will? NO

everyone who transitions will face the same challenges and obstacles. its up to the devs to overcome those obstacles and in this case valve chose to quit before even getting to the start line.

= LAZY

[QUOTE="SteezyZ"][QUOTE="TREAL_Since"]

 

LMAO. Perfectly put. 

TREAL_Since

Ok, we can spin this as much as we want.

Sony is lazy for throwing together the PS3. They've been working on this Cell thing with IBM and other companies for years, with no real product in sight. Instead of going to the drawing board and developing an architecture perfect for gaming needs, they threw together a product that included the Cell and BluRay to help recoup their R&D costs, gamers and game devs be damned.So lazy. :roll:

Sony isn't lazy for this. They just made a bad decision gaming wise. Instead of looking out for the devs they looked out for other assets outside of gaming (Blu-Ray, deal with IBM, other Sony hardware). For them the PS3 was not soley planned for gaming only. You can't call them lazy for this, but it was a big blow to devs no doubt.

Also, did you even read his post or did yuo just stop at "lazy"? He makes much sense. I'm not dogging Valve, I understand why they wouldn't want learn the new cell architecture. But I also think it's lazy when other devs like Bethesda do it.

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="Makari"] Yeah? Then address it, because I just destroyed your previous arguments from this thread. You're saying Valve's lazy because they don't want to waste their money on something you happen to like. According to what I've stated (and what they've said and done), it IS a waste of time for them. Valve focuses on efficiency in their processes, and lots of cross-compatible knowledge. The PS3 does not fit anywhere into that. You may not know anything about game development, but don't try to pretend that's an asset in a debate like that.Blackbond

You're not really doing anything to disprove his point while at the same time you aren't doing anything more then expressing an opinion that state, "Valve's laziness expands beyond just choosing whether or not to port a single game (which they could outsource and make many of your points moot), this is about Valves poor attitude as a developer in general."

Valve is a PC developer. 360 lucked out by having the right architecture and since Valve makes games that can run on machines that don't need to be high end 360 becomes a viable option. PS3 does not. Its a completely different architecture and Valve isn't going to mess with that. They are PC devs first. PS3's architecture is so much different. Gabe has said previously that he does not like the PS3 do to its design architecture.

Its not about being lazy its about preference and efficiency. Tell me why Valve would take the time with PS3 when they could be working on their next PC project? Finishing PC games and doing the quick and easy port to 360 isn't by any means a demanding process.  It took 3 people to port Far Cry 2 from PC to 360. It took 14 devs to port it to PS3.

They create PC games which luckily for the 360 are an easy affair for the 360 to get ports. The PS3 isn't as lucky. It just as simple as that. 

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="skektek"] This isn't a pissing contest, you don't get points for declaring victory. Nice strawman. This isn't about what I like or whether or not Valve chose to port one single title to one console over another. This is about Valve being lazy because they have grown too comfortable in a homogeneous development environment.skektek

You're not really doing anything to disprove his point while at the same time you aren't doing anything more then expressing an opinion that state, "Valve's laziness expands beyond just choosing whether or not to port a single game (which they could outsource and make many of your points moot), this is about Valves poor attitude as a developer in general."

Valve is a PC developer. 360 lucked out by having the right architecture and since Valve makes games that can run on machines that don't need to be high end 360 becomes a viable option. PS3 does not. Its a completely different architecture and Valve isn't going to mess with that. They are PC devs first. PS3's architecture is so much different. Gabe has said previously that he does not like the PS3 do to its design architecture.

Its not about being lazy its about preference and efficiency. Tell me why Valve would take the time with PS3 when they could be working on their next PC project? Finishing PC games and doing the quick and easy port to 360 isn't by any means a demanding process. It took 3 people to port Far Cry 2 from PC to 360. It took 14 devs to port it to PS3.

They create PC games which luckily for the 360 are an easy affair for the 360 to get ports. The PS3 isn't as lucky. It just as simple as that.

I don't know what a stawman was but he did make a point and a point that you didn't refute with anything else but your own opinion.

Playing it safe =/= Lazy 

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

You're not really doing anything to disprove his point while at the same time you aren't doing anything more then expressing an opinion that state, "Valve's laziness expands beyond just choosing whether or not to port a single game (which they could outsource and make many of your points moot), this is about Valves poor attitude as a developer in general."

Valve is a PC developer. 360 lucked out by having the right architecture and since Valve makes games that can run on machines that don't need to be high end 360 becomes a viable option. PS3 does not. Its a completely different architecture and Valve isn't going to mess with that. They are PC devs first. PS3's architecture is so much different. Gabe has said previously that he does not like the PS3 do to its design architecture.

Its not about being lazy its about preference and efficiency. Tell me why Valve would take the time with PS3 when they could be working on their next PC project? Finishing PC games and doing the quick and easy port to 360 isn't by any means a demanding process. It took 3 people to port Far Cry 2 from PC to 360. It took 14 devs to port it to PS3.

They create PC games which luckily for the 360 are an easy affair for the 360 to get ports. The PS3 isn't as lucky. It just as simple as that.

superjim42

now you say valve is only a pc developer....cool

so what about the other devs that use to be pc only and transitioned onto multiplat console development? are you telling they found it somewhat easier than valve will? NO

everyone who transitions will face the same challenges and obstacles. its up to the devs to overcome those obstacles and in this case valve chose to quit before even getting to the start line.

= LAZY

Where did I say this again? 

What about the other devs that use to be PC only and transitioned to multiplat console development? What about them? They are not Valve. And Valve is multiplat as they do PC/360.

Valve did not choose to quit. Because in all seriousness you can't quit on PS3 when you never started to work on it. Orange Box on PS3 is not made by Valve it was out souced to EA. Because Valve doesn't want to work on PS3 isn't a matter of lazyness. Its their choice. Kojima and Konami are not lazy for putting MGS4 on PS3 only. Its their choice and their decision.  

He doesn't have a point, he has a stawman. Valve isn't lazy just because they chose not to port one title to one platform they are lazy because they only play it safe. Gabe Newell has also said that he doesn't like multi-core architectures, and guess what everything is today?skektek

Valve is a relatively conservative company. That's largely because they're independent. Given the long development cycles of their products, and their relative lack of external support, they need to be fairly certain that all their projects give a good return. If the revenues from a PS3 port won't justify the man-hours spent making it, they aren't going to create it. If a new graphical trick can only be used by a small fraction of consumers, they'll use the time that might be spent getting that to work on improvements that will benefit everyone. 

Because of things like this, they can try riskier software-centric ventures that have risk, such as Steam, and their improvements to that platform, or purchasing and nurturing independent developers with innovative ideas, as they have done with Portal and Left 4 Dead. Because of things like this, they could give Half-Life 2 a 6 year development cycle, and spend months and months polishing their games. 

Valve knows where the money is. Since most processors are becoming multi-core, you can be damn sure that Valve will spend time optimizing for those processors. If every PC started using the Cell, I'm sure they wouldn't be as shy on PS3 development. But given that the PS3 is a small market, and the skillset required to create games on it doesn't help with the sorts of things that they spend most of their time and energy on, there are plenty of smart business reasons why they wouldn't develop for it. 

I don't know what a stawman was but he did make a point and a point that you didn't refute with anything else but your own opinion.

Playing it safe =/= Lazy 

Blackbond

The use of a 'strawman' in a debate is when one debater creates their own version of their opponent's argument (one that does not accurately represent that argument), and then attacks this fabricated argument, instead of addressing their opponent's real point. If someone were to say, "I think Konami is justified in keeping MGS4 PS3 exclusive", a strawman developed in response by someone seeking to defeat that poster's argument could be, "So you think everyone should only develop for Sony? That's absurd!"

In this case, skektek suggests that other posters have been representing his argument solely as "Valve is lazy because they won't port to the PS3," when that is not the argument he is actually making. 

Where did I say this again?

What about the other devs that use to be PC only and transitioned to multiplat console development? What about them? They are not Valve. And Valve is multiplat as they do PC/360.

Valve did not choose to quit. Because in all seriousness you can't quit on PS3 when you never started to work on it. Orange Box on PS3 is not made by Valve it was out souced to EA. Because Valve doesn't want to work on PS3 isn't a matter of lazyness. Its their choice. Kojima and Konami are not lazy for putting MGS4 on PS3 only. Its their choice and their decision.

Blackbond

no actually mgs4 is more a case of the heavy optimisation gone into the development to make it suit the ps3's hardware needs. sure they could port it then the code would have to be changed significantly.

as for a game like left for dead which doesnt seem to be heavy in terms of coding to suit one platforms needs etc it could easily be ported....yes with a little more effort but still can be done. (the xbox360 has been reported to be drastically inferior to the pc by posters here on SW)

and ye they did quit when they got all sulky at how hard the ps3 is to develop for. callin it trash, etc etc that sounds like quitting before getting into the game.

no pain no gain.

lazy

A stawman is a diversionary tactic of building an argument that resemebles the original but is fundamentally flawed and thus refutable. I am NOT going to argue anything as specific as (OUNCE AGAIN) Valve choosing not port one title to one platform as lazy. That is just a symptom of the problem. Valve has grown too comfortable and too lazy to do anything but play it safe. Does Valve being lazy mean that they aren't a good dev? No! But it does mean that we will never see anything like Spore or Crysis from them.skektek

That's an odd thing to say about a developer who completely transformed the first-person shooter genre with their first product. 

What exactly do you mean by "we will never see anything like Spore or Crysis from them"? What do those games represent to you that Valve fails to accomplish? 

A stawman is a diversionary tactic of building an argument that resemebles the original but is fundamentally flawed and thus refutable. I am NOT going to argue anything as specific as (OUNCE AGAIN) Valve choosing not port one title to one platform as lazy. That is just a symptom of the problem. Valve has grown too comfortable and too lazy to do anything but play it safe. Does Valve being lazy mean that they aren't a good dev? No! But it does mean that we will never see anything like Spore or Crysis from them.skektek

Your opinion 

Your opinion 

Your opinion 

So I guess since Blizzard isn't putting Starcraft II, Diablo III, and WoW on consoles they are also lazy as well? Are devs lazy when they don't want to put games on to the Wii? Is any dev that automatically doesn't make a game across a broad number of platforms lazy.

Me myself would call them lazy, But its not because they arn't porting left 4 dead ....its because they rely to much on their source engine what they haven't updated in ages.....L4D is loads of fun...But you can tell they didn't really try on the graphics department they just wanted to put another game out for money

Left 4 Dead would of been truely great if it had good graphics, including better looking weapons instead they borrowed everything from other games....the shotgun looks the same as it does in everyother one of their games