Valve....Stupidity or laziness?

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

Oh so thats what it's called. I've noticed a lot of people using that tactic here at SW. I got to keep that in mind.

[QUOTE="skektek"] 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?sonicmj1

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. 

[QUOTE="skektek"]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.sonicmj1

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? 

[QUOTE="skektek"]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.Blackbond

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.

[QUOTE="skektek"]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.dark-warmachine

Oh so thats what it's called. I've noticed a lot of people using that tactic here at SW. I got to keep that in mind.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]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? 

Portal is a very innovative title, as a story-driven first-person puzzle-based game. And Left 4 Dead is doing some very unique things, as I can't think of any other titles that do anything similar to the role of the AI Director in terms of dynamically adjusting the content on the fly as people play. 

Valve wouldn't make a game that pushes tech to the level that Crysis does, but they do (or support directly) plenty of innovative, unique game projects. And they can do this largely because they are conservative in how they build their technology. 

Blizzard is less vocal than Valve is, but I doubt their philosophy is any different. 

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]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.

And yet you still don't understand that you're aruging with your opinion against what is the given facts of the situation. You can spout your opinion over and over its fine by me. But when are you actually going to put it into relevant terms or put some claims behind them.

You haven't addressed anything and yet you are accusing others of strawman/stawman.

You mentioned Far Cry 2. I explained how it took 3 people to port Far Cry 2 from PC to 360 while it took 14 to port from PC to PS3. This is something that should be taken into consideration of why its a no brainer that this Pro PC dev makes the decision to port the game to 360 and not PS3. Even though they are primarily PC its too simple a task of moving their PC assetts over to the 360 to not do it. Because even when they do it they don't support the console versions like their PC versions.

You also didn't address on why is Valve lazy but not other devs. Why isn't Blizzad jealous for not putting their games on other platforms? Why aren't other devs lazy because they don't put their games on a high multitude of platfoms?

Hell is going exclusive to a platform also an example of lazyness?

If you can't see that its a decision based on economics and not lazyness or stupidity then I don't know what to tell you. Devs do not hold any obligation to support platforms. They do as what they wish. A primary PC developer has no qualms with porting over to the 360 because it has practically the same architecture.

The PS3 just doesn't fit into what Valve's business model is. Had it has an architecture similar to PC then it probably would have.

[QUOTE="dark-warmachine"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]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

Oh so thats what it's called. I've noticed a lot of people using that tactic here at SW. I got to keep that in mind.

Yeah, it very effective. Here's an advice for you, tho. *whispers to his ears* Watch out for BlackBond.;)

Yeah, it very effective. Here's an advice for you, tho. *whispers to his ears* Watch out for BlackBond.;)dark-warmachine

[QUOTE="dark-warmachine"]Yeah, it very effective. Here's an advice for you, tho. *whispers to his ears* Watch out for BlackBond.;)skektek

So I see you don't want to support your arguement with any claims or warrents but rather out of subtlety. So is this action a matter of lazyness (like how you claim Valve is being) or out of choice? (like how I view Valve's actions) 

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="dark-warmachine"]Yeah, it very effective. Here's an advice for you, tho. *whispers to his ears* Watch out for BlackBond.;)Blackbond

So I see you don't want to support your arguement with any claims or warrents but rather out of subtlety. So is this action a matter of lazyness (like how you claim Valve is being) or out of choice? (like how I view Valve's actions) 

Portal is innovative but it didn't take any kind of significant investment (time or money). And it was a pack-in with a bundle of previously proven IP. Portal could have been a complete and utter flop and it wouldn't have made much of a difference.skektek

Portal was no quick cash-in. They brought in a group of relatively unproven developers (new hires), paired them with a bunch of very talented people on their side, got them good talent, and gave them over a year to polish it. Placing it in the Orange Box package gave it a very good chance to succeed, but the act of creating it in itself (and then choosing to practically give it away, given the value that existed in the Orange Box) shows that Valve is very forward-thinking in terms of game development. 

And you didn't address Left 4 Dead, which has also had a very large development cycle, which also involved Valve adding a lot of new people to their staff, and involved the creation of the technology behind the AI Director, which was no simple thing. 

Valve, like Blizzard, tends to be very conservative on the technology side, to make their potential userbase as large as possible. But they have taken their share of risks, and it's paid off for them in the long run. Building their own engine from scratch for the creation of Half-Life 2 (one that was notably scalable to older hardware) has given them a stable, expandable platform that they can use for new titles, and update incrementally as technology gets better. Creating Steam as a digital distribution platform, at a time where no such platforms really existed in the industry, gave them a way to reach their community, sell their games, and even get a cut of profit from many of the digital transactions in the PC industry today. Spending eight years on Team Fortress 2 gave them a title with a long sales life that they could bring players back to again and again as they add new content. Just as the success of World of Warcraft gives Blizzard a guaranteed revenue stream that they can keep going as long as they produce some new content and advance things just a little, Valve's earlier risks have given them a lot of guaranteed returns. 

They may be somewhat conservative in their stance towards new technology, but that doesn't mean that, as a whole, they are a lazy developer. 

dude you just got served by black bond. thats the weakest comeback of all time.tikki25x

[QUOTE="skektek"]Portal is innovative but it didn't take any kind of significant investment (time or money). And it was a pack-in with a bundle of previously proven IP. Portal could have been a complete and utter flop and it wouldn't have made much of a difference.sonicmj1

Portal was no quick cash-in. They brought in a group of relatively unproven developers (new hires), paired them with a bunch of very talented people on their side, got them good talent, and gave them over a year to polish it. Placing it in the Orange Box package gave it a very good chance to succeed, but the act of creating it in itself (and then choosing to practically give it away, given the value that existed in the Orange Box) shows that Valve is very forward-thinking in terms of game development. 

And you didn't address Left 4 Dead, which has also had a very large development cycle, which also involved Valve adding a lot of new people to their staff, and involved the creation of the technology behind the AI Director, which was no simple thing. 

Valve, like Blizzard, tends to be very conservative on the technology side, to make their potential userbase as large as possible. But they have taken their share of risks, and it's paid off for them in the long run. Building their own engine from scratch for the creation of Half-Life 2 (one that was notably scalable to older hardware) has given them a stable, expandable platform that they can use for new titles, and update incrementally as technology gets better. Creating Steam as a digital distribution platform, at a time where no such platforms really existed in the industry, gave them a way to reach their community, sell their games, and even get a cut of profit from many of the digital transactions in the PC industry today. Spending eight years on Team Fortress 2 gave them a title with a long sales life that they could bring players back to again and again as they add new content. Just as the success of World of Warcraft gives Blizzard a guaranteed revenue stream that they can keep going as long as they produce some new content and advance things just a little, Valve's earlier risks have given them a lot of guaranteed returns. 

They may be somewhat conservative in their stance towards new technology, but that doesn't mean that, as a whole, they are a lazy developer. 

Valve and Blizzard seem to be polar opposites in terms of the games they make. Valve leans towards the reflexes-and-twitch-skills medium, while Bliz seems to be more of the thinking man's developer. And to me, that's like Yin and Yang, Chocolate and Mint, PS3 and X360. Alone they are great, but complimenting each other they are incredible.

Seriously, I do mean the PS3 and X360 thing. Competition inspires greatness. They wouldn't try so hard if the other didn't exist.

[QUOTE="Blackbond"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]Yeah, he is STILL trying to suck me in...skektek

So I see you don't want to support your arguement with any claims or warrents but rather out of subtlety. So is this action a matter of lazyness (like how you claim Valve is being) or out of choice? (like how I view Valve's actions)

My argument is not to spin your argument it is like any other debate, that is a counter arguement. You can keep coming back with all these witty comments and one liners you want. You're just posting without supporting your side of the arguement. That and you just seem to ignore anything posted your way in favor of your subtle little jestures. Whatever man. What's you is you.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]Portal is innovative but it didn't take any kind of significant investment (time or money). And it was a pack-in with a bundle of previously proven IP. Portal could have been a complete and utter flop and it wouldn't have made much of a difference.athenian29

Portal was no quick cash-in. They brought in a group of relatively unproven developers (new hires), paired them with a bunch of very talented people on their side, got them good talent, and gave them over a year to polish it. Placing it in the Orange Box package gave it a very good chance to succeed, but the act of creating it in itself (and then choosing to practically give it away, given the value that existed in the Orange Box) shows that Valve is very forward-thinking in terms of game development.

And you didn't address Left 4 Dead, which has also had a very large development cycle, which also involved Valve adding a lot of new people to their staff, and involved the creation of the technology behind the AI Director, which was no simple thing.

Valve, like Blizzard, tends to be very conservative on the technology side, to make their potential userbase as large as possible. But they have taken their share of risks, and it's paid off for them in the long run. Building their own engine from scratch for the creation of Half-Life 2 (one that was notably scalable to older hardware) has given them a stable, expandable platform that they can use for new titles, and update incrementally as technology gets better. Creating Steam as a digital distribution platform, at a time where no such platforms really existed in the industry, gave them a way to reach their community, sell their games, and even get a cut of profit from many of the digital transactions in the PC industry today. Spending eight years on Team Fortress 2 gave them a title with a long sales life that they could bring players back to again and again as they add new content. Just as the success of World of Warcraft gives Blizzard a guaranteed revenue stream that they can keep going as long as they produce some new content and advance things just a little, Valve's earlier risks have given them a lot of guaranteed returns.

They may be somewhat conservative in their stance towards new technology, but that doesn't mean that, as a whole, they are a lazy developer.

Valve and Blizzard seem to be polar opposites in terms of the games they make. Valve leans towards the reflexes-and-twitch-skills medium, while Bliz seems to be more of the thinking man's developer. And to me, that's like Yin and Yang, Chocolate and Mint, PS3 and X360. Alone they are great, but complimenting each other they are incredible.

Seriously, I do mean the PS3 and X360 thing. Competition inspires greatness. They wouldn't try so hard if the other didn't exist.

You got to love the competition.

Sony are working there @ss off to compete with MS in trying to make there online service as great as Xbox Live which in the end benfits ps3 owners like myself because it's free.

[QUOTE="skektek"]Portal is innovative but it didn't take any kind of significant investment (time or money). And it was a pack-in with a bundle of previously proven IP. Portal could have been a complete and utter flop and it wouldn't have made much of a difference.sonicmj1

Portal was no quick cash-in. They brought in a group of relatively unproven developers (new hires), paired them with a bunch of very talented people on their side, got them good talent, and gave them over a year to polish it. Placing it in the Orange Box package gave it a very good chance to succeed, but the act of creating it in itself (and then choosing to practically give it away, given the value that existed in the Orange Box) shows that Valve is very forward-thinking in terms of game development. 

And you didn't address Left 4 Dead, which has also had a very large development cycle, which also involved Valve adding a lot of new people to their staff, and involved the creation of the technology behind the AI Director, which was no simple thing. 

Valve, like Blizzard, tends to be very conservative on the technology side, to make their potential userbase as large as possible. But they have taken their share of risks, and it's paid off for them in the long run. Building their own engine from scratch for the creation of Half-Life 2 (one that was notably scalable to older hardware) has given them a stable, expandable platform that they can use for new titles, and update incrementally as technology gets better. Creating Steam as a digital distribution platform, at a time where no such platforms really existed in the industry, gave them a way to reach their community, sell their games, and even get a cut of profit from many of the digital transactions in the PC industry today. Spending eight years on Team Fortress 2 gave them a title with a long sales life that they could bring players back to again and again as they add new content. Just as the success of World of Warcraft gives Blizzard a guaranteed revenue stream that they can keep going as long as they produce some new content and advance things just a little, Valve's earlier risks have given them a lot of guaranteed returns. 

They may be somewhat conservative in their stance towards new technology, but that doesn't mean that, as a whole, they are a lazy developer. 

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]Portal is innovative but it didn't take any kind of significant investment (time or money). And it was a pack-in with a bundle of previously proven IP. Portal could have been a complete and utter flop and it wouldn't have made much of a difference.skektek

Portal was no quick cash-in. They brought in a group of relatively unproven developers (new hires), paired them with a bunch of very talented people on their side, got them good talent, and gave them over a year to polish it. Placing it in the Orange Box package gave it a very good chance to succeed, but the act of creating it in itself (and then choosing to practically give it away, given the value that existed in the Orange Box) shows that Valve is very forward-thinking in terms of game development. 

And you didn't address Left 4 Dead, which has also had a very large development cycle, which also involved Valve adding a lot of new people to their staff, and involved the creation of the technology behind the AI Director, which was no simple thing. 

Valve, like Blizzard, tends to be very conservative on the technology side, to make their potential userbase as large as possible. But they have taken their share of risks, and it's paid off for them in the long run. Building their own engine from scratch for the creation of Half-Life 2 (one that was notably scalable to older hardware) has given them a stable, expandable platform that they can use for new titles, and update incrementally as technology gets better. Creating Steam as a digital distribution platform, at a time where no such platforms really existed in the industry, gave them a way to reach their community, sell their games, and even get a cut of profit from many of the digital transactions in the PC industry today. Spending eight years on Team Fortress 2 gave them a title with a long sales life that they could bring players back to again and again as they add new content. Just as the success of World of Warcraft gives Blizzard a guaranteed revenue stream that they can keep going as long as they produce some new content and advance things just a little, Valve's earlier risks have given them a lot of guaranteed returns. 

They may be somewhat conservative in their stance towards new technology, but that doesn't mean that, as a whole, they are a lazy developer. 

Where is this "openly mock"-ing of yours?

My god have cows sunk really low. Valve isn't lazy they have their reasons for not developing left 4 dead on the ps3. You cows think that developers owe you something and they really don't. Welcome to last generation where the lems didn't get many games and the ps2 got practically everything. Deal with it. You have other games to play. Go play them and shut up. Calling valve lazy shows your ignorance.sirk1264

See, if people went bi-platform, they wouldn't have anything to complain about because they could just go to another system when one of them hits a temporary low.

Its one thing to be conservative, it is another to take the time and effort to crap all over new and different technology. "I think every game developer should be terrified of the next generation of processors." "The amount of time it takes to get a good multicore engine running, the Xbox 360 might not even be on the market any longer. That should scare the crap out of everybody." "If writing in-order code [in terms of difficulty] is a one and writing out-of-order code is a four, then writing multicore code is a 10" Gabe Newellskektek

I ought to have addressed this quote sooner. I feel silly for not following the link. 

How is Gabe crapping all over new technology in this article (which is three years old, no less)? It's no secret that next-gen development is far more costly and time-consuming than it was last generation. In the context of a talk to developers about things they need to be aware of for the advent of multi-core game development, his comments make perfect sense. 

He's not saying the challenges are insurmountable, or that the advances made should not have occurred. He's just saying that it's not easy to work with, and that's something developers, practically speaking, will have to account for when they make their games. 

What's wrong with this? 

[QUOTE="sirk1264"]My god have cows sunk really low. Valve isn't lazy they have their reasons for not developing left 4 dead on the ps3. You cows think that developers owe you something and they really don't. Welcome to last generation where the lems didn't get many games and the ps2 got practically everything. Deal with it. You have other games to play. Go play them and shut up. Calling valve lazy shows your ignorance.athenian29

See, if people went bi-platform, they wouldn't have anything to complain about because they could just go to another system when one of them hits a temporary low.

[QUOTE="athenian29"]

[QUOTE="sirk1264"]My god have cows sunk really low. Valve isn't lazy they have their reasons for not developing left 4 dead on the ps3. You cows think that developers owe you something and they really don't. Welcome to last generation where the lems didn't get many games and the ps2 got practically everything. Deal with it. You have other games to play. Go play them and shut up. Calling valve lazy shows your ignorance.sirk1264

See, if people went bi-platform, they wouldn't have anything to complain about because they could just go to another system when one of them hits a temporary low.

'Course, I don't have either one. Still, I have a PC, but I'm debating which system to get. I think I have a thread on that. Can't remember, I'm really tired.

[QUOTE="sirk1264"][QUOTE="athenian29"]

 

See, if people went bi-platform, they wouldn't have anything to complain about because they could just go to another system when one of them hits a temporary low.

athenian29

'Course, I don't have either one. Still, I have a PC, but I'm debating which system to get. I think I have a thread on that. Can't remember, I'm really tired.

Valve = bunch of hypocrites

First

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=155309

Then changes to a much sweeter tone

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170384

Valve = bunch of hypocrites

First

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=155309

Then changes to a much sweeter tone

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170384

 

dark-warmachine

From the second article: 

So whether or not you like developing for that platform, if they've got millions of people connected to that platform and buying their games you have to take it seriously. 

Doug Lombardi

I don't see how this contradicts their earlier statements. They're separate issues. 

My argument is not to spin your argument it is like any other debate, that is a counter arguement. You can keep coming back with all these witty comments and one liners you want. You're just posting without supporting your side of the arguement. That and you just seem to ignore anything posted your way in favor of your subtle little jestures. Whatever man. What's you is you. Blackbond

athenian29

[QUOTE="athenian29"]skektek

That's more of a zing in sheep's clothing.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]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? 

All the advancements that you note are strictly linear {N+1} incremental improvements. The only revolutionary improvement on the PC since the GPU is the PPU. Its this homogeneous and predictable environment that Valve loves. If they want to stay safe and make art for the sake of art that is fine but I have much more respect for a developer that has balls and is willing to take a gamble and push some boundaries.skektek

[QUOTE="skektek"] Its one thing to be conservative, it is another to take the time and effort to crap all over new and different technology. "I think every game developer should be terrified of the next generation of processors." "The amount of time it takes to get a good multicore engine running, the Xbox 360 might not even be on the market any longer. That should scare the crap out of everybody." "If writing in-order code [in terms of difficulty] is a one and writing out-of-order code is a four, then writing multicore code is a 10" Gabe Newellsonicmj1

I ought to have addressed this quote sooner. I feel silly for not following the link. 

How is Gabe crapping all over new technology in this article (which is three years old, no less)? It's no secret that next-gen development is far more costly and time-consuming than it was last generation. In the context of a talk to developers about things they need to be aware of for the advent of multi-core game development, his comments make perfect sense. 

He's not saying the challenges are insurmountable, or that the advances made should not have occurred. He's just saying that it's not easy to work with, and that's something developers, practically speaking, will have to account for when they make their games. 

What's wrong with this? 

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="skektek"] Its one thing to be conservative, it is another to take the time and effort to crap all over new and different technology. "I think every game developer should be terrified of the next generation of processors." "The amount of time it takes to get a good multicore engine running, the Xbox 360 might not even be on the market any longer. That should scare the crap out of everybody." "If writing in-order code [in terms of difficulty] is a one and writing out-of-order code is a four, then writing multicore code is a 10" Gabe Newellskektek

I ought to have addressed this quote sooner. I feel silly for not following the link. 

How is Gabe crapping all over new technology in this article (which is three years old, no less)? It's no secret that next-gen development is far more costly and time-consuming than it was last generation. In the context of a talk to developers about things they need to be aware of for the advent of multi-core game development, his comments make perfect sense. 

He's not saying the challenges are insurmountable, or that the advances made should not have occurred. He's just saying that it's not easy to work with, and that's something developers, practically speaking, will have to account for when they make their games. 

What's wrong with this? 

This is simply false. Gabe said this in July 2005. The first next-gen console hadn't even reached the market. UE3 wasn't going to be in a very good state for at least another year. 

He certainly exaggerated here, but the sentiment isn't misguided. Without really good middleware, either in-house or outside, next-gen development is incredibly difficult. It's practically killing Japan as we speak, with the exception of Capcom, who spent a lot of time early on creating a multiplatform multi-threaded game engine. Western developers have compensated by going far over-budget. EA has consistently been losing money as of late, despite creating a number of new, good properties (such as Spore and Crysis). 

[QUOTE="odin2019"][QUOTE="Teufelhuhn"]

What other recent PS3 ports have sold "millions"?-General_Ram-

Oblivion

nope, sorry. hasnt broke a million. Vgchartz pegs it around 700k.

Even so, there arent any other examples.

It did, otherwise it wouldnt be greatest hits

No its not false. Here is an interview with GS two months BEFORE Gabe Newell's qoute: GS "That was a great demo you had at the Sony press conference. Can you tell us what it's like developing on the PlayStation 3?" MR "It's a very normal development platform, something we can get our hands around. We already know Open GL; we've been doing Open GL since Unreal 1. We already know Nvidia graphics. PowerPC? Well, we've won Macintosh game of the year going back I don't know how many years." And I believe that Gears of War was shown at E3 '05 as well. You don't think it is disingenuous to use terms like "terrified" and "scare the crap out of everybody"?skektek

The E3 demos of Gears of War were running on alpha kits that only had a single core. There's no way of being certain that the UE3 demo running on the PS3 was multithreaded either. Given the power of the Cell, it's definitely possible to run early games without fully taking advantage of it. I hadn't remembered those early demos, though. 

It's not disingenuous to use those terms, considering major Western developers have been hit hard by the costs of next-generation development. Need I remind you that EA has been losing money six quarters running? They ought to be terrified. 

Valve isn't bashing the technology. But they could see the trends coming. New technology that dramatically increases your costs and requires you to rewrite your code nearly from scratch to get it to run as it should is a big deal. In the context of a talk to other developers, those sorts of things should be said. 

EDIT: Epic was not multithreading the UT3 PS3 demo from E3 2005. 

We haven't really delved into the Cell all that deeply yet. All we've done is mostly take advantage of just the normal PowerPC core and the RSX graphics, so we really look forward to getting home and tackling all kinds of cool stuff on the Cell.

Mark Rein

[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

[QUOTE="skektek"]No its not false. Here is an interview with GS two months BEFORE Gabe Newell's qoute: GS "That was a great demo you had at the Sony press conference. Can you tell us what it's like developing on the PlayStation 3?" MR "It's a very normal development platform, something we can get our hands around. We already know Open GL; we've been doing Open GL since Unreal 1. We already know Nvidia graphics. PowerPC? Well, we've won Macintosh game of the year going back I don't know how many years." And I believe that Gears of War was shown at E3 '05 as well. You don't think it is disingenuous to use terms like "terrified" and "scare the crap out of everybody"?sonicmj1

The E3 demos of Gears of War were running on alpha kits that only had a single core. There's no way of being certain that the UE3 demo running on the PS3 was multithreaded either. Given the power of the Cell, it's definitely possible to run early games without fully taking advantage of it. I hadn't remembered those early demos, though. 

It's not disingenuous to use those terms, considering major Western developers have been hit hard by the costs of next-generation development. Need I remind you that EA has been losing money six quarters running? They ought to be terrified. 

Valve isn't bashing the technology. But they could see the trends coming. New technology that dramatically increases your costs and requires you to rewrite your code nearly from scratch to get it to run as it should is a big deal. In the context of a talk to other developers, those sorts of things should be said. 

EDIT: Epic was not multithreading the UT3 PS3 demo from E3 2005. 

We haven't really delved into the Cell all that deeply yet. All we've done is mostly take advantage of just the normal PowerPC core and the RSX graphics, so we really look forward to getting home and tackling all kinds of cool stuff on the Cell.

Mark Rein

I've already explained this ad infinitum (you actually quoted me in this very post explaining it). Re-read through the thread, if you still don't understand then that will be your problem not mine.skektek

This is a challenging, exciting, scary and expensive exercise for Valve but they see it as an important key for the future and success of their gaming titles. Gabe mentioned that this is the "most significant development to PC games since the advent of the 3D card..."TweakTown

Valve makes a good case for its hybrid threading model, although it's hard to argue against using the most appropriate threading approach for a given task. Creating a programming framework that allows that kind of flexibility was apparently very difficult, but in the end, Valve says it will enable games that competitors who don't make the same investment in multithreading simply won't be able to match. Hybrid threading has also proven to be an asset in the company's work with Microsoft's multi-core Xbox 360 console, and Valve says it sets them up nicely for what they believe is a "post-GPU" era looming over the horizon. Interestingly, though, Valve noted that its model isn't particularly applicable to the PlayStation 3's Cell processor.TechReport