Valve....Stupidity or laziness?

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

[QUOTE="Makari"][QUOTE="skektek"]Send it to Valve not me. This is from Gabe Newell's own mouth: "So it's not even clear that over the lifespan of these next generation systems that they will be solved problems. 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."skektek

I still don't see how he's dumping on it. 

Gabe Newell's words were that multithreading was a difficult thing that would cost a lot of money and require a significant investment of time and resources, something that would involve a big change from development practices over the past generation. Gabe Newell's rhetoric was that the advent of multicore systems was a challenge that had to be met by developers who were creating for those platforms, Valve among them. Gabe Newell's actions were to take the necessary steps within the company to embrace multithreading in their engine, such that they take advantage of multi-core processors better than just about any other company out there.

Sounds completely in line with their rhetoric. 

You said that Valve was lazy, that they were stuck in their old development environment and unwilling to change. You clung to this three-year-old quote about the difficulties of multi-core development as proof of that. But time has shown that Valve chose to invest time and money to overcome those difficulties and solve those problems. 

How is that lazy? 

[QUOTE="skektek"][QUOTE="Makari"] So what's the fancy debate word for 'I don't care what the proof is in terms of what their actual ACTIONS are, I'm going to base entire my argument off of a quote taken out of context?'sonicmj1

I still don't see how he's dumping on it. 

Gabe Newell's words were that multithreading was a difficult thing that would cost a lot of money and require a significant investment of time and resources, something that would involve a big change from development practices over the past generation. Gabe Newell's actions were to take the necessary steps within the company to embrace multithreading in their engine, such that they take advantage of multi-core processors better than just about any other company out there. 

You said that Valve was lazy, that they were stuck in their old development environment and unwilling to change. You clung to this three-year-old quote about the difficulties of multi-core development as proof of that. But time has shown that Valve chose to invest time and money to overcome those difficulties and solve those problems. 

How is that lazy? 

Instead of approaching new technology with passion and enthusiasm they approached with fear and trepidation which turned out to be mostly, if not entirely, unfounded. Aversion to change is one of the defining characteristics of apathy.skektek

So now they aren't lazy, they're apathetic? Even though they embraced multicore processors in their engine to a degree GREATER than any other PC developer on the market? 

You aren't making sense. If they hate change as much as you say, why would they spend the resources to integrate multithreading into their engine so well? 

[QUOTE="skektek"]Instead of approaching new technology with passion and enthusiasm they approached with fear and trepidation which turned out to be mostly, if not entirely, unfounded. Aversion to change is one of the defining characteristics of apathy.sonicmj1

So now they aren't lazy, they're apathetic? Even though they embraced multicore processors in their engine to a degree GREATER than any other PC developer on the market? 

You aren't making sense. If they hate change as much as you say, why would they spend the resources to integrate multithreading into their engine so well? 

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]Instead of approaching new technology with passion and enthusiasm they approached with fear and trepidation which turned out to be mostly, if not entirely, unfounded. Aversion to change is one of the defining characteristics of apathy.skektek

So now they aren't lazy, they're apathetic? Even though they embraced multicore processors in their engine to a degree GREATER than any other PC developer on the market? 

You aren't making sense. If they hate change as much as you say, why would they spend the resources to integrate multithreading into their engine so well? 

Which is exactly what Valve did, they were apathetic towards multicore, but they worked hard to implenent it in their engines, so they definitly were not lazy. 

no, you can feel apathy towards something and yet still work very hard on it. Which is exactly what Valve did, they were apathetic towards multicore, but they worked hard to implenent it in their engines, so they definitly were not lazy.AdrianWerner

[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

They are small.

Just because your studio is small does not mean you cant have so much success... :|

I gave you reasons, if you cant even bother proving them wrong in calling them 'lazy', then your whole argument refuting me is void... how lazy of you

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"]no, you can feel apathy towards something and yet still work very hard on it. Which is exactly what Valve did, they were apathetic towards multicore, but they worked hard to implenent it in their engines, so they definitly were not lazy.skektek

Sure, but you completely failed to back up your claim about Valve being lazy.

And no wonder they feel apathy towards PS3, almost every developer does 

I can't blame any developer for not liking the PS3 because the architecture is not ready for gaming yet.  Dev's don't have the proper libraries to create properly multithreaded games (no bugs, deadlock, crashes, etc).

In the near future, once game devlelopers have a much better understanding of heavily multithreaded programs, the PS3 will start to shine.  And when I say the near future, I mean once the PS3 is dead.

Maybe they realized their crappy games can't compete on the ps3.  well thats what i think

Left 4 lame, jk but still i don't like how Valve makes its FPSs

Maybe they realized their crappy games can't compete on the ps3.  well thats what i think

Left 4 lame, jk but still i don't like how Valve makes its FPSs

LastRedMage

What are you talking about... half-life... team fortress... counter strike... ever heard of thoses?

Compare Valve to EA dev stuios.

They are small.

Just because your studio is small does not mean you cant have so much success... :|

I gave you reasons, if you cant even bother proving them wrong in calling them 'lazy', then your whole argument refuting me is void... how lazy of you

skrat_01

who is talking about EA studios? lol

im not talking about them.

in general other 3rd party small companies have taken the time to learn ps3 and become knowledgeable on it.

valve didnt. because they think its too hard :roll:

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard? yes they did but they went ahead and overcame the obstacle.

and you have to prove why valve isnt lazy. their comments are proof enough when they said its too hard to develop therefore its trash....

LAZY

 

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard? 

superjim42

[QUOTE="superjim42"]

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard?

AdrianWerner

for example you have the devs of the latest spyro game....which flopped. the company is called entrages liabelue or something who have made games mainly for ps2, ds....and here they are full next gen development, trying to give it a go.

i think its common sense that valve are more talented than them and yet still jump on the 'ps3 too hard' wagon

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Compare Valve to EA dev stuios.

They are small.

Just because your studio is small does not mean you cant have so much success... :|

I gave you reasons, if you cant even bother proving them wrong in calling them 'lazy', then your whole argument refuting me is void... how lazy of you

superjim42

who is talking about EA studios? lol

im not talking about them.

in general other 3rd party small companies have taken the time to learn ps3 and become knowledgeable on it.

valve didnt. because they think its too hard :roll:

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard? yes they did but they went ahead and overcame the obstacle.

and you have to prove why valve isnt lazy. their comments are proof enough when they said its too hard to develop therefore its trash....

LAZY

That's like me saying why isn't MSG4 ported to the PC... laziness.

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

Compare Valve to EA dev stuios.

They are small.

Just because your studio is small does not mean you cant have so much success... :|

I gave you reasons, if you cant even bother proving them wrong in calling them 'lazy', then your whole argument refuting me is void... how lazy of you

Bebi_vegeta

who is talking about EA studios? lol

im not talking about them.

in general other 3rd party small companies have taken the time to learn ps3 and become knowledgeable on it.

valve didnt. because they think its too hard :roll:

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard? yes they did but they went ahead and overcame the obstacle.

and you have to prove why valve isnt lazy. their comments are proof enough when they said its too hard to develop therefore its trash....

LAZY

That's like me saying why isn't MSG4 ported to the PC... laziness.

except konami or kojima never said the pc is too hard to develop for.

FAIL

nice try though

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="superjim42"]

 

who is talking about EA studios? lol

im not talking about them.

in general other 3rd party small companies have taken the time to learn ps3 and become knowledgeable on it.

valve didnt. because they think its too hard :roll:

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard? yes they did but they went ahead and overcame the obstacle.

and you have to prove why valve isnt lazy. their comments are proof enough when they said its too hard to develop therefore its trash....

LAZY

superjim42

That's like me saying why isn't MSG4 ported to the PC... laziness.

except konami or kojima never said the pc is too hard to develop for.

FAIL

nice try though

So why don't they do it? 

So why don't they do it?

Bebi_vegeta

contract of exclusivity. im not sure if sony paid them or kojima remained loyal to the sony fans. but either way its exclusive.

left for dead has no such exclusivity in place.

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So why don't they do it?

superjim42

contract of exclusivity. im not sure if sony paid them or kojima remained loyal to the sony fans. but either way its exclusive.

left for dead has no such exclusivity in place.

So are you gona blame every developpers who don't port there games on PS3???

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So why don't they do it?

superjim42

contract of exclusivity. im not sure if sony paid them or kojima remained loyal to the sony fans. but either way its exclusive.

left for dead has no such exclusivity in place.

nonsense THere's no proof that Sony paid Konami, not to mention they whenever Sony was paying 3rd party publisher for exclusivity such exclusivity was always merely console-exclusivity. And loyalty? MGS and MGS2 were on PC. So no such thing. You can't explain lack of MGS4 on PC with exclusivity or loyalty. I guess this means Konami is lazy. 

[QUOTE="AdrianWerner"][QUOTE="superjim42"]

 

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard?

superjim42

for example you have the devs of the latest spyro game....which flopped. the company is called entrages liabelue or something who have made games mainly for ps2, ds....and here they are full next gen development, trying to give it a go.

i think its common sense that valve are more talented than them and yet still jump on the 'ps3 too hard' wagon

And it's not like Valve can't do it, but they do have limited resources and those resources are simply better spent making PCgames, that's rather obvious, isn't it? M 

[QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"]

So why don't they do it?

Bebi_vegeta

contract of exclusivity. im not sure if sony paid them or kojima remained loyal to the sony fans. but either way its exclusive.

left for dead has no such exclusivity in place.

So are you gona blame every developpers who don't port there games on PS3???

i like how you go off topic. this has nothing to do with what you said.

valve said ps3 is too hard. its trash. that = lazy

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Compare Valve to EA dev stuios.

They are small.

Just because your studio is small does not mean you cant have so much success... :|

I gave you reasons, if you cant even bother proving them wrong in calling them 'lazy', then your whole argument refuting me is void... how lazy of you

superjim42

who is talking about EA studios? lol

im not talking about them.

in general other 3rd party small companies have taken the time to learn ps3 and become knowledgeable on it.

valve didnt. because they think its too hard :roll:

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard? yes they did but they went ahead and overcame the obstacle.

and you have to prove why valve isnt lazy. their comments are proof enough when they said its too hard to develop therefore its trash....

LAZY

Are you yet to realise that?

:|

[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.

Can you play other Source games like Half Life 2?

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]

Compare Valve to EA dev stuios.

They are small.

Just because your studio is small does not mean you cant have so much success... :|

I gave you reasons, if you cant even bother proving them wrong in calling them 'lazy', then your whole argument refuting me is void... how lazy of you

superjim42

who is talking about EA studios? lol

im not talking about them.

in general other 3rd party small companies have taken the time to learn ps3 and become knowledgeable on it.

valve didnt. because they think its too hard :roll:

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard? yes they did but they went ahead and overcame the obstacle.

and you have to prove why valve isnt lazy. their comments are proof enough when they said its too hard to develop therefore its trash....

LAZY

To tell the truth, Valve publishes a fair bit of their games under EA now. They got fed up with Sierra (RIP).

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

Compare Valve to EA dev stuios.

They are small.

Just because your studio is small does not mean you cant have so much success... :|

I gave you reasons, if you cant even bother proving them wrong in calling them 'lazy', then your whole argument refuting me is void... how lazy of you

skrat_01

who is talking about EA studios? lol

im not talking about them.

in general other 3rd party small companies have taken the time to learn ps3 and become knowledgeable on it.

valve didnt. because they think its too hard :roll:

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard? yes they did but they went ahead and overcame the obstacle.

and you have to prove why valve isnt lazy. their comments are proof enough when they said its too hard to develop therefore its trash....

LAZY

Are you yet to realise that?

:|

and are you yet to actually read the comments from valve about the ps3?

its not that they dont want to. its because it is too hard for them so they decide not to.

im sorry but you can argue all you want. their own words out of their own mouths is enough evidence

yikes. seems quite a few cows are sad about left 4 dead. 

ya made your beds, now sleep in them! :P 

yikes. seems quite a few cows are sad about left 4 dead.

ya made your beds, now sleep in them! :P

3picuri3

i couldnt care less i have a gamign rig. enjoy your downgraded version of left for dead on xbox360.

ooo that must have hurt

and you have to prove why valve isnt lazy.

superjim42

Please tell me this is a joke post. I despair, I really do.

[QUOTE="3picuri3"]

yikes. seems quite a few cows are sad about left 4 dead.

ya made your beds, now sleep in them! :P

superjim42

i couldnt care less i have a gamign rig. enjoy your downgraded version of left for dead on xbox360.

ooo that must have hurt

nope :)

i have an amazing gaming rig - but i'll be playing it on 360 despite the visual difference as I don't judge games superficially.

i've played both demos and both are fun, despite the visual differences. guess i'm just not as petty as some people. also helps that most of my mates will be playing it on 360. 

[QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="3picuri3"]

yikes. seems quite a few cows are sad about left 4 dead.

ya made your beds, now sleep in them! :P

3picuri3

i couldnt care less i have a gamign rig. enjoy your downgraded version of left for dead on xbox360.

ooo that must have hurt

nope :)

i have an amazing gaming rig - but i'll be playing it on 360 despite the visual difference as I don't judge games superficially.

i've played both demos and both are fun, despite the visual differences. guess i'm just not as petty as some people. also helps that most of my mates will be playing it on 360.

ye your 1st post doesnt petty :roll:

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="superjim42"]

 

i couldnt care less i have a gamign rig. enjoy your downgraded version of left for dead on xbox360.

ooo that must have hurt

superjim42

nope :)

i have an amazing gaming rig - but i'll be playing it on 360 despite the visual difference as I don't judge games superficially.

i've played both demos and both are fun, despite the visual differences. guess i'm just not as petty as some people. also helps that most of my mates will be playing it on 360.

ye your 1st post doesnt petty :roll:

i'm guessing you thought i was petty when commenting on the activity in this thread. i don't think it's petty at all, just an observation. i'm shocked this thread is still going on - and i have every right to say 'you've made your beds' because nearly every insult in this thread thrown at Valve is purely because of jealousy. very few people are making solid rational arguments... so yeah, not petty - just an observation based on reading the thread.  

how would i be jealous if i insult valve for their laziness?

i can play the game on pc no big deal. im just talking about the comments made by valve.

they said the ps3 is too hard to develop for so therefore they will pass and its trash.

that speaks for itself

how would i be jealous if i insult valve for their laziness?

i can play the game on pc no big deal. im just talking about the comments made by valve.

they said the ps3 is too hard to develop for so therefore they will pass and its trash.

that speaks for itself

superjim42

because it's an insult to assume it's laziness. laziness doesn't even make sense as an excuse.. it's not like the employees at Valve are all on oxygen masks sitting on couches, unable to even walk to the bathroom for release.

this is all business. i'm sure if there was interest by a publisher, say EA, to attempt a port of the game - i'm sure they'd do it.  

and are you yet to actually read the comments from valve about the ps3?

its not that they dont want to. its because it is too hard for them so they decide not to.

im sorry but you can argue all you want. their own words out of their own mouths is enough evidence

 

superjim42

So why wasn't Crysis ported to consoles? Crytek said it couldn't be done. They must think it's too hard. Such lazy developers. 

Man, Kojima Productions is such a lazy developer. They think it'd be too much work to make the 360 able to run MGS4. They should just drop whatever they're doing and devote hundreds of thousands of man-hours to completely rewrite the game's code so that it runs on the 360. 

:|

Seriously, everything else that Valve has ever done has shown a commitment to quality. They have never taken the easy way out when it comes to developing their games. They polish their titles obsessively, leading to incredibly long development cycles. They hone the Source engine to ensure that it runs well on a huge range of machines. Instead of leaving Team Fortress 2 as it is after spending 8 years creating it, they push out new updates every few months to keep the game fresh. 

A lazy developer would have dropped support for their game shortly after releasing it. A lazy developer would rush out new Episodes of Half-Life 2 every six months regardless of whether they lived up to the standard of quality that their earlier titles had. A lazy developer wouldn't give a bunch of Digipen students a year and a half to create their pet project, instead forcing them to push it out quickly and try to sell it on novelty and association alone. 

Just because Valve's priorities don't involve porting their games to a console that isn't very port-friendly doesn't mean that they are lazy. Every other piece of evidence says otherwise. 

[QUOTE="superjim42"]

how would i be jealous if i insult valve for their laziness?

i can play the game on pc no big deal. im just talking about the comments made by valve.

they said the ps3 is too hard to develop for so therefore they will pass and its trash.

that speaks for itself

3picuri3

because it's an insult to assume it's laziness. laziness doesn't even make sense as an excuse.. it's not like the employees at Valve are all on oxygen masks sitting on couches, unable to even walk to the bathroom for release.

this is all business. i'm sure if there was interest by a publisher, say EA, to attempt a port of the game - i'm sure they'd do it.

valve should be ashamed of themselves. they are like one of the best devs around and for them to pass on ps3 just because its too hard for them is complete BS!

they are very talented and are you telling me they cant get their head around it when nearly every other dev already has done?

[QUOTE="superjim42"]

and are you yet to actually read the comments from valve about the ps3?

its not that they dont want to. its because it is too hard for them so they decide not to.

im sorry but you can argue all you want. their own words out of their own mouths is enough evidence

sonicmj1

So why wasn't Crysis ported to consoles? Crytek said it couldn't be done. They must think it's too hard. Such lazy developers.

Man, Kojima Productions is such a lazy developer. They think it'd be too much work to make the 360 able to run MGS4. They should just drop whatever they're doing and devote hundreds of thousands of man-hours to completely rewrite the game's code so that it runs on the 360.

:|

Seriously, everything else that Valve has ever done has shown a commitment to quality. They have never taken the easy way out when it comes to developing their games. They polish their titles obsessively, leading to incredibly long development cycles. They hone the Source engine to ensure that it runs well on a huge range of machines. Instead of leaving Team Fortress 2 as it is after spending 8 years creating it, they push out new updates every few months to keep the game fresh.

A lazy developer would have dropped support for their game shortly after releasing it. A lazy developer would rush out new Episodes of Half-Life 2 every six months regardless of whether they lived up to the standard of quality that their earlier titles had. A lazy developer wouldn't give a bunch of Digipen students a year and a half to create their pet project, instead forcing them to push it out quickly and try to sell it on novelty and association alone.

Just because Valve's priorities don't involve porting their games to a console that isn't very port-friendly doesn't mean that they are lazy. Every other piece of evidence says otherwise.

crysis not possible on consoles. your point fails.

mgs4 is an exclusive. point failed again.

try again champ

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

So why wasn't Crysis ported to consoles? Crytek said it couldn't be done. They must think it's too hard. Such lazy developers.

Man, Kojima Productions is such a lazy developer. They think it'd be too much work to make the 360 able to run MGS4. They should just drop whatever they're doing and devote hundreds of thousands of man-hours to completely rewrite the game's code so that it runs on the 360.

:|

Seriously, everything else that Valve has ever done has shown a commitment to quality. They have never taken the easy way out when it comes to developing their games. They polish their titles obsessively, leading to incredibly long development cycles. They hone the Source engine to ensure that it runs well on a huge range of machines. Instead of leaving Team Fortress 2 as it is after spending 8 years creating it, they push out new updates every few months to keep the game fresh.

A lazy developer would have dropped support for their game shortly after releasing it. A lazy developer would rush out new Episodes of Half-Life 2 every six months regardless of whether they lived up to the standard of quality that their earlier titles had. A lazy developer wouldn't give a bunch of Digipen students a year and a half to create their pet project, instead forcing them to push it out quickly and try to sell it on novelty and association alone.

Just because Valve's priorities don't involve porting their games to a console that isn't very port-friendly doesn't mean that they are lazy. Every other piece of evidence says otherwise.

superjim42

crysis not possible on consoles. your point fails.

mgs4 is an exclusive. point failed again.

try again champ

How do you know Crysis isn't possible on consoles? Just because they say so? Maybe because if they said it was possible, but they were too lazy to do it, people would get mad. How do you know?

And as far as we know, MGS4 has no reason to remain exclusive besides 'loyalty' or the sort of reasons that you would describe as laziness.

Of course these developers aren't lazy, just like Valve. This is because the games they create SHOW that they are committed, hard-working developers. Just like Valve. I gave you an enormous body of evidence in my post above showing why Valve isn't lazy that you ignored.

Fixating on a single decision that has good business rationale behind it as proof of Valve's laziness, when everything else they have done shows otherwise, is practically a textbook example of confirmation bias.  

[QUOTE="3picuri3"][QUOTE="superjim42"]

how would i be jealous if i insult valve for their laziness?

i can play the game on pc no big deal. im just talking about the comments made by valve.

they said the ps3 is too hard to develop for so therefore they will pass and its trash.

that speaks for itself

superjim42

because it's an insult to assume it's laziness. laziness doesn't even make sense as an excuse.. it's not like the employees at Valve are all on oxygen masks sitting on couches, unable to even walk to the bathroom for release.

this is all business. i'm sure if there was interest by a publisher, say EA, to attempt a port of the game - i'm sure they'd do it.

valve should be ashamed of themselves. they are like one of the best devs around and for them to pass on ps3 just because its too hard for them is complete BS!

they are very talented and are you telling me they cant get their head around it when nearly every other dev already has done?

[QUOTE="superjim42"][QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

So why wasn't Crysis ported to consoles? Crytek said it couldn't be done. They must think it's too hard. Such lazy developers.

Man, Kojima Productions is such a lazy developer. They think it'd be too much work to make the 360 able to run MGS4. They should just drop whatever they're doing and devote hundreds of thousands of man-hours to completely rewrite the game's code so that it runs on the 360.

:|

Seriously, everything else that Valve has ever done has shown a commitment to quality. They have never taken the easy way out when it comes to developing their games. They polish their titles obsessively, leading to incredibly long development cycles. They hone the Source engine to ensure that it runs well on a huge range of machines. Instead of leaving Team Fortress 2 as it is after spending 8 years creating it, they push out new updates every few months to keep the game fresh.

A lazy developer would have dropped support for their game shortly after releasing it. A lazy developer would rush out new Episodes of Half-Life 2 every six months regardless of whether they lived up to the standard of quality that their earlier titles had. A lazy developer wouldn't give a bunch of Digipen students a year and a half to create their pet project, instead forcing them to push it out quickly and try to sell it on novelty and association alone.

Just because Valve's priorities don't involve porting their games to a console that isn't very port-friendly doesn't mean that they are lazy. Every other piece of evidence says otherwise.

sonicmj1

crysis not possible on consoles. your point fails.

mgs4 is an exclusive. point failed again.

try again champ

How do you know Crysis isn't possible on consoles? Just because they say so? Maybe because if they said it was possible, but they were too lazy to do it, people would get mad. How do you know?

And as far as we know, MGS4 has no reason to remain exclusive besides 'loyalty' or the sort of reasons that you would describe as laziness.

Of course these developers aren't lazy, just like Valve. This is because the games they create SHOW that they are committed, hard-working developers. Just like Valve. I gave you an enormous body of evidence in my post above showing why Valve isn't lazy that you ignored.

Fixating on a single decision that has good business rationale behind it as proof of Valve's laziness, when everything else they have done shows otherwise, is practically a textbook example of confirmation bias.

anyone with common sense knows crysis is not possible in its current form on consoles LOL

i laugh at your justification attempts.

mgs4 is an exclusive. that is fact

the reason for you thinking its an exclusive i.e. loyalty is nothing but speculation. and has no effect in the arguement.

try again champ

It's NOT that they can't "get their head around it". It's that the time and money spent isn't worth it to them, especially since what you learn programming the PS3 doesn't translate to ANY of their other work. Give it up superjim, you tried to jump in on skektec's opinion but you didn't even understand his point. Given Sony's propensity for NOT carrying over architectures stuff you learn for the PS3 won't even translate to the PS4. It's an awful lot to invest in such a solitary platform, and it doesn't have a big userbase to justify it either. To argue that its lazy is stupid IMO.

Steppy_76

that is fair enough dude. you make a good point. im not arguing for no reason. im just arguing because from looking at what valve said it points to lazyness.

sure they may not see any future by inversting in learning the ps3 thats fine. but to call it trash is childish and a company of that caliber to say that just makes them look bad.

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

[QUOTE="skektek"]Instead of approaching new technology with passion and enthusiasm they approached with fear and trepidation which turned out to be mostly, if not entirely, unfounded. Aversion to change is one of the defining characteristics of apathy.skektek

So now they aren't lazy, they're apathetic? Even though they embraced multicore processors in their engine to a degree GREATER than any other PC developer on the market? 

You aren't making sense. If they hate change as much as you say, why would they spend the resources to integrate multithreading into their engine so well? 

[QUOTE="Bebi_vegeta"][QUOTE="superjim42"]

 

contract of exclusivity. im not sure if sony paid them or kojima remained loyal to the sony fans. but either way its exclusive.

left for dead has no such exclusivity in place.

superjim42

So are you gona blame every developpers who don't port there games on PS3???

i like how you go off topic. this has nothing to do with what you said.

valve said ps3 is too hard. its trash. that = lazy

How is this off topic, you blame valve for not porting there game on PS3... Why don't you ask other game developper to port on PS3? Maybe you could informe Valve how to port a PS3 game if you think it's so easy. Just respect that they don't care about the PS3 and make great games for other platformes... really, this is the reason you "cry".

[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]

It's NOT that they can't "get their head around it". It's that the time and money spent isn't worth it to them, especially since what you learn programming the PS3 doesn't translate to ANY of their other work. Give it up superjim, you tried to jump in on skektec's opinion but you didn't even understand his point. Given Sony's propensity for NOT carrying over architectures stuff you learn for the PS3 won't even translate to the PS4. It's an awful lot to invest in such a solitary platform, and it doesn't have a big userbase to justify it either. To argue that its lazy is stupid IMO.

superjim42

that is fair enough dude. you make a good point. im not arguing for no reason. im just arguing because from looking at what valve said it points to lazyness.

sure they may not see any future by inversting in learning the ps3 thats fine. but to call it trash is childish and a company of that caliber to say that just makes them look bad.

Can I have a link to this statement, about it being to hard to port on PS3?

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

 

who is talking about EA studios? lol

im not talking about them.

in general other 3rd party small companies have taken the time to learn ps3 and become knowledgeable on it.

valve didnt. because they think its too hard :roll:

did the smaller companies also not feel its hard? yes they did but they went ahead and overcame the obstacle.

and you have to prove why valve isnt lazy. their comments are proof enough when they said its too hard to develop therefore its trash....

LAZY

superjim42

Are you yet to realise that?

:|

and are you yet to actually read the comments from valve about the ps3?

its not that they dont want to. its because it is too hard for them so they decide not to.

im sorry but you can argue all you want. their own words out of their own mouths is enough evidence

Gabe calling the PS3 a 'disaster' and Doug Lombardi saying that its architecture was complex, and developing for it was not viable?

[QUOTE="sonicmj1"]

How do you know Crysis isn't possible on consoles? Just because they say so? Maybe because if they said it was possible, but they were too lazy to do it, people would get mad. How do you know?

And as far as we know, MGS4 has no reason to remain exclusive besides 'loyalty' or the sort of reasons that you would describe as laziness.

Of course these developers aren't lazy, just like Valve. This is because the games they create SHOW that they are committed, hard-working developers. Just like Valve. I gave you an enormous body of evidence in my post above showing why Valve isn't lazy that you ignored.

Fixating on a single decision that has good business rationale behind it as proof of Valve's laziness, when everything else they have done shows otherwise, is practically a textbook example of confirmation bias.

superjim42

anyone with common sense knows crysis is not possible in its current form on consoles LOL

i laugh at your justification attempts.

mgs4 is an exclusive. that is fact

the reason for you thinking its an exclusive i.e. loyalty is nothing but speculation. and has no effect in the arguement.

try again champ

In its current form? Nope. In another, scaled down form (IE Far Cry Instincts)? Most definitely. Crytek has already created a working tech demo of a scaled down console version of the CryEngine 2, it was shown at GDC.

His "justification attempts" are prefectly valid and point out the flaws in your argument. 

This argument isn't about the fact that MGS 4 is an exclusive. For all of the reasons you've stated as to why Valve is just being "lazy" by not porting L4D to the PS3, one could also justify why Kojima is supposedly being lazy for not porting MGS 4 to the 360. 

The fact of the matter is, if Valve could justify the cost of porting L4D to the PS3, they would do it. There is no way to effectively prove that they are just being lazy by your definition.

Aw, still no "They're just operating with the same goal and interest in mind that all companies have; profit" option yet? Yeesh...

If Valve doesn't think they can gain anything from porting L4D to the PS3, then that's the scenario that would probably unfold. Look how poorly the PS3 version of Orange Box did in comparison to the 360 version .Not even a fourth as many copies sold. And you call them "lazy" and "stupid" for opting out of a likely repeat of that...