Don't wanna read through 15 pages. Has anyone mentioned that Valve only has around 150 employees? Obviously, management figured that the manpower put into a PS3 version would be better spent elsewhere, like better support for Live this time around.Noldorin2646We tried to mention that, but the nay-sayers said more or less 'nyah nyah we don't believe you because they make such good games / programs even though we say they're also lazy.'
Valve....Stupidity or laziness?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I really doubt there are "millions" of PS3 owners willing to buy a port as there arent many PS3 games that have sold millions. And the Orange box is one of those games that havent sold millions on the PS3.
Anyway, it's just that Valve doesnt like the PS3. It's the very reason they havent patched the PS3 version of the Oragne box.
Yet Valve takes advantage of advanced techniques within that environment and are often on the forefront of those technologies(like HDR lighting). Also, the things they speak out about are things that they don't think add anything for devs. You have your opinion that they are lazy simply because they stay within the FAR most popular and profitable realm, even though they do more within that realm than most other developers. Stop acting like your opinion is fact, it is entirely opinionated and an ignorant one IMO born out of your bias for the PS3.Steppy_76Their opinion doesn't have more weight because it seems *to you* like its a charitable action. The fact is that Valve has no experience outside of x86/D3D, the only thing their opinion confirms is that console hardware is different and that they are very pessimistic.
t
I'm sure if they were really guaranteed "millions" of sales they would be more keen on porting it.
Companies like Valve don't make decisions based on which console they like better, or what they feel like doing. They do it based on whether they think they will make or lose money.Teufelhuhn
Plus Valve is not a big company. They more than likly don't really have the people to spare to make another port. Wasn't the PS3 Orange Box done by EA not Valve?
[QUOTE="Steppy_76"]Yet Valve takes advantage of advanced techniques within that environment and are often on the forefront of those technologies(like HDR lighting). Also, the things they speak out about are things that they don't think add anything for devs. You have your opinion that they are lazy simply because they stay within the FAR most popular and profitable realm, even though they do more within that realm than most other developers. Stop acting like your opinion is fact, it is entirely opinionated and an ignorant one IMO born out of your bias for the PS3.skektekTheir opinion doesn't have more weight because it seems *to you* like its a charitable action. The fact is that Valve has no experience outside of x86/D3D, the only thing their opinion confirms is that console hardware is different and that they are very pessimistic.Valve used to work with OpenGL also. What are all these platforms they "should" be working on? Every single point you make points to being prudent businesswise, and NOT laziness. I swear, you're just mad because they don't like the PS3 as a development platform. For them to not be correct, show us some examples of devs using the PS3 to do things nobody else can do or cases where it is doing the same things other platforms do but with less work, because until then you can't even support your "lazy" argument. The fact that they do more with the x86/D3D realm than most other devs and they do it earlier shows that they are anything BUT lazy.
anybody that say this has anything to do with being lazy really doesn't understand the software industry - this is a matter of money. if PS3 had a bigger install base. AND if PS3 fans actually bought orange box - AND if it wasn't a pain in the ass to port - it would be done. no laziness here - just fiscal responsibility. laziness rarely enters the dev world believe it or not (if the devs aren't shovelware), it's just a system wars excuse that console fanatics toss around. fact.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?
myke2010
[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?
like i said - it's just a waste of money for Valve. if the opportunity was there and it didn't cost so much to port then they'd do it - but as is PS3 is 3rd place and not selling tremendously well and ps3 valve titles don't have a great history. simple smart business.
I don't care that Valve didn't port to the PS3, that unto itself doesn't mean much. What is relevant is that Valve has never ventured outside of the x86/D3D environment. Again, that unto itself doesn't indicate anything meaningful but when you compile in the fact that they steadfastly adhere to their monogamy while dumping on anything new and different (with a severally under qualified opinion) you start getting the picture that they are a lazy developer.skektek
I understand this. What I don't get is the jump from, "Valve develops solely within the x86/D3D environment" to "Valve is a lazy developer." There are numerous reasons why Valve might choose to remain platform exclusive that have nothing to do with them being lazy. Their comments on the viability of other platforms have no relation to their actual work ethic, which, by all indications, is very strong.
Does Insomniac have to start making PC games, lest they be considered lazy for only working in environments created by Sony? It seems almost a non-sequitor to me.
I think the real question here is this:
Is Sony stupid or just lazy.
for the first gen ever Sony decided to make a console without meeting with developers first. this is something they always did in the past, got feedback to see what was wanted in the next console from developers. they skipped that this time because they had their own business interests ranked above developers in terms of importance. it's a shame, could have been an awesome gen for all gamers had Sony not been so arrogant.
Summed up to perfection! Sony had the industry in the bag and blew it like the Patriots with 2 minutes to go, baby!*SIGH* I'll try to explain this one more time: My position is that Valve is a lazy PC developer; you strawman that position into 'Valve is lazy because they didn't port L4D to the PS3' and you proceed to pick apart your strawman while patting yourself on the back. I don't care that Valve didn't port to the PS3, that unto itself doesn't mean much. What is relevant is that Valve has never ventured outside of the x86/D3D environment. Again, that unto itself doesn't indicate anything meaningful but when you compile in the fact that they steadfastly adhere to their monogamy while dumping on anything new and different (with a severally under qualified opinion) you start getting the picture that they are a lazy developer.skektek(tldr; i'm not strawmanning anything, i'm asking you what actually makes valve lazy besides your making things up with zero to back it up) An extra bump for you, since you reminded me of this - why do you say Valve didn't venture outside? You're trying to say they didn't look into the PS3 architecture and research it right alongside their process of researching the best method to implement multicore processes? Because you would be dead wrong, and I know you've got nothing to back that up besides your own opinion because it's simply not true. Valve said the PS3 architecture is needlessly complicated and stupid. That's it. When someone that puts a hell of a lot more effort into optimizing multicore than anybody else has says a specific implementation of it sucks, THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM LAZY. You're trying to say Honda is lazy for not using turbochargers for a long time, or GM is lazy for not using rotary engines anymore, or Toyota is lazy for not putting RWD on their economy cars. I can say BMW and Porsche never ventured outside of RWD M#/GT# performance cars - this somehow makes them lazy and not one of the best at what they do because they decided AWD didn't fit in their plan? No. When there's a multitude of options out there, for someone to say some of them are bad or a waste of time does not somehow automatically place them into 'entrenched in their ways,' especially when they're still moving forward in a different direction. Here are the two facts for you: Valve has put more effort into multicore optimization and done better with it than most other devs for the last 2-3 years. Valve, after researching all the options, decided that the PS3 architecture is stupid and needlessly complicated for a world where efficiency does matter, especially for an independent - game development. They're not in the business of charity and throwing PS3 owners a bone just to show that they can. Address those if you're going to try to argue, because those are the two/three facts of the matter you're dealing with and that's the crux of their opinion on it. Trying to ignore the reasons they have for doing something and then attaching your own reasons in the supposed absence is just... yeah.
[QUOTE="skektek"]*SIGH* I'll try to explain this one more time: My position is that Valve is a lazy PC developer; you strawman that position into 'Valve is lazy because they didn't port L4D to the PS3' and you proceed to pick apart your strawman while patting yourself on the back. I don't care that Valve didn't port to the PS3, that unto itself doesn't mean much. What is relevant is that Valve has never ventured outside of the x86/D3D environment. Again, that unto itself doesn't indicate anything meaningful but when you compile in the fact that they steadfastly adhere to their monogamy while dumping on anything new and different (with a severally under qualified opinion) you start getting the picture that they are a lazy developer.Makari(tldr; i'm not strawmanning anything, i'm asking you what actually makes valve lazy besides your making things up with zero to back it up) An extra bump for you, since you reminded me of this - why do you say Valve didn't venture outside? You're trying to say they didn't look into the PS3 architecture and research it right alongside their process of researching the best method to implement multicore processes? Because you would be dead wrong, and I know you've got nothing to back that up besides your own opinion because it's simply not true. Valve said the PS3 architecture is needlessly complicated and stupid. That's it. When someone that puts a hell of a lot more effort into optimizing multicore than anybody else has says a specific implementation of it sucks, THAT DOES NOT MAKE THEM LAZY. You're trying to say Honda is lazy for not using turbochargers for a long time, or GM is lazy for not using rotary engines anymore, or Toyota is lazy for not putting RWD on their economy cars. I can say BMW and Porsche never ventured outside of RWD M#/GT# performance cars - this somehow makes them lazy and not one of the best at what they do because they decided AWD didn't fit in their plan? No. When there's a multitude of options out there, for someone to say some of them are bad or a waste of time does not somehow automatically place them into 'entrenched in their ways,' especially when they're still moving forward in a different direction. Here are the two facts for you: Valve has put more effort into multicore optimization and done better with it than most other devs for the last 2-3 years. Valve, after researching all the options, decided that the PS3 architecture is stupid and needlessly complicated for a world where efficiency does matter, especially for an independent - game development. They're not in the business of charity and throwing PS3 owners a bone just to show that they can. Address those if you're going to try to argue, because those are the two/three facts of the matter you're dealing with and that's the crux of their opinion on it. Trying to ignore the reasons they have for doing something and then attaching your own reasons in the supposed absence is just... yeah. Valve isn't a prolific company, in 12 years they have only 4 titles and a handful of mods. In the same time period developers like Insomniac, Naughty Dog and Epic have put out 11, 9, and 7 titles respectively. Their development experience is exclusive to the PC architecture while they openly dump on new and different technologies, specifically the Xbox 360 in this article. Don't make it sound like they carefully researched their opinion before reaching a conclusion. At the time that Gabe Newell spewed this tripe "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." the 360 hadn't even launched yet. Obviously he didn't take time to make an educated evaluation (considering the length of time he *might* have had with the hardware and the fact that multicore UE3 runs amazingly on the 360). Source is the only engine they have ever produced, and it was conceived and executed in a time where consumer multicore CPUs were being sold. I would hope that they could make in run well on current hardware and have *something* to show for their twelve years.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment