Valve Decides PS3 Not Worth Bothering With... OH WAIT!

  • Thread starter Robin
  • 34 comments
  • 3,725 views

Robin

Premium
16,799
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
gabenewell.jpg


Basically this guy (Gabe 'the PS3 is too hard to dev for' Newell) wants to stop releasing any Valve games for PS3 because they dont understand how to code for it and cannot be bothered getting their head round it. This is the excuse for why the orange box had so many issues.

I personally think its just plain lazy. Other devs like EA were using this excuse ages ago but now most seem to find development for the PS3 ok and first party studios are doing amazing things with the hardware. For the size of Valve they most employ some really useless people.

I think Valve has this PC only mindset which is fine but to then release everything on 360 and not PS3 its going to be a real kick in the teeth for Sony. Left 4 Dead is the first example of this.

Link (take your pick) - http://news.google.com/news/search?um=1&ned=uk&hl=en&q=playstation+3+valve

Robin.
 
Last edited:
I don't see this as a kick in the teeth to Sony considering they haven't done anything worth while since HalfLife and Left 4 dead was a 360 exclusive any way and taking into account how large the Ps3 install base is and continually growing it's valve` loss not to attempting to tap into the Ps3 market.
 
It's still Sony's fault for making coding so difficult.
 
It's still Sony's fault for making coding so difficult.

That was the same argument used for the PS2 and look how that turned out :)......The fact is some of these like devs like Gabe "Jabba the Hut Newell" are just plain lazy and use that as an excuse.
 
Plenty of other developers are fine with it. Including first time ones like Transmission Games (Ashes Cricket 09).
 
That was the same argument used for the PS2 and look how that turned out :)......The fact is some of these like devs like Gabe "Jabba the Hut Newell" are just plain lazy and use that as an excuse.

Not so. Sony's Pres. even said they purposely made it difficult as to prolong the longevity of the system. Why would anyone do that? They made developers spend extra resources on programming instead of being able to shift them towards creativity and features.
 
Not so. Sony's Pres. even said they purposely made it difficult as to prolong the longevity of the system. Why would anyone do that? They made developers spend extra resources on programming instead of being able to shift them towards creativity and features.
:lol: - do you really believe that?

The architecture is completely bespoke which is why to get the most out of it you need to work that little bit harder. They didn't do it on purpose...it's a side-effect of the architecture. Sony have released EDGE for PlayStation3 developers to try and make things easier as well as improve libraries and internal development involvement with third parties.

As for Valve and the PlayStation3...it's a matter of business. I'm sure if it was worth it Valve would develop on PlayStation3 but, considering they are way behind the curve now, they just don't see it being financially viable.
 
Valve tech guys are not good at all, no wonder they won't do anything on ps3 which is a shame. Just working with source I can tell you it's all kind of broken in so many ways.
 
Not so. Sony's Pres. even said they purposely made it difficult as to prolong the longevity of the system. Why would anyone do that? They made developers spend extra resources on programming instead of being able to shift them towards creativity and features.


You are kidding right?
Why would Sony want the PS3 to have a long lifespan? To increase revenue.
Does making it hard to program for increase revenue? Hell no.

It's called common sense mate.
 
Why would Sony want the PS3 to have a long lifespan?

Because developing a gaming console cost a truckload of money and then some. It makes sense to build your console to have a long life so in the end you can make money.

===

Why Valve puts the effort into making console games is something I don't understand. Almost all of their games play better on a PC. The games contained in the Orange Box for the 360 were clunky and didn't play well, however they all played great on the PC. Same probably goes for Left 4 Dead.
 
Just shows that these devs can't cut it.
Wah, wah! This porridge is too hot, mommy.
Who needs 'em?
Apart from Portal, Orange Box was over-hyped trash anyway.
 
Because developing a gaming console cost a truckload of money and then some. It makes sense to build your console to have a long life so in the end you can make money.

===

Why Valve puts the effort into making console games is something I don't understand. Almost all of their games play better on a PC. The games contained in the Orange Box for the 360 were clunky and didn't play well, however they all played great on the PC. Same probably goes for Left 4 Dead.

You just said exactly what I said in my post, well done. :grumpy:
 
The games contained in the Orange Box for the 360 were clunky and didn't play well, however they all played great on the PC. Same probably goes for Left 4 Dead.

The only reason they were clunky was because the aiming was directly attached to the right stick. They should at least add a 'look down the sights' button.

Left 4 Dead works really well for some reason, though. It's brilliant fun online with a few mates.
 
Valve just got payed from Microsoft thats all.
I dont care, i think HL² was overhyped and L4D doesnt really interest me.

There are enough games from way more creative people on the PS3.
 
Nope, i'm sure they didn't pay anything, it's more like the 360 architecture is closer to the pc side of things for the valve guys to port **** themselves but the ps3 achitecture is way different and so they can't have anything running without some drastic mindset changes which they don't want to do.

I say we'll see what valve does on their next gen engine and what they'll do on nextgen systems since we seem to go way more in the multiple cores approach.

That's where they'll start having more problems and will have to hire "competent" people :P

Just my 2 cents.
 
It is understandable when developers have preferences for architecture, but when you are ata point where even some of the developers that prefer 360 coding say it is easier to start on the PS3 and then port to the 360, instead of trying to port to a more complex system, it is a sign that Gabe Newell has become lazy or just doesn't care.

But why should he? As Joey pointed out, most of their stuff is better on PC anyway. He obviously prefers that old standard and can do wonderful things with it. I wonder if he would bother with consoles at all if the 360 weren't heavily PC based.
 
Its true, if the 360 wasnt so heavily PC based then Valve probably wouldnt bother with the console market. They just happen to be lucky that the machine which is so much like a PC also happens to be the most popular next gen console out there.

As for the PS3 coding, the PS2 was just as complicated to code for (being also based on quirky in house architecture) but back then it dominated the market so devs had to learn to make games for it or face a massive financial loss.

Robin.
 
The PS3's lifespan is only as long as Sony or its competitors decide to release a new, better system. Built-in obstacles or whatever you want to call them have absolutely no bearing on system longevity, they just deprive gamers of an optimized experience.

And I'm just going off what I read in an interview with either Kaz Hirai or the other japanese guy. I'm pretty sure it was the head guy and not Kaz.
 
Sony Gaming library>Valve's Library

Nothing to miss. Half-Life Orange Box was good, If EA can make it work(90%) Vavle should be able to make it work better. Cry Engine 3 looks great and works on PS3. IDTech 5 looks good and runs on PS3. Unreal Engine 3 looks good and runs great on PS3. Is it the hardware thats giving Valve trouble? Or their programmers can't do anything out side of Direct X?
 
Valve saying that PS3 is too hard to code for is just weak. Look at what developer's have managed to produce with the likes of Uncharted 2, Killzone 2, God of War 3, and the upcoming GT5. The PS3 is a far more powerful console than the 360, and Valve cant be arsed tapping into this power because they are just too stupid and lazy. Mind you, looking at the waistline of Gabe Newel, he probably doesn't do much anyway.

Sony Gaming library>Valve's Library

Nothing to miss. Half-Life Orange Box was good, If EA can make it work(90%) Vavle should be able to make it work better. Cry Engine 3 looks great and works on PS3. IDTech 5 looks good and runs on PS3. Unreal Engine 3 looks good and runs great on PS3. Is it the hardware thats giving Valve trouble? Or their programmers can't do anything out side of Direct X?

You're probably right. Valve know what they're doing on PC and 360 because they are closely affiliated with the way Microsoft's technology works. Mind you, when Bill Gates opens his checkbook im sure they will always dance to his tune.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I also think he is just too lazy.
i loved HL 1 and OF, but HL2 didn't match it , i played half of the game and than got rid of it (on pc)...
A lot of original game dev. have gone a long way, and changed their mentality drastacly. And not always in a good way. Look at Molyneux, a genius with games like populus or Black and White. A guy like that states that the future of gaming is web-games like farmville. Com'on... . A lot of dev studios were bashing on the ps3, saying it was ****, not dev friendly, blablabla....
Now look at the stats twisted and the ps3 getting a lot of attention. They don't know shik, at least the same shik at ours.
if this now is the half o the life span of the ps3 than Sony will decimate MS at the end by far.

And Xbox leading is just not true. It really depends on the continent. In Asia the xbox is nearly non-existant, here in Europe the ps3 is in lead, only in the states the xbox leads, and that because it is a national company + a lot of pc gamers shifted away from pc (sad move). Sony enters their defavorite market (us) whereas MS have kind of abandonned Japan as market. (just for the note i have an xbox)
 
And I'm just going off what I read in an interview with either Kaz Hirai or the other japanese guy. I'm pretty sure it was the head guy and not Kaz.

Yep it was Hirai. Here is a snippet of what he said exactly...

Hirai
We don't provide the 'easy to program for' console that (developers) want, because 'easy to program for' means that anybody will be able to take advantage of pretty much what the hardware can do, so then the question is, what do you do for the rest of the nine-and-a-half years?

Followed by:

Hirai
"So it's a kind of--I wouldn't say a double-edged sword--but it's hard to program for," Hirai continued, "and a lot of people see the negatives of it, but if you flip that around, it means the hardware has a lot more to offer."

Classic!

Full article:

Hirai: We're the "official" industry leader
 
So Gabe came crawling back :lol: I found his speech opening at the 2010 press conference quite hilarious where he was all sheepish trying to skirt all the damming stuff he had said about consoles particularly the PS3 but least he was open about it.

So now the PS3 will be getting Portal 2 and hopefully other stuff like the rumored Half Life 3 in the future. I guess even Gabe can't ignore PS3's recient rebirth... that or Sony threw lots of money at him!

Robin.
 
Last edited:
Half Life 3 will come out when GT5 comes out, soooo approximately never. :lol:

Valve still needs to make Episode 3 first before they even think about about making HL3.
 
Nice touch, Valve. I like the idea of Steam support on the consoles, and I'd love to see it repeated elsewhere, but I'll stick to playing your fantastic games on the PC.

Oh, and uh, Portal rocks.
 
I wish they would elaborate on what this steam support means...... And a Portal 2 Stand alone title? It better be $20 because thats what the first one was worth.
 
Back