Valve Says PS3 Complexity Hinders Game Development
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
HAHAHAHAHA more like "Valve says Microsoft payola to rush development of L4D2 hinders Episode 3 Development, Fans say WTF"Cliff_m85 said:
Seriously, tho, anyone feel like bringing this back to a discussion of Sony's Cell architecture? It's clear Valve doesn't want to work with it and we all feel differently about that, but why the hell would a company approach their product from such an angle? Do they really think they have some brilliant pandora's box of computer tech or are they just trying to justify having an overly complex brick of a platform?
I've gotta say, if I am ever in charge of making a console my number 1 priority would be make it easy to code for. Easy. You NEED games on the platform: take your 30% or whatever and watch the cash roll in. The whole point is that impressive games can be made better earlier than the competitors, not some slow release system that just gets traction as the competitor already reaches saturation!
Not that I really want to put myself in the crossfire, but, well, I'm going to anway.Mornelithe said:
1. He's saying IBM cores are better than micro cores. It's quite easily understandable compared to some internet-speak. As for validity, I wouldn't know, not my area of knowledge.
2. Well, software is often designed to take into account the architecture of the hardware it is designed for. Multithreading, parallel processing, memory storage, read/write times and propogation speed are merely off-the-top-of-the-head examples of things done differently, but you can bet there will be a lot more differences. Often neat little tricks can be found that mean individual functions run better than others, which make the whole thing easier. These can be exploited for efficiency, but will not work on different system layouts for obvious reasons.
3. Theory? Conjecture? You pulled an abitrary number of a 30% increase in revenue by selling on PS3, and ask *him* to prove his case? I challenge you to prove 30% as even remotely valid.
4. Lets have a look at game releases and Metacritic scores:
List of Crytek Games since 2004:
Far Cry: 89%
Crysis: 91%
Crysis Warhead: 84%
3 games, average 88%
List of Valve Games since 2004:
Half-Life 2: 96%
Half-Life 2 Episode 1: 87%
Half-Life 2 Episode 2: 90%
Portal: 90%
Team Fortress 2: 92%
Counter-Strike: Source: 88%
Left 4 Dead: 89%
7 games, average 90%
I would rather have them spend time developing PC games than wasting time trying to figure out PS3 architecture. That's just my opinon. On the other point, the above scores speak for themselves.
5. "Sony pays for exclusitivity" - Well it won't be getting that from Valve, which is thankfully a solid PC-focused company.
6. What's your point here? I mean really, what are you arguing? Valve needs to put more work in? I think we've established that their not willing to spend the effort deciphering the architecture, put in the online issues as well and surely this is another reason to stay away.
7. I believe he's talking about PS3s online issues, including the difficulty of setting up for it compared with XBox's established marketplace, and possibly current lack of consumers due to low market penetration. Possibly even something else, I'm not sure.
8. Good, you can find an example of a company who has spent time and money figuring things out. This does not mean that it is easy, cheap or even worthwhile for other companies to do likewise.
9. Nope, one blue ray disc is likely to be a lot more expensive to produce than two DVDs. It requires specialist printing equipment which is very new and therefore currently does not have widespread market penetration, compared with the established DVD printing-technology and years of streamlining. The actual disc material probably costs less than the packaging it comes wrapped in.
10. This comes back to point number 2. Although a significant question might be, would Sony even allow their tech to be licenced for games sold on other systems.
MAG has 256 players in a match and is supposed to work realtivly lag free according to previews. I'm pretty sure that means that the 8 players in a left 4 dead match would be fine with the infastructure. http://au.gamespot.com/ps3/action/mag/news.html?sid=6208788&mode=news&tag=result;title;1 , http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/992/992051p2.html , second last paragraph in the IGN preview specifically.shial said:
Considering that you have the level of fanboyism as me (but I don't show it) regardless of your PC VALVe's bullshit really gets to you.Jumplion said:But now I'm getting bitter, BLECHARDUGLAPHRAL! I hate VALVe sometimes...though if I had a better PC I probably wouldn't be as bitter about them
Wow that actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.Woe Is You said:
On Topic: I'm getting really sick of VALVe bitching that the PS3 is too hard to develop for. My perspective is if they would just get off their lazy asses and learn how to develop for the PS3 (like numerous other companies would), we wouldn't have this container of gasoline for the console wars bonfire!
The PS3 guy sounds full of shit in his rebuttle if you ask me.
"We intinially made it difficult so developers couldn't unlock it's potential right away"
No wonder it's slumping in sales.
HellllOoOoOoOoOoO
Are they retarded? Really.
They don't need to spoon feed us bullshit. They made a complicated system that will have outstanding graphics, but it's just difficult to make games for it.
"We intinially made it difficult so developers couldn't unlock it's potential right away"
No wonder it's slumping in sales.
HellllOoOoOoOoOoO
Are they retarded? Really.
They don't need to spoon feed us bullshit. They made a complicated system that will have outstanding graphics, but it's just difficult to make games for it.
Developers complained about the PS2 as well. The only reason the devs think they can sway public opinion now is the fact that Sony is not in first place this generation.
Neither is the 360. Maybe the article would be interesting if Valve could put an argument for why they aren't developing games for the Wii. Since it's in first place by a wide margin and all.
Oh, wait. They can't because the only reason they don't want to develop for systems not inherently built like a Microsoft PC is because they are lazy and are in it for the money.
It's ok to be lazy and in it for the money, since they are a business. Just don't try to say its too hard and no sane person would do it. There are plenty of developers making a good profit margin on that too complicated system.
The only good place to play Valve games is on the PC anyway, so its not like I need PS3 versions anyway.
Neither is the 360. Maybe the article would be interesting if Valve could put an argument for why they aren't developing games for the Wii. Since it's in first place by a wide margin and all.
Oh, wait. They can't because the only reason they don't want to develop for systems not inherently built like a Microsoft PC is because they are lazy and are in it for the money.
It's ok to be lazy and in it for the money, since they are a business. Just don't try to say its too hard and no sane person would do it. There are plenty of developers making a good profit margin on that too complicated system.
The only good place to play Valve games is on the PC anyway, so its not like I need PS3 versions anyway.
It just seems to me that Valve programmers have become addicted to all that Microsoft software like DirectX, which is why they can port their games to the 360 easily, but don't know how to do it on the PS3.
Mh, I don't care, I'll play their games on the PC, as usual.
Mh, I don't care, I'll play their games on the PC, as usual.
Relax. What he said was not the real reason, it was an excuse.VanityGirl said:
Why wouldn't Valve like the DirectX API? You can program a game to run with DirectX on the PC and it will work with the 360. There will be a few very minor incompatibility issues but that's nothing compared to the effort that goes into porting a game to the PS3.
Anything that reduces the amount of effort needed to make a game will save them money, and if the impact is good enough it will also save us money. Making something difficult to develop for as a conscious decision is plain old stupid, there's no way you can sugar coat that into making it sound good.
Yeah, you could spend money and learn how to program for the PS3, and yeah you could eventually get very good at at but what's the damn point if it'll all be useless once the console becomes obsolete? Having a platform that's difficult to work with in any way has a negative impact on the development of games. It just means that much more money needs to be spent to effectively learn how to program all over again. I understand and agree on Valve's position on this.
As opposed to simply taking the punch in the gut and moving on, Valve decided to not waste its time. They figured "Why should we develop for a console that is built to be more difficult to work on?"
On a final note: More difficult to develop for =/= More powerful hardware and vice versa, get that ridiculous idea out of your bloody heads because it's completely ridiculous and entirely false.
Anything that reduces the amount of effort needed to make a game will save them money, and if the impact is good enough it will also save us money. Making something difficult to develop for as a conscious decision is plain old stupid, there's no way you can sugar coat that into making it sound good.
Yeah, you could spend money and learn how to program for the PS3, and yeah you could eventually get very good at at but what's the damn point if it'll all be useless once the console becomes obsolete? Having a platform that's difficult to work with in any way has a negative impact on the development of games. It just means that much more money needs to be spent to effectively learn how to program all over again. I understand and agree on Valve's position on this.
As opposed to simply taking the punch in the gut and moving on, Valve decided to not waste its time. They figured "Why should we develop for a console that is built to be more difficult to work on?"
On a final note: More difficult to develop for =/= More powerful hardware and vice versa, get that ridiculous idea out of your bloody heads because it's completely ridiculous and entirely false.
into the fray!!!Mornelithe said:
addressed points bolded above
1. The PS3's cell processing unit is based on IBM's cell processing technology, so it is more apt to talk about it in terms of IBM technology rather than the 360's x86 technology.
2. The Cell's processor structure is entirely different from the multi-core technology found in PCs and the 360. The primary core and secondary cores have very proprietary instructions and uses, where the multiple cores in x86 systems are equal. To utilize and optimize for the PS3 architecture you have to program with these specific functions in mind. Transferring to an x86 platform takes a lot of development time because these specific functions either have to be virtualized or entirely restructured.
3. You have to balance the profit potential of that 30% market share against the time and resources for redevelopment. I don't know for sure, but I'm imagining that Crysis has found success because it developed its engine with the PS3 in mind and then worked backwards, a much easier process than restaging x86 code for the cell architecture, and much easier for a company only supporting 3 major titles.
4. Media reviews provide a standard reference for the market place, I for one think a site like metacritic is a great resource for a discussion like this. Metacritic is an especially great resource, because it takes into account a plethora of mainstream reviews, helping to balance out any biased opinions. If the general mainstream says that the hardware demands are too great, that's saying something. It's not a willingness to adapt that's lacking, it's economic ability: computers are expensive. If we had the option, we would all own a Crytek-crunching system.
5. Gabe may be tubby, but 1) actively developing Episode 3, 2) continuing support for TF2, and 3) developing L4D2 all simultaneously is an impressive pallet for any company, and I think it's clear that PS3 development would push the company well beyond its limits, I don't think they're bullshitting. They do what they do well because they focus on their strengths, which mainly consist of innovations on the Windows platform.
6. True, Valve doesn't offer Massively Multiplayer games. I don't know of any console that offers this in a First Person Shooter, though. I really don't know how well that game would play, anyway. The server load would be phenomenal. And with DLC, the development time grows exponentially for each new platform and marketplace they release on.
7. If people who own PS3s are older and have more expendable income, that means it targets a separate demographic. If a company puts a majority of time developing a game for 360 with a younger demographic in mind, then it really doesn't make any sense to invest the time to transfer that game to PS3 if you already know the userbase is less likely to be interested. Only certain games will sell well to both audiences.
8. I've already covered this, the cost-benefit of developing for the PS3 is probably out of reach for many small companies. If Crysis managed it, I'm guessing it was by starting with technology that was first tailored to the PS3's architecture.
9. Maybe id struck a deal that enabled this move? id has more market power than smaller, younger publishers. Otherwise I feel this is a interesting point, I'd like to know more about the production costs of producing physical media for these systems. Valve likely makes a greater profit by focusing it's sales on Steam, and doesn't want to spend even more resources reformatting to accomodate PS3's online marketplace.
10. Licensing the PS3 engine has EVERYTHING to do with it! A majority of developers do not use their own engines. This is why id, Valve, and Crytek are so successful, because they not only offer software to consumers, they also offer technology to other developers, for a great profit.
The part of the equation you are forgetting, the biggest part for developers, is the cost of redeveloping the engine and content for an entirely different platform. Kudos to Crytek for pulling it off, but look at the result - only three titles in five years. Neither Crytek nor Valve are small companies, and both have made incredible strides in game development. But the differences in their approaches are obvious and well meditated.
Well, I think that's the point the president was trying to make, actually. The hardware is more powerful, and therefore more difficult to learn because it is more flexible. He just did a piss-awful job of phrasing it.SuperFriendBFG said:
If the system IS more difficult and NOT more powerful, then they have an awful fucking brick on their hands. But that doesn't appear to be the case, sense PS3 is cruising along just find (even without Valve's apps.)
300lb. Samoan said:into the fray!!!Mornelithe said:
addressed points bolded above
1. The PS3's cell processing unit is based on IBM's cell processing technology, so it is more apt to talk about it in terms of IBM technology rather than the 360's x86 technology.
2. The Cell's processor structure is entirely different from the multi-core technology found in PCs and the 360. The primary core and secondary cores have very proprietary instructions and uses, where the multiple cores in x86 systems are equal. To utilize and optimize for the PS3 architecture you have to program with these specific functions in mind. Transferring to an x86 platform takes a lot of development time because these specific functions either have to be virtualized or entirely restructured.
3. You have to balance the profit potential of that 30% market share against the time and resources for redevelopment. I don't know for sure, but I'm imagining that Crysis has found success because it developed its engine with the PS3 in mind and then worked backwards, a much easier process than restaging x86 code for the cell architecture, and much easier for a company only supporting 3 major titles.
4. Media reviews provide a standard reference for the market place, I for one think a site like metacritic is a great resource for a discussion like this. Metacritic is an especially great resource, because it takes into account a plethora of mainstream reviews, helping to balance out any biased opinions. If the general mainstream says that the hardware demands are too great, that's saying something. It's not a willingness to adapt that's lacking, it's economic ability: computers are expensive. If we had the option, we would all own a Crytek-crunching system.
5. Gabe may be tubby, but 1) actively developing Episode 3, 2) continuing support for TF2, and 3) developing L4D2 all simultaneously is an impressive pallet for any company, and I think it's clear that PS3 development would push the company well beyond its limits, I don't think they're bullshitting. They do what they do well because they focus on their strengths, which mainly consist of innovations on the Windows platform.
6. True, Valve doesn't offer Massively Multiplayer games. I don't know of any console that offers this in a First Person Shooter, though. I really don't know how well that game would play, anyway. The server load would be phenomenal. And with DLC, the development time grows exponentially for each new platform and marketplace they release on.
7. If people who own PS3s are older and have more expendable income, that means it targets a separate demographic. If a company puts a majority of time developing a game for 360 with a younger demographic in mind, then it really doesn't make any sense to invest the time to transfer that game to PS3 if you already know the userbase is less likely to be interested. Only certain games will sell well to both audiences.
8. I've already covered this, the cost-benefit of developing for the PS3 is probably out of reach for many small companies. If Crysis managed it, I'm guessing it was by starting with technology that was first tailored to the PS3's architecture.
9. Maybe id struck a deal that enabled this move? id has more market power than smaller, younger publishers. Otherwise I feel this is a interesting point, I'd like to know more about the production costs of producing physical media for these systems. Valve likely makes a greater profit by focusing it's sales on Steam, and doesn't want to spend even more resources reformatting to accomodate PS3's online marketplace.
10. Licensing the PS3 engine has EVERYTHING to do with it! A majority of developers do not use their own engines. This is why id, Valve, and Crytek are so successful, because they not only offer software to consumers, they also offer technology to other developers, for a great profit.
Sony is playing this game as well, and Sony obviously wants to keep it's tech proprietary. So if a young developer purchases a license on a Sony PS3 engine, Sony is not going to help them recode that engine for 360, PC, and Wii. Same with Microsoft and Nintendo tech, they won't put time and effort into developing for a competitor's platform. If a game developer should manage to make an engine that develops seamlessly across all console and PC platforms, they'll license the hell out of it and make a fortune. But that developer will NOT be Sony, nor Microsoft or Nintendo.id Software made profits by lisensing for many of these titles, and many others. Engine code is a valuable profit resource for a company, most companies do not put the time and resources into developing their own tech.
The part of the equation you are forgetting, the biggest part for developers, is the cost of redeveloping the engine and content for an entirely different platform. Kudos to Crytek for pulling it off, but look at the result - only three titles in five years. Neither Crytek nor Valve are small companies, and both have made incredible strides in game development. But the differences in their approaches are obvious and well meditated.
well yes thank you for your input its more to do with business and programing issues though i like your view point. the other problem with this thread is it full fan boys that couldnt tell the different between c++ and cuda300lb. Samoan said:
