Valve Says PS3 Complexity Hinders Game Development

[DirkGently]

Ahh, the fanboys are out in full force this post.

Seriously, who cares. Valve is whinging again that the PS3 is too hard to develop for, old news is old.

That's what I was wondering: what PR purpose does it serve to have some dbag from the company come out and say this every couple of months. At this point (when we're seeing some really nice AAA titles on the ps3) their continued whining is starting to make them look stupid. They either need to put up or shut up at this point.

I put up a poll asking ps3 owners if they even care at this point, and it seems that they don't:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.118532?page=1

Please don't refer to anything as a 'AAA' title. That shit is so goddamned annoying. I thought everyone on this forum was past scores and shit like that.

The PS3 clearly has a learning curve to program games for it and most developers find it would be too much of a hassle to learn how to use it or that it would set back release far too much for them to develop concurrently. It seems a lot of developers feel this way if they're not being paid by Sony to make an exclusive.

 

[PiCroft]

"Hahahahahahahahahaha

Thanks for demonstrating your posts are not worth reading!"

seemed to imply that you had a bias against MGS4 and made it seem as though you thought that Theif trumped everything, and while that's not bad per se, if you've never even played the game that you put down and then say that your opponent probably never played it (which he did [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.118382?page=4#2267484]), that's hypocrisy my friend.

Is english your primary language?

You even added "seemed to imply" which shows you didn't have a clue what the fuck I was saying but opened your mouth anyway.

I would be a hypocrite if I did what I tell others not to - i.e. judging two games which are imo too different to meaningfully compare.

Here's a hint: read my post which you quoted and read it damn hard. When you get to the point when I said "I haven't played MGS4 but if I ever get a PS3 I will be sure to give it a go." reflect hard on just how bad your reading comprehension is.

How is it that something about Valve and the PS3 has turned into this? Why can't people just accept Valve does not want to program their games for the PS3?

Did you read my other posts? I said it was perfectly okay for Valve to not to want to program the PS3.

I would say more, but other posters have given ample reasons why Valve would not want to program for it.

 

[HentMas]

That last paragraph had me on the floor laughing. Even if you are a sony fanboy. YOu can;t actually belive that shit

That is some of the biggest bullshit I have ever heard.

I really makes no sense. Why would you ever make something harder to use when there is another similar product that is far easier to use?

to have more quality games?? idunno, i like my 360 and i never enjoyed the games in the ps3, but in the end they do seem more thought trough, in my opinion

 

[GonzoGamer]

Ahh, the fanboys are out in full force this post.

Seriously, who cares. Valve is whinging again that the PS3 is too hard to develop for, old news is old.

That's what I was wondering: what PR purpose does it serve to have some dbag from the company come out and say this every couple of months. At this point (when we're seeing some really nice AAA titles on the ps3) their continued whining is starting to make them look stupid. They either need to put up or shut up at this point.

I put up a poll asking ps3 owners if they even care at this point, and it seems that they don't:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.118532?page=1

Please don't refer to anything as a 'AAA' title. That shit is so goddamned annoying. I thought everyone on this forum was past scores and shit like that.

The PS3 clearly has a learning curve to program games for it and most developers find it would be too much of a hassle to learn how to use it or that it would set back release far too much for them to develop concurrently. It seems a lot of developers feel this way if they're not being paid by Sony to make an exclusive.

So is it most or a lot?
This actually used to concern me but then we started seeing some really well made AAA Titles on the system.

Is AAA a score? Who uses that as a rating?

Anyway, in light of that the publishers still complaining just seem like whiny bitches at worst and tools at best.

 

[DirkGently]

Ahh, the fanboys are out in full force this post.

Seriously, who cares. Valve is whinging again that the PS3 is too hard to develop for, old news is old.

That's what I was wondering: what PR purpose does it serve to have some dbag from the company come out and say this every couple of months. At this point (when we're seeing some really nice AAA titles on the ps3) their continued whining is starting to make them look stupid. They either need to put up or shut up at this point.

I put up a poll asking ps3 owners if they even care at this point, and it seems that they don't:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.118532?page=1

Please don't refer to anything as a 'AAA' title. That shit is so goddamned annoying. I thought everyone on this forum was past scores and shit like that.

The PS3 clearly has a learning curve to program games for it and most developers find it would be too much of a hassle to learn how to use it or that it would set back release far too much for them to develop concurrently. It seems a lot of developers feel this way if they're not being paid by Sony to make an exclusive.

So is it most or a lot?
This actually used to concern me but then we started seeing some really well made AAA Titles on the system.

Is AAA a score? Who uses that as a rating?

Anyway, in light of that the publishers still complaining just seem like whiny bitches at worst and tools at best.

I have no idea who uses it as score or rating, but I've heard it tossed about next to games in the manner that "It's a AAA game, if you think it's bad then you have terrible taste in games/There's so many AAA titles on the PS3, then programming for it can't be that hard!" I myself tend to view anyone who uses said system as an ass because I don't believe that a complex opinion can be expressed by numbers or any other markers on some scale, and, I feel, anybody who does is a tool. Reviews are entirely subjective opinions, and adding a rating scale to them, especially one that uses numbers, implies that the subjective opinion is not so subjective and is much more objective.

More and lot aren't mutually exclusive, by the way.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Ahh, the fanboys are out in full force this post.

Seriously, who cares. Valve is whinging again that the PS3 is too hard to develop for, old news is old.

That's what I was wondering: what PR purpose does it serve to have some dbag from the company come out and say this every couple of months. At this point (when we're seeing some really nice AAA titles on the ps3) their continued whining is starting to make them look stupid. They either need to put up or shut up at this point.

I put up a poll asking ps3 owners if they even care at this point, and it seems that they don't:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.118532?page=1

Please don't refer to anything as a 'AAA' title. That shit is so goddamned annoying. I thought everyone on this forum was past scores and shit like that.

The PS3 clearly has a learning curve to program games for it and most developers find it would be too much of a hassle to learn how to use it or that it would set back release far too much for them to develop concurrently. It seems a lot of developers feel this way if they're not being paid by Sony to make an exclusive.

So is it most or a lot?
This actually used to concern me but then we started seeing some really well made AAA Titles on the system.

Is AAA a score? Who uses that as a rating?

Anyway, in light of that the publishers still complaining just seem like whiny bitches at worst and tools at best.

I have no idea who uses it as score or rating, but I've heard it tossed about next to games in the manner that "It's a AAA game, if you think it's bad then you have terrible taste in games/There's so many AAA titles on the PS3, then programming for it can't be that hard!" I myself tend to view anyone who uses said system as an ass because I don't believe that a complex opinion can be expressed by numbers or any other markers on some scale, and, I feel, anybody who does is a tool. Reviews are entirely subjective opinions, and adding a rating scale to them, especially one that uses numbers, implies that the subjective opinion is not so subjective and is much more objective.

More and lot aren't mutually exclusive, by the way.

No but "Most" and "a lot" do mean different things. If you don't remember what you typed it's pasted just above this post.
At least we can agree on one thing: reviews being subjective.
My point was that Valve seems to be playing the "I'm not touching you" game with ps3 gamers desperately hoping someone will notice them and at this point nobody really cares what they think about the ps3 anymore except themselves.

 

[Arehexes]

Is it me or all these Valve are lazy posters don't know anything about coding?

 

[TiteAce]

Good, Valve, stay with us 360'ers, we love you, we wont ever complain... except for that stupid boycott group... and wheres H-L 3?

 

[Bat Vader]

"Hahahahahahahahahaha

Thanks for demonstrating your posts are not worth reading!"

seemed to imply that you had a bias against MGS4 and made it seem as though you thought that Theif trumped everything, and while that's not bad per se, if you've never even played the game that you put down and then say that your opponent probably never played it (which he did [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.118382?page=4#2267484]), that's hypocrisy my friend.

Is english your primary language?

You even added "seemed to imply" which shows you didn't have a clue what the fuck I was saying but opened your mouth anyway.

I would be a hypocrite if I did what I tell others not to - i.e. judging two games which are imo too different to meaningfully compare.

Here's a hint: read my post which you quoted and read it damn hard. When you get to the point when I said "I haven't played MGS4 but if I ever get a PS3 I will be sure to give it a go." reflect hard on just how bad your reading comprehension is.

How is it that something about Valve and the PS3 has turned into this? Why can't people just accept Valve does not want to program their games for the PS3?

Did you read my other posts? I said it was perfectly okay for Valve to not to want to program the PS3.

I would say more, but other posters have given ample reasons why Valve would not want to program for it.

I mean why is everyone fighting over this thread? It comes down to the Valve fan-boys and the PS3 fan-boys. I did read your other posts but I don't understand why you are fighting with someone over the matter.

 

[rated pg]

Hey um Idjit, the PS3 HAS the Orange Box.
But it's unsupported by Valve which doesn't surprise me or make me care.
And it all comes down to this and this isn't escapable "Fuck it. Were lazy" Yes all the buisness stuff is true but the article is not about how it isn't a good buisness venture for them blah blah blah etc. it's about how it's bad for them because they can't be assed learning how to do it.

That is a fact, Gabe Newell and Valve never attempted to learn it and probably will never attempt to learn it because valve are fucking lazy as a company, this is why they use the same damn engine they allways have and haven't developed a game outside a shooter. And yes Portal still counts as a shooter even if it is a Puzzle Shooter.

you know what that tells me? they are LAZY. IF I remember correctly retarded Fanboys often claim an exclusive should go multi-console because it would make more money? why then is the claim now that releasing L4D since this is the only one people care about for reasons BEYOND me on the PS3 is a bad buisness venture, I thought it could only increase sales.

Huh...

Yes I know buisness better than most of you actually I also know how companys work I do my research. now excuse me if my posts seem disjointed but thats what happens when you try to type while PLAYING A GAME, remember that? what gamers are supposed to do instead of bitching about what one Company has to say about a consol they don't care about?

There's really no reason to be rude about it, I thought we were having a debate and not some lowbrow attempt to slander each other. Pardon me.

Yes I was aware Orange Box is on the PS3, and never made any claim to the contrary. (only that it wasn't on the Wii). I'm also aware that port was done by EA if I recall, and not Valve itself.

And maybe there is a reason they can't be bothered to learn it BESIDES laziness. As I said, there are other projects people are expecting them to deliver on, like L4D1 content, L4D2 now, HL2:EP3, and the aforementioned facts about the PS3 being third place and having lower software sales. Assuming the worst doesn't always mean it's true.

If shooters are what they're good at, why change? Ensemble and Relic put out some good RTSs, Bizarre Creations makes excellent racing games (sure, Geometry Wars and the The Club were good but no PGR), and etc. so I don't see how the fact they only make shooters is a bad thing.

"why then is the claim now that releasing L4D since this is the only one people care about for reasons BEYOND me on the PS3 is a bad buisness venture, I thought it could only increase sales."

This statement is all English words, but doesn't actually make sense. Rephrase?

You seem to be getting rather agitated and making broad sweeping statements about people you don't know. That being said, obviously either Valve isn't a typical company or you don't understand them as well as you think if they would guaranteed make money off Wii/PS3 ports but don't bother. I highly doubt Microsoft could pay them enough to ignore a combined user base of 70 million (Wii + PS3 though it's a rough estimate).

 

[DirkGently]

Ahh, the fanboys are out in full force this post.

Seriously, who cares. Valve is whinging again that the PS3 is too hard to develop for, old news is old.

That's what I was wondering: what PR purpose does it serve to have some dbag from the company come out and say this every couple of months. At this point (when we're seeing some really nice AAA titles on the ps3) their continued whining is starting to make them look stupid. They either need to put up or shut up at this point.

I put up a poll asking ps3 owners if they even care at this point, and it seems that they don't:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.118532?page=1

Please don't refer to anything as a 'AAA' title. That shit is so goddamned annoying. I thought everyone on this forum was past scores and shit like that.

The PS3 clearly has a learning curve to program games for it and most developers find it would be too much of a hassle to learn how to use it or that it would set back release far too much for them to develop concurrently. It seems a lot of developers feel this way if they're not being paid by Sony to make an exclusive.

So is it most or a lot?
This actually used to concern me but then we started seeing some really well made AAA Titles on the system.

Is AAA a score? Who uses that as a rating?

Anyway, in light of that the publishers still complaining just seem like whiny bitches at worst and tools at best.

I have no idea who uses it as score or rating, but I've heard it tossed about next to games in the manner that "It's a AAA game, if you think it's bad then you have terrible taste in games/There's so many AAA titles on the PS3, then programming for it can't be that hard!" I myself tend to view anyone who uses said system as an ass because I don't believe that a complex opinion can be expressed by numbers or any other markers on some scale, and, I feel, anybody who does is a tool. Reviews are entirely subjective opinions, and adding a rating scale to them, especially one that uses numbers, implies that the subjective opinion is not so subjective and is much more objective.

More and lot aren't mutually exclusive, by the way.

No but "Most" and "a lot" do mean different things. If you don't remember what you typed it's pasted just above this post.
At least we can agree on one thing: reviews being subjective.
My point was that Valve seems to be playing the "I'm not touching you" game with ps3 gamers desperately hoping someone will notice them and at this point nobody really cares what they think about the ps3 anymore except themselves.

A lot, in terms of measurement, is a pretty subjective term. It means a whole bunch of things.

Most, refers to the largest grouping/number/whatever in a measurement, ie, the grouping with the most members or what have you. The thing with the most whatever is the the thing with the highest number of whatevers. If there aren't a large number of groupings, there can be a lot things in the largest grouping, which would be the grouping with most things.

If you seem to agree on that, why do you keep mentioning these 'AAA' titles? If you don't remember what you said, it's quoted above this.

I think Valve's point in all of this is saying "Yeah, we're really never going to develop for your console. Stop bitching about it and buy an xbox/PC already."

 

[PiCroft]

I mean why is everyone fighting over this thread? It comes down to the Valve fan-boys and the PS3 fan-boys. I did read your other posts but I don't understand why you are fighting with someone over the matter.

Nevermind dude, I feel stupid for stooping to such a level. The point is irrelevant to the thread.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Ahh, the fanboys are out in full force this post.

Seriously, who cares. Valve is whinging again that the PS3 is too hard to develop for, old news is old.

That's what I was wondering: what PR purpose does it serve to have some dbag from the company come out and say this every couple of months. At this point (when we're seeing some really nice AAA titles on the ps3) their continued whining is starting to make them look stupid. They either need to put up or shut up at this point.

I put up a poll asking ps3 owners if they even care at this point, and it seems that they don't:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.118532?page=1

Please don't refer to anything as a 'AAA' title. That shit is so goddamned annoying. I thought everyone on this forum was past scores and shit like that.

The PS3 clearly has a learning curve to program games for it and most developers find it would be too much of a hassle to learn how to use it or that it would set back release far too much for them to develop concurrently. It seems a lot of developers feel this way if they're not being paid by Sony to make an exclusive.

So is it most or a lot?
This actually used to concern me but then we started seeing some really well made AAA Titles on the system.

Is AAA a score? Who uses that as a rating?

Anyway, in light of that the publishers still complaining just seem like whiny bitches at worst and tools at best.

I have no idea who uses it as score or rating, but I've heard it tossed about next to games in the manner that "It's a AAA game, if you think it's bad then you have terrible taste in games/There's so many AAA titles on the PS3, then programming for it can't be that hard!" I myself tend to view anyone who uses said system as an ass because I don't believe that a complex opinion can be expressed by numbers or any other markers on some scale, and, I feel, anybody who does is a tool. Reviews are entirely subjective opinions, and adding a rating scale to them, especially one that uses numbers, implies that the subjective opinion is not so subjective and is much more objective.

More and lot aren't mutually exclusive, by the way.

No but "Most" and "a lot" do mean different things. If you don't remember what you typed it's pasted just above this post.
At least we can agree on one thing: reviews being subjective.
My point was that Valve seems to be playing the "I'm not touching you" game with ps3 gamers desperately hoping someone will notice them and at this point nobody really cares what they think about the ps3 anymore except themselves.

A lot, in terms of measurement, is a pretty subjective term. It means a whole bunch of things.

Most, refers to the largest grouping/number/whatever in a measurement, ie, the grouping with the most members or what have you. The thing with the most whatever is the the thing with the highest number of whatevers. If there aren't a large number of groupings, there can be a lot things in the largest grouping, which would be the grouping with most things.

If you seem to agree on that, why do you keep mentioning these 'AAA' titles? If you don't remember what you said, it's quoted above this.

I think Valve's point in all of this is saying "Yeah, we're really never going to develop for your console. Stop bitching about it and buy an xbox/PC already."

And that's the thing, nobody else IS bitching about their games not going to the ps3. They're the only ones who seem to care.
Most of the bitching about valve is done about their support for their existing games, not potential ports.

 

[squid5580]

Ahh, the fanboys are out in full force this post.

Seriously, who cares. Valve is whinging again that the PS3 is too hard to develop for, old news is old.

That's what I was wondering: what PR purpose does it serve to have some dbag from the company come out and say this every couple of months. At this point (when we're seeing some really nice AAA titles on the ps3) their continued whining is starting to make them look stupid. They either need to put up or shut up at this point.

I put up a poll asking ps3 owners if they even care at this point, and it seems that they don't:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.118532?page=1

Please don't refer to anything as a 'AAA' title. That shit is so goddamned annoying. I thought everyone on this forum was past scores and shit like that.

The PS3 clearly has a learning curve to program games for it and most developers find it would be too much of a hassle to learn how to use it or that it would set back release far too much for them to develop concurrently. It seems a lot of developers feel this way if they're not being paid by Sony to make an exclusive.

So is it most or a lot?
This actually used to concern me but then we started seeing some really well made AAA Titles on the system.

Is AAA a score? Who uses that as a rating?

Anyway, in light of that the publishers still complaining just seem like whiny bitches at worst and tools at best.

I have no idea who uses it as score or rating, but I've heard it tossed about next to games in the manner that "It's a AAA game, if you think it's bad then you have terrible taste in games/There's so many AAA titles on the PS3, then programming for it can't be that hard!" I myself tend to view anyone who uses said system as an ass because I don't believe that a complex opinion can be expressed by numbers or any other markers on some scale, and, I feel, anybody who does is a tool. Reviews are entirely subjective opinions, and adding a rating scale to them, especially one that uses numbers, implies that the subjective opinion is not so subjective and is much more objective.

More and lot aren't mutually exclusive, by the way.

I used to work for Jumbo Video and we would get pages of game listings every week or 2. That was the rating they used to score games to let the owners know what games they should really consider getting. Most weren't AAA games though even though some corporate big wig said so.

And why is a company who says look we could invest more time, money and resources into making this multi or we could use those same resources for another game being called lazy? What ever happened to appreciating what you have rather than pining for what someone else does? I swear if most of the people whining about not getting this specific title or that one used that energy to appreciate what they have they might find that gaming is more fun than crying into thier keyboard.

 

[Jumplion]

And why is a company who says look we could invest more time, money and resources into making this multi or we could use those same resources for another game being called lazy? What ever happened to appreciating what you have rather than pining for what someone else does? I swear if most of the people whining about not getting this specific title or that one used that energy to appreciate what they have they might find that gaming is more fun than crying into thier keyboard.

I think it killed itself when FFXIII went to 360 and everyone expected every PS3 from then on to become multiplat regardless of company or #-party developers.

Eh, karma's a *****, now we get to complain.

 

[Woe Is You]

Eh, karma's a *****, now we get to complain.

I'm just curious why people who allegedly say they don't care whether L4D is on their system or not are complaining about being betrayed when L4D isn't going to be on their system after all. I understand wanting to play the game but complaining for the sake of complaining is just silly. It's the exact same silliness that some 360 fanboys do when they want MGS4; on one hand they want it on their system, on the other it's a huge cutscene that they apparently don't want.

For those citing a 30% increase in sales, an interesting thing: The Orange Box sold less than half a million on the PS3 (compare that to around ~4 million in total, possibly more now). While going to the PS3 will bring more customers, you also have to take into account the amount of work it takes what amounts to getting a bunch of people who might already have played your game aboard. Is it worth it? Apparently Gabe and Tom think it isn't.

But yes, the question asked was dumb since we've known the answer for years now.

 

[Hyper-space]

BLECHARDUGLAPHRAL!

O.O wow..........

anyways, nice article there Shamus. feeling much better now.

 

[Travdelosmuertos]

*finishes will*

Well if you ask me I think Valve is just lazy. And not lazy in the fanboy "drrr Valve jus don't want to lern the powah of the PS3," lazy as in they're not putting out enough new content and technology for a developer of their size and pedigree.

Think about it seriously for a moment. The Half-Life expansions have taken forever to come out despite being very short. L4D and Portal were great, but weren't actually developed by Valve proper. The dev teams for those games were incorporated into Valve after development started on those games. So the majority of Half-Life team hasn't be hasn't been working any of the recent stuff.

We haven't seen squat regarding HL 2: E3 or any new IP's. And to top it all off they're still using the Source engine, which looks laughably bad compared to other high profile shooters.

Truth be told, I don't think Valve has it in for the PS3, I just think it's easier for them to publicly hate it, seeing as it isn't the most popular console, and give that as a reason to not develop on it rather than go through the arduous task of actually updating their software.

*hugs family one last time*

Valve employees choose the projects that they want to work on. It's a very free workplace. Because of that, many people who work there are currently working on L4D2. Also, Valve has released about 2 expansions worth of free content for every game they've put out (excluding the HL episodic content) so I wouldn't call them lazy per say, perhaps just a little case of franchise ADD. Half-Life 2 to them is old hat, they're trying to breathe life into new franchises (some of which I'm sure we haven't even heard of yet they play things pretty close to the chest there) and admittedly, they're a little too enthusiastic about that!

 

[squid5580]

And why is a company who says look we could invest more time, money and resources into making this multi or we could use those same resources for another game being called lazy? What ever happened to appreciating what you have rather than pining for what someone else does? I swear if most of the people whining about not getting this specific title or that one used that energy to appreciate what they have they might find that gaming is more fun than crying into thier keyboard.

I think it killed itself when FFXIII went to 360 and everyone expected every PS3 from then on to become multiplat regardless of company or #-party developers.

Eh, karma's a *****, now we get to complain.

Am I the only one who wants exclusives for the other system (in my case PS3). Here is my logic. I could buy a PS3 now but there aren't enough games that interest me yet. Not enough that I can't get on the 360 and spend the 400 on the games vs the hardware. (No this is not an invitation to list all the "good" exclusives I am well informed on what is on which system). I do want a PS3. I really really do but Sony has to do thier part and make me "need" one. And for that to happen they need exclusives (and ones that perk my interest but that is subjective).

How can you call yourself a gamer if you can't see the value of the other consoles?