Valve Says PS3 Complexity Hinders Game Development

[UltimatheChosen]

If it's so damn hard how come there are indie developers with very few people working on one game coming out with games for it and valve cant seem to figure it out with there team of programmers.

They obviously CAN figure it out. It just takes more time. Even Sony admits that the PS3 is difficult to program for.

 

[Riding on Thermals]

My point is that this thread gave people an excuse to once again ridicule Sony like they're the retard child at the party who drinks all the Fanta and then wets himself.

Valve says the Ps3 is hard to develop for, everyone takes it as "lol Sony Sux." If someone doesn't fall for this tripe of balogna, then they're called a fanboy or a retard or a Sony kissup.

Excuse me if I don't just listen to everything I'm told. I actually question everything to ensure it's validity.

And FYI, I don't hate Valve. You just assume I do.

I'm all for questioning the man about feeding you bullshit, but in this case you're just being stubborn. The CEO of Sony made the comment that the PS3 is intentionally designed to be difficult to program for, and while it is more difficult the potential benefit is that the hardware will 'unlock it's secrets,' if you will, only to the developers willing to grind through the barriers they intentionally set up. And, to be honest, that sounds approximately like the behavior of the aforementioned child.

What VALVe is saying is that the added benefit of drudging through the learning curve of the PS3 isn't worth it to their team. The time and effort required to become PS3-savvy is not cost effective to a programming team that works primarily on PC's and the 360 (a PC derivative). And if this is a prohibitive characteristic to a talented team like VALVe, then I can imagine that it would be equally prohibitive to other third party developers (who, historically, come up with some of the most insanely awesome games for a system).

I'm not saying "lol Sony Sux" but I certainly think that as a marketing strategy to prospective developers it certainly doesn't do them any favors. If you can't accept what the CEO of Sony openly admits that is the definition of fanboyism because you refuse to see a flaw in front of you.

I don't know exactly where I said that you believed everything you're told, but I guess I could have. You certainly would know what I meant better than I would. Also, could you do me the favor of describing exactly what a "tripe of balogna" is, right after you look up the definition of "tripe" and the proper spelling of "balogna."

Finally, I didn't say you did hate VALVe, actually. I very clearly said I was being "sarcastic." You may want to look that word up too.

 

[Pendragon9]

snip

You can insult me if you want, but the point still stands. It only seems like a flaw because it's a bit harder to do. Yes, he admitted it's harder. But is that really a flaw? Maybe they had a good reason to do it.

I'm still not buying that it's too hard. Sometimes you have to work harder to make something better. Like PC games, for example. Someone took the easy way out to prevent piracy in the game department by making secuROM. But it doesn't work anymore, and it even kills certain copies of valid unpirated games. (like my copy of Starcraft. ;_; )If someone worked a bit harder on it, my copy would still be working. And we wouldn't even need SecuROM in the first place.

Sometimes, harder is better.

Oh, and

LOL, PS3 sucks...
wow i just stated the obvious.

I found a good example of an anti-Sony fanboy I mentioned earlier. So yes, this did become another PS3 bashing thread.

On another note, I know why they made it hard to develop for.

On a side note the ps3 has avoided the spam of shitty games with it's setup as opposed to Nintendo who welcomes these horrible games like the carnival ones.

This.

 

[Riding on Thermals]

You can insult me if you want, but the point still stands. It only seems like a flaw because it's a bit harder to do. Yes, he admitted it's harder. But is that really a flaw? Maybe they had a good reason to do it.

I'm still not buying that it's too hard. Sometimes you have to work harder to make something better. Like PC games, for example. Someone took the easy way out to prevent piracy in the game department by making secuROM. But it doesn't work anymore, and it even kills certain copies of valid unpirated games. (like my copy of Starcraft. ;_; )If someone worked a bit harder on it, my copy would still be working. And we wouldn't even need SecuROM in the first place.

Sometimes, harder is better.

Oh, and...

I'll even tell you why they did this too. The reason is that IN THEORY you can receive up to a 22x increase in performance over standard processors.(according to a report in Dr. Dobbs Journal about cell processors. Note that this wasn't a test of PS3 performance, just one of the components that is considered to be why it is a more difficult platform to program for. Also note that this is not the only component nor the only reason for the increased difficulty) So, there may be the potential for increased performance but once again (and for the final time) it is more complex.

Furthermore, I'm glad your personal opinion is that "it's not too hard" but since you don't happen to be a video game programmer with any shred of knowledge of the difficulties involved with developing for ANY platform I don't care what you think on this matter.

I am willing to grant that there is the possibility for some absolutely awesome benefits to making the PS3 more complex to program for, but if companies aren't willing to put in the effort then you lose that possibility because they won't DEVELOP A GAME FOR YOU.

I don't care that fanboys are crying Sony sucks. Ignore them. The fact that they can't make a valid argument doesn't mean your argument becomes any more valid. And stop using Nintendo for your comparisons, the Wii sucks. Its games suck. And the fact that it's even considered in the "console wars" is infuriating. There are bad games made for the PS3 and 360.

And now I'm done. Feel free to respond with something baseless and opinionated, I'm sure your fanboy instincts just kicked in.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

Valve can't make great games and then claim it's too hard to port them. I refuse to accept that.

That's why I said you need to read the entire thread, we've spent a lot of time discussing how different the processor architecture is between the PS3 and XBox, and how much effort would go into making Valve's engines compatible with PS3 after all the work they've done on the DirectX API. That, plus once you take into account the demographic information about PS3 owners, it doesn't make sense for Valve to put that time and effort in. It just doesn't make sense for them to invest the time and effort into PS3 development, unless they start a new engine from the ground up.

Well, what about the Orange box? It seems they did that without incident. Why can't they give the rest of their games the same treatment? And don't tell me the PS3 orange box was an absolute flop. All I hear is how the game pack is great despite the console, save for a few bits of glitching and lag.

Don't forget that PS3 Orange Box was handled by a third party, Valve outsourced it. It's not that it's too hard to be done, it's just difficult enough that it would take too much of Valve's time.

::snip:: tl;dr

Erm Valve, don't be lazy.

For great reading about how not-lazy Valve is and how difficult it is to port from XBox to PS3, see most of the posts above.

Well I'm sorry if I didn't read over 300 posts. Also, why don't they develop to PS3 then port it to 360?

Valve has been building quality games based on the Windows and DirectX architectures for over a decade now. Why reinvent the wheel just to use a tool that is admittedly more difficult and complex?

 

[dirk45]

You can insult me if you want, but the point still stands. It only seems like a flaw because it's a bit harder to do. Yes, he admitted it's harder. But is that really a flaw? Maybe they had a good reason to do it.

I'm still not buying that it's too hard. Sometimes you have to work harder to make something better. Like PC games, for example. Someone took the easy way out to prevent piracy in the game department by making secuROM. But it doesn't work anymore, and it even kills certain copies of valid unpirated games. (like my copy of Starcraft. ;_; )If someone worked a bit harder on it, my copy would still be working. And we wouldn't even need SecuROM in the first place.

Sometimes, harder is better.

Sometimes, harder is better. Always, harder is more expensive. What Sony admits here is that it is more expensive to develop premium titles for the PS3. If Sony had made programming easier they would have received better titles earlier which might have won them the so called Console War. But the truth is that the XBox 360 was much better than the PS2 so they had to put out the PS3 as fast as possible. THIS made them decide that they skip a useful API and leave programmers with an architecture that makes programming more expensive.

On another note, I know why they made it hard to develop for.

On a side note the ps3 has avoided the spam of shitty games with it's setup as opposed to Nintendo who welcomes these horrible games like the carnival ones.

This.

But you know that Nintendo makes money with these horrible games, don't you? And last time I checked, Disney's Sing It High School Musical 3 Edition was also available on PS3.

 

[nathan-dts]

Valve can't make great games and then claim it's too hard to port them. I refuse to accept that.

That's why I said you need to read the entire thread, we've spent a lot of time discussing how different the processor architecture is between the PS3 and XBox, and how much effort would go into making Valve's engines compatible with PS3 after all the work they've done on the DirectX API. That, plus once you take into account the demographic information about PS3 owners, it doesn't make sense for Valve to put that time and effort in. It just doesn't make sense for them to invest the time and effort into PS3 development, unless they start a new engine from the ground up.

Well, what about the Orange box? It seems they did that without incident. Why can't they give the rest of their games the same treatment? And don't tell me the PS3 orange box was an absolute flop. All I hear is how the game pack is great despite the console, save for a few bits of glitching and lag.

Don't forget that PS3 Orange Box was handled by a third party, Valve outsourced it. It's not that it's too hard to be done, it's just difficult enough that it would take too much of Valve's time.

::snip:: tl;dr

Erm Valve, don't be lazy.

For great reading about how not-lazy Valve is and how difficult it is to port from XBox to PS3, see most of the posts above.

Well I'm sorry if I didn't read over 300 posts. Also, why don't they develop to PS3 then port it to 360?

Valve has been building quality games based on the Windows and DirectX architectures for over a decade now. Why reinvent the wheel just to use a tool that is admittedly more difficult and complex?

Teh Moniez? (never actually wrote like that before, I feel giddy)

 

[GrinningManiac]

...sooo, PS3 was designed to be so complicated that the curve in a graph of how much is used is directly the opposite of the curve of intrest in the console?

Nice

Reeeal Nice

 

[Pendragon9]

You can insult me if you want, but the point still stands. It only seems like a flaw because it's a bit harder to do. Yes, he admitted it's harder. But is that really a flaw? Maybe they had a good reason to do it.

I'm still not buying that it's too hard. Sometimes you have to work harder to make something better. Like PC games, for example. Someone took the easy way out to prevent piracy in the game department by making secuROM. But it doesn't work anymore, and it even kills certain copies of valid unpirated games. (like my copy of Starcraft. ;_; )If someone worked a bit harder on it, my copy would still be working. And we wouldn't even need SecuROM in the first place.

Sometimes, harder is better.

Oh, and...

I'll even tell you why they did this too. The reason is that IN THEORY you can receive up to a 22x increase in performance over standard processors.(according to a report in Dr. Dobbs Journal about cell processors. Note that this wasn't a test of PS3 performance, just one of the components that is considered to be why it is a more difficult platform to program for. Also note that this is not the only component nor the only reason for the increased difficulty) So, there may be the potential for increased performance but once again (and for the final time) it is more complex.

Furthermore, I'm glad your personal opinion is that "it's not too hard" but since you don't happen to be a video game programmer with any shred of knowledge of the difficulties involved with developing for ANY platform I don't care what you think on this matter.

I am willing to grant that there is the possibility for some absolutely awesome benefits to making the PS3 more complex to program for, but if companies aren't willing to put in the effort then you lose that possibility because they won't DEVELOP A GAME FOR YOU.

I don't care that fanboys are crying Sony sucks. Ignore them. The fact that they can't make a valid argument doesn't mean your argument becomes any more valid. And stop using Nintendo for your comparisons, the Wii sucks. Its games suck. And the fact that it's even considered in the "console wars" is infuriating. There are bad games made for the PS3 and 360.

And now I'm done. Feel free to respond with something baseless and opinionated, I'm sure your fanboy instincts just kicked in.

Actually, you make some good points.

Very well. I concede the argument. I'll ignore them like you advise. GG.

(also, I'm tired and I took some sudafed, so I'm about to drop like a rock. Good day.)

Also, I'm still happy they made it slightly more difficult. Less shovelware may mean less money, but I still get to see quality games. Though the shovelware that does get through must be pretty damn resilient.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

Teh Moniez? (never actually wrote like that before, I feel giddy)

Yea... see there ain't no monayz. If you invest x ammount of moniez in porting games, and make back y ammount of monayz, and y is considerably less than x, that means you no longer have moniez.

I'll even tell you why they did this too. The reason is that IN THEORY you can receive up to a 22x increase in performance over standard processors.(according to a report in Dr. Dobbs Journal about cell processors. Note that this wasn't a test of PS3 performance, just one of the components that is considered to be why it is a more difficult platform to program for. Also note that this is not the only component nor the only reason for the increased difficulty) So, there may be the potential for increased performance but once again (and for the final time) it is more complex. ::snippy snip snipped::

Oh believe me, one of us will be back to explain it again. This god-damn thread simply refuses to die. Yes, that's probably my fault for the most part.

I think there's a proper place for the underpowered Wii, as well as the overly complex PS3. We have a fairly balanced market right now, with one system serving the mainstream of console players (XBox), an appliance for casual users (Wii), and a Hi-Fi World-Beater Monolith for the hardcore enthusiasts (PS3). It's like stereo systems, consider the XBox is CDs, PS3 is high-grade vinyl or DVD-audio, and the Wii is the tape cassette. Now, if only it were as easy to port games as it was to record CDs onto tapes...

 

[Zer_]

Teh Moniez? (never actually wrote like that before, I feel giddy)

Yea... see there ain't no monayz. If you invest x ammount of moniez in porting games, and make back y ammount of monayz, and y is considerably less than x, that means you no longer have moniez.

I'll even tell you why they did this too. The reason is that IN THEORY you can receive up to a 22x increase in performance over standard processors.(according to a report in Dr. Dobbs Journal about cell processors. Note that this wasn't a test of PS3 performance, just one of the components that is considered to be why it is a more difficult platform to program for. Also note that this is not the only component nor the only reason for the increased difficulty) So, there may be the potential for increased performance but once again (and for the final time) it is more complex. ::snippy snip snipped::

Oh believe me, one of us will be back to explain it again. This god-damn thread simply refuses to die. Yes, that's probably my fault for the most part.

I think there's a proper place for the underpowered Wii, as well as the overly complex PS3. We have a fairly balanced market right now, with one system serving the mainstream of console players (XBox), an appliance for casual users (Wii), and a Hi-Fi World-Beater Monolith for the hardcore enthusiasts (PS3). It's like stereo systems, consider the XBox is CDs, PS3 is high-grade vinyl or DVD-audio, and the Wii is the tape cassette. Now, if only it were as easy to port games as it was to record CDs onto tapes...

Actually no, there is no proper place for the PS3. The rising cost of development is something that has been happening for years now. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.119522] The industry needs to pull its head out of its own ass and realize that if they don't find ways to make a developer's job easier without a loss in quality, then the industry will find itself in a very tight situation.

Yes, the PS3 is a nice piece of hardware. No, the PS3 has no place in the present day video game industry, let alone the future. While we have developers that want to help others [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-775656482294094003] try and reduce the workload [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnBPqrhY3hw&fmt=18] (and ultimately the cost) of developing modern games. Meanwhile we have idiots like Sony who "Deliberately makes a developer's job harder" so people don't use all of the PS3's power immediately. Of course we know Sony is bullshitting us because let's face it, the 360 is easy to work on by comparison and the full potential of the 360 did not get tapped after the 1st year. You can bet your ass that there are some better looking games in the 360's future. There are always ways of getting more out of any hardware platform.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

I think there's a proper place for the underpowered Wii, as well as the overly complex PS3. We have a fairly balanced market right now, with one system serving the mainstream of console players (XBox), an appliance for casual users (Wii), and a Hi-Fi World-Beater Monolith for the hardcore enthusiasts (PS3). It's like stereo systems, consider the XBox is CDs, PS3 is high-grade vinyl or DVD-audio, and the Wii is the tape cassette. Now, if only it were as easy to port games as it was to record CDs onto tapes...

Actually no, there is no proper place for the PS3. The rising cost of development is something that has been happening for years now. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.119522] The industry needs to pull its head out of its own ass and realize that if they don't find ways to make a developer's job easier without a loss in quality, then the industry will find itself in a very tight situation.

Yes, the PS3 is a nice piece of hardware. No, the PS3 has no place in the present day video game industry, let alone the future. While we have developers that want to help others [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-775656482294094003] try and reduce the workload [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnBPqrhY3hw&fmt=18] (and ultimately the cost) of developing modern games. Meanwhile we have idiots like Sony who "Deliberately makes a developer's job harder" so people don't use all of the PS3's power immediately. Of course we know Sony is bullshitting us because let's face it, the 360 is easy to work on by comparison and the full potential of the 360 did not get tapped after the 1st year. You can bet your ass that there are some better looking games in the 360's future. There are always ways of getting more out of any hardware platform.

First of all, thanks for posting the Rage tech demo video. I hadn't seen that yet. I'm salivating bad right now. But before I watch that, time to play devil's advocate:

To start from my hi-fi stereo analogy, that market shows that there is a market niche for extreme-tech, ego-boosting appliances. Record players, speakers and amplifiers that approach and exceed the $10k mark aren't difficult to find. Now, common recordings often don't take full advantage of this level of gear - you need to seek out that media, and there's a nice market for hi-fi music production.

And to take my estimate from my earlier post in this thread, the library of titles for the PS3 is growing near the rate of the 360's (PS3's 186 to 360's 198 per year), the complicated architecture doesn't seem to be slowing down Sony adoption as a format for standard releases. It seems that, even if there wasn't a proper position before, Sony has created a position for the PS3 to occupy in the current console market. My previous comment was reflecting my opinion that our current console situation isn't like the 'console wars' of the past because the three systems all appeal to very distinct demographics and seem to have a solid installation base amongst all of them.

Of course that could all change very fast... the decisive factor I guess would be how PS3's expansion lasts throughout our economic slump. The continuing increase in development costs is something that's going to affect all platforms, it would make sense though that the most versatile and forgiving platforms would be the most likely to survive hard times.

:edit: dammit I always leave something out!

 

[Undeadpope]

We are going to need alot of cheese to go with this MONSTROUS amount of whine.
Lets stop the flaming and just go back to gaming shall we?I ll play my vavle games on my xbox360 and PC,you play your PS3,if you agrue a case your only trying to convince yourself you bought the better console.But there is one,expect maybe the Wii since people don't have fights to death by flame over which is better.

 

[Zer_]

*snip*

Didn't understand my point really. If Sony keeps its current strategy for their next console it will almost surely fail horribly. Games are already suffering from the high costs of development, you need only look at games like Star Wars: The Force Unleashed to get a good example. Anything that makes the situation worse then it already is to me is not a good thing at all.

And yes, there are a lot of games for the PS3, but think about how much money it took to get there. The 360's use of the DirectX API went a long way into helping developers, and it's that kind of thing that will help stem the flow of incomplete game releases.

Producing a big name title can cost in excess of 60 million dollars. Producing a hi-fi song maybe 100 000 dollars (A horrible guess).

 

[L33tMarvin]

In other words Valve is saying the ps3 is fuck.I understand i mean you knew something was wrong when Hideo Kojima puts metal gear solid on the 360.

 

[nathan-dts]

Teh Moniez? (never actually wrote like that before, I feel giddy)

Yea... see there ain't no monayz. If you invest x ammount of moniez in porting games, and make back y ammount of monayz, and y is considerably less than x, that means you no longer have moniez.

Porting a game wouldn't cost nearly as much as your making it out to be, and if it's a good game you should make plenty of profit.

 

[mrx19869]

'hai everybody, i have a great idea for our new system

let's make it really hard to use, really esoteric and unintuitive, so it will reveal more of itself over time as people slowly discover what a pain in the ass it is to develop. the industry will really benefit from a tool that is too complex for anyone to figure out! in the meantime, let's also make it too expensive for the average consumer to purchase. we're really smart, i hope one day people can understand what great geniuses we are'

I sorry but your comment is illogical.
I bet you are one of those people who thinks lowering standards is a good thing. I find it highly intelligent to make a product to which currently developers are finding difficult to use. It seems to me that Sony looked a little further down the road that Microsoft.

 

[mrx19869]

maybe if developers made games that were good and unique then more people would be spending money on them. Economic slum for video games, never, developers whine to much, honestly there just pissed cause they are actually going to be challenged. And it makes it hard for the developers to make remakes cause they have to start from scratch.