Valve Says PS3 Complexity Hinders Game Development

[The Random One]

I love these threads, in which two sets of people argue over something that they have only a ridiculously shallow understanding of, needing to rest on second hand information to not sound like complete idiots (and generally failing).

I also like how the closest people to (at least claim to) have an understading of this says that there's no real difference, between XBLA and PSN at least. Then again, if it has to do with multiple processors, it... oh, crap, I'm doing it as well now. Look at what you've done!

Thief. Thief 2. Dawn of War. Winter Assault. Dark Crusade. KotOR. KotOR2. Baldur's Gate. Baldur's Gate 2. Planescape Torment. Diablo 2. Starcraft. Halo. Halo 3. Gears of War. Gears of War 2. Homeworld. Homeworld 2. Master of Orion 2. Sins of a Solar Empire. Dwarf Fortress. System Shock. System Shock 2. Mask of the Betrayer. World of Warcraft. Guild Wars. Nox. Company of Heroes.

Dwarf Fortress is a quirky, freeware ASCII based game. It can't really be compared to any game in discussion here.

After all, it's much, much better than anything that could possibly be released by a major company, by such a long shot it's hilarious.

 

[z121231211]

Considering that there's a lot of games out for the PS3 and considering that a lot of games are multi-platform for both PS3 and 360, Valve is either lazy or they're PC/Xbox fanboys that don't want to develop for PS3.

 

[Jumplion]

Yes, thats why the Ps3 has low quality games like LittleBigPlanet, Valkyria Chronicles and Metal Gear Solid 4,

Your logic is nonsensical. If it was sarcasm please remove everything that's not LittleBigPlanet from that list. If it was literal please remove LittleBigPlanet from that list.

This is under the fallacy that "whatever I think is shit, is shit!" actually means something. I'm sorry if you don't like Valkyria Chronicles or MGS4, but both are generally seen as good [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/valkyriachronicles?q=Valkyria%20Chronicles] games [http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/metalgearsolid4gunsofthepatriots?q=Metal%20Gear%20Solid%204].

 

[SprodeMaster]

"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?"

Okay, Worst buisness plan ever.. This guy seems to have have forgotten that practice makes perfect, and that ease of use make for a better product anyway.

Imagine anyone else saying that:
"We didn't make Lego easy to make stuff with because after the first year trying to make a house, then what are you going to do?"

 

[Woe Is You]

Considering that there's a lot of games out for the PS3 and considering that a lot of games are multi-platform for both PS3 and 360, Valve is either lazy or they're PC/Xbox fanboys that don't want to develop for PS3.

Or they're a privately owned company that just don't see the benefits of putting a ton of work on a game version that would likely sell less than on the competition? I'm not really seeing how being a fanboy or being lazy absolutely has to fit into the equation here and I'm sure that the guys at Valve can tell whether investing on the PS3 brings them any returns.

 

[hagaya]

Sony had intentionally designed the PS3 to be difficult to program so that developers wouldn't be able to maximize its potential right away.

There. I call this either an unusual marketing plan to make the PS3 rocket millions past the Wii, or beating around the bush so hard the ground around said bush has a two foot trench in it.

 

[SprodeMaster]

"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?"

Okay, Worst buisness plan ever.. This guy seems to have have forgotten that practice makes perfect, and that ease of use make for a better product anyway.

Imagine anyone else saying that:
"We didn't make Lego easy to make stuff with because after the first year trying to make a house, then what are you going to do?"

And thats why you can't build a Large Hadron Collider out of Lego.

That's not to say it wouldn't be the most epic thing ever

 

[Pvt. Buddha]

Although I did not have time this evening to read every response to this thread, the only real thing I have to add is this. If there are some Triple A titles coming out on a system, PS3 for example (Killzone 2, Resistance, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid 4, Infamous) then why should the excuse "it's too hard to make games on this system" even be valid? Even the the Sony head himself said it was made that way for a reason, it is to push the limits of game developers. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you can give up, especially if you want that installed base. If Sony really makes the PS3 hold out for 10 years, as is the plan, which it probably won't if Microsoft gets a new 360 out the gate in 2 years, then it will be worth it to see how many more quality games can be developed for the system. If Valve and other developers have a hard time, then they should figure it out or not make games for the PS3. Bottom line, a company, any company saying it's tough to make games for a system is not a valid argument, just don't make games for it, there is no reason to flame the company or their system by saying it's a ***** to make games for, just don't do it.

 

[SprodeMaster]

"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?"

Okay, Worst buisness plan ever.. This guy seems to have have forgotten that practice makes perfect, and that ease of use make for a better product anyway.

Imagine anyone else saying that:
"We didn't make Lego easy to make stuff with because after the first year trying to make a house, then what are you going to do?"

And thats why you can't build a Large Hadron Collider out of Lego.

That's not to say it wouldn't be the most epic thing ever

That is until the pope tries to steal it in order to blow up Rome

And it would still be forking awesome.

 

[brewbeard]

Although I did not have time this evening to read every response to this thread, the only real thing I have to add is this. If there are some Triple A titles coming out on a system, PS3 for example (Killzone 2, Resistance, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid 4, Infamous) then why should the excuse "it's too hard to make games on this system" even be valid? Even the the Sony head himself said it was made that way for a reason, it is to push the limits of game developers. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you can give up, especially if you want that installed base. If Sony really makes the PS3 hold out for 10 years, as is the plan, which it probably won't if Microsoft gets a new 360 out the gate in 2 years, then it will be worth it to see how many more quality games can be developed for the system. If Valve and other developers have a hard time, then they should figure it out or not make games for the PS3. Bottom line, a company, any company saying it's tough to make games for a system is not a valid argument, just don't make games for it, there is no reason to flame the company or their system by saying it's a ***** to make games for, just don't do it.

Valve doesn't make games for the PS3 because the architecture is a pain in the arse. Sony's stated reason for the architecture being such a pain in the arse to design for is basically, 'we didn't want the edge our superior hardware gives us right away, so we made it a pain in the arse to design for.' I mean seriously, what developer in their right mind wants the people who are making the games that sell their systems to have a harder time making those games than absolutely necessary? It makes no sense. It pushes back release dates and has an adverse effect on game quality. Sony's just making excuses for themselves. It's a load of bunk.

The only possible reason I can see for them giving PS3 game development a massive learning curve and throwing huge un-necessary obstacles in the way is to give their system an artificially long shelf-life, and even then it wouldn't really be a reason. I mean, if they had the best graphics and the best games from the very beginning, they'd also gain a larger market share and their competitors (read: Microsoft) would basically be forced to go back into system development immediately, spending who knows how much money to top the PS3, and in the mean time Sony scoops up all the user base and solidifies its position as the leader of the current generation, which in itself would extend the lifespan of the system by a huge margin even if Microsoft were to pull the proverbial rabbit out of their hat and produce next-gen system earlier than expected.

Using their current model, the best Sony can hope for is for the PS3 to have appreciably superior graphics and gameplay in the late-mid to late generation when the hype for the next gen consoles is raging and they're competing with Microsoft, which dominated the opening of this generation, for early next gen market share. Even then they might not get developer support because people won't be buying new systems in preparation for the newcomers and the developers they're banking on learning their architecture won't be as numerous because of their arse backward design philosophy.

 

[Zersy]

Valve is just lazy and it seems that they really just don't like consoles regardless of which one it is .... ( i think microsoft must have payed them to bother putting games on their console )

overall valve should just stick with the PC unless they make a fun downloadable game on the PSN or Live Arcade !

 

[SovietSecrets]

Amazing. Your point crashed and burned on your first example. As fails go, thats pretty impressive.

Metal Gear Solid 4 crushes Thief and Thief 2. From then on, yeah, its basically a matter of opening a list of Ps3 exclusives and picking the one in question. Killzone 2 > Halo 1 and 3. Valkyria Chronicles > Kotor. LittleBigPlanet > everything.

Just wondering, have you actually played all of these games enough to make a comparison or are you just saying that because you only play PS3 and read reviews that are given out in Playstation magazines only? Seems pretty arrogant to say that LBP is better than every game out there.

I've played as much as I could stomach of Halo and I've played several missions from Thief. Admittedly, as I have no interest in Star Wars I've never tried KOTOR, however going from descriptions it doesn't seem to really stand as well rounded as Valkyria Chronicles does.

What do you mean by you weren't able to stomach Halo? Halo like Killzone 2 is an FPS and I have played both of them and found that they are pretty much like any other FPS out on the market right now. Nothing discerns them from being better than one another. Also, can't compare MGS 4 to Thief. In MGS 4 you were able to run and gun down anything in that entire game unless you played on the hardest difficulty which forced you to be stealthy. Try playing KOTOR at least one time before saying it is not as good as Valkyria Chronicles. A description of a game is much different than actually playing it. By just reading about one and then only playing the other is being ignorant and close minded.

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

*hugs family one last time*

I'll be the one to execute you because if a VALVe fan had to do it, it would just get nasty.

Anywho, it feels to me as if VALVe is in a math class and yelling "This is too hard no one can do this kind of math" meanwhile half the class has finished the test.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

Well, to be honest, I'm going to point out something that nobody else did apparently. I'm trying to be as objective as possible with this, believe me. One thing of note: I'm not an amazing graphics worshipper. I like good graphics, but I'm more about gameplay than graphics, and I tend to appreciate stylish graphics more than the ultra realistic.

The PS3 can't really be compared to the PS2 or PS1, because of the philosophy behind the architecture.

Lets accept that the PS3 was made hard to develop for, for the sake of being hard to develop for, as the bossman said. What does that mean? Well, to me, that means that anyone trying to develop for it must take a lot of extra time and effort to work with the hardware. That being said, whoever does it right ends up with a magnificent piece of work: MGS4, Killzone 2, and presumably God of War 3. Whoever doesn't ends up with very pretty crap: Lair, anything Gundam it seems, etc.

The PS2 and PS1 were designed to be as open for development as possible to get as many developers working on it as possible. This freedom left the field wide open for companies to make great games like the Final Fantasy series and Team ICO's games, but then again, it also let the gates open for a whole heaping amount of crap to be half-assed in.

I expect the outcomes to be similar in percentages. There will always be fantastic games, and there will always be crap (albeit very pretty crap if you're all about graphics) but what you can manipulate is how free the developers are to jump in and start working.

I understand trying to cut down on crap, and get more high quality games developed for the system, but when developers shy away from working on a system because of presumably cost effectiveness reasons, I have to wonder if it was the best idea.

Let's face it, Valve is a company out to make a profit. They see the difficulty of developing on the PS3 system as not being cost effective enough to justify working with. If they decided that the Xbox 360 wasn't cost effective enough to develop for, they would cull support with it as well.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

I think I'll wait for everyone who is criticizing Valve's decision to produce their triple A PS3 title they must be developing in between posting comments on forums.

When that day comes, I'll support them in their "Valve is Lazy and/or stupid!" claims.

Until then, I'll take Valve's word for it, since they

A.) DO make games
and
B.) Make damn good ones.

 

[Jsnoopy]

Although I did not have time this evening to read every response to this thread, the only real thing I have to add is this. If there are some Triple A titles coming out on a system, PS3 for example (Killzone 2, Resistance, Ratchet and Clank, Metal Gear Solid 4, Infamous) then why should the excuse "it's too hard to make games on this system" even be valid? Even the the Sony head himself said it was made that way for a reason, it is to push the limits of game developers. Just because something is difficult doesn't mean you can give up, especially if you want that installed base. If Sony really makes the PS3 hold out for 10 years, as is the plan, which it probably won't if Microsoft gets a new 360 out the gate in 2 years, then it will be worth it to see how many more quality games can be developed for the system. If Valve and other developers have a hard time, then they should figure it out or not make games for the PS3. Bottom line, a company, any company saying it's tough to make games for a system is not a valid argument, just don't make games for it, there is no reason to flame the company or their system by saying it's a ***** to make games for, just don't do it.

You are not seeing this from Valve's perspective. They, unlike the triple A game developers, only have around 200 developers who are constantly working on other projects, and are already famous for taking their time on said projects. Taking the time to learn the unintuitive architecture of the PS3 would subsequently mean further delaying their other projects, pissing of their main fan base, the PC players, for not enough of an install base.


A. Valve does, apparentley, have a hard time developing for the PS3, which is why they don't make games for them.
B. I wouldn't call explaining why they don't make games for the PS3 flaming the company, or even the system.