Valve Says PS3 Complexity Hinders Game Development
- Thread starter Andy Chalk
- Start date
I'm not sure the point valve was making was that it is too difficult to code on the ps3. I think they could.
What valve is saying is the opposite to what hirai is saying, the complexity befuddles the process rather than weeding out the bad developers. It's not just bad developers that stop making games, but good ones too.
What valve is saying is the opposite to what hirai is saying, the complexity befuddles the process rather than weeding out the bad developers. It's not just bad developers that stop making games, but good ones too.
You know I don't think "they should go to a second-party developer website" counts as a valid argument. They (Guerilla, Insomniac, etc.) work directly with Sony, of course they're going to know how to "properly" develop for it. And people seem to be forgetting the amazingly horrendous rash of badly ported PS3 games early in the console's life as a result of being difficult to develop for. This isn't a "valve" problem, this is an industry-wide problem. Valve's the only one speaking about it.
Jumping on Valve's back for refusing to develop for the PS3 is like getting on Square's case for developing solely for the Playstation and its descendants for almost a decade. It's like going after Rare for jumping ship from Nintendo to Microsoft just on that one principle alone (nevermind the fact they haven't been doing so well game dev wise since that move). It's like getting pissed off at Epic Games for not making Gears of War 2 for the PC, though actually this one is probably closest to the Valve situation in that they had someone repeatedly giving reasons why not. Although I think Valve's reasons are slightly better than Cliffy B's "dur-hurr piracy" reasons, but I suspect money is the central issue there.
In any event I'm reiterating a point that Valve has already tried their hand at PS3 development, it's not like they didn't try. They put out a version of The Orange Box for the PS3, a version, I might add, that has been rated less than its PC and Xbox 360 counterparts. I have no sales figures, but, say for example that the PS3 version did indeed not sell as well as the other two. Doesn't it make more sense from a business standpoint to not spend resources on PS3 development if you aren't getting as good a return on it? Again that is just speculation, I do not have any hard facts about it unfortunately.
Jumping on Valve's back for refusing to develop for the PS3 is like getting on Square's case for developing solely for the Playstation and its descendants for almost a decade. It's like going after Rare for jumping ship from Nintendo to Microsoft just on that one principle alone (nevermind the fact they haven't been doing so well game dev wise since that move). It's like getting pissed off at Epic Games for not making Gears of War 2 for the PC, though actually this one is probably closest to the Valve situation in that they had someone repeatedly giving reasons why not. Although I think Valve's reasons are slightly better than Cliffy B's "dur-hurr piracy" reasons, but I suspect money is the central issue there.
In any event I'm reiterating a point that Valve has already tried their hand at PS3 development, it's not like they didn't try. They put out a version of The Orange Box for the PS3, a version, I might add, that has been rated less than its PC and Xbox 360 counterparts. I have no sales figures, but, say for example that the PS3 version did indeed not sell as well as the other two. Doesn't it make more sense from a business standpoint to not spend resources on PS3 development if you aren't getting as good a return on it? Again that is just speculation, I do not have any hard facts about it unfortunately.
The PS3's architecture is designed for highly parallel processing - while it may be unique right now, it will probably become the standard in future. Parallel processing is where a lot of programming seems to be going so in that regard the Cell BE is probably a step the right direction.
If Valve don't want to use it, thats up to them. I would suggest future programmers at least get their feet wet in parallel programming if they want to get ahead or compete.
If Valve don't want to use it, thats up to them. I would suggest future programmers at least get their feet wet in parallel programming if they want to get ahead or compete.
Don't get me wrong.Onmi said:
A dick waving contest between the two games is useless because they are fundamentally different. What I found Hi-larious is that Indigo was willing to piss on two games he probably never played in favour of a console game for a system developed by a company he has his lips firmly attached to the ass of.
I haven't played MGS4 but if I ever get a PS3 I will be sure to give it a go.
I really do not see where is Valve's problem with developing titles for the PS3. I mean I would be able to see it (kinda) if they did not produce a single game for the console. But they so did. And not one but 3. Using the same engine (Source) on both consoles! I mean even Left 4 Dead used the same engine. They have been using the same engine since counter strike. Their logic is abysmal as long as they do not explain further than "PS3 complexity"
This must be the first genuine post I have red here so far of someone that is in the gaming world for fun.Onmi said:
Valve looses respect from me for these comments not because they just want to develop for the pc and 360 that is perfectly fine to each their own. I mean come on it would be like me going to school and doing a really good project and then when I was done with it saying yes I could have added this in but it was not as easy so I left it out.(Probably not the best analogy but the best I could think of off the top of my head.) It is definitely within your right to not do that part but why would you give reasons like that to the general public even if it is the reason.
I would loose respect for insomniac or naughty dog or any other company if they would come out and say we don't want to put it on the 360 because programming for their console is different or any other type of comment on the actual console. I mean common how hard is it to just say it is just not in the scope of what we want to do right now or it is what we decided to focus on so that is what we made the game for. (which is what most companies will say when it comes down to questions about exclusivity) I am not a big fan of the only possible on ps3 or xbox quotes either but they more about marketing your product.
What does telling people that it is too difficult to program for help. All it tells me is that you don't want a challenge which makes me wonder about how much more could have been done with the games that you are releasing if it was not hard to do.
I just think that quotes like these have no place in the market other then to start the flame wars, to possibly alienate some of your user base, and just make yourself look worse.
I would loose respect for insomniac or naughty dog or any other company if they would come out and say we don't want to put it on the 360 because programming for their console is different or any other type of comment on the actual console. I mean common how hard is it to just say it is just not in the scope of what we want to do right now or it is what we decided to focus on so that is what we made the game for. (which is what most companies will say when it comes down to questions about exclusivity) I am not a big fan of the only possible on ps3 or xbox quotes either but they more about marketing your product.
What does telling people that it is too difficult to program for help. All it tells me is that you don't want a challenge which makes me wonder about how much more could have been done with the games that you are releasing if it was not hard to do.
I just think that quotes like these have no place in the market other then to start the flame wars, to possibly alienate some of your user base, and just make yourself look worse.
Well crap, I completely missed that. I thought that EA basically published the game like they did with L4D. Guess that eliminates my counterpoint. Though it still seems to me that they didn't arrive at this decision without some form of research or at least attempts to do so.Jumplion said:
In any event I'm not really bringing all this up to try and defend VALVe, more offer explinations. I mean yes, I severly dislike the PS3 and consider it to be this generation's Atari Jaguar, but it's not like I don't want developers making games for it.
"HahahahahahahahahahaPiCroft said:
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.
There are plenty enough problems with parallel and multi-core processing that might discourage an established studio from putting their fingers too close to the fire. Debugging, I'm led to believe, is a godawful nightmare, especially with parallel programming, and testing becomes extremely difficult as well when narrowing down obscure and potentially crash-causing bugs.
So in that respect, it isn't really surprising Valve would like to stay away from the PS3 which uses this stuff up the wazoo.
I've dabbled in PS3 stuff and the only thing I can say in its defence lacking any real experience of the system is that it is lightyears easier to program for than the PS2.
So in that respect, it isn't really surprising Valve would like to stay away from the PS3 which uses this stuff up the wazoo.
I've dabbled in PS3 stuff and the only thing I can say in its defence lacking any real experience of the system is that it is lightyears easier to program for than the PS2.
No, but it does show the overall quality of a game. General consensus of a game is not the same as a single rating, if it's generally accepted to be a good game, then it's pretty much a good game, individual opinions notwithstanding. Alot of PS3 games are generally rated very well, and apparently it has a higher ratio of it, so it has a higher ratio of quality games. Simple math.Kiutu said:
Is english your primary language?Jumplion said:
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.