The way I read this is that Valve's Source engine probably wasn't designed from the get-go with cross platform compatability in mind and basically all of their games use this engine. Outsourcing the porting of a game to the PS3 may have resulted in nightmares and dissuaded them from offering and maintaining that port in the future.
Otherwise they could have ended up hiring a bunch of PS3 coders to take on the task in-house to maintain not just an engine of high enough quality for them to use, but for them to license to other companies. That would greatly increase the interest in licensing their engine for cross platform games, since the PS3 is a critical system for hardcore games.
Again, I don't know any of this definitively, but this is just what I'm reading into Valve's position. If the PS3 version was plagued with bugs due to foundational engine design issues and requiring way more work and time investment with significantly less profit in return, nobody could blame them for staying away from the PS3 until they are confident they can return with the same level of quality people expect from them on other platforms.
Perhaps the next version of their engine will be designed with all of this in mind (if that was the problem) and they'll return to the PS3 some day, but saying that they left the PS3 owners hanging out of greed and carelessness is a low blow and possibly ignorant. If things had worked out for them on the PS3 there would have been a number of great opportunities for profit without "other fingers in the pie".
As far as fanboyism goes, Valve might have had a bad taste in their mouth from the PS3 issues and made biased comments about the PS3, but that doesn't mean there aren't very real business reasons for the path they've taken. They wouldn't be the first well known developers to talk down the PS3 for going against the established grain. #valve
@CMay: " If the PS3 version was plagued with bugs due to foundational engine design issues and requiring way more work and time investment with significantly less profit in return, nobody could blame them for staying away from the PS3 until they are confident they can return with the same level of quality people expect from them on other platforms."
This reminds me, I recall reading an interview with Doug Lombardi where he said Vavle didn't have the capitol to invest in a dedicated coding team for the complicated PS3. That being the reason the PS3 version of Orange Box was a sub-par title. I agree that what is most cost effective for a company is usually the best. However, to talk smack about a console simply because your company doesn't have the resources to develop for it is a lame tactic. #valve
@koreshonfire: Not sure on Valve's finances, but he may have been exaggerating the amount of capital required to emphasize the risk or the changes they would need to make for a long-term presence on the PS3. I imagine Valve both has plenty of money now and had plenty of money then, but that to do it right the first time would require them to make changes to all versions of the Source engine and potentially their tools so that they can continue to work mostly platform agnostically to provide a consistent product. Maybe?
If so that would throw a basket full of wrenches in their program just to accommodate the PS3 as is, but on top of that they would need to consider the PS3 in any new improvements they make to the Source engine. You could get belligerant and call it laziness, or you could say they're spoiled by the comforts of the way their technology currently works which ferments an aversion to change.
Either way, at least they were sensible enough to realize that if they aren't going to be interested in putting their full force behind the PS3 then they shouldn't be there at all. Otherwise you might just have a string of buggy poorly ported Valve games on the PS3, which wouldn't be good for them or the players. You could then blame them that the Orange Box on the PS3 was a mistake, and they would likely agree and fully take the blame. #valve
@johnLD: The Orange Box was already released on the PS3 and it didn't go all that well. There are plenty of developers that have expressed a distaste for Sony's design decisions with the PS3, because it didn't fit as neatly into the existing game engine designs as you'd hope.
Game developers like to write their engine once and then make improvements here and there for gameplay, very rarely doing full rewrites. Many companies just use 3rd party engine licenses, but some do roll their own technology. For those that roll their own or provide engine licensing, this meant that in order to keep using their existing technology across all platforms including the PS3, they would need to shake their engine designs up.
That's not something you do lightly and if your company already has a heavy investment in the current architecture then it becomes more than just a basic porting job which can result in more headaches than it's worth. In the end, I think they like where they're at and just don't feel like shaking things up too much at this point. They're the developer, it's their choice how they want to operate.
For the most part I don't think Valve is trying to be evil and talk down a system out of some elitist need, but rather out of very real frustrations reflected by many developers. Epic didn't have a choice at all whether they were going to design the Unreal Engine to support the PS3, it's practically required of them given their position in the industry. People who licensed UE3 had plenty of complaints about the issues and delays with it on the PS3. Valve actually had a choice with Source and I think they're ok with that choice for now. #valve
@CMay: all i was saying was a lot of ps3 users problem with valve, that is all. Ps3 users, not the fanboys by the way, do not mind if valve doesnt want to make games for the ps3. What they dont like is that they decided not to make games for the ps3 yet they still bad mouth the system. besides, in todays time, a lot of developers are getting the hang of the ps3 architecture. They even have resources like naughty dog if they need help with development. This makes valve's or mainly gabes excuses sound more than fanboyish and lazy cop out. #valve
Sorry, Gearbox, but the last title you released? No where NEAR as good as L4D... or the Orange Box... or, actually, pretty much anything Valve's done.
Borderlands had a solid concept at it's core... surrounded by a boring plot, lackluster gameplay, and glitches galore. Even with 4 player coop and nearly limitless firearm selection, the rest of the game was just so bad I couldn't play it for more than a week.
Maybe you guys should spend some more time working on your games, and a little less time trolling Lombardi? #valve
I would say the attitude of Gabe Newell and Doug "Stop Calling Me Falco" Lombardi is a bit fanboyish... but hey, they're human, too. They don't HAVE to like the PS3 any more than anyone else does.
I don't like their comments towards the PS3 Orange Box, seeing how they farmed it out to another developer. Even if it wasn't perfect, that isn't really professional to publicly criticize someone who did some work for you. #valve
From my experience, PC games can be better, but it depends. Delayed PC release is usually a good thing - it gives them time to fix bugs, and occasionally add content. It also helps if the developers don't remove features, like multiplayer in Ghostbusters. Pricing the game appropriately is a must; COD4 is still $40 on Steam, which is completely unjustified given the game's age.
Of course, the entire argument falls apart if your PC isn't powerful enough to run games at or near their full specs. :) #valve
I was going to make a similar comment about Valve being fanboyish in the post Pitchford is referring to, but decided best to leave it to those that actually give a shit. But it is funny to see him calling it like it is. Glad somebody in the industry said something.
First Valve said "PS3 is too difficult to develop for", then moved on to "small userbase", and now this. It's quite similar to the way fanboys have reacted to the PS3. First there were "no games". Then it was "it's too expensive", then it was "no BC". If it's not one reason, it'll be another.
From my perspective the whole thing is fascinating really; not because this "debate" doesn't amount to anything more than a hill of beans, but because I always get a kick out of the reactions of fanboys. It's like watching a car wreck.
"Those guys are childish and narrow minded" No kidding Pitchford, tell us something we don't already know. #valve
@bakagaijin: Sounds like $599, to no games, to crap online, to....well you get the point.
So, if the PS3 were to, say, surpass the 360 user base and tick up more software sales it would probably be something like, "the network," or, "the users' interests aren't in our products."
At that point it would just be, "no shit Valve, no shit." #valve
@Black-Dog-Howls: We joke, but imagine if we could get enough money to fly someone from Valve to say, Naughty Dog, so they can see what good developers can do with the PS3? I think if someone just showed Gabe in person how to program for the PS3, he'd understand... #valve
Why is he mad at Doug for saying the Orange Box sucks on the PS3? The Orange Box for the PS3 DOES suck! He was informing fans of the game that they didn't port it and that they weren't responsible for it. Sounds like he did people a favor by ensuring that they weren't ripped off by buying an inferior product. #valve
@UsernameOfTheDead: An inferior product that Valve was directly responsible for not making because of their aversion to the PS3.
So what you're looking at is someone making a very glib statement about a market group that they are so disrespectful of that they will pawn off the development to someone else, then turn around and bash the developers.
You tell me what part of that is not sleazy. #valve
@Testamonium: How is this Valve's fault? They aren't the ones that put out the shoddy port. Other developers have had trouble porting games onto the system and they decided they would rather not deal with it.
Valve has every right to call out the developers that did a bad job with the port. #valve
@nukee: People ragged on Valve even before their notorious comments. Developers are entitled to develop for whatever platform they wish. Are we gamers such a bunch of spoiled little brats that we think game companies should give us whatever we want whenever we want?
I bet Faliszek's mom left him in the car whenever she went into Toys 'R' Us. #valve
@mintycrys is HOT for Bayonetta: That's a poor comparison, Insomniac and Sucker Punch are second party so they're funded by Sony. And they don't criticize the 360 the way that Valve criticizes the PS3.
"People ragged on Valve even before their notorious comments"
Their notorious comments started way back in the beginning of 2007 (search Gabe Newell PS3 if you don't believe me) and I don't think anyone was ragging on them before that. #valve
@electroshockwave: Nope. Naughty Dog is the one that's owned by Sony. Insomniac and Sucker Punch are free to make games for other companies. Of course, the likelihood of the happening is zero, as large as the likelihood that HAL Labs will make a game for another company that isn't Nintendo.
@mintycrys is HOT for Bayonetta: I know that Sony doesn't own Insomniac or Sucker Punch, I said they're second party developers. So Sony partly funds their development and owns the IP to games like Ratchet and Sly Cooper, which is why I said it was a bad comparison because Valve has no such relationship with Microsoft. #valve
@mintycrys is HOT for Bayonetta: I agree that any developer is entitled to their opinion. But Valve chooses bitch and moan about the PS3 rather than just say they prefer to go the Microsoft route and leave it at that. #valve
11/07/09
Pitchford hit the nail pretty firmly on the head there. #valve
11/07/09
11/07/09
but anyone who buys a Valve product on anything other than a PC is really harming themselves.
Valve tastes best with the PC. just like Chocolate tastes best with Peanut Butter. #valve
11/07/09
hehe, he should watch his step. #valve
11/07/09
11/07/09
And a sad one too.
But nevermind me... just put on your cool face Pitchford. #valve
11/07/09
Otherwise they could have ended up hiring a bunch of PS3 coders to take on the task in-house to maintain not just an engine of high enough quality for them to use, but for them to license to other companies. That would greatly increase the interest in licensing their engine for cross platform games, since the PS3 is a critical system for hardcore games.
Again, I don't know any of this definitively, but this is just what I'm reading into Valve's position. If the PS3 version was plagued with bugs due to foundational engine design issues and requiring way more work and time investment with significantly less profit in return, nobody could blame them for staying away from the PS3 until they are confident they can return with the same level of quality people expect from them on other platforms.
Perhaps the next version of their engine will be designed with all of this in mind (if that was the problem) and they'll return to the PS3 some day, but saying that they left the PS3 owners hanging out of greed and carelessness is a low blow and possibly ignorant. If things had worked out for them on the PS3 there would have been a number of great opportunities for profit without "other fingers in the pie".
As far as fanboyism goes, Valve might have had a bad taste in their mouth from the PS3 issues and made biased comments about the PS3, but that doesn't mean there aren't very real business reasons for the path they've taken. They wouldn't be the first well known developers to talk down the PS3 for going against the established grain. #valve
11/07/09
12:27 AM
This reminds me, I recall reading an interview with Doug Lombardi where he said Vavle didn't have the capitol to invest in a dedicated coding team for the complicated PS3. That being the reason the PS3 version of Orange Box was a sub-par title. I agree that what is most cost effective for a company is usually the best. However, to talk smack about a console simply because your company doesn't have the resources to develop for it is a lame tactic. #valve
04:03 AM
10:33 AM
If so that would throw a basket full of wrenches in their program just to accommodate the PS3 as is, but on top of that they would need to consider the PS3 in any new improvements they make to the Source engine. You could get belligerant and call it laziness, or you could say they're spoiled by the comforts of the way their technology currently works which ferments an aversion to change.
Either way, at least they were sensible enough to realize that if they aren't going to be interested in putting their full force behind the PS3 then they shouldn't be there at all. Otherwise you might just have a string of buggy poorly ported Valve games on the PS3, which wouldn't be good for them or the players. You could then blame them that the Orange Box on the PS3 was a mistake, and they would likely agree and fully take the blame. #valve
11:06 AM
Game developers like to write their engine once and then make improvements here and there for gameplay, very rarely doing full rewrites. Many companies just use 3rd party engine licenses, but some do roll their own technology. For those that roll their own or provide engine licensing, this meant that in order to keep using their existing technology across all platforms including the PS3, they would need to shake their engine designs up.
That's not something you do lightly and if your company already has a heavy investment in the current architecture then it becomes more than just a basic porting job which can result in more headaches than it's worth. In the end, I think they like where they're at and just don't feel like shaking things up too much at this point. They're the developer, it's their choice how they want to operate.
For the most part I don't think Valve is trying to be evil and talk down a system out of some elitist need, but rather out of very real frustrations reflected by many developers. Epic didn't have a choice at all whether they were going to design the Unreal Engine to support the PS3, it's practically required of them given their position in the industry. People who licensed UE3 had plenty of complaints about the issues and delays with it on the PS3. Valve actually had a choice with Source and I think they're ok with that choice for now. #valve
11:51 AM
11/07/09
Borderlands had a solid concept at it's core... surrounded by a boring plot, lackluster gameplay, and glitches galore. Even with 4 player coop and nearly limitless firearm selection, the rest of the game was just so bad I couldn't play it for more than a week.
Maybe you guys should spend some more time working on your games, and a little less time trolling Lombardi? #valve
11/07/09
11/07/09
No...Microsoft did. Judging from their comments, if it was up to Valve, the 360 version would have all of the same updates. #valve
11/07/09
I don't like their comments towards the PS3 Orange Box, seeing how they farmed it out to another developer. Even if it wasn't perfect, that isn't really professional to publicly criticize someone who did some work for you. #valve
11/07/09
Borderlands already shows that quality multi-platform releases on PS3 can work if you put enough effort into it. #valve
11/07/09
11/07/09
I know people enjoying it on PC. /shrugs. #valve
11/07/09
11/07/09
Or Spider-Man 2.
And I'm pretty sure the PC version of Modern Warfare 2 won't qualify as "better" now that dedicated servers and mod support are gone. #valve
11/07/09
Touché on all counts.
Maybe I'm just used to hearing *certain* PC-lovers talk about how superior their versions of the games "always" are. #valve
11/07/09
From my experience, PC games can be better, but it depends. Delayed PC release is usually a good thing - it gives them time to fix bugs, and occasionally add content. It also helps if the developers don't remove features, like multiplayer in Ghostbusters. Pricing the game appropriately is a must; COD4 is still $40 on Steam, which is completely unjustified given the game's age.
Of course, the entire argument falls apart if your PC isn't powerful enough to run games at or near their full specs. :) #valve
11/07/09
"Of course, the entire argument falls apart if your PC isn't powerful enough to run games at or near their full specs. "
And I do not have the money to build and maintain a high-quality PC. #valve
11/07/09
First Valve said "PS3 is too difficult to develop for", then moved on to "small userbase", and now this. It's quite similar to the way fanboys have reacted to the PS3. First there were "no games". Then it was "it's too expensive", then it was "no BC". If it's not one reason, it'll be another.
From my perspective the whole thing is fascinating really; not because this "debate" doesn't amount to anything more than a hill of beans, but because I always get a kick out of the reactions of fanboys. It's like watching a car wreck.
"Those guys are childish and narrow minded" No kidding Pitchford, tell us something we don't already know. #valve
11/07/09
So, if the PS3 were to, say, surpass the 360 user base and tick up more software sales it would probably be something like, "the network," or, "the users' interests aren't in our products."
At that point it would just be, "no shit Valve, no shit." #valve
11/07/09
11/07/09
12:11 AM
12:38 AM
11/07/09
11/07/09
So what you're looking at is someone making a very glib statement about a market group that they are so disrespectful of that they will pawn off the development to someone else, then turn around and bash the developers.
You tell me what part of that is not sleazy. #valve
11/07/09
Valve has every right to call out the developers that did a bad job with the port. #valve
11/07/09
I suspect that, if it had been Valve's decision instead of EA's choice, there wouldn't BE a version of The Orange Box for the PS3. #valve
11/07/09
Oh, wait. #valve
11/07/09
11/07/09
I bet Faliszek's mom left him in the car whenever she went into Toys 'R' Us. #valve
11/07/09
"People ragged on Valve even before their notorious comments"
Their notorious comments started way back in the beginning of 2007 (search Gabe Newell PS3 if you don't believe me) and I don't think anyone was ragging on them before that. #valve
11/07/09
11/07/09
11/07/09
11/07/09