Valve Software Skipping PS3 (For Now . . . )

Sierra Oscar

Well, it is no surprise that Valve are totally ditching PS3 game development considering Gabe Newell quite bluntly stated that developing for the PS3 was "a waste of everybody's time" and EA made a balls of The Orange Box port . . . but anyway Doug Lombardi has been quoted as saying that Valve dont want to develop for the PS3 at the moment as they want to avoid a "stepchild version" of their games.

Still though, I still think we will see more Valve games make an appearance on the PS3 eventually - its only a matter of time before Valve create an in-house PS3 team.;)

Valve doesn’t want to make PlayStation games. End of.

“If we were customers of that product on PlayStation, we’d feel like we sort of got the stepchild version of the product while the guys on the PC and the 360 got the sweet version of it,” Valve marketing boss Doug Lombardi told CVG in London yesterday.

And why are Valve’s PC and 360 games better than Valve’s PlayStation games? Because Valve isn’t very good at PlayStation games. End of.
“If you look at it as a matter of Valve doing it, Valve did the 360 and the PC version of the Orange Box and they both go 96 on Metacritic - The PS3 version was nowhere close to that. Left 4 Dead got a 89 or a 90 on 360 and PC,” Lombardi said.

He added: “Until we have the ability to get a PS3 team together, until we find the people who want to come to Valve or who are at Valve who want to work on that, I don’t really see us moving to that platform.”
End of. Please.

http://www.vg247.com/2009/07/03/valve-skips-playstation-to-avoid-stepchild-version-says-lombardi/

Anima

Fair play to them really. It's sony's own fault for making development so awkward. Its the reason we get rubbish ports and long development times to other platforms.

citizen_p

i think they should just develop them for the pc first like the have always.

noodler

Meh.

Hard as it may be, most developers still manage it.

projectmayhem

Anima wrote: »

Fair play to them really. It's sony's own fault for making development so awkward. Its the reason we get rubbish ports and long development times to other platforms.

?

Sony's platform isn't based on Windows, that's Valve's issue here. Same way for years they've ignored Apple as a platform for game development.

They've always rallied behind Microsoft, for everything. A cynic would mention that Gabe Newell used to work for Microsoft, and that's where he made a few bucks to start his own game development company.... but I'm not a cynic so wouldn't say that

They've always come out kind of militant towards the PS3. Newell even came out about a year after the PS3's launch telling Sony to recall every machine and start again with a new kit. Yet somehow companies are churning out PS3 games with great ease.

No one at Valve have ever critiqued the attempts at pushing out more power from the PS3. It's a great system with a unique architecture, but it's that architecture that Valve simply don't want to invest in as in their eyes, it's not a long term plan. I am glad Lombardi said they just don't have a PS3 team together, which shows the reason they don't have PS3 games is because they just haven't really bothered (as is the case with Mac - they actually asked Apple to pay for development of their games for Mac, which Apple rightly responded by telling them where to go). Stick to what you know and all that.

As was already said though, I think Valve are better suited to sticking to PC titles. Blaming the PS3 console for bad metacritic scores rather then their poor porting abilities is insane... also rallying out against the console while EA say it's their lead platform (because they make more money from it) really doesn't look good from a PR perspective, much like Bobby Kotick of Actiblizzard-fame saying he'll pull from the PS3 platform if Sony don't drop the price. That's like Ford telling the toll road people to drop their prices or they'll stop making cars that go on their roads. These guys all look a bit stupid right now. Saying the PS3 is a bad development platform in the same breath as Killzone2's release is a bit silly in fairness.

But hey, at the very least it's entertaining to watch all these guys squirm in interviews hereafter.

Sierra Oscar

noodler wrote: »

Meh.

Hard as it may be, most developers still manage it.

Well . . . lots of devs are beginning to express discontent about developing for the PS3. It is well known that Sony try and screw developers for as much money as possible because they are developing games for their platform. Not very good encouragement to get developers to make games for the PS3.

Only a few days ago Activision's Bobby Kotick spoke out against the PS3, Sony and their pricing strategy.

The target is Sony, the once-dominant hardware maker. “I'm getting concerned about Sony; the PlayStation 3 is losing a bit of momentum and they don't make it easy for me to support the platform. It's expensive to develop for the console, and the Wii and the Xbox are just selling better. Games generate a better return on invested capital on the Xbox than on the PlayStation,” he says.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6531367.ece

savemejebus

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Well . . . lots of devs are beginning to express discontent about developing for the PS3. It is well known that Sony try and screw developers for as much money as possible because they are developing games for their platform. Not very good encouragement to get developers to make games for the PS3.

I thought the sony dev kit only cost $2000 http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/03/sony-announces-lower-cost-ps3-dev-tools.ars. That's hardly screwing developers for as much money as possible.

projectmayhem

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Well . . . lots of devs are beginning to express discontent about developing for the PS3. It is well known that Sony try and screw developers for as much money as possible because they are developing games for their platform. Not very good encouragement to get developers to make games for the PS3.

Only a few days ago Activision's Bobby Kotick spoke out against the PS3, Sony and their pricing strategy.



http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article6531367.ece

I'd echo what savemejebus. You're interpreting Kotick's remarks wrong. He thinks the investment into PS3 isn't returning enough money because not enough consumers are buying into it right now, which is rubbish.

The PS3 is being outsold by the 360 and Wii, of course. It peaks and dips in chart trackers regularly (big releases getting it up etc.) but for a 10 year business plan it's sailing perfectly where Sony need it to. If the 10 year plan is in tact, then the next 2-4 years are where Sony get aggressive as manufacturing costs drop to level out where the cost of selling is, so they can drop the price, get a new market and run the machine cheaper and cheaper for a few years at a profit (from software mainly) to fund research into the next machine.

Keep in mind Sony's plan probably involves a still-strong PS2 (this is why they want to get the PS3 backwards compatible for everyone using Cell) and a PSP that consistently beats the DS in hardware sales somehow.

Gummy Panda

projectmayhem wrote: »

Keep in mind Sony's plan probably involves a still-strong PS2 (this is why they want to get the PS3 backwards compatible for everyone using Cell) and a PSP that consistently beats the DS in hardware sales somehow.

Are they actually working on back compat for all ps3 models?

I only heard a rumour on some crap site

Roar

Gummy Panda wrote: »

Are they actually working on back compat for all ps3 models?

I only heard a rumour on some crap site

article here about it..

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/06/sony-may-bring-backwards-compatibility-back-to-ps3-ps3-slim.ars

Sierra Oscar

projectmayhem wrote: »

I'd echo what savemejebus. You're interpreting Kotick's remarks wrong. He thinks the investment into PS3 isn't returning enough money because not enough consumers are buying into it right now, which is rubbish.

The PS3 is being outsold by the 360 and Wii, of course. It peaks and dips in chart trackers regularly (big releases getting it up etc.) but for a 10 year business plan it's sailing perfectly where Sony need it to. If the 10 year plan is in tact, then the next 2-4 years are where Sony get aggressive as manufacturing costs drop to level out where the cost of selling is, so they can drop the price, get a new market and run the machine cheaper and cheaper for a few years at a profit (from software mainly) to fund research into the next machine.

Keep in mind Sony's plan probably involves a still-strong PS2 (this is why they want to get the PS3 backwards compatible for everyone using Cell) and a PSP that consistently beats the DS in hardware sales somehow.

Ten year plans are not much good if developers are beginning to show reluctance to develop for the platform.

savemejebus wrote: »

I thought the sony dev kit only cost $2000 http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2009/03/sony-announces-lower-cost-ps3-dev-tools.ars. That's hardly screwing developers for as much money as possible.

Only until relatively recently (I think around March this year) - because Sonly had to bow to pressure from developers. Before that the kit was priced around $10K, way above the kit prices for the Wii and 360. One of the reasons no doubt that the PS3 has around 550 games whereas the Xbox 360 has near 700.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=203103277

Sony on Monday cut by nearly half the price of its PlayStation 3 software development kit, in an attempt to encourage more game development on the struggling videogame console.

Sony recognized that their competitors were pulling away from them in terms of the games being developed for their platform. Hence the price cut - Sony realized that they are in a tad bit of trouble, the "ten year plan" is not going as planned - simple as really.

projectmayhem wrote: »

They've always rallied behind Microsoft, for everything. A cynic would mention that Gabe Newell used to work for Microsoft, and that's where he made a few bucks to start his own game development company.... but I'm not a cynic so wouldn't say that

Absolute utter rubbish. Valve have spoken out (especially GabeN) against MS on a number of occasions, especially in relation to DX10 & Vista.

projectmayhem

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Ten year plans are not much good if developers are beginning to show reluctance to develop for the platform.

What developers are showing reluctance to develop? You can ignore Activision because despite Kotick's ranting he rakes in huge money from the platform and can't possibly pull games from PS3. He's just a belligerent fool. The similar call for a price drop from Capcom was also dumb.

On top of that Valve have never really worked on PS3 content (the orange box was ported by EA, not internally) so the platform was never really in the sights of those guys in the first place.

You also have to see the 10 year plan coming into its own right now. Normally we'd be facing new launches and announcements of new hardware in the next year or so. Instead we're talking about upgrades with Project Natal, the wand/eyetoy thing on PS3 and the like.

Cevat Yerli from Crytek said he's very interested in PS3 because it's got a lot of power hidden in there. In fact the Killzone devs said they didn't max out the console at any stage during gameplay, so there's more untapped power in there which will make it last beyond the 360... which Microsoft can't update to a new model because of the economic forces at play here. This could become a huge win for Sony in the next 2 years if graphics push forward on the PS3 and remain stagnant on the 360 because of the hardware and DVD restraints.
(keep in mind I don't entirely believe the 360 will fall behind so quick but it is something to consider)

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Only until relatively recently (I think around March this year) - because Sonly had to bow to pressure from developers. Before that the kit was priced around $10K, way above the kit prices for the Wii and 360. One of the reasons no doubt that the PS3 has around 550 games whereas the Xbox 360 has near 700.

http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=203103277

Yes I remember the other argument during the xbox vs. PS2 days in the other direction. Way more games available on the PS2 but how many of them would you realistically play?

I own all the current gen consoles myself and I've only bought a handful of 360 games (the exclusive stuff like halo & forza etc.) while I've far more PS3 stuff (exclusives as well as cross-platform games as I prefer the PS3 versions).

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Sony recognized that their competitors were pulling away from them in terms of the games being developed for their platform. Hence the price cut - Sony realized that they are in a tad bit of trouble, the "ten year plan" is not going as planned - simple as really.

Stop reading informationweek for your news. The whole article completely contradicts itself by saying Sony run at a loss, never mentioning that Microsoft's gaming division has only recently brought the 360 cost down to zero loss (note this is not the same as making profit) while Playstation had been in a profitable situation prior to the PS3 release. That's their business plan. No different to the PS1 and PS2 cycles.

As for Sony's trouble, they are in a spot of bother financially as their computing dept. is being hit by Apple (their nearest competition through price point) because Windows Vista isn't exactly popular on their Vaio's. The entertainment (movies, music) area isn't doing too bad with a few blockbuster movies & of course Michael Jackson... leaving the computer entertainment division flagging in some debt from the R&D process and loss-making in the PS3 cycle. At the same time, to say Microsoft is in good shape would be an oversight of epic proportions.

In fairness, the only videogame company to be looking good right now (other then software studios) is Nintendo, who's strategy was to make money from the get-go on the Wii. Great! But that means the consumer pays more to Nintendo for the cost of development of every single piece of hardware and software then they do on the 360 or PS3. This is why attachment rates for software versus hardware is lower on the Wii then it is elsewhere (including PSP/DS)... so while they make more money, some price drops in by those guys would help them out too.

noodler

The PS3 port of Fallout 3 is not as good as the 360 version looks-wise but it really, really doesn't matter for general play.

They should be ashamed of their Orange Box Port. If they couldn't have released a product they'd be happy with then they shouldn't have released it.

gizmo

projectmayhem wrote: »

What developers are showing reluctance to develop? You can ignore Activision because despite Kotick's ranting he rakes in huge money from the platform and can't possibly pull games from PS3. He's just a belligerent fool. The similar call for a price drop from Capcom was also dumb.

Kotick is far from a belligerent fool, he's quite a good business man in fact. Now, as someone who loves games I can't say I'm overly fond of the man following developments in Activison over the last few years but writing his comments off like that are extremely short sighted. Also, said comments were more aimed at the fact that his company paid Sony over $500m in royalties and licensing fees last year which certainly cut into the profits they make from developing on the console.

projectmayhem wrote: »

Cevat Yerli from Crytek said he's very interested in PS3 because it's got a lot of power hidden in there. In fact the Killzone devs said they didn't max out the console at any stage during gameplay, so there's more untapped power in there which will make it last beyond the 360... which Microsoft can't update to a new model because of the economic forces at play here. This could become a huge win for Sony in the next 2 years if graphics push forward on the PS3 and remain stagnant on the 360 because of the hardware and DVD restraints.

Yerli may have said something like that but looking at the development of CryEngine 3 and the performance differences between both consoles it also shows the reality of the situation with regards the two consoles internals. To quote their Tech Director Mark Atkinson - "We have parity between the platforms now: both run at the same speed. If the game's shader-heavy it runs a bit faster on 360; if it's compute heavy with physics and particles, then the SPUs take over and it's a bit quicker on PS3." Which basically boils down to the same thing again, 360 has the GPU advantage whereas the PS3 has the SPUs. Of course, first party PS3 titles have shown some great inventiveness when it comes to using the SPUs for graphical work (see Deferred Rendering from Killzone 2) but it takes a lot effort to get the most of it hence we've only seen really special things from studios which Sony really get behind, something that cannot happen for every title. Given this, bar some possibly last ditch first party titles on the PS3 towards the end of the lifetime of the console I can't see the PS3 really eclipsing the 360 during their lifetimes. I could be wrong of course but judging by comments from a lot of high profile developers similar to those above and papers I've read myself, it does seem to point to that conclusion.

projectmayhem wrote: »

I own all the current gen consoles myself and I've only bought a handful of 360 games (the exclusive stuff like halo & forza etc.) while I've far more PS3 stuff (exclusives as well as cross-platform games as I prefer the PS3 versions).

On a side note, I do find this extremely strange given that the vast majority of titles, in which a noticeable difference can be seen between both platforms, are regarded as better on the 360. Is it the controller you find most appealing as a matter of interest?

noodler

gizmo wrote: »

On a side note, I do find this extremely strange given that the vast majority of titles, in which a noticeable difference can be seen between both platforms, are regarded as better on the 360. Is it the controller you find most appealing as a matter of interest?

I personally do prefer the controller for everything bar FPS.

Not having to pay a Live subscription may also play a role.

It probably isn't a graphical thing since most cross-platform games do seem to look better on the 360

Overheal

projectmayhem wrote: »

They've always rallied behind Microsoft, for everything. A cynic would mention that Gabe Newell used to work for Microsoft, and that's where he made a few bucks to start his own game development company.... but I'm not a cynic so wouldn't say that

They've always come out kind of militant towards the PS3. Newell even came out about a year after the PS3's launch telling Sony to recall every machine and start again with a new kit. Yet somehow companies are churning out PS3 games with great ease.

Oh come on. Think of your own self for a moment. I have 15++ years with Windows. < 1 year with Apple, from the 90s. Which one do you think I would use?

As for militance :rolleyes: theres militance and then theres voicing an opinion. Programming is a frustrating endeavour already. I can only imagine what nether-hell it is to build on the PS3 platform. Thats not to say it isnt powerful. But if you were trying to attract developers, trying to drag them out of their comfort zone with radically new standards might not have been the way to go.

Now of course, you will see the Crytek people and other graphics-whoring dev teams jump all over it, because they are always looking for the holy grail of eye candy. Grand. No quips. Their last engine was absolutely stunning. But Valve always put next gen visuals at a distant second to Game Design. No offense to the Crytek people, who do mind boggling feats of their own. But its apples and oranges in a way. For valve theres too many cons and not enough pros to developing on the PS3. For the time being. For them, the PS3 architecture is just a needless obstacle to delivering a top notch title.

noodler wrote: »

The PS3 port of Fallout 3 is not as good as the 360 version looks-wise but it really, really doesn't matter for general play.

They should be ashamed of their Orange Box Port. If they couldn't have released a product they'd be happy with then they shouldn't have released it.

Precisely why they are officially cutting PS3 hopes and dreams. I believe Gabe actually said something along the lines of 'we dont want to go down that road again unless we can do it right, as its unfair to our customers on that platform.'

Sierra Oscar

projectmayhem wrote: »

I own all the current gen consoles myself and I've only bought a handful of 360 games (the exclusive stuff like halo & forza etc.) while I've far more PS3 stuff

Ah . . . I see. . . well I am also a owner of a Xbox 360, a PS3 along with a Wii . . .

projectmayhem wrote: »

As for Sony's trouble, they are in a spot of bother financially as their computing dept. is being hit by Apple (their nearest competition through price point) because Windows Vista isn't exactly popular on their Vaio's. The entertainment (movies, music) area isn't doing too bad with a few blockbuster movies & of course Michael Jackson... leaving the computer entertainment division flagging in some debt from the R&D process and loss-making in the PS3 cycle. At the same time, to say Microsoft is in good shape would be an oversight of epic proportions.

Sony are in trouble because PS3 sales have been falling for seven consecutive months whilst competing console systems are either seeing stable sales or slight fluctuations in sales - recession or no recession. This is exactly what Kotick is referring to when he says the system is "loosing momentum". Sony are expected to cut the price of the PS3 in the coming months considering sales are poor and it is already the most expensive system on the market.

Also, since MJ's death there is serious uncertainty surrounding the ownership of Sony/ATV songs. MJ had stakes in Sony/ATV via trusts, and it is yet to be seen whether the trusts were irrevocable or not - if they were, the trusts will be dismantled to meet MJ's large private debts . . . for this reason I doubt Sony are exactly relying solely on the Beatles songs and MJ's songs.

Also, the next generation Xbox is rumored to be on its way perhaps 2012-2013 - project natal or no project natal.

If Sony are following a ten year plan with the PS3, and if we shouldn't be expecting a new PS console until 2016 at the earliest then I could imagine Microsoft gaining quite a lot of further ground in the console market.

Anyways, perhaps getting a bit Off Topic.

Captain Chaos

MS have said the same thing about the 360, its now a 10 year product like the PS3. That doesn't mean that then new Xbox will be out in 2015 at the earliest same with the PS4. The may arrive around 2012/13, but the 360 and PS3 will be actively supported until at least 2015/16.

There most likely will be a new 360 SKU next year with Natal and a larger HDD. There is also a new PS3 SKU in the works with a much larger HDD.

noodler

Overheal wrote: »

Precisely why they are officially cutting PS3 hopes and dreams. I believe Gabe actually said something along the lines of 'we dont want to go down that road again unless we can do it right, as its unfair to our customers on that platform.'

Good. Its pretty reprehensible imo to do a port, or even let some other company do it on your behalf, be unable to do it properly (like plenty of other companies have I stress), release it anyway, yet still moan when the metacritic rating for it was crap.

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

Sony are in trouble because PS3 sales have been falling for seven consecutive months whilst competing console systems are either seeing stable sales or slight fluctuations in sales - recession or no recession. This is exactly what Kotick is referring to when he says the system is "loosing momentum". Sony are expected to cut the price of the PS3 in the coming months considering sales are poor and it is already the most expensive system on the market.

Really? I thought Japan's hardware market had contracted 25% or something in recent months. Kotaku I believe. Granted that more Nintendo/Sony territory but still.

Zombrex

I would imagine that the reason for this is the same reason they never produce anything on Apple (the real reason, not some nonsense that Gabe used to work for MS), that being that both Sony and Apple are dicks about helping game designers. MS isn't. The PS3 is difficult to develop for. The Xbox 360 isn't. MS make it easy, Sony make it hard.

noodler

Wicknight wrote: »

I would imagine that the reason for this is the same reason they never produce anything on Apple (the real reason, not some nonsense that Gabe used to work for MS), that being that both Sony and Apple are dicks about helping game designers. MS isn't. The PS3 is difficult to develop for. The Xbox 360 isn't. MS make it easy, Sony make it hard.

Now whatever about the actual hardware, but is there really evidence that MS are "nicer" to developers?

Wasn't there some guy moaning a couple of months ago on the big game sites about how MS were horrible?

Then theres the whole Sony with cheaper dev kits etc.

Just trying to find out if there is actually proof that MS are nice to work with or is it really just the hardware?

Sierra Oscar

noodler wrote: »

Then theres the whole Sony with cheaper dev kits etc.

?

Sony PS3 development kits were the most expensive of all console development kits until recently, aka three months ago.

Anyway, there will always be people slandering different consoles, just the nature of things.;)

noodler

Sierra Oscar wrote: »

?

Sony PS3 development kits were the most expensive of all console development kits until recently, aka three months ago.

Anyway, there will always be people slandering different consoles, just the nature of things.;)

Really? I never heard that? I was only aware of the move to make them cheaper recently.

You remember the developer freaking at MS being too controlling though?

Ironic wink there from yourself?

Sephiroth_dude

They should stick to what they good at,makeing pc games :pac:.

Retr0gamer

All reports from developers are full of nothing but praise for the support they receive from MS.

oceanclub

PC gaming... uh, I mean, PS3 gaming, is dead.

P.

L31mr0d

I'd of been happier if they announced they where pulling out of console development altogether

Next announcement they'll be making will be "PC users must feel their free online gaming is like the stepchild to the 360's superior subscription service. That's why we feel we owe it to PC gamers to do right by them, and bring the mandatory subscription service to PC also"

Overheal

Eww. Dont even joke like that.

giggsy664

L31mr0d wrote: »

I'd of been happier if they announced they where pulling out of console development altogether

Next announcement they'll be making will be "PC users must feel their free online gaming is like the stepchild to the 360's superior subscription service. That's why we feel we owe it to PC gamers to do right by them, and bring the mandatory subscription service to PC also"

Funny thing being PC online gaming is probably better than Xbox Live online. Considering not only is it fees, but you can play against a virtually infinite number of people if you have a good connection and a good server

wayne040576

Overheal wrote: »

Oh come on. Think of your own self for a moment. I have 15++ years with Windows. < 1 year with Apple, from the 90s. Which one do you think I would use?

'

Valve actually offered to port Half life 2 to the mac for 1 million dollars but Apple refused to pay which was pretty stupid as it would've sold by the bucket load and gave mac users less reasons to use windows.

Overheal

*shrug*

Apple is doing something wrong. Put it that way.