Alarid: It is easy for them to design for the XBox as compared to the PS3. The 360 has similar programming to that of a computer, so it is easier to port.
Is that why it takes so long for Valve to get DLC to the 360? Cause its just too easy to port to.
Alarid: It is easy for them to design for the XBox as compared to the PS3. The 360 has similar programming to that of a computer, so it is easier to port.
Is that why it takes so long for Valve to get DLC to the 360? Cause its just too easy to port to.
No, it's because they're lazy. LoL.
Morne
Yea, but I really wonder what goes through someone's mind when their buying a Valve game on a console. Pay 10 bucks more and you get a lack of DLC and no SDK. I'm in!
Alarid: It is easy for them to design for the XBox as compared to the PS3. The 360 has similar programming to that of a computer, so it is easier to port.
Is that why it takes so long for Valve to get DLC to the 360? Cause its just too easy to port to.
No, it's because they're lazy. LoL.
Morne
Yea, but I really wonder what goes through someone's mind when their buying a Valve game on a console. Pay 10 bucks more and you get a lack of DLC and no SDK. I'm in!
Heh, it was actually a joke, figured it'd start all the Valve activists salivating to start another Valve Defense Force. Honestly, I never have the problem. I just don't buy Valve games.
Sindre1: Anyway, Sony deserves it as they deliberatly made the console hard to programe for. They said so. PS3 owners however, does not deserve it.
Oh please, Sony PR is horrible, we all know that. In the almighty words of Onmi "If Kaz Hirai would just shut his fucking mouth things would be a lot smoother!"
Sure, their PR is horrible. Does not necessarily make it less true. I have heard of other companies that claims its hard to work on. They, however, did not stop.
And I've heard developers that said that if you've developed for the PS2 the PS3 isn't actually all that hard, just different.
Sindre1: Anyway, Sony deserves it as they deliberatly made the console hard to programe for. They said so. PS3 owners however, does not deserve it.
Oh please, Sony PR is horrible, we all know that. In the almighty words of Onmi "If Kaz Hirai would just shut his fucking mouth things would be a lot smoother!"
Sure, their PR is horrible. Does not necessarily make it less true. I have heard of other companies that claims its hard to work on. They, however, did not stop.
And I've heard developers that said that if you've developed for the PS2 the PS3 isn't actually all that hard, just different.
Sindre1: Anyway, Sony deserves it as they deliberatly made the console hard to programe for. They said so. PS3 owners however, does not deserve it.
Oh please, Sony PR is horrible, we all know that. In the almighty words of Onmi "If Kaz Hirai would just shut his fucking mouth things would be a lot smoother!"
Sure, their PR is horrible. Does not necessarily make it less true. I have heard of other companies that claims its hard to work on. They, however, did not stop.
And I've heard developers that said that if you've developed for the PS2 the PS3 isn't actually all that hard, just different.
So, who are we going to believe now?
Sony employees with mouth diarrea?
I'd rather believe the numbers, almost every 3rd party developes for the PS3. Case closed.
Mornelithe: I'd rather believe the numbers, almost every 3rd party developes for the PS3. Case closed.
Sindre1: I have heard of other companies that claims its hard to work on. They, however, did not stop.
Oh absolutely, not disputing the ease or difficulty of developing for the PS3. However, if it was _that_ hard, there wouldn't be so many 3rd party devs, making games for the PS3.
Mornelithe: I'd rather believe the numbers, almost every 3rd party developes for the PS3. Case closed.
Sindre1: I have heard of other companies that claims its hard to work on. They, however, did not stop.
Oh absolutely, not disputing the ease or difficulty of developing for the PS3. However, if it was _that_ hard, there wouldn't be so many 3rd party devs, making games for the PS3.
Morne
Glad we see eye to eye on this.
PS: Stop signing your name at the end of your posts. In my eyes it makes you seem like a douch. We can see your name on the left.
Mornelithe: I'd rather believe the numbers, almost every 3rd party developes for the PS3. Case closed.
Sindre1: I have heard of other companies that claims its hard to work on. They, however, did not stop.
Oh absolutely, not disputing the ease or difficulty of developing for the PS3. However, if it was _that_ hard, there wouldn't be so many 3rd party devs, making games for the PS3.
Morne
Glad we see eye to eye on this.
PS: Stop signing your name at the end of your posts. In my eyes it makes you seem like a douch. We can see your name on the left.
It's habit, been posting on forums, news groups, bulletin boards and such for the better part of 20 years. Old habits die hard.
If it were just Valve, I'd say that it sounds a bit like Gabe Newell has a hate-on for the Playstation, but wasn't the head of Activision njust saying the exact same thing? That the Playstation is difficult to develop for and that the sales payoff for all that extra effort just isn't there? If two different, unrelated game companies are saying such thing in such unambiguous terms, maybe the Playstation really is that difficult to develop for. And while Playstation sales may be up, based largely on Blu-ray winning the format war, that doesn't mean a damn bit of difference if the PS3 game sales aren't up. And just because Valve and Activision are the only ones saying this publicly, that doesn't mean that other developers who are currently developing on the PS3 platform aren't having serious private discussions on whether or not to quit pouring money into a support for a platform that seems to be operating under the law of diminishing returns.
I really want to see Valve games on the PS3. Not because I want to see PS3 owners enjoy it but I want to see a half assed port which will make those damn devs understand how they make us PC Gamers feel. So consider Valve a blessing for putting some thought into your ports.
mshcherbatskaya: If it were just Valve, I'd say that it sounds a bit like Gabe Newell has a hate-on for the Playstation, but wasn't the head of Activision njust saying the exact same thing? That the Playstation is difficult to develop for and that the sales payoff for all that extra effort just isn't there? If two different, unrelated game companies are saying such thing in such unambiguous terms, maybe the Playstation really is that difficult to develop for. And while Playstation sales may be up, based largely on Blu-ray winning the format war, that doesn't mean a damn bit of difference if the PS3 game sales aren't up.
I think the Activision guy was just threatening to cut support (which is a load of bollocks if you think about it) if the price didn't go down, as far as I know he didn't complain about how "hard" it is to apparantly work for.
Other companies have said that if you've worked on the PS2 many times, the PS3 isn't all that difficult. Many say it's just "different" not "hard" to work with. In fact, a guy at Guerilla Games stated that the PS3 was easy to work with, though that could easily have been misinterpreted by me, I'll admit.
Right now VALVe is saying a bunch of different things about PS3s from "It's a waste of time" to "it's more or less a waste of time" to "we don't want to treat PS3 owners like $5 whores" (even though they're treating 360 owners in the same retrospect when you think about it). They're going all over the place with their reasons/excuses/whatever for not working on PS3s and frankly, my dear, I couldn't give a damn (why did that quote just pop in my head?) anymore.
mshcherbatskaya: If it were just Valve, I'd say that it sounds a bit like Gabe Newell has a hate-on for the Playstation, but wasn't the head of Activision njust saying the exact same thing? That the Playstation is difficult to develop for and that the sales payoff for all that extra effort just isn't there? If two different, unrelated game companies are saying such thing in such unambiguous terms, maybe the Playstation really is that difficult to develop for. And while Playstation sales may be up, based largely on Blu-ray winning the format war, that doesn't mean a damn bit of difference if the PS3 game sales aren't up. And just because Valve and Activision are the only ones saying this publicly, that doesn't mean that other developers who are currently developing on the PS3 platform aren't having serious private discussions on whether or not to quit pouring money into a support for a platform that seems to be operating under the law of diminishing returns.
The head of Activision was stating something a bit differently. He was calling for a price cut, simply because the PS3's sales numbers are slowing, which impacts attach rate, which impacts how much money Activision can make from $60+ games they sell on the PS3. Combined with the $500 Million Activision paid Sony in royalties this year. Blah blah blah.
Valve's situation is different, a much much smaller dev than Activision, who doesn't have people internally who particularly care for the PS3's architecture. Two different situations, but I understand what you're saying.
Right now VALVe is saying a bunch of different things about PS3s from "It's a waste of time" to "it's more or less a waste of time" to "we don't want to treat PS3 owners like $5 whores" (even though they're treating 360 owners in the same retrospect when you think about it). They're going all over the place with their reasons/excuses/whatever for not working on PS3s and frankly, my dear, I couldn't give a damn (why did that quote just pop in my head?) anymore.
You're giving a damn by commenting about it. ;)
To be honest, I'm not seeing anything different here as opposed to the whole MGS4 thing: while in development we got a load of flipflopping between can't be done on the 360, could be possible after all, not gonna happen, Kojima hates the 360, yadda yadda yadda. And a whole load of "why aren't you developing for [platfrom X]?" until everybody got tired of it. Then some more of that again after the release.
Wow, it's just another dickslap from the PS3's steadily-thinning list of 3rd-party developers.
Sony really needs to start listening to the advice it's getting even from sellouts like Activision (i.e., console complexity, high price range, yada yada yada...).
Right now VALVe is saying a bunch of different things about PS3s from "It's a waste of time" to "it's more or less a waste of time" to "we don't want to treat PS3 owners like $5 whores" (even though they're treating 360 owners in the same retrospect when you think about it). They're going all over the place with their reasons/excuses/whatever for not working on PS3s and frankly, my dear, I couldn't give a damn (why did that quote just pop in my head?) anymore.
You're giving a damn by commenting about it. ;)
To be honest, I'm not seeing anything different here as opposed to the whole MGS4 thing: while in development we got a load of flipflopping between can't be done on the 360, could be possible after all, not gonna happen, Kojima hates the 360, yadda yadda yadda. And a whole load of "why aren't you developing for [platfrom X]?" until everybody got tired of it. Then some more of that again after the release.
Hey, I said "anymore", read the fine print people!
13lackfriday: Wow, it's just another dickslap from the PS3's steadily-thinning list of 3rd-party developers.
Sony really needs to start listening to the advice it's getting even from sellouts like Activision (i.e., console complexity, high price range, yada yada yada...).
I must've missed the part where Valve was actually a 3rd party developer for Sony...ever.
Mornelithe: Because most of their dev costs go into buying snacks for Gabe Newell?
Sarcasm aside though, it's pretty obvious this is damage control. After pissing off a 23 million strong install base, basically giving them the finger, they have to come out and say something less caustic than most of what they have to say about the PS3, because, simply put, that attitude could start damaging PC/360 sales. Developers getting full of themselves, tend to turn people off. nah what pisses me off is devs that start working on a sequel as the first one releases and then release that half a year later.
Morne
what pisses me off is devs that dont deliver content they promise or patch as often as they promise or give the game the same amount of attention as their others.
Mornelithe: Because most of their dev costs go into buying snacks for Gabe Newell?
Sarcasm aside though, it's pretty obvious this is damage control. After pissing off a 23 million strong install base, basically giving them the finger, they have to come out and say something less caustic than most of what they have to say about the PS3, because, simply put, that attitude could start damaging PC/360 sales. Developers getting full of themselves, tend to turn people off.
Chrissyluky Says: nah what pisses me off is devs that start working on a sequel as the first one releases and then release that half a year later.
Christ Morne, that was savage, I think HyenaThePirate tasted that one.
And you aren't really going to stop signing your name at the end of your posts, are you??
Oddly enough, someone's called me on that before. Not sure why it bothers people, but hey, if it's going to interfere with the subject at hand, I can try to stop. I guess not everyone realizes/remembers that Avatar's and such, haven't been around since the inception of the interwebs.
Alarid: It is easy for them to design for the XBox as compared to the PS3. The 360 has similar programming to that of a computer, so it is easier to port.
Is that why it takes so long for Valve to get DLC to the 360? Cause its just too easy to port to.
I said the PROGRAMMING was similar. The 360 has less room for them to move around in; the specs of it and the actual functionality differ from the PC (mostly, they don't have as high of a threshold).
In the PC version, they can easily change the game physics and change the actual functionality of the game. For the XBox, they just can't do that, since the game is on the disc and not the system; the disc contents can't be changed, and they would have to rewrite the fuctionality of the game on the HD, and that in itself holds problems.
They also can't just add the features to the game as they come out like on the PC either, because how would you like to pay for only a couple of extra features at a time? I don't know about you, but I would not want to pay for only 3 new weapons EACH TIME they have a class update. I would rather pay for a large addition to the game, like some Fallout 3 DLC.
Poor Doug, always trying to water down the fires that Gabe creates. Though I have to say, it's one thing I've always found refreshing about Gabe Newell. He's one of only like 5 devs I can think of that just say thier mind and don't dance around the subjects. (Another notable is the highly outspoken Dave Jaffe) The PS3 diehard fanboys won't care what Doug has to say though.
Valve is a PC company, always has been, and likely always will be. And that upsets them, and they will bitch about it. Move on. =|
Alarid: It is easy for them to design for the XBox as compared to the PS3. The 360 has similar programming to that of a computer, so it is easier to port.
Is that why it takes so long for Valve to get DLC to the 360? Cause its just too easy to port to.
I said the PROGRAMMING was similar. The 360 has less room for them to move around in; the specs of it and the actual functionality differ from the PC (mostly, they don't have as high of a threshold).
In the PC version, they can easily change the game physics and change the actual functionality of the game. For the XBox, they just can't do that, since the game is on the disc and not the system; the disc contents can't be changed, and they would have to rewrite the fuctionality of the game on the HD, and that in itself holds problems.
They also can't just add the features to the game as they come out like on the PC either, because how would you like to pay for only a couple of extra features at a time? I don't know about you, but I would not want to pay for only 3 new weapons EACH TIME they have a class update. I would rather pay for a large addition to the game, like some Fallout 3 DLC.
But wouldn't Valve give out the DLC for free. It just seems like their too "lazy" to port updates on to the xbox, either that or it's too "complicated" to port to.
*snip* Oh, damn, I made the mistake of reading the last few lines. I don't see any of Sony's internal devs having a problem with it, bitching or not. They make top-notch games, with little to no belly-aching, ala Valve. And, well, if you need a '3rd' party developer *rolls eyes* Look no further than Kojima studios. Sorry, they're not Sony exclusive, even if the game was.
I laughed at this part. Gee, Morne...why do you think that Sony's internal developers don't have a problem with making games for the system that Sony created? Do you think that the internal developers might know something that, say, external developers might not? In all seriousness, please tell me that there is some layer of sarcasm that I am missing there...
Mornelithe:
It's habit, been posting on forums, news groups, bulletin boards and such for the better part of 20 years. Old habits die hard
You've mentioned that you've been online for almost 20 years three times in this thread. I am very impressed...you must be really good at the internets!
I am sure they got profits from putting Indigo Prophecy on the 360 for original X-BOX titles. I don't think Microsoft cares whether they have Heavy Rain or not.
People should just accept that some games won't come out for some consoles.
No, it's because they're lazy. LoL.
Morne