Top
450°

Valve 'up' on idea of PS3 development, waiting to build talented PS3 team

Joystiq writes: "Valve isn't quite as against the idea of developing games for the PS3 as we previously thought. Speaking to Valve's Doug Lombardi at the Left 4 Dead 2 event in London today (look out for the full interview soon), we discovered that the company is still "up on the idea" of developing for the PS3 -- it's just waiting until it has hired some decent PS3 coders."

The story is too old to be commented.
qface643454d ago

by the time they are down building up this team the ps4 will be 1 year from release

Maddens Raiders3454d ago (Edited 3454d ago )

considering us lowly, lowly PS3 owners in your future endeavours and discussions. If only we were truly worthy of your efforts.

/sarcasm o_O

Seriously, I know I may be in the minority here, but I don't give a flying shyt what Valve or any of their company heads have to say. The PS3 is a beast and their apparent lack of interest or expertise in programming for ((it)) speaks volumes after 2 1/2 years on the shelves. Are you freaking kidding me?

Valve, that rotund atrocity Newell, and Nolan Bushnell joined the lot of a**hole Programmers / devs that can suck my .... a long time ago. I'll contribute nary a dime to any of their half-hearted projects.

/rant

GameGambits3454d ago

If Valve is "such a good developer" and they have yet to give the PS3 proper support, then wouldn't that make them just a bunch of hot air? Seriously if you can't port your games over because you are that lazy or incompetent, then just do everyone a favor and admit it already. Plenty of other devs with brains attached to their spinal cords would be more than willing to tell you how to get the job done right.

I'm still waiting for a game from these guys that I can put in my all time favorites list, because even Half Life 1 and 2 aren't on my big list of games I think everyone should play. :/

lociefer3454d ago

no thank you i do not want older gen games on my powerhorse 3

El Botto3454d ago (Edited 3454d ago )

PS3 has higher attach rates, more power, Blu Ray and PS3 first and second year sales beat 360. That means that if you deduct the headstart of the 360, PS3 has a higher install base.

Furthermore, 360 is already twice as cheap as PS3. They blew all their cards away by now and are running out of ideas. Halo this halo that. Even Halo will fail eventually.

The industry isnt a fool. There is not a single big time developer that doesnt want to support the PS3.

If you look at Konami, EA even Capcom for instance, you can see that they made the most money last year on the PS3. This is not different for any other developer.

Eventually even die hard studios will see that they are at a disadvantage BY NOT developing for the PS3.

This is Valve's wake up call. Sooner or later, the smell of profits will lure even the die hards. Valve is no different.

Boody-Bandit3454d ago (Edited 3454d ago )

I personally have not contributed a dime to a valve project on the consoles this whole generation. I really never saw what the big stink was over Orange Box and especially L4D and shooters are my favorite genre.

They are running on such dated engines and OB lagged liked crazy online while L4D is just wave after wave of zombies attacking. It felt more like a mod inside of a full version game then the ability to stand on it's own. I will never understand the appeal of these titles and yes I have played them both on the PC and 360.

All-33454d ago

--> Of course they will. This article comes as no surprise. Because PS3 is doing better than 360. Hell, anyone in the industry can see that by now.

Oh really? Better in what way? Not in unit sales worldwide.

--> PS3 has higher attach rates...

No it does not.

--> ... PS3 first and second year sales beat 360. That means that if you deduct the headstart of the 360, PS3 has a higher install base.

Except that the industry doesn't do that... only rabid supporters do that. The industry acknowledges that the 360 has a larger install base vs the PS3... and the 360 games give game publishers/developers more profits on their investments.

--> Furthermore, 360 is already twice as cheap as PS3.

That's Sony's problem. The PS3 would sell more if Sony could afford to drop the price... unfortunately Sony can't afford to thus far.

--> They blew all their cards away by now and are running out of ideas. Halo this halo that. Even Halo will fail eventually.

There's much more than just Halo... and if you want to go that route... how many God of War games are there? Don't forget the handheld version either.

--> The industry isnt a fool. There is not a single big time developer that doesnt want to support the PS3.

Support at what cost though? Why isn't the PS3 the dominate development platform for 3rd party publishers/developers? No company is going to sacrifice profit margins just because of some raving PS3 supporters.

--> If you look at Konami, EA even Capcom for instance, you can see that they made the most money last year on the PS3. This is not different than on any platform.

That's why the PS3 is the lead development platform for all their games right? Oh wait... not it's not.

Those companies made more money because of the entire Sony platforms combined... not on the PS3 alone.

--> Eventually even die hard studios will see that they are at a disadvantage BY NOT developing for the PS3.

Why would they NOT develop for the PS3 in the first place?

--> This is Valve's wake up call. Sooner or later, the smell of profits will lure even the die hards. Valve is no different.

But with the 360 and PC markets... Valve doesn't need to support the PS3 yet... and it still appears that they won't be for some time to come. You're not upset when developers claim that their games will only be on the PS3... or can only be done on the PS3 are you?

potenquatro3454d ago

Just because Gabe is a human with opinions and preferences. I for one welcome more games on the ps3, specially coming from Valve. Could you imagine if they manage to put STEAM running on ps3? I doubt it, but I bet if they do, everybody will be on their nuts.

@lociefer: Older gen games? You know Source is probably the most optimized engine in the industry right? You know Source debuted in 2004, waaaayyyy after last gen started right? kids today are so dependent of that "wow" factor, they can't even apreciate a good thing when they see one.

El Botto3454d ago

Deal with the fact that you are delusional and cant refute facts.

Your big wall-o-text of post is full of failure. And quite frankly, there is nothing more irritating than to see a retarded response where some 14 year old is picking apart your previous post quote you 400 times over, each with a seperate reply.

You think Im going to read that crap? Learn how to properly response to someone first and then maybe when you turn 18 years old, Ill consider you as a legal adult and start to have discussions with you.

ThanatosDMC3453d ago

Meh... i really dont care about Valve and consoles. I buy Valve games on Steam. All their games are meant to be played with keyboard and a mouse after all.

All-33453d ago (Edited 3453d ago )

--> Deal with the fact that you are delusional and cant refute facts.

That's hilarious coming from you.

--> Your big wall-o-text of post is full of failure. And quite frankly, there is nothing more irritating than to see a retarded response where some 14 year old is picking apart your previous post quote you 400 times over, each with a seperate reply.

Looks like you've been practicing being a 10 year old.

--> You think Im going to read that crap? Learn how to properly response to someone first and then maybe when you turn 18 years old, Ill consider you as a legal adult and start to have discussions with you.

No... I don't expect you to read much of anything... you like to make things up, to soothe yourself to sleep. However - if it helps you... just skip past all the BS that I've copied from your initial post, and included in my first response.

thesummerofgeorge3453d ago (Edited 3453d ago )

You say the industry doesn't look at the fact that the PS3 sold more if you don't include the head start, but I think they would. First off I don't know if that's accurate or not, but if it is, it would show a higher growth rate, meaning potential future sales would likely be higher if it's selling more in it's time than it's competition. I mean it would be remiss of them to ignore the fact that one is selling faster than the other, even if the one selling slower has more overall sales due to it being out longer. Wouldn't you agree?

Bubble Buddy3453d ago

Valve, I love Left 4 Dead. Played it at my cousins and had a blast. I'd buy it for PS3 but if they take long (which they will), I'll just upgrade my [email protected] PC and get it there. :P

All-33453d ago (Edited 3453d ago )

The units sales are one thing. Fact is - the 360 has a larger install base regardless of the circumstances.

--> I mean it would be remiss of them to ignore the fact that one is selling faster than the other, even if the one selling slower has more overall sales due to it being out longer. Wouldn't you agree?

I agree... however, since the PS3 is more powerful, and apparently more future-proof vs the 360... and since the PS3 sales vs the 360 compared to when the PS3 launched onward, are better... wouldn't you agree that it's strange then, that:

1) Most 3rd party games still aren't developed first on the PS3 and then ported over to the 360.

2) Most Publishers/Developers would want to help increase PS3 sales even more, so they could make even more money... by releasing the better versions of their games on the PS3, but they're not.

3) People keep forgetting that profits from game sales aren't the same for PS3 games vs 360 games... because development costs aren't the same. It costs publishers/developers more to develop PS3 games vs 360 games.

And no matter what else - having a larger install base which has generally resulted in larger game sales, and therefore profits - is going to get 3rd party publishers/developers attention more than anything.

---

--> poor sales of ps3 games? Just another popular misconception. Uncharted, Motorstorm and Resistance all sold better than Mass Effect, Crackdown and L4D on the 360. GTA4 almost equals sales despite a big difference in install base.

Uncharted: Drake's Fortune - 2.46 million

MotorStorm: Pacific Rift - 0.66 million

Resistance: Fall of Man - 3.6 million

* Halo 3 - 9.84 million

* Gears of War 2 - 4.95 million

* Mass Effect - 2.06 million (360)

* Crackdown - 1.5 million (360)

* Left 4 Dead - 2.27 million (360)

GTA IV - 7.11 million (360)

GTA IV - 5.65 million (PS3)

thesummerofgeorge3453d ago (Edited 3453d ago )

I'm just saying I think the growth rate of a console seems relevant to the industry. But since you asked, I don't think that a company developing a game for the 360 or PS3 first reflects badly or says anything about the quality of the system, clearly both systems have had great games that were developed for them specifically.

Maybe the 360's easier to develop for in general, or maybe it's just easier cause developers have had more time with it, so it's cheaper to start with it and port to the PS3. Maybe that'll change maybe it won't. I think if anything, how good or bad a port is says more about the developer than the systems.

Edit: Also all things considered, sure a larger install base is advantageous, but a higher growth rate implies that won't last, thus if a company is looking towards the future, this would be something to consider.

thesummerofgeorge3453d ago

I wish people would cite where they get their numbers from. I'm not sayin your numbers are wrong All3, but it'd be nice to know the source.

Anon19743453d ago

All3 made the point that "The industry acknowledges that the 360 has a larger install base vs the PS3... and the 360 games give game publishers/developers more profits on their investments."

Now, this bit was apparently in response to the fact that the PS3 is being adopted by consumers at a much faster rate than the 360 and it's incorrect. The industry looks to the future, which is why I'm sure it's not lost on them how much faster the PS3 is catching on compared to the 360. If the developers only looked at install base we'd all still wading through new PS2 games, or everyone would have switched to the Wii and clearly that hasn't happened. That rather disproves your "it's all about the install base" argument.

Secondly - you are indeed correct, the PS3 does not have higher attach rates. Sony recently commented that sales of AAA games have a higher attach rate then the 360, but overall attach rates are lower than the 360.

However, the PS3 attach rates are consistent with the 360's attach rates at the 2 1/2 year mark, but the PS3 is approx 4 million consoles ahead of where the 360 was at this point in it's life.

Clearly there isn't an issue with developers and the PS3 from what we're seeing. Despite the Xbox 360 having 30% more consoles in the wild (allegedly) revenue posted from companies like EA, Ubisoft, Take Two clearly indicate the revenue generated by fewer PS3's is a match for revenue generated by the 360. Again, your points don't really hold up against the reality we're seeing.

Finally, as for the costs to develop a game on the PS3 being higher, it depends on who you talk to. Activision recently had their hissy fit complaining about costs - all sound and fury signifying nothing - but other companies like Ubisoft and EA have commented that the price of developing for the PS3 is similar to the 360 and PC (Sony has made numerous changes over the past two years to bring the cost of development down while increasing the tools available) Costs to develop for the Wii are considerably lower.

thesummerofgeorge3453d ago (Edited 3453d ago )

And that's the thing, sometimes people don't consider the PS3 is doing as well as the 360 did when it was at the same point in it's lifespan (I realize I'm generalizing). People sometimes expect the PS3 to not only already be caught up to the 360's sales in a shorter time, but already surpass them in less time, or it's failing. I'm sure Microsoft considered this as well, appearances carry alot of weight.

Liquid_Ocelot3453d ago

FVCK YOU VALVE & Gabe "fa99ot @ss" Newell, FVCK YOU...

"ehh? how you like that you fvckin maric0n" -Tony Montana

Traveler3453d ago

Unlike some of the PS3 fans here I really like Valve's games. I mostly play them on the PC, but I think it would be great if PS3-only owners could also get a chance to play them. I really hope that Valve makes some serious efforts in that direction.

Raz3453d ago

Insulting someone in Spanish (even a Tony Montana quote) = instant agree + bubble

^_^

mythamp3453d ago (Edited 3453d ago )

I stopped reading the moment i read "Oh really? Better in what way? Not in unit sales worldwide." You simply do not understand marketing/sales/the gaming industry. It is not about the total sales of units, its the product lifecycle, xbox360 has reached maturity and is on its way down while the PS3 is still on its growth run. The main difference is being the steepness of the curve. Just put month by month sales of both machines from their beginning and see the results in excel through a line graph, you will see what I mean. PS3 sells higher software compared to xbox, the reason is obviously piracy in the xbox, (more units sold which get modded for pirated games and so developers make 0 from those sales).

Valve is now back pedaling from their previous stance, hoping to get alil good PR in the PS3 base, I am sure they are feeling likes fools and also learned from the activation ceo's episode to think before talking trash.

I did not murder him3453d ago (Edited 3453d ago )

These are the real remarks before they changed Valves words.

"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.

"We've kind of learned a lesson in that again, 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."

http://www.computerandvideo...

BWS19823453d ago

Valve would "have decent coders" for the PS3 if they didn't shove it to the side as a "failure" 3-4 years ago when it was new tech for the rest of the industry as virtually every other dev. was getting familiar with it and the dev kits/demonstrations. Just getting to it now, I see? Gee, that "comfort zone" I keep seeing people call it must have been uber comfortable.

I also don't buy the whole "Valve is a small company" bit, they won a lawsuit for 2 million something a few years back, they have Turtle Rock Studios now, Steam has to be raking in the dollars, and if they can pump out 2 Left 4 Dead games in about 2 years, "getting around" to learning the PS3 is not impossible. Media Molecule is tiny and they've done beautifully with LBP on their first attempt. Excuses, Gabe, excuses.

+ Show (20) more repliesLast reply 3453d ago
KionicWarlord2223454d ago

I remember another article when valve said this. It`s great that there trying.

theEnemy3454d ago

While other devs are pushing the PS3 beyond limits.

LinuxGuru3454d ago

Valve games are really CPU intensive, as long as they're sticking with Source.

I think...once they've got some programmers that show Doug and Gabe just how much CPU processing power they can wrench out of the PS3...they'll jump for joy.

Until then...we wait. Or play their games on PC. Preferably PC.

Fishy Fingers3454d ago

The source engine is CPU intensive? Perhaps if your CPU pre dates fire. The source engine in general is very forgiving.

potenquatro3454d ago (Edited 3454d ago )

When HL:2 came out I had a p4 3.2cpu and 5800ultra card. Valve was being a real btch about nvidia cards then(wich doesnt surprise me when they b!tch about the nvidia equipped ps3). And even though the card was completely dx9c sm-2.5 256-mb, it still reverted to dx8, unless you had an ATI even if it was less powerful. I figure if it was cpu intensive, that whole little story would've never happened.

LinuxGuru3453d ago

What? The Source Engine IS CPU intensive. As they update it with more animations, more AI, more characters on screen....it becomes more and more CPU intensive.

Why do you think that you get such a huge performance boost when you play L4D with multicore rendering enabled?

LinuxGuru3453d ago

Because of the increase in particle effects, AI, and increase in geometry and physics...the Source engine is now a lot more CPU intensive than it used to be.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 3453d ago
Mindboggle3454d ago

Who do they think they are ?? They think their the GOD developers and that everyones on their knees begging them to develop for the PS3. I dont even know what the deal is...

Yh half life was good, but the majority of their games have been average, and just the same thing re-hashed with new levels and characters...

rayjelic3454d ago

Your right but it's mostly just media gathering around there jocks, Because everyone I know and forum with could care less about it, or just rather play it on PC.

JD_Shadow3453d ago

They're the pioneers of the "PS3 is too hard to develop for" argument that other devs that tried to screw the PS3 out of (good) games tried to use. If they suddenly stop saying that and start developing quality games for the PS3, then it'll have a ripple effect on the rest of the industry, regardless of if they games sell well on the platform or not.

madpuppy3454d ago

ANYWAY...It will be interesting to see if they will eventually upgrade the source engine, it is getting a little long in the tooth for modern games on the PC and consoles (sans the Wii)