The story is too old to be commented.
dangert122903d ago

the are going to make major money

narked2903d ago

great news :D i can install it on my netbook and play some of the basic games :)

Noctis Aftermath2903d ago

Valve has my support for this.

Pandamobile2903d ago

Valve games - Now on every platfrom but the PS3.

(and wii)

Pandamobile2903d ago

If you count the horrid port by EA

piroh2903d ago

horrid... made in Valve :)

tdrules2903d ago

no it was made IN-HOUSE by EA.

bootsielon2903d ago

It was perfectly playable, only morons that have never played the ps3 version will say the ps3 version is bad

duplissi2903d ago


well mostly playable... team fortress was an exercise in patience sometimes, and it froze frequently. suffice it to say i traded it in and bought the pc version.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2903d ago
Alcon Caper2903d ago

haha, hell of a time for the PS3 to drop linux...

El_Colombiano2903d ago

It's all a ploy by Sony to get Valve's super amazing Godly games on the PS3 since we all know they make perfect games.


OpenGL2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )

The PS3 would have never been able to run PC games in Linux. Valve likely won't support any PowerPC distros of Linux. Even if they did, hypervisor locks RSX and its memory leaving you with only 256MB of system RAM.

Darkfocus2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )

geohot's hack unlocks the RSX and memory though so it could run some of the games

Pennywise2903d ago

Valve games are great, but still running on a 10 year old engine. Time to upgrade Gabe!!

Plus, Panda... I know you won't disagree... Valves games are best played on the PC anyways. I just couldn't ever see CS being as popular if it was console only.

tdrules2903d ago

it's running on a 6 year old engine that has been upgraded in 2007, 2008 and 2009 with major features such as HDR, Bloom, DX10, Multicore Rendering, very high textures and MSAA.

ALFAxD_CENTAURO2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )

Yeap, looks like they are lazy to develop on PS3 architecture with an old engine like Valve have.

JD_Shadow2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )

Yeah, and that's NOT a good thing!

Honestly, if Portal 2 doesn't get announced for the PS3 sometime soon (like at E3), then people really need to call Valve out on their position. Linux has even LESS of a user base than the Mac (no offense intended, but they do), and the Mac has a smaller user base than the PS3. Valve has expressed that they like the Wii, too, though they haven't created any games for it yet.

And can we do it without any Valve apologists using the harshest personal attacks towards anyone who even REMOTELY calls out Valve about the lack of PS3 development...hell, they do that if we remotely call Valve out for ANYTHING, but ESPECIALLY about the PS3 issue.

@Pandamobile So is/was Bioware, and look where their successes are, and how open minded they are. They seem to love consoles as much as they do the PC. So with people who are "PC companies", they can STILL have much successes on consoles, and it seems like Valve cares enough about the 360 and does enough updates for their 360 games to say that they are JUST a "PC company". So that argument doesn't hold water as a reason to why they won't develop on the PS3 either. There's NO excuse for it now.

Pandamobile2903d ago

But Valve really don't give two-shits about any console. They're a PC company, and now they're just supporting a wider PC audience.

Steam is where the money is.

mcgrawgamer2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )


Biggest difference between Valve and Bioware. Bioware always had a big publisher pushing their titles. Think about it Mass Effect never would have even hit the pc if EA had not acquired them. Valve is truly independent and they've stated time and time again aside from the ps3 architecture cost is the biggest obstacle. Furthermore:

Valve - 200+ employees
Bioware - EA

360 gets some form of love because it's pretty much a copy and paste job for Valve i.e maximum profit minimum effort. Those guys probably ported left 4 dead to the 360 while simultaneously grilling some steak-ums for lunch.

Theonik2903d ago

I'm with panda on this. Valve has no reason to support the PS3. They make money from Steam. A lot of money and they don't have to pay publishing fees or ridiculous royalties on DLC and their games. Linux is of higher interest to Valve because it allows them to keep their platform while increasing the size of their community.

JD_Shadow2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )

@Theonik: They DO have a reason to develop for the PS3. That is that a lot of people outside of the Valve apologists want them to. Gabe said it himself that they get a lot of requests for them to develop PS3 games. Of course, there IS that cost that McGraw talked about, but when did they make that claim, and was that true to begin with? In my opinion, they have had different excuses for every time the question of why not has come up, so them saying that gives me questions as anyone SHOULD have because they keep changing their reasoning (first it's a "waste of time", then not enough of the right staff, then dev costs, then XBL fans are better than PSN fans, then...what else). See where I'm going here. It's hard for me to believe that they are worried about dev costs when so many other excuses have came across the board without any way to see that the other reasons they said also mattered when they gave the new excuse. It was like the previous reason was never given or existed when the new issue came about.

I think all their excuses can be squashed with a few minutes of research, and I think McGraw is taking what Valve said about dev costs (which have been down, anyway, with the way more devs, small and big alike, seem willing to work with the PS3 as the lead console) at face value when he shouldn't. Linux and Mac are NOT a "copy and paste" job, and yet, they are doing it anyway. So how is it that any more difficult to do anything for the PS3? By the way, Valve has EA's support, too, so it's not like that is any big of an issue, or is that a viable excuse even if Valve didn't have EA support because most dev studios are of that size. We're not talking about PUBLISHERS, here. Only developers. There's a BIG difference.

My thought is that Valve is being stubborn. They made that statement back in 2007, and they have very, VERY rarely had to retract any statement like that like they have made. They know they put their foot in their mouth when they said that, and yet, they want to hold onto that sentiment by avoiding having to develop for the PS3 because they don't want to make that huge retraction. Gabe DID say he was sorry to the PS3 owners for the Orange Box, but that was after the fact, and it doesn't seem like it was sincere, and if he was completely sorry, then he would be looking into development for the PS3. Of course, an announcement for Portal 2 on the PS3 would prove me wrong, and to be honest, this is something I would LOVE to be proven wrong about (and I believe that will happen at E3, or else, like I said, there has to be hard questions asked).

I am glad, though, that many of the dissension to my opinion have been more or less mature. We don't have anyone yet giving me personal attacks or any shit like that yet. At least there are some points given and well thought out instead of people who are just trying to hide console or PC fandom as Valve fandom by going "Valve don't make PS3 games cuz PS3 suxxxors", though I think the reasons are wrong.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 2903d ago
bootsielon2903d ago

What the hell is a "platfrom"? Go back to school and learn to write.

Also, it's funny how you celebrate considering you have no good exclusives, all the good PC games are on other platforms except WoW, Sims, Starcraft, Diablo and Crysis; not like WoW is any good anyway. Crysis 2 is comming to consoles and sims usually has console iterations. So have fun getting pwned by Koreans on Starcraft 2 and enriching bobby kotick's pockets.

rawrockkillz2903d ago

Learn to spell before you criticize someone else on their spelling. It's "coming" not "comming".

Kratos Spartan2903d ago

they do this right after Sony removed linux ability on the PS3.

Ju2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )

Steam == platform, not a game. And as such it is a major competition to XBL and PSN (especially after the last update).

So how is that related. And even if Steam is on Linux (or Mac), how do they run PC games there ?

Is the whole Steam library available there - and do the games run through (Dx/Win) emulation ? (wine?)

Steam is not on the 360 either, btw. And I love Steam on my PC, but I haven't bought a single Valve game through it, though...

+ Show (6) more repliesLast reply 2903d ago
mrv3212903d ago

YAY, Ubuntu and this, no more wine.

Now all I need is League of Legends to support Ubuntu/linux.

morganfell2903d ago

Exactly. The best OS gets a major boost.

mrv3212903d ago

Best OS? Most cost effective anyway.


I am running Ubuntu only at the moment but after some fiddling, I've decided to reinstall it fresh and just build it for speed, under <20s is my goal, I don't know how I could do... but if there's a will there's a way.

Seriously half the fun with Ubuntu is breaking it and reinstalling it, how can you really break Ubuntu anyway.

Have you tried Netbook edition? I find it more user friendly. Also any suggestions for helping my boot time.

Theonik2903d ago

No idea how to make it faster. By default mine boots in <10s.

Ju2903d ago

I still don't get it.

Are Steam/Linux (Steam/Mac) games native game for Linux(Mac) ? Or how do they support that OS ?

That either limits the library or you still need things like wine underneath.

Crusade2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )

edit nvm

ALFAxD_CENTAURO2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )

Little by little Gaming for Windows will fall.

The only thing good about Windows is the gaming, that's all. If developers focus to make games for MAC or Linux, I won't use Windows anymore, and millions of people too.

Odion2903d ago

Except for any of those platforms to have games working as well as they do on Windows the fundemental aspects of the OS need to change.

sorceror1712903d ago

Seriously, name three "fundemental aspects of the OS" that "need to change" for Linux to support games as well as Windows. Specifics, please.

Ju2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )

Full HW support by graphics card vendors to fully get the bandwidth out of their HW - and the latest chipsets (which, in return requires a full driver model which supports that HW).

X has to go (DirectFB 2.0 or something like that needs to be integrated into the kernel!! You can still run X on top of that, for example).

Just some small things...

sorceror1712901d ago

@Ju - The video drivers are mostly a solved problem. They use the same core code on both Linux and Windows, with some wrappers.

And no, X isn't the problem. There's already the "Direct Rendering Infrastructure" which does what DirectFB does. X is *already* moving to use that.

So that's two. One-and-a-half, really, as they're both about video card drivers. What else ya got? :-)

mcgrawgamer2903d ago

games for windows will fall? When did it ever climb to begin with? LOL! Steam, BattleNet, Impuluse, D2D, and Stardock are all obstacles that GFWL would have to overcome. It's not even in the running as a viable DD platform. Matter of fact GFWL is so bad it's worse than OnLive and as far as I'm concerned OnLive is vaporware ala the Phantom or whatever that thing was called back in the day :D

Valve is one step closer to DD supremacy and I'm all for it. By the way Portal is free now till the 24th.

Mista T2903d ago

more like, games for windows will be equaled

Letros2903d ago (Edited 2903d ago )

"If developers focus to make games for OpenGL, I won't use Windows anymore, and millions of people too."

fixed =)

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2901d ago
Show all comments (58)
The story is too old to be commented.