Valve spuds your wallet, delivers soft on Portal promise

Extra Guy writes: Say what you will about Valve, but you can’t deny the fact that they know their fans, to the point where they can exploit them for absurd financial gain. With the unmitigated frenzy leading up to the release of Portal 2, Valve launched a lofty alternate-reality game to accompany the days leading up to release. Not only did this serve to drive hype for Portal 2, but it allowed Valve to put a portal right into the pocketbooks of many a gullible fan, and the other one right in their coffers.

[zeksta]

Ironic, this Article takes notice of Valve yet doesn't take notice of Developers like Activision making a sorry excuse for a game called "Call of Duty", they milk the industry with DLC, makes the worst possible version for the PS3, and Valve is the bad guy? Amazing, just Amazing.

[imvix]

Well Sony did it to themselves, they ignored the developer put out hardware no one was comfortable with. In most cases its always this way:

PC being the clear leader even if its entry level 500usd machine.

Xbox 360 Distant 2nd

PS3 nearly always 3rd or manages to exchange few blows with the 360.

The only time the PS3 does shine is when Sony spends millions making an exclusive, which to be honest good ones are few and far in between.

@below

I was talking about games in general not just COD. Yes the devs sucked with black ops, However with over 500 multiplats released this gen i think its safe to say Sony is 3rd in the majority of them.

Agreed about activision they probably are the worst of the Devs when it comes to milking the consumer, fortunately we have so many good FPS out, COD can easily be ignored. I personally play TF2 most of them time as my FPS of choice again another Valve game that comes with:

Dedicated servers, user mods, free maps etc.

[zeksta]

How could Sony do it to themselves?

The previous Call of Duty games have come out fine graphically, then we have Black Ops, a game which was meant to be amazing, and the PS3 users got shafted due to a developer that couldn't be stuffed to actually try to do a proper port.

Not to mention, around the time Black Ops was announced as DLC Plan with Microsoft was announced, so they get DLC for Black Ops one month before Sony or PC.

All Activision is doing is creating a game every year and just making it worse and worse.

[Bereaver]

I feel Sony was doing what made the most since to them. And they feel that better technology no matter how difficult it is at first to work with, will become the product that easy to use tomorrow.

Yes, the cell was alien, is it now? Maybe to some, but now it's becoming less and less so.

[PS360PCROCKS]

I do have to agree, the Cell is beast and the PS3 is pretty powerful. But the one question I always ask myself is why Sony doesn't just use traditional hardware. I mean when every dev since 1995 has said "please give us PC hardware" why Sony continues to ignore their pleas.

[showtimefolks]

cell was funded by Sony and Toshiba when it kind of failed Sony sold it to Toshiba than put it in the ps3 and recently they bought it back from Toshiba

on the ps3 it takes a little extra effort for the game to look better but most devs are ok with just getting ok results

A MAIN SOLUTION IS WHAT MANY DEVS ARE DOING MAKE PS3 THE SYSTEM TO BUILD THE GAME FOR THAN PORT IT ON XBOX360 THAT WAY BOTH SYSTEMS GET THE SAME GAME

BUT MANY CHEAP DEVS JUST WANT THE GAME TO RUN FINE ON XBOX360 THAN GIVE A BAD PORT TO PS3

and let's leave activision out of this they put out like 15 dollar dlc for old maps and yet millions of noobs buy em as long as there are noobs playing cod our voices aren't heard

[PS360PCROCKS]

oh yeah I know they funded it with Toshiba. I'm not saying the Cell is a bad idea or useless, it's a great chip. Problem is you can't be visionaries in a world where doing "just enough" is ok. This is why Sony exclusives are awesome, and 3rd party games generally don't compare. It is what it is, but we can't blame companies for trying to be financially smart, can we?

[RememberThe357]

God, I can't believe we're having this conversation. The PS3 has proved that it's a superior system in terms of power, so why are you still complaining?

Sony was trying to push technology (blu-ray, the Cell, RSX, XDR ram). If developers want a PC then they can develop game for the PC. If they want to develop for the PS3 than they are going to have to figure out new tech. Developers complained about the PS2 as well then we got God of War and everyone shut the hell up. The same thing happened with Uncharted 2 and Killzone 2. After everyone saw what the PS3 was pushing out they shut the hell up.

@above: No we can't. But we will...

[Substance101]

@PS360PCROCKS

"the Cell is beast and the PS3 is pretty powerful."

Sorry but that is pure Sony marketing trying to sell its hardware. If the Cell was so powerful Sony wouldnt have retorted to Nvidia for a real GPU.

Sony intended to make the Cell a GPU which is why its kind of a hybrid much like todays Sandybridge. It does CPU tasks and does GPU tasks. However when it is compared to a real GPU it gets slaughtered. Had Sony not gone to Nvidia for a real GPU PS3 would have gotten slaughtered at the hands of the 360. The only reason why PS3 manages to overtake the 360 with its exclusives is because the GPUs in the PS3 and 360 are pretty simular, however the Cell manages to help a bit with taskes like AA. Had Sony stuck with a traditional CPU and gone for a better GPU like the 8800 series which was out at that time, PS3 would have been running its games in 1080p 60fps.

Sorry but the Cell being powerful is marketing garbage which Sony has been feeding the masses.

[RedDead]

Rememberthe357

Look we know as the cell is more powerful than the 360 Cpu. But not enough too justify such a change imo. Gears 3 for example, Ps3 exclusives are hardly multiple times better looking than it.

They're a little bit better but it would better if they just stuck to the regular hardware and put in a decent GPU. PS Exclusives are only marginally better graphics wise, there's just happens too be alot more exclusive's than the 360 and that's the only reason I bought a Ps3 in the first place. Same with the Ps2. Power doesn't matter so much as the amount of games. Devs Prefer a regular old Cpu and GPU combo. Easy,quick and cheap to develop for.

[kyl277]

@Substance101

The RSX wasn't pushing technology, it was just a mid range graphics card at the time.

[Substance101]

@kyl277

"The RSX wasn't pushing technology, it was just a mid range graphics card at the time. "

Exactly, yet they chose it over placing a 2nd Cell?
Why?

Because it could obviously handle graphics way better then the Cell ever could. Cell being a powerhouse is a myth, it never was to begin with.

[badz149]

hate to burst your bubble but CELL was "failing"?

"cell was funded by Sony and Toshiba when it kind of failed Sony sold it to Toshiba than put it in the ps3 and recently they bought it back from Toshiba"

that's 1 twisted history you have there! Sony's intention was always to put the CELL in the PS3! out of the 3; Sony, Toshiba and IBM, Sony clearly has the biggest use of CELL. IBM used it in their super computer but ceased development more than a year ago to focus on new next-gen chip. Toshiba on the other hands were working on CELL based TVs.

the CELL was already long used in PS3s before Sony sold the production line to Toshiba in 2007 (PS3 released 2006). this was seen as a strategic move at that time for Sony as they cut cost producing the CELL but will keep buying it from Toshiba and Toshiba was supposedly coming out with their CELL based TVs like last year but it's far from promising. looks like they hit the wall with the TV too (just like they did with HD DVD)! with IBM no longer involved and Toshiba not going to use the CELL, Sony bought back the manufacturing line last year for almost half the price they sold it - talk about good business lol!

So...where's the part that CELL "failed" again? in your dreams!

[RememberThe357]

I completely see your point, don't get me wrong. But I'd rather Sony push developers than let them rest on their laurels. Once people get comfortable they stop progressing. Sony has constantly said their goal is to push the industry forward, that also means getting people to adapt to new things. And if we get better visuals and performance out of it than it's worth it. I have seen the same visuals of Gears 3 as you and I wasn't that impressed. It looked great but it's no Uncharted 3.

If Substance wants to b*tch about the Cell than thats fine, but from what I've heard from people with actual credentials and a lot less negativity have said that the Cell is great with number crunching. Sure now days there are better CPUs but a next generation Cell would probably be amazingly powerful.

At the end of the day your right though. It's all about the games. There are great game on both and arguing over GPUs, CPUs, and ram doesn't make games better. Sony has said that they're working with their first party devs to make the next system easier to work with while still leaving room for the growth and exploration we've seen with the PS2 and PS3.

badz149: It's funny how people "disagree" with facts...

http://www.businessweek.com...

[Ranshak]

Lol if Cell was so great then why didnt Sony use 2 of them in the PS3?

It would have helped bringing the production cost of the Cell down, since they would have had to make 2x the amount.

Clearly Sony knew they had designed an architecture which would have been a hassle to work with and it still wouldnt have performed as well as including a GPU in the mix.

Which is why they asked Nvidia for help. Had they stuck with 2 Cells it would have been a bigger nightmare to code then it already is and would have performed much worse.

[Jdub895O]

500$ pc? You sure about that?Just spent a grand on a pc and i feel my ps3 is still better to game on.I wish i could go back to pc but its too complicated and expensive.Admit it its so much easier to get on the ps3 and game it up.

[reynod]

@Jdub

You could make a 2000usd PC not give it a proper GPU and it will perform worse then your PS3.

Question is what spec did you create. I could list you parts for a 500usd build and it will run circles around the PS3.

[Jdoki]

@Substance101

Your comment on Sony not using a 2nd Cell because a mid range GPU was better is false.

Sony chose a separate GPU for 2 (maybe 3) reasons:

1. Yield levels at the time. Sony couldn't produce enough Cell's to be able to do this. They had already fdelayed due to a lack of blue diodes for the Blu-Ray drives. Adding a 2nd Cell would have probably delayed the launch even more.

2. Cost. The Cell was expensive. The PS3 was already being used as a trojan horse to get Blu-Ray and Cell's out there (thus driving down costs quicker). The 600$ launch price would have been way more if they stuck another Cell in.

The possible #3 point. Complexity. Devs were already struggling with the PS3's architecture. Two cells would have caused even more problems in the early days.

So... late in the day Sony removed the idea for a second Cell, and went with a pretty much off-the-shelf part from Nvidia. I doubt this was ideal for Sony, but it gets the job done.

[Substance101]

@Jdoki

The cost of chip goes down when it enter mass production. Had Sony produced more Cells it would have brought the costs down. Infact having a 2nd cell would have been cheaper for Sony since they would have avoided paying Nvidia royalties.

1. Generally the cost of a chip is determined by its transistor count, both the Cell and RSX have simular transistor counts.

2. Sony already was mass producing Cell chips, it would have only been more favorable for them to produce more of them and cut down costs while avoiding to pay royality to a GPU maker, it was only under the situation where they clearly saw the Cell was not going to be able to compete which is why they made a last minute decision to include a real GPU. They knew the Cell would never be able to compete as a GPU with the Xenos within the xbox 360.

3. i agree with this point, coding for a single Cell is a nightmare for the devs, having 2 would have been much worse. However Sony only stand to blame them selves on this. Who is retarded enough to release hardware without consulting any of the developers or providing efficient enough tools for it.

[ComboBreaker]

Let the games show.
And the games have shown that the PS3 is more powerful than the 360, by a very large margin.

So stop with the, "But but but if this and if that. But but but, the RSX is only a mid-graphic card."

None of that but but but bullsh*t matter. In the end, the PS3 have already shown itself to be more powerful than the 360, by a very large margin.

Gears 3? That game look worst than Gears 2.

Anyway, 360 gamers and the anti-Sony media are now suddenly against Valve because Valve now favors the PS3 over the 360.

[Jdoki]

@ substance101

There's a difference between mass production and yield. Sony were producing Cell's but not on a massive scale as at the time the yield was low per sheet of silicon (no point producing a million Cells when 50% are faulty for example).

This is one of the reasons Sony decided to go with 7 SPU's enabled, because yields of the 'defective' Cell were higher than those with all 8 SPU's working.

As production matures and stabilises, yields increase, and then price drops and true mass production ramps up.

The planning for the PS3 happened long before the production of the Cell started, and as it got closer to launch it was clear Cell yields were not up there, so they had to make a (late) decision to remove one Cell, go with Nvidia and take the burden of the royalties (although we don't know specifics of that deal).

The transistor count between the RSX and Cell is irrelevant here as Nvidia had produced 100's of thousands of 7800 chips by that time, and were probably getting massive yields.

[gorebago]

Law of diminishing returns will eventually take down COD. Sad really, #2 and 4 were awesome games.

[NBT91]

Yes one article. Because it is not like there have been a million already about Activision or EA, or any other developer of any FPS Game. Everyone gets a turn in the end.

It is quite simple, if you make an FPS Game about anything, you are apparently in it for the money only and are responsible for over saturating the industry. If you make anything else, you are a revolution.

[hazelamy]

yeah, zeksta, there are publishers doing worse to their customers, does that mean this should be overlooked?

what does activision do that compares to the atrocities of gaddafi?
should we ignore what the likes of ea and activision do because there are dictators murdering their own people, and that's so much worse right?

furthermore, this article was about what valve did, what purpose would it serve bringing up what other publishers are doing?
there are no doubt already plenty of articles talking about that anyway.

valve is not THE bad guy, but they are A bad guy.
maybe that's the message you didn't like, not the implication that nobody else is greedy, just that valve is, i suppose they're the good guys now they're supporting the ps3 right?

personally i can't stand the way they infest disc titles with drm of dubious legality.
i say dubious legality because they take away our legal right to transfer ownership of any media we've purchased.

strangely activision haven't gone in the direction of drm.
don't get me wrong, i stil think they're one of the greediest publishers, well they would be considering they're run by beelzebob.
it's just surprising they aren't on this jihad against the preowned market.

[gorebago]

Regardless pc gamers would have only had a few days head start with portal 2 rather than hours so it's not like they lost a huge opportunity to play it early.

I don't know what was in the Potatoe Sack but maybe it was an opp for them to introduce gamers to quality games they otherwise wouldn't try out.

Friends helping out friends I guess.

[kaveti6616]

Valve tricked gamers into buying a set of really good indie games that they normally wouldn't buy?

Oh no!!! Valve are so evil for helping out the indie developers and drawing the attention of gamers to really great indie games at discounted prices, and consequently releasing Portal 2 a few hours early!

How evil of Valve to do that!

Stupid article writer, I'd like to talk to you personally. Valve does gamers and developers alike a great service by bringing them closer together, and you want to be a little attention-seeking yellow paper journalist about it.

And let's say a few people were dissatisfied. There's always a few dissatisfied people. ALWAYS. Why write an article that concerns what is a non-issue?

[reynod]

True, Valve is probably the last remaining PC developer who hasnt scumbed to the current console milking trend.

Nearly every other developer releases DLCs day one, with a rehash of the game the following year. Valve actually give the PC gamers free content and support their games.

[Lich120]

I also enjoy Blizzards treatment of gamers. Not nearly as much has valve, but releasing 3 Blizzard made use map settings games for free was nice touch (even if I disagree with some of the balancing choices blizz has made with SC2). What I don't understand is how this is Valve being the bad guy. They didn't say if everyone buys an extra copy of Half Life 2 they'll launch portal early. They upped the sales of some fine indie titles and launched portal 2 a little early as a result. I for one am happy I bought Amnesia Dark Descent. Not because it launched portal 2 early, but because its a solid game I wouldn't have played otherwise.

Also, Portal 2 was an amazing game soooo WTH?!

[il-mouzer]

I was never really interested in most of the indie games, until the potato pack came along. I just bought it because I taught; "hey I'd install these games on my mac sometime in the future" - I ended up installing them the following day since I had the day off and managed to get all the potatoes except for a few.

Glad that Valve pulled this off - found several new and interesting games and also saved me some serious cash :D

[Theo1130]

"But then Valve changed things up, and held Portal 2 for ransom" Thats a great quote, I like how people love to complain about trying to involve the community, Yeah it didn't release 2 days early, but it released at least for me at 9pm pst, when it would have originally released at 10 am the next day.

[NBT91]

Yes but it did so apparently because people were buying and playing games from Steam, that is the main concern here...

[distorted_reality]

So supporting indie developers is a concern?

Or is there concern because a company made some money while fulfilling a promise?

Or maybe the concern is Valve giving away games?

Only morons find any of this to be a "concern".

[jrisner]

It's over and done with. Nothing you can do about it, complaining isn't going to fix anything.

[Tzuno]

Look at Gabe it's so big he needs money to eat you know.

[Kushan]

"Like many Steam promotions, the Potato Sack offered a collection of games at a huge discount."

So what's the problem? If anyone bought the potato sack in the hope of getting portal 2 a day or two early, that's their own silly fault, but in the end you got a host of great games at a fantastic discount AND the chance to bag portal 2 a bit earlier. I don't see the problem.

[badz149]

hating on discounts! you know...how certain fanboys love to hate PS+ which also offers discounted games and contents!

[PandaJenkins]

What a lame article. I say good on Valve for helping publicize great indie games with a big release own their own. We need people to notice the creativity of the indie scene.

[ginganinja]

Really ? This is all you've got to moan about ?
Seriously ?
Even at the outset the most you were getting the game was probably a day or two early - and if you couldn't work that out surely playing Portal would be beyond you anyway....

And i assume Gabe wasn't stood over you with a gun at your head making you buy the 'collection of games at a HUGE discount.'

How about you swap the pic of Gabe at the top of the piece and replace it with a mirror. Then it'll show you who the greedy sod is...

[Jdoki]

Some of the games in the Potato Sack were well worth owning, so I doubt anyone would feel too aggrieved by paying for the collection.

Plus if the games were bought separately they still contributed. I already owned a couple of games from the collection - so had fun playing new and unique levels. For example - Defence Grid added two Portal themed new levels, and had Glados voice over work. That cost me nothing extra!

No one was forced to buy this pack. Maybe the fact that Portal 2 only launched a few hours early shows that most people voted with their wallets and didn't get suckered in, in the way the article is suggesting.

[ATiElite]

No one FORCED you to buy the potato sack. Just like NO one forced you to buy Portal 2.

Valve just does what they always do and helped out a ton of Indie Devs and Gamers who love Indie games by bringing them all together.

Also if you bought the Potato sack and are complaining.....STFU! I don't remember you complaining when Valve gave you Alien Swarm for FREE! Also think about that the next time you play Counter Strike or Team Fortress or HL Deathmatch with the actual Valve Devs.

[Da_Evil_Monkey]

If people bought the Potato sack just to unlock portal 2, rather than for the games it contained, it's their own damn fault. Valve never guaranteed early release, they said it was POSSIBLE if you completed the challenges.