Valve Not Even Bothering With The PS3 Any More

Valve, Valve's boss Gabe Newell and the PlayStation 3 have a history. A history of not getting along. And it doesn't look like that's about to change any time soon.

Here's a little chit-chat the Valve head had with host Geoff Keighley on tonight's episode of GTTV:

Keighley: Are you guys working on PlayStation 3 here now, trying to understand it, trying to get better at it?

Gabe: Uh,no. not in any real way.

There you have it. Not much wiggle room in that sentence.


Comments

    Lazy developer at valve? SHOCK HORROR

      lol Exactly

      "Lazy developer at valve?"

      Get real. As if anyone at Valve is lazy.

      The only lazy people I see are those who automatically slur developers with the "lazy" tag every time the developer doesn't do what they want, for their pet platform.

    I loved Gametrailer's graphic when Gabe said that: headshot!

    Who cares what this fat American fuck thinks anyway? I dont buy your shit games, so this doesnt bother me. I support the teams that make PS3 games (although I regret supporting the team that made Ghostbusters and Prototype - uuuugh!)

      Get fucked you halfwit fanboy.

      Valve does not make "shit games", they make some of the best.

      It is clear that the only thing your mum makes is shitheads (like you).

        HalfLife 2 was sad and pathetic compared to the original, and its the FatMans fault

        Thats the funniest thing I've ever read - did you stay up ALL NIGHT thinking of that one, little one?

        I'm allowed an opinion and I expressed it. A wow defending the PS3 all of a sudden makes me a fanboy? Does it not matter that I own an X360, Wii and a DS? I suppose it doesnt, because once I defend one machine that automatically makes me a fanboy... lol

      lol, that's some great fanboy ranting there. I have never understood people who support a certain console/platform as though Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony are soccer teams or something. It's like saying you support the teams that publish hardcover books over those that publish softcover.

      Personally, I am going to support the teams that make good games, not the teams that make games for a particular platform.

      And truly, who cares what the boss of one of the most critically acclaimed studios around thinks?

      "Who cares what this fat American fuck thinks anyway?"

      Clearly, you do. Else you would not be reading this thread, nor responding to it, nor attacking the head of a hugely successful games company because of his citizenship and weight.

    So what does he plan on doing when every PC basically ends up having just as many cores as the PS3 has SPUs? As a game developer, surely he knows he needs to keep up with changes in hardware to ensure that the games he's involved in end up being the best they can be. Sure it's nice to be able to scale things back so they work on older hardware, but it's going to get to a point where that old hardware starts turning up in museums...

      If you had any idea about the PC or PS3 you would know that a PC CPU is nothing like a SPU.

      The main problem is that the SPU (unlike a PC cpu) can not act autonomously, it not only needs the PPU to feed it data but also for the programmer to write code to keep the PPU feeding it data.

      By the time that PCs regularly have that many cores, they will also have graphics hardware to be able to render scenes that can actually put those cores to good use. Just like John Carmack stated recently, the PS3 has a graphical bottleneck that makes trying to build similar games with similar CPU-to-GPU loads as their PC and Xbox counterparts a huge chore.

      That's the thing, Valve DOESN'T keep up with technology. That's why they're still using the Source engine, which is HOW many years old now? Basically every game they make is a Half-Life 2 mod.

      There's a difference between "New" hardware and "Difficult to program" Hardware

      You do realize games such as Left for Dead run smoother and clearer on the PC right? If anything, he's leaving the "old" hardware behind to focus on hardware which actually matters, such as PC and Xbox 360.

    Um guys. The PS3 is a piece of poo in terms of its architecture.

    its hard to develop for and Valve have determined its not worth their time considering there are more users on 360 and its much easier to port.

    @Goraxium
    Its not the amount of cores thats the issue. Its an actual inherent flaw with the Cell that makes it hard. Lots of Devs have stated that its harder to develop for the PS3.

    @DansDans
    That fat American fuck makes games of a consistently high quality. Not something most companies can lay a claim too. The only others i can think of are Nintendo and Blizzard.

    GOGO Sony Defence league!

    Oh, wait, too late.

    Ummm, this is completely understandable.
    Valve is a pc developer, so 360 development is a "flick of the switch".
    PS3 is like cutting it up into tiny pieces, and putting it back together.

    I'm with Valve on this one, they shouldn't waste their time.

      "Valve is a pc developer, so 360 development is a “flick of the switch”."

      I understand the sentiment here, but really, it's nothing like a flick of the switch at all.

      Being able to compile your source on a common platform is one thing. But re-designing, re-writing, re-testing and then optimising that code/design for a different platform is quite another thing.

      The 360 versions of Valve's games get a huge of additional design and work put in to them. Everything from XBL integration to 360 GPU optimisation to the issues of HDD space (or NO HDD space), available memory, 360 controllers vs keyboards, etc. It's a massive task to port a game well, and costs a lot of money.

      As a PS3 (and 360, and Wii) owner, I fully understand why Valve have chosen not to support the PS3. They are a PC-centric developer. They see the 360 as a semi-natural fit due to the adaptability of the Source engine to the 360's SDK, API and hardware. The PS3, however, is another matter entirely, and requires that Valve either hire or develop specific knowledge, and spend a lot of money getting up to speed and developing a game that works well with the limitations and advantages of the PS3 in mind.

      To those people who think Valve are lazy: get a new line already. Nobody at Valve is lazy. If you knew any AAA game developers, you'd know that they work bloody hard, and are paid under the card relative to almost all other IT workers. They do what they do because they love it.

      Instead of getting angry at Valve, save your venom for Sony. Email Sony and tell them you'd like to see better SDKs, cheaper developer programs and developer hardware assistance, and much fairer marketing & publishing arrangements for anyone who isn't Guerilla Games or Naughty Dog.

      Sony have bragged that the PS3 is hard to develop for. Now they're paying the price for that arrogance. Don't blame Valve for making rational choices. They're the good guys of gaming. They "get it". Sony (and MS for that matter) do not.

      Don't be a fanboy. Use your brain.

    The PC will never be infested with a vile PS3 like processor, that thing is a beast that should have been shot twice (the second time to make sure its dead) upon its birth. There are greater processors than the Cell out their now juicing more power easier than it ever will...

    He will evolve with the times. Valve are PC developers anyway.

    Why are you fanboys going nuts? If you claim to not like these games so much and to comment on his wieght of all things than there is only one answer; shut up.

    I don't think the issue is that the PS3 is more sophisticated than a typical multi-core system, heck current PCs have proven themselves capable of rendering better than PS3 graphics already. It's more that Sony have failed to facilitate ease of use with it. Besides their games are better fits on the PC anyway.

    Oh and before PS3 fanboys get up in arms, I own a PS3 myself and enjoy playing it.

    Wasn't he ex-Microsoft. He is probably too indoctrinated into the Microsoft way. So pro-Windows and Xbox. Anti-anything else.

    Its not so much the hardware that he has problems with, its Sony's lack of good development tools from what I can gather from comments he has made. Also developing on the SPUs requires a completely different approach to generic multicore development, so you cant easily just port from multicore to the Cell architecture. ID Tech 5 works on both, but those guys are masters at that kind of thing.

    Of all you guys giving him shit, how many have had anything to do with actually programming for a cell processor? Game companies should not have to bend over backwards to accommodate Sony's poor choice. He isn't the first to rubbish the cell processor, and won't be the last.

    @DansDans -
    LMAO! You buy Ghostbusters and Prototype... Seriously, Prototype? We all knew that was shit, well before it came out. This seriously throws into disrepute your ability to judge what is and what is not a "shit game".

    @ Those who claim Valve is "lazy" -
    First, Valve isn't the only major game company to claim the PS3 isn't cost effective.
    Second, Valve is not lazy - they're just not that into the console market. Their for the hardcore PC market. They've released dozens of FREE updates for Team Fortress 2 since it came out years ago. And it's not little things like skins or collectables (eg, most DLC on Xbox Live lol), it's big stuff like new weapons that allow new methods of gameplay, and new maps, even new game types. All for FREE.
    On top of that, they're constantly balancing TF2 and CSS and any other online multiplayer asset they own.
    That doesn't sound lazy to me.

    @Goraxium -
    I have a i7 920, which has 4 cores plus hyperthreading, which basically means 8 parallel processing channels. That's ONE MORE than the PS3 Cell processor (which has 8 but one is an admin core, so it doesn't actually do so much). Also, Intel is releasing their 6 core variant next year, and the 8 core variant later in the next year.
    So, just pointing out that that kind of programming issue already exists in PCs.
    HOWEVER, multicore PCs still remain easier and cheaper to program for, because of the limitations on the PS3 hardware. For example, Valve can make a game utilise 2 or 4 processing streams on PC and the game will run fine - no need to even touch the other 6-4 cores available (in the hypothetical 8 core PC). While they CAN do this for PS3, because each PS3 core is "weaker", it can't handle as much and the game would run like shit.
    On top of that, the PS3 utilises it's graphics cores and RAM in a different way to a PC.
    Don't get me wrong, the PS3 is a brilliant bit of tech and can work WONDERS when beautiful programming is done.
    BUT:
    1. Valve is primarily PC-centric
    2. It remains easier to program for a PC vs PS3
    3. It remains cheaper to program for a PC vs PS3

      you running XP?

        @ truncheon - no windows 7 RC build 7100

      Dude, I said I regretting buy that and Ghostbusters. Didnt you read my post? However unlike other people who only read reviews, I like to play games and make that decision myself - expensive lesson learned

    Seems lazy. There is a market there for these games.

    Valve are not lazy they are smart.

    PS3 fan base is not big enough to warrent the time and money to port their games to.

    @ fanboiz, Rha-bub-bah!

    It's never a good sign for a platform when AAA developers choose not to back it.

    Maybe next gen' Sony will remember console gaming is about the G.A.M.E.S. not hardware hype or the vague promise of "potential"?

    The way I see it, Valve made a pact by allowing The Orange Box to be released for the ps3. The pact being "We left you on a Half-life cliffhanger so now we promise you'll get to see how it ends." Valve must must MUST release episode 3 on the ps3. There can be no argument about this. They can be deeply unhappy with the finished product but it MUST be released on the ps3. There can be no compromise on this.

    if there is one thing i cant stand its when companies make bad port onto another system they are not comfortable with... an so if Valve make the choice to not port games to the PS3 for that reason then i commend them for that, rather than just trying to cash in on making bad ports.

    In the end, thats why you choose your console... each has its unique experience. XBOX has Halo, Valve games and so on... PS3 has Gran Turismo, Uncharted Drakes fortune and so on. In the past you either had Sonic or Mario (I was an amiga man, so i got neither... but i had my own unique stand out titles!).

    I believe Valve makes a good choice to support one platform to get the most out of it, and I will continue to support the developers that only support PS3 as i find they get the most out of that system.

    I just think he could use a little more tact in how he words things, and the company should just come out and make the choice officially to support only one console like other developers do.

    Ok... thats my 2 cents.

    Feel free to bash me for owning a PS3.

    @Mark, I can forgive you for owning a PS3 this one time, but only because you owned an Amiga. ;op

    It was strange owning an A500 back when everyone was harping on about Sonic or Mario. The Amiga scene had a real "underground" feel to it that made it more fun to be part of than the boring mainstream consoles.

      GURU MEDITATION to you buddy! GURU MEDITATION! =P

      HAHA!

      (you needed to own an amiga to know what the hell i am talking about)

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now