Why Valve doesn't make PS3 games
According to Valve the PC and Xbox 360 are just more straightforward machines to work with than the PS3.
And if you wanted to know why they don't create games for the PlayStation 3 then Valve's Tom Leonard has spilled some answers, doing so quite brutally in a comment to Loot Ninja.
"The PC and the 360 are just more straightforward," claimed Tom, simply. "We can focus on what we want to do, which is make game experiences, instead of sweating bullets over obscure architectural decisions they make with their platform."
"I didn't come into this business in the 90s because of some technical fetish. I came in because I wanted to give people experiences that made them have fun."
So there you have it - a clear explanation of why Valve doesn't work on or support the PS3. Tom doesn't stand alone in his opinion either, with Valve founder Gabe Newell having explicitly hit out at Sony in the past by calling the PlayStation 3 a "a waste of everybody's time". Ouch.
This, combined with the face that EA's PS3 ports of previous Valve titles have met with some technical issues, means that there's unlikely to be a PlayStation 3 version of Left 4 Dead any time soon.
Let us know your thoughts on the PlayStation 3 in the forums.
Previous Article
46 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyWhat a load of rubbish ! They got into the business to make money. Simple as that.
If the PS3 was the dominant console, they would learn how to code for it, and sell on that platform too, but as its not, then I guess we are out of luck.
And while we are at it, one should never start a sentence with the word 'And'
It's closer to the PC architecture than the PS3 is, that's for sure.
I can't see why it would be impossible to bring it to the wii: half life 2 was released for the xbox, and wii is more powerfull and pretty simple to program for.
They might have to redo the source engine a bit, but I'd say you have a better chance of Valve making a Wii game then a PS3 game ( I'd buy it day one, wii fps controls beat analog sticks by a long shot....)
I do believe in that. Its like a renowed paint artist, he started doing what he wanted, and people paid actuall money for him. Why it's so hard to believe people love what they do? Money is consequence, but highly welcome consequence.
Isn't there LOTS of games that doesn't see their ports to pc from PS3 for example? Anyway, the playing experience in PC is much better than what it is in consoles.
Combine all this and the result would be a need for a completely new engine, which simply is not worth to do, especially when they need developers elsewhere.
Pfft. That's a limited perspective. I got into journalism to make money too obviously, but that wasn't my only reason. It wasn't even a reason I acknowledged. Instead, I got into it because I enjoy writing about games. The money was just a bonus - that's what he's clearly driving at.
As for Don't / Doesn't - duly noted and corrected.
Multi-threading is only part of the problem, it is hard to code for multiple threads but generally, it can be done. The other part is architecture. The PPE can run any sort of code no problem but you're not fully using the power of cell since you're not using the SPEs. It's trying to think of code that can make use of the SPEs as well as the PPE and from what I've read the SPE is more optimised for specific types of code, not only that, any code you want to run on the SPE has to go through the PPE which means you have to change your programming paradigm/methodology/techniques just to code for cell. Contrast that with Xbox or a PC processor which runs any sort of code you throw at it and because of this is is quite flexible with any programming paradigm/methodology/technique you use. I also suspect that the techniques some game programmers use would probably need heavy re-thinking just to get them to work on the cell which would tick the "Can I be arsed?" box.
Sony still seem to be in the mindset that they can do what they want, and what suits them, and everyone will just follow. At least MS is being proactive about it, and encouraging development and making it easier for developers, even if they did royally screw up the terrible reliability of the 360 in order to get them out first. Although, as far as I know, those issues are largely resolved.
I mean, I enjoy my job, but there are certain tasks I hate doing. It doesn't mean I can't do them, it just means they suck, and if I don't have to do them then I won't. It doesn't make me lazy. Sure, I still end up doing them 9 times out of 10, but that's only because I have no choice :P
well really the Xbox 360 is not the #1 console this gen. That is the Wii. The 360 is only 7.8 million console head of the PS3 which is a small number considering the gap between the Wii and 360.
So why doesn't Valve support the Wii? I'd say they are just lazy. Same reason why they won't support the PS3.
+1 to that.
I guess its a case of effort required to port compared to profits in PS3 game sales just does not add up. Shame i would have liked L4D on the PS3.
Valve are primarily a PC developer it just so happens that the xbox is fairly easy to port to so it makes business sense to do so the other two platforms don't, laziness is so very rarely the reason business do things lack of profit is generally the first place to look.
Just to back this up, a fan boi publication said it best...
That will also apply to games which start off on the PC and as we've already discussed valve develop PC games and port them or not in the case of the minority console.
When I read this article I thought about the bad taste in some developers mouth because of something like that. Oh well.
Anyway, this kind of stuff just reassures me that stopping at Playstation 2 and gaming on my PC from there on was the best decision I've made yet. I probably will not buy anymore gaming consoles.
PC forever!
Ask anyone who actually works in the industry if your statement is true and they will say YOU are talking rubbish. The programmers, artists and designers do it for the creativity primarily.
Porting a high end PC game to the Wii is completely different compared to porting to 360. You have to consider some gameplay changes and significant graphical scaling as well. Not to mention that all developers know that 3rd party Wii titles hardly sell. Especially if they haven't added in the game significant innovative support for Wthe Wii mote controller, which takes alot of time to design for. Scaling a PC game down for the Xbox 360 requires alot less work.
To put it in a really simple way, let's say you want to run from one end of a road to another. That's your only objective.
* For PC, you can more or less go with any equipment you like and run it without interference. The road will have the odd pothole though.
* For Xbox 360, you're given the equipment and have to make do - but it's top dollar kit so you don't really mind. The road narrows in a few areas, and a car occasionally travels down it.
* For PS3 you're either given sub-standard equipment (sandals that are falling apart rather than trainers), or you can buy a few pieces (gloves, t-shirt, no shoes) from a vendor on the side of the road for extortionate sums of money. Finally the road curves, has traffic, and there are hurdles every 10m that you have to jump. If you fail to make the jump your foot gets caught and you slam face-first into the concrete. Occasionally a hurdle will move, this stops you getting a rhythm. Then when you don't reach the finish as fast as the other platforms you're efforts are branded as half-hearted, poor, and various other vicious put-downs.
Yeah, I wouldn't code for the PS3 unless my life depended on it.
Well said.
There are businesses where you can make better money, Valve isn't EA, they do actually care about making good games. This guy isn't a big evil fat cat at the head of a massive mega corporation, he's an employee, last time I checked, games developers were one of the most exploited skilled workforce there is, making a game requires buckets of overtime that only 1 or 2 companies actually pay you for.
*cough* Actually the 256MB of application ram is shared with the GPU on top of the 256MB for the graphics card. Also the main ram is XDR RAM and runs at 3.2Ghz.
Indeed, Developmag do annual questionnaires that are sent to employees in the games industry (the latest one has just come out). I can't remember the numbers but the main jist of it was that employees felt unhappy, tired (doing lots of overtime) and were "underpaid"...but they put up with it because they enjoy making games.
People forget that games programmers use in-house tools to make their games, middleware such as Epic's Unreal engine is an example of such tools. Sometimes they are re-used from a past project but other times they are developed from scratch. Stuff like compiling code, organising assets, etc. are probably done automatically for each target platform by the tools which eases development. My guess is that Infinity Ward, Treyarch and the rest of the studios don't complain about it is that they have spent a massive amount of time developing their tools to a point that the developers can just code whatever, hit a button and out comes their game build on the target platform. And it shows, the COD4 engine was brilliant as is Bethesda's Gamebryo engine they used for Fallout 3.
In a way, I do think Valve are a bit lazy (programmers usually are) they probably have a set of tools already and are reluctant to re-design them since they've served them perfectly already. I actually had a chat with the lead programmer who makes the engine tools for Kujo and he says that the PS3 is hard to develop for since the Cell cpu isn't suited for games but once you get your head round it, it can be just like any other platform. The problem is that developers target Xbox/PC first and then PS3, leaving a big hurdle to climb (and by then, people can't be arsed re-doing the game again). Instead, it should be target PS3 and then Xbox/PC as any complicated code in the PS3 can be just ironed out easily for Xbox/PC. It sort of makes sense...in japan. lol j/k but yeah, other factors are obviously in play like how popular each console is, etc. etc.
TF2, L4D and DoD Source do all have the option to use multiple cores now and indeed do utilise them:
multicore
The Xbox 360 is essentially a PC in a box, which is why developers like Valve prefer to code for them.
As for the whole argument regarding not being able to make money on PS3, a lot of third party devs make as much or more money on PS3 vs 360, the financials are out there go and have a look.
Most of the code monkeys I know would relish the challenge a new architecture brings and finding out what you can get out of it, perhaps I've just worked with higher calibre people, I'd guess more likely Valve don't have the resources to take on that challenge, whilst you could of got away with the comments like Gabe Newells initially when nobody could do much good with PS3, now you see the quality other devs manage to extract from PS3 and it becomes obvious the limitations are not the hardware or in fact the tools but the quality of the team behind the project.
Grief.
I'm not forgetting anything - and internal tools have to be developed, they don't come out of nothing. Valve don't use Unreal engine, they have to take their Source engine which will be well over 100,000 lines alone (that's without game code) and make it work on Xbox 360. Then they have to take it AGAIN and make it work on PS3 too. It's not like they can click 'Build>PS3' and the compiler does all the work. There will be low-level assembly code all over the place that has to be re-written, system-specific calls, system-specific code paths, system-specific optimisations everywhere, etc. When you have multiple platforms using the same code - you have to maintain it on all the platforms. Got a bug-fix? Has to be applied to PC, Xbox 360 AND PS3 all at once and you have to hope that it doesn't break anything. You're quite right about the time developing their tools - Valve have obviously decided it isn't worth the time and effort.
As for the people saying Valve are lazy or incompetent. I would LOVE to see any of these people make a basic 2D game (from scratch - no game makers or use of XNA), let alone a triple-A 3D title. I have a great deal of respect for all devs who make a game to release. There are hundreds of games each year that are scrapped that you don't even know about. It's a massive undertaking, and to call someone lazy is ridiculous in this context. It's not far off of calling NASA lazy for not sending anyone to the moon for a few decades.
I'll leave it with one last thing: Would you rather take something you've already done and make it work on something else, or spend the same time and effort making something brand spanking new? These aren't devs working in a bank for big pay cheques, they're in it for the enjoyment and satisfaction.
Edit: Sorry, didn't read the second part of your post MrABC:
Completely agree 100%. Should point out lazy programmers are almost always better than programmers who aren't - but that's another topic for another day.
You couldn't be more wrong. oops sorry, not trying to start a flame war. MS pretty much stole the Cell from Sony.
"When the companies entered into their partnership in 2001, Sony, Toshiba and IBM committed themselves to spending $400 million over five years to design the Cell...All three of the original partners had agreed that IBM would eventually sell the Cell to other clients. But it does not seem to have occurred to Sony that IBM would sell key parts of the Cell before it was complete and to Sony's primary videogame-console competitor. The result was that Sony's R&D money was spent creating a component for Microsoft to use against it."
How MS got Sony to design the next Xbox
Not even close, see my previous comment.
Er, the Xenon is like 3 PPEs, the Cell is 1 PPE, 8 SPEs, 1 locked for OS/security and another locked during manufacturing. It's the SPEs that make the Cell incredible fast, even more so than the Xenon, the PPEs would most likely perform the same on both consoles, since they're the same PowerPC cores. It's the SPEs that makes the difference in processor performance.
On top of that, since the 360 uses a version of DirectX for it's graphics API, which I believe is a generally more used/easier to work with API. As my understanding is, the Cell has to have specific instructions to use the SPEs and for what, whereas the Xenon is much more like a basic multicore CPU, except from the obvious of being 3 PowerPC cores instead of your traditional x86 cores.