Valve wants the PS3 to be more open like Mac.

[Treblaine]

EDIT:

Of course he is! I mean, porting the biggest online game platform on the PC over to the Mac, also known as Microsoft's greatest rival, doesn't account for anything, now does it?

Besides, a friend of mine compared the PS3 to the Gamecube not 2 weeks ago. It's closed up, anti-piracy, flashy-tech and less games. And that's why it's sold the least.

???
Wasn't the gamecube the lowest-tech of its generation?

And also, the Mac port is sheer genius. What other company is aiming at the Mac demographic? NOBODY. Helloooooo instant monopoly.

Get out'a town... NOOO... oh no you di-unt. Oh NO you DEH AAAANT!!

Gamecube had the MOST POWERFUL tech of it's generation, better than even the Xbox Original both on paper and in practice. Don't let its small size and price tag fool you, Nintendo went to extraordinary lengths to make such a small console both powerful and cheap (mainly by selling for a massive loss).

Consider games like Zelda: Twilight Princess. Don't judge by cell-shaded Wind Waker (which started development on N64 ya'know).

Rogue. Squadron. Two. Those graphics blew my balls off and playing it grew me a new pair.

Best Apples-to-Apples comparison is Resident Evil 4 on Gamecube vs PS2. Oh, it was LITERALLY like night and day, Gamecube had a fully realised and high fidelity real-time lighting engine that was 100% baked in and static on PS2. RE4 was actually scary on GC thanks to the lighting, but everything was just flat on PS2 not to mention much rougher and "polygon-y"


And F-Zero GX as well:


Also interesting, the most powerful console is AGAIN trailing last place. Just like N64, which was also often capable of better graphics than PS1 to spite the memory limitations. Just compare Perfect Dark to Medal of Honor on PS1, both came out in the SAME year.

In fact I think Gabe is pretty accurate in comparing Sony now with where Nintendo was in the early 2000's

And now the tables have turned, Nintendo released the Wii (which has such similar hardware to GC that the exact same emulator can play Gamecube and Wii games) so in computing terms Nintendo used stone-age hardware (back from before the Spice Girls split up) and retailed for an initial price point HIGHER than the GC did at launch in 2001(!) yet Nintendo are kicking arse in the chart.

That's the power of a little savvy marketing: re-brand some old product with a fancy new interface and undercut the competition by half. Really, with Wii you could say GC is finally getting the success it deserves.

But now the competition have taken their own old products (now as old as GC was when Wii launched) and given them fancy new interfaces... and have already cut the price of their systems to as close to Wii's golden launch price of $250 as possible. Their copying of Nintendo is EXTRAORDINARY.

Nintendo HAVE to do something, I hope a price cut, like down to $99, so I can play the new Zelda without having to pay too much. What? At least I'm being honest about by Biased predictions... unlike some *cough*pach-attack*cough*...

Then again, $99 may be TOO cheap. yeah, nothing is too cheap for me but I can see how the wider audience may see a $99 price tag as desperation and a sign of compromised quality for price.

 

[Daniel_Rosamilia]

Since when was Valve so hated? Didn't Sony make it harder to code the PS3 on purpose?

Yes. Very very very very very much so.
They actually did make it fairly difficult to code for the PS3, for reasons unknown.
And Valve has been hated on since they stopped doing Ep 3 for L4D2, which wasn't that great a game anyway, considering how damn good the first was.

And also, the Mac port is sheer genius. What other company is aiming at the Mac demographic? NOBODY. Helloooooo instant monopoly.

HOLY BEJEESUS!
Never thought about this point!
Absolutely NO-ONE has been aiming for the Mac people, and just going 'Windows, Windows, Windows!', which might be the reason that Apple made Boot Camp.

Well, I'm off to go find another $200 so I can buy my brother's Mac, and run me some L4D!

 

[jamesworkshop]

Wow people way to miss the point this has nothing to do with hardware or coding but licencing issues that is what we mean by an open or closed platform Valve cannot decide one day to start making PS3 games Valve has to pay Sony and be held to certain terms and conditions "BEFORE" they can make PS3 games.
N64 and Gamecube being the most recent were notoriously difficult not because of technology but because it was next to impossible for 3rd parties to get approval and that is why despite being the most powerful machines of their day they lost the market.

Fact is Valve would need to start paying Sony 6 figure sums before they even think about doing any actual work on a PS3 game, that even then still needs the green light from Sony to stop the whole thing from not being a waste of money

 

[Treblaine]

It's true they do have the choice to make the decision to dev for any platform they want from PC to Wii, but they only choose 2 (both of which are virtually identical)

To be precise they develop for ONE. For PC. Everything then just gets ported from there, usually by a third party.

Then EA ports to 360 because it is easy and so far have not bothered much with PS3. They tried porting source to PS3 with Orange Box but it turned out crap.

I think when people ask Gabe "why don't you develop for PS3" his answers seem more like he is thinking literally DEVELOP as in "DON'T make for PC, JUST make for PS3" like why can't they be like Hideo Kojima's studio who has stuck with Sony platform to spite no contractual obligation.

See Valve doesn't Develop for Xbox 360 either, they have always put PC first and centre of their work, and have an uneasy publishing relationship with EA over porting their work to consoles. Like the TF2 updates and support or lack thereof... Valve neglects consoles, full stop.

He is not saying "360 is better than PS3" he's saying "We prefer PC".

See when they say too hard to DEVELOP FOR that is what SO MANY developers do, they do find it too hard to develop for PS3 so they just make it for Xbox 360 than outsource the porting work to a specialist studio.

-Bioshock: Irrational Games/2k Boston couldn't be bothered with PS3, had 2K Marin port it
-Bayonetta: Again original devs did not "develop" on PS3 at all, a third party ported the raw 360 code
-Mass Effect: here no one even bothered to port it to PS3, and with ME2 there is no (apparent) contractual obligation

And there are many others I assure you, usually only BIG publishing houses like Ubisoft or Activision can support making a game for both platforms at once.

See what you're talking about is "Co-development" which a lot of games do like Assassin's Creed, GTA4, Batman AA.

But the end result is a game that is only as good as the lowest common denominator between them + some extra work, though this is partially responsible for the trend of astronomical increases in games development costs as you basically have to make two games at once, every piece of art has to be tested on both PS3 and 360 and have to make a call on if one console is weak in one area to keep the deficiency, try something new that they are both good at, or just lower the standard - basically dumbing down.

Good thing about co-development on PS3 and 360 is you effectively get a quality PC version for free as you always have to work down and work back up. Well, almost for free, you have to do SOME work for a functional PC version but you generally get to have the "Director's cut" as in all the detail that couldn't make the console cut.

Batman AA on PC is a great example of that. Resident Evil 5 as well, read up on Capcom's engine for that, it's quite interesting.

 

[Agayek]

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Mac an open system? What the fuck has Gabe been smoking? Macs are the most locked down non-console platforms ever and they're sure as hell more locked down than a PS3. (this is of course from a non-coding perspective since nothing is locked down from a coding perspective)

Actually, the Mac OS is built on an open-source platform. If memory serves, Mac took the Linux kernel and built a pretty/user-friendly GUI on top of it. Linux kernels are open source by definition, and there's no way for a system to get any more open.

Apple's AppStore is atrocious and terrible though, I will agree with you there. Their rules and screening process are easily the most draconian and worst in the business.

 

[vallorn]

Since when was Valve so hated? Didn't Sony make it harder to code the PS3 on purpose?

Yes. Very very very very very much so.
They actually did make it fairly difficult to code for the PS3, for reasons unknown.
And Valve has been hated on since they stopped doing Ep 3 for L4D2, which wasn't that great a game anyway, considering how damn good the first was.

And also, the Mac port is sheer genius. What other company is aiming at the Mac demographic? NOBODY. Helloooooo instant monopoly.

HOLY BEJEESUS!
Never thought about this point!
Absolutely NO-ONE has been aiming for the Mac people, and just going 'Windows, Windows, Windows!', which might be the reason that Apple made Boot Camp.

Well, I'm off to go find another $200 so I can buy my brother's Mac, and run me some L4D!

sony made the PS3 hard to code for mainly due the the Cell processor, however it has the added bonus of the PS3s games constantly getting better as dev's learn how to work with it or around it and improve their games.

in the latest PLAY magazine (uk only i think) Crytek had an interview where they mentioned how coding for the PS3 is a lot like coding for the Mac due to its ability to process multiple data streams at once.
If Crytek can make a game for the PS3 without to much hassle, then why cant Valve hire 3-4 guys to port stuff to PS3?

 

[Kajin]

Fuck Gabe. He's been a Microsoft fanboy since before I was an itch in my daddy's pants.

Valve are just too lazy to bother actually coding for the PS3, Lazy fucks.

No. He's just a PC fanboy. He only vaguely likes 360 because it is vaguely PC-like.

No member of Valve had any part in the port of Orange Box to consoles, they just handed the code to EA and said "sort this out yourself". And without developer support the PS3 port inevitably ended up butchered. I think that is why the subsequent Left 4 Dead games have only seen console début on 360 for its somewhat PC-like in architecture.

Gabe.N and the guys at Valve are perfectionists, you can see with how they take so long to release sequels and yet at the same time will say "oh no, got a few improvements, here's a sequel 12 months later!" like with L4D2. If they are going to go into PS3 it will be 0% or 100% and by the very nature of the PS3 100% dedication means 100% of your time.

Just look at the results that First Party developers get when they develop exclusively and explicitly on the PS3:

Uncharted 2, God of War 3, Killzone 2, Metal Gear Solid 4, Wipeout HD all amazing games for graphics, content and capability.

But those were MAJOR dedicated projects, it is simply impractical to have parallel development of something like Uncharted 2 on PS3 and PC. It's just an apples and oranges comparison, in the end you are FORCED to dumb down to the lowest common denominator, make compromises and I don't think they like that. You build a game around a console's strengths and weaknesses, you can't do that on different systems at the same time.

And Valve are committed to PC gaming, even ensuring it is not just for Windows but Mac as well, I suspect Lunix will soon get the Steam treatment.

I like my PS3 for its quality 1st party games, but I LOVE my PC for titles like Team Fortress 2, L4D, COD4, Bioshock, Tomb Raider and all the mods, console commands, customisation and fast precision controls. To be honest 3rd party game have almost ALWAYS been a compromise on console, you always get the best experience on PC.

But ultimately I think Gabe doesn't understand consoles. PS3 is like a Gamecube, like Xbox is like a 3DO, they are both consoles and THAT IS IT. Nothing else special linking PS3 and Gamecube. And what he does seem to know it: "rules? terms and conditions?'FAAAACK THAAAAAT' I'll do what I want. Why can't I put whatever the hell I like on there with zero oversight or licensing?"

Well because that's not what consoles are.

I just think Gabe knows there is negative impression towards Gamecube* and makes a fair but misguided comparison. He doesn't like that you have to conform AT ALL on any console.

You shouldn't be bitching to Gabe about "why port to 360 but not PS3" as that is EA'S DECISION as THEY have the console publishing rights:

-Certain Affinity were commissioned by EA to port L4D to 360 and EA was the publisher. Valve likely just got an up front licensing fee and probably didn't include any art saying "whatever you do, don't port this to PS3 D:". Pretty sure the same is with L4D2 as is evident by jsut how choppy the game is on 360, I know Valve staff are incredibly anal about ultra-low-lag and ultra-high frame-rates.

(*He'd be right but the public is WRONG. Gamecube was the best console of its generation, sure PS2 had some good games but most you'd be better off getting on PC (Legacy Of Kain games, GTA3/VC/SA, PoP, Hitman1-2-3-4) Gamecube had SOOO many great games you could only get on Nintendo's platform from Zelda to Resident Evil to Rogue Squadron.)

Yes! Thank You! Someone who knows what they're talking about! That's a lot rarer than you'd think around here.

 

[Kajin]

They actually did make it fairly difficult to code for the PS3, for reasons unknown.

Actually, they did it almost entirely by accident. The PS3 was never supposed to be as powerful as it turned out to be. Sony has always been about getting the most powerful tech possible out on the market. So much so that it's deeply ingrained into the corporate culture of Sony's work environment. During the development of the PS3, the supervisors went tens of millions of dollars over budget and Sony was left with an incredibly powerful machine that they never planned to have. That's actually the reason why PS3's were being sold at a loss for so long.

I might even go as far as saying that the reason early marketing for the PS3 bombed was because they had an entirely different campaign already set up and than had to scrap it and come up with a new campaign at the last second because they had an entirely different machine than they had anticipated.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Fuck Gabe. He's been a Microsoft fanboy since before I was an itch in my daddy's pants.

Valve are just too lazy to bother actually coding for the PS3, Lazy fucks.

This, I love Valve, but that doesn't give them the excuse to not bother learning how to make a game on a platform just because "It's too hard."

Why? PC has missed out on a large number of games simply cause other devs are to lazy to program for it, so cause now they arnt programming for one platform its screw them?. devs have been doing this pretty much since the first xbox and ps2, probably longer. get over it, no one kicks up a stink when shitty devs only program for one platform.

I never said screw them, I just said I wanted them to invest some more time in it.

 

[LeonLethality]

Meh, I don't care what Valve says, they are shitty game developers anyway. And wouldn't put anything worthwhile on my precious PS3. *puts up flame shield*
I also feel I must say the previous statement was entirely my opinion.

Besides correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't this involve a hardware change, and by extension a recall and many many dollars lost replacing systems? Not sure if they are complaining about hardware or software.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Fuck Gabe. He's been a Microsoft fanboy since before I was an itch in my daddy's pants.

Valve are just too lazy to bother actually coding for the PS3, Lazy fucks.

This, I love Valve, but that doesn't give them the excuse to not bother learning how to make a game on a platform just because "It's too hard."

Oh it's easy to "make" a game on PS3. But to truly exploits its potential well now THAT is a dedicated job, you really need a lot of very talented coders & artists (people who are good at both) who have specific experience with unique systems like the PS3 to do that.

Look. I don't want any more half-assed ports on PS3. I'd rather have nothing. Like Orange Box on PS3... what the fuck. And bayonetta, dear GOD, Bay-o-fucking-etta. That was a dogturd on PS3, and it came out just before God of War 3, graphically and performance wise FAR superior to even the 360 version of Bayonetta (art, gameplay and overall worth are a different comparison).

Just take a look at Uncharted 2. That is an example of what dedicated development can yield, just keep grinding away to eak every last functional Floating-point process from it.

Coding for PS3 is a serious investment of time, resources and talent, specific talent.

And Sony's 1st party developers will ALWAYS have the advantage there, they have known the system inside and out longer than any other, they get as many development kits as they like, they have the ear of the damn people who designed the system and code the performance updates. most of the coders in Sony studios have known no other system.

"lazy"

???

You act as if success is just a matter of "trying harder". The point is the odds are completely stacked against Valve if they move into making PS3 games to the standard they are used to, they'd have to abandon all the headway they have made on PC, start afresh, massive firing and rehiring, huge investment. Honestly a complete newcomer start-up company would have a better chance. Valve aren't going to "making" PS3 games till the time is right.

I could equally accuse Sony for being "lazy" for not developing games for PC.

I mean I'd fucking love to play Uncharted 2 on PC, and if they did give the option I'd always choose PC. Mouse aim... ooh just the though of Uncharted 2 with mouse aim... *droools*... oh and customisable controls and graphics *SPASM*... and mods/content-updates/user-skins *SPLOOGE*

No you could not accuse Sony of being lazy for not developing for PC, because they OWN a console. Valve on the other hand has no such ties.

 

[CakeDragon]

So what, Valve want to put some effort into their PS3 releases now..? Back when I first got the Orange Box for PS3 I was 100% disappoint with the effort they put into TF2. Five maps with three match types, how lame.
I did get the pc version in the end, though, if the PS3 version was anything to go by, I wouldn't have considered it at all.

 

[Treblaine]

AHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHA! Mac an open system? What the fuck has Gabe been smoking? Macs are the most locked down non-console platforms ever and they're sure as hell more locked down than a PS3. (this is of course from a non-coding perspective since nothing is locked down from a coding perspective)

This is by far the most mesmerizing block of idiocy I have seen in a single forum thread in the history of trolling. Well done!

As far as the OP goes, I'm sure Valve will be put in their place. Who do they think they are?

Crass certainly, but trolling? I guess if you had no idea what I was talking about it could be read that way.

No, you seem to be about what all the typical passé anti-mac narrow minded MS fanboys are. And that is failing to buy a clue, spew it out in a block of ranty rant, and be a jerk about it...

Macs... not such a problem. It's Apple we all hate. Especially those fucking Mac Vs PC adverts.

The thing I can't stand about them is it isn't "apple vs Microsoft" no, especially considering they aren't even that. I'd pay to see them make each other bleed, it's the "Apple vs geek" or "Apple vs individual" part I detest. You know, I RELATE more to the PC guy, he doesn't conform to a bloody brand or act like such a douchy jock. And the adverts are patronising straw man arguments.... well, they're not that bad, but one things for sure it makes Apple seem like a fucking cult and completely fails on the point on selling Macs for what they ARE rather than what they represent.

And I love my PC but I HATE Microsoft. Especially for Xbox 360 and its shitty overpriced network, its points based store, unreliable crap, no wifi...GGRRRR. And I OWN and xbox 360... I got the cheapest version just to play the few "gotta play" games and some Xbox original games. Halo series was kinda good, crackdown was good fun but "worth playing" games are few and far between. (I blame poor 1st party support)

See I can only tolerate Microsoft with windows because they are like a conservative government: sure, they're assholes but at least they stay out of my hair with their "small government" ideas. Make you fend for yourself, though when they do intrude into your life it is rarely pleasant.

On console you can't fucking avoid them, you're trapped in their walled garden. I missed the days when all you saw of a console company was their opening logo, then the game just started.

(for note I tolerate PS3's interface more because it's most functional and seems more like a control panel than a muddled hotel check-in interface)

PC environment gives a LOT of freedom, Who was it who said:
"the best operating system is the one you don't even notice is there"

you're too busy using applications, programs and functions. And I've learnt how to avoid Microsoft, just get the system-updates over and done with and back to Firefox, Steam, iPlayer and Spotify. None have anything to do with Microsoft, they don't get a penny from their use. I paid them for the operating system which its job is - quite simply - to interface between my programs and my hardware.

(I think all that is missing is a program for accessing my files, something to replace explorer.)

And Macs at least seem to be good at that (increasingly intrigued by this so called "dock"). Though they do come short of the requirements of "interface between programs and hardware" as there is no system-tray I know of... what about background processes like net-meter? I NEED net meter for my Orwellian ISP's download caps.

Also, the hardware they come in is overpriced like fuck, but that's not my problem, I just won't buy their stuff. My problem is why won't they support me if I install their OS onto a system I built myself? COME OOOOOON! DO it Jobs! Run a REAL operating system and stop being such a sissy about operating on unexpected hardware configurations (but not till you have a system tray or equivalent).

But my real wrath is for Apple's App-store... ooooooh, I thought Microsoft were bad with XBL but this is just a whole new level of megalomania. Hmmmmgrrr, I can't get started. All I can do is hope Android can save the day for enterprise.

Bottom line, you should hate successful companies, because from their position (on the top) you are worthless. Even 2nd place can be assholes. And Apple is definitely on top of mobile computing, to the point where I wonder how crazy it would be if they cut Mac loose to make it on their own.

I liked Nintendo when they were in 3rd place (N64 + GC), they really showed their customers love, now PS3 has been in 3rd place for long enough they have stopped acting like corporate douchebags and have now gone all mom & pop business, working double time on customer satisfaction with Kevin Butler and catering to their Hardcore as much as possible.

I suppose I should like Linux as well... but I haven't tried it and because they are non-profit pussies and fail to put any money on the line (and so desperate to please customers) they probably won't resonate the same. I'm telling you Linux... or something like it to go for-profit... that I'd be interested in. I'm a great believer in the power of capitalistic competition and have great phobia of monopolies (and effective monopolies).

 

[Petromir]

PC gamers have been dealing with console exclusives and shitty ports for a while now, but when A PC centric developer doesn't feel like coding for the PS3, suddenly its a huge issue?

The sense of entitlement is staggering.

Don't forget that PC gamers are arogant elitists who deserve nothing, wheras console gamers are all salt of the earth types who Valve should be honoured to be providing games for them.

The cell processor is a very powerful beast, especially for a certain type of calc, but that calc isnt how most of the gaming world runs alot of the calcs in a game. So you have to either rewrite an engine to work the cell way, or you have to get the cell to emulate a more traditional system. The 1st option is alot to ask of a company, which is why its mostly done by PS3 only devs, and to do it would require Valve to hire an entire new studio, the second is more common but produces inferior results, and is the reason for cross platform titles rarely being worth the extra money a PS3 would set you back.

Valve are a PC developer 1st and formost, one of the few left, blizzard being one of the few others to spring to mind.

Valve probably looked at the job that was done to port the orange box over and decided that they wouldnt put their name on that again, and have decided its the difficulty in porting it thats the issue and so are calling for it to be made easier. Not to make their life easier, but so that they have confidence that if they allow further ports to be done, that the end product is something they want their name on.

 

[TheComedown]

Fuck Gabe. He's been a Microsoft fanboy since before I was an itch in my daddy's pants.

Valve are just too lazy to bother actually coding for the PS3, Lazy fucks.

This, I love Valve, but that doesn't give them the excuse to not bother learning how to make a game on a platform just because "It's too hard."

Why? PC has missed out on a large number of games simply cause other devs are to lazy to program for it, so cause now they arnt programming for one platform its screw them?. devs have been doing this pretty much since the first xbox and ps2, probably longer. get over it, no one kicks up a stink when shitty devs only program for one platform.

I never said screw them, I just said I wanted them to invest some more time in it.

ok you started you post with "This,"

saying that means you agree with everything the previous poster had said, and i was paraphrasing what he said, his post basically came across as "screw valve cause they wont make stuff for the ps3."

 

[Treblaine]

Fuck Gabe. He's been a Microsoft fanboy since before I was an itch in my daddy's pants.

Valve are just too lazy to bother actually coding for the PS3, Lazy fucks.

I could equally accuse Sony for being "lazy" for not developing games for PC.

I mean I'd fucking love to play Uncharted 2 on PC, and if they did give the option I'd always choose PC. Mouse aim... ooh just the though of Uncharted 2 with mouse aim... *droools*... oh and customisable controls and graphics *SPASM*... and mods/content-updates/user-skins *SPLOOGE*

No you could not accuse Sony of being lazy for not developing for PC, because they OWN a console. Valve on the other hand has no such ties.

Hmm, intriguing. But how about this: Valve "owns" a service on PC, that is Steam. They have an incentive to make stuff to sell on the service that they spent a lot of money setting up. They are not a multinational like Sony, they don't have a lot of money to spend, this Steam program is a "virtual" console of sorts.

And if Microsoft can release some of their 1st party games for PC as well as console (gears 1, Fable, Halo 1 & 2 also maybe Alan Wake), why not Sony with their 1st part games?

SUUUURE, in a round about way, Releasing Uncharted 2 on Steam would help Microsoft as it is on their operating system, but no licence fee is going to them.

And of course: Everquest.

That's right, Everquest is 100% a Sony production on *dun dun duuuuun* the Windows Operating System(!) as well as PlanetSide, Star Wars Galaxies and Everquest 2.

So clearly Sony is not shy to earning some money in their competitor's territory and remember, an operating system is very different from a console. On a console, you are just using it, the corporation is running in. With a PC operating system, the OS is just another tool, YOU are runnign your computer, you have say what goes on it. No program has to pay any licence fee or have to pay for their approval, the OS has no right to stop you using a program if it is safe.

Really, the biggest factor stopping Sony porting a Game like Uncharted 2 to PC say 12 months after release is they can't be bothered. I'm quite sure they'd much rather spend their efforts making an Uncharted 3.

Now this has got me thinking, I am really longing for Sony's best on PC... but I know Sony will never do it. They can make more money per game selling exclusively on PS3.

 

[Joens]

And also, the Mac port is sheer genius. What other company is aiming at the Mac demographic? NOBODY. Helloooooo instant monopoly.

Blizzard

 

[ffs-dontcare]

Oh noes how dare Newell insult the precious PS3, he has absolutely no excuse not to develop for it, they suck and Newell is fat!!!1!eleventy

Something is wrong with you people. "We don't want to develop for PS3" is a perfectly acceptable excuse for not developing on PS3. If you disagree with me on that, you are wrong.

Are you in Valve's position? No? Then piss off and take your false sense of entitlement with you.

Would love them to develop games for ps3 as Valve have made a good few of my all time favourite games but i have both consoles so i don't really care.

Also they are just a business so they can do pretty much what ever the fuck they feel like simply and solely because they feel like it. He doesn't need a good reason not to develop for or like the PS3 and he probably doesn't have one.

I wish people would stop acting like they are some sort of government arm encroaching on their freedoms here....

Fuck Gabe. He's been a Microsoft fanboy since before I was an itch in my daddy's pants.

Valve are just too lazy to bother actually coding for the PS3, Lazy fucks.

This is funny, PS3 owners getting bit in the ass, you cant have your cake and eat it (no pun intended) PS3 owners from the start what was it? "look over here, we have all these cool exclusives. whats that we cant have valves stuff too? WAAAHHHH" like i said before, games coming out for one or two consoles but not the other has been going on forever, its they way it is, and its the way its going to be for quite a while.

What I hear is constant complaining from PS3 fanboys who are too full of themselves to spend some of their apparently abundant($300/console, $60/game) money on a decent PC so they can play Valve's games. Seriously? Who cares that Valve doesn't like the PS3? They're the devs, they make the rules.

Hey, y'know what'd be awesome? If I could play God of War on a 360!...oh, that's right, I can't. Gonna go whine at Sony Santa Monica now?

They don't wanna dev for the PS3, so stop asking them! Because when you ask them you get made up answers like this, since you apparently don't stop asking when they respond "We just don't like it."

Nobody whined for Halo on the PS3, nobody whined for Final Fantasy on the 360 (although they got it, for some reason), and nobody's whining for Starcraft on ANY console. So what makes you think Valve should drop everything and port to the PS3?

You three basically said what was on my mind when I read all these incredibly stupid complaints about Valve not releasing on PS3. The complaining about it is ridiculous.