Valve wants the PS3 to be more open like Mac.

[A random person]

As an open-source zealot in training, I'd like to say that Mac's aren't exactly open. Allow me to link to Cracked. [http://www.cracked.com/article_18377_5-reasons-you-should-be-scared-apple.html]

Basically, Mr. Newell, if you really want openness, bring Steam to Linux (or more specifically, do it faster [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=valve_steam_announcement&num=1]).

 

[AWAR]

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 a recurring fallacy. App Store =/= OS X. OS X is as open as any other operating system, while the App Store has a tough approval process.

Actually it's more open than Windows. OS X uses a BSD kernal. BSD is open source. Windows is completely closed

That's right. Thanks for reminding me.

The kernel is open source, the OS itself isn't.

 

[OmegaXzors]

/facepalm
it was ported by EA...

Oh blimey! Did I fail to see that? Or do I have to explain that Valve sold the permissions for EA to do that? Do you think Blizzard would release Starcraft II on a console? No, because after what companies did to soil Starcraft on N64 and Diablo on PS1, they wouldn't consider it. Blizzard <-- is more exclusive to PC.

Now, Valve, who agreed to have a PS3 game released (because they're fat lazy fucks who don't know how to program it for themselves) this console generation, then say they're "PC EXCLUSIVE!!1" while they're manufacturing Xbox 360 games behind their back is a load of rotten bologna.

Ergo, because Valve are "fat lazy fucks," then they will fall zum ende.

 

[ratmen]

/facepalm
it was ported by EA...

Oh blimey! Did I fail to see that? Or do I have to explain that Valve sold the permissions for EA to do that? Do you think Blizzard would release Starcraft II on a console? No, because after what companies did to soil Starcraft on N64 and Diablo on PS1, they wouldn't consider it. Blizzard <-- is more exclusive to PC.

Now, Valve, who agreed to have a PS3 game released (because they're fat lazy fucks who don't know how to program it for themselves) this console generation, then say they're "PC EXCLUSIVE!!1" while they're manufacturing Xbox 360 games behind their back is a load of rotten bologna.

Ergo, because Valve are "fat lazy fucks," then they will fall zum ende.

oh noez you are angry because other consoles have exclusives! NO! PS3 has to be the only one with exclusives!!1!11
also the PS3 port of the OB was VERY BAD, and it was ported by a massive commpany like EA. Imagine any game made by VALVe itself on the PS3 would be EVEN WORSE.
---

I am not saying the PS3 WON'T get any VALVe game, but I am sure it won't be in a near future

edit: also, I don't know why you want to play VALVe games so badly, they aren't that good

 

[JdaS]

People keep throwing out the "PS3 is a ***** to code for" card. However just about any developers who do exclusives for the PS3 have never complained about it. In fact Guerilla (being the delightfully modest people they are) said "It's not difficult at all". Just wondering...

inb4 [insert PS3 exclusive here] sucks donkey balls.

 

[Delusibeta]

Sheesh, a lot of flaming going on in this thread. I realise that Valve is PS3 Fanboi Public Enemy No. 1, but sheesh. Calm down already.

Spoiler: In Case Of Urge To Flame, Click Here

 

[ObsessiveSketch]

???
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.

Nope, it was the highest tech of the lot, yet failed to sell largely because it was dressed up as Tinkerbell's luggage.


It's main processor wasn't quite as powerful the Xbox, but there was lots of genius technology designed into the Cube. Like the disc, roughly based on mini DVD, but with a much higher transfer rate, so you had a disc based system that could deliver cartridge loading times. It had support for stereoscopic 3-D and online network play built into it (in 2001!) but ultimately neither of these took off as the Cube didn't attract the sales or developer support Nintendo had obviously thought it would. No games ever used 3-D and network play only reached 5 or 6 titles. It also had the first first party (and good quality) wireless controller in the Wavebird.

Still, there was quite a lot of genius tech going on in that little purple cube.

Huh. Guess I lucked out, but to be honest, I was rather taken with the games that I was missing out on. Maybe that's why I though the PS2 was superior? Weird...welp, I've played my Pikmin, SSBM, and Wind Waker, so I suppose I shouldn't complain

 

[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.

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.

Wait... Did you just bash your own argument about Sony not developing for PC? Honestly I didn't want to get in a huge argument with people. Let's just say I am of the opinion that I would like Valve to get up and have "a better go".

We all good now?

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.

I feel like this on both sides, often there's a PS3 exclusive that I'd LOVE on my PC and vice versa. It's just this is the first time I've been bothered to post about it on the escapist.

Oooo-eeerr I just spent the last 10 minutes trying to untangle the quotation tangle there, we somehow ended up quoting each other!

Anyway, yes... I mean no. I mean I considered that just as I was about to post only I think it ultimately supports my argument as it is vital in proving it would not be unprecedented for Sony to release works on the operating system made by a "competitor". Hey, it's capitalism, not war.

I mean would the people who are calling Gay Ben Gabe.N a "Microsoft fanboy" be happy if Valve just released a few small separate games for PS3 and deny them their big titles like Left 4 Dead and so on?

No. PS3 fans can only begin to feel a sense of entitlement when Sony starts wholesale efforts of making quality ports of all of their best games to PC, and specifically to Steam network and that means their big hitters like Resistance, Uncharted, Wipeout (which début'd on PC), Killzone and so on.

If they aren't willing to put the effort into porting FROM PS3, then there should be no expectation to port TO PS3.

And I think the reason Sony doesn't that do is not capitalistic competition but sheer difficulty, getting Uncharted 2 work on PC with the graphics it has would be a massive effort for not many sales into and environment they are unfamiliar with and don't like... same argument that Gabe is making.

Lol, yeah, this quote string is getting ridiculous. But I see your point, I'm still going to be pissed though. But I can understand why it isn't happening.

 

[Redlin5_v1legacy]

I liked the Gamecube but I really don't think the PS3 is closed like it. Heck, if Valve bothered to follow Sony's rules and actually care enough to code for the damn thing I'd buy more Valve games for the PS3. As it is, I'm stuck with an unsupported Orange Box for the thing.

I find it very funny to see Valve, the original Microsoft fanboys, praise the Mac. I guess it's because Sony isn't an American company and they're trying to give Apple a good image since they are trying to tap into that market.

Edit:

Spoiler: In Case Of Urge To Flame, Click Here

Thank you for the music sir. I found myself jamming to it while I read threads. All nerd rage has been drained.

 

[Treblaine]

Guys, could someone please explain in layman's terms what exactly this all means? My tech-knowledge isn't the best.

What does he mean by 'more open' and why is the PS3 harder to code for?

PCs, Macs an 360's Processors all use multiple identical cores (as in all the cores in a given processor aer the same). A PS3 uses an 8 core processor that has one core thats very simialr to the one that the 360n uses for all its 3, and then 7 cores which are identical to each other but very different to the main one. This means that you either need to code very differently, or use the extra power to emulate the more normal way. The PC/Mac/Xbox way is by far the most common, and therfore most programmers out there are used to programming for that way.

Not quite.

See Windows PCs and now Macs all use Intel x86 architecture for their CPUs

Xbox 360, and PS3 use an IBM PowerPC architecture for their central Logic Processors which is similar but not close enough to run the same without code modifications.

See Xbox 360 has a THREE IMB PowerPC cores in a Triple core arrangement. All are easy to access and use though not that flexible beyond game logic, can't be used for rendering.

PS3 has a Single PowerPC core and 6 satellite cores called "SPE" (specific processing elements) available for rendering gameplay (the 7th SPE is dedicated to running the PS3's OS, the 8th is faulty so disabled, this increases yield)

BUT things get more complicated because although Windows PCs are Intel, and Xbox 360's are Power PC, The XBOX 360's Graphics API (graphics language) is DirectX 9.0 which is the same as commonly used for Windows PC games. So there is a lot of commonality there.

The PS3's GPU is actually quite PC-like, but the 360's GPU though generally also quite PC-like only it has an additional graphics core, called the eDRAM. This is only 10Megabytes of INCREDIBLY fast memory, and pre-launch it was advertised as allowing "free" 2x ant-aliasing for every 720p game.

In practice thought, that eDRAM is used to make everything "shiny" like all the eye candy in Halo 3 and ODST. But one problem with this is there isn't enough eDRAM, only 10MB that limits the "frame buffer". That means the game physically cannot process that many pixels per second (that's a combination of Pixels-per-frame, level of anti-aliasing and frame-per-second) so many games like Halo 3 are in sub-HD 640p and with no Anti-aliasing to run at a fairly steady 30fps with those graphics. Alan Wake is the most recent example, only 540p to allow enough frame-buffer for 4xAA and pretty graphics.

To get better performance... well you basically have to resort to tricks of the eye, like perceptual AA, variable resolution, dithering. Early preview video of Halo Reach is indicating that, lots of weird artefacts going on, though the resolution is much closer to 720p and has some temporal AA.

PS3, well each SPE in theory is as good as 360's single eDRAM, but getting them all to work in synchronicity is a major coding challenge. That's why it is very likely that even God of War 3 and Uncharted 2 are not the best graphics PS3 can offer, right now only Sony developers seem to have cracked it.

 

[Doug]

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.

And yet he is saying something to be like Mac, an Apple computer, and another major nemesis of Microsoft...

This. Microsoft fanboys wouldn't code for the Mac, period.

 

[Treblaine]

I liked the Gamecube but I really don't think the PS3 is closed like it. Heck, if Valve bothered to follow Sony's rules and actually care enough to code for the damn thing I'd buy more Valve games for the PS3. As it is, I'm stuck with an unsupported Orange Box for the thing.

I find it very funny to see Valve, the original Microsoft fanboys, praise the Mac. I guess it's because Sony isn't an American company and they're trying to give Apple a good image since they are trying to tap into that market.

Look. How the hell do people come up with this bullshit about Gabe being a Microsoft fanboy? He may have worked there but he left over a decade ago and has been trying to get Steam onto Mac for YEARS. If anything Gabe has been a PC-fanboy and rightly so, it offers the highest performance and most developer and user freedom. Xbox 360 version of Orange Box was just as poorly supported as PS3, the tiny fraction of the L4D experience you get on 360 you should thank EA for, not Valve.

You shouldn't buy Valve games for PS3 even if they are available, why would you want a compromised port? Just get it on PC where you get the REAL experience not some pared down, mediated experience with inadequate aim-assisted gamepad controls.

And don't give me that "awwww, I don't have 30 squilligion dollars to spend on a gaming PC":

http://www.techspot.com/review/240-ati-radeon-hd-5670/page9.html

It's less than $90, slots right into any fairly recent PC and will play team Fortress 2 at a solid and smooth 60 frames/sec even at resolutions as high as 1080p. As long as you have a dual-core based PC and about 2GB or RAM (which you should have anyway for stable running) then it'll play just fine.

If you've only got a laptop... you have a laptop? You can't be that hard up then.

Valve games belong on PC like Final Fantasy XIII belonged on PS3, it's not worth porting if it is a hack job.

 

[Goremocker]

...I love VALVe...but what have they done...I may cut someone for this...

 

[Treblaine]

Lol, yeah, this quote string is getting ridiculous. But I see your point, I'm still going to be pissed though. But I can understand why it isn't happening.

I say if you can't beat em... join em.

You should look into gaming on your PC. Your PC may already but to the task or could be only a $100 upgrade away. Hell there re budget cards out there that cost as little as $79 that will play TF2 in 1080p and max out the frame rate... easily.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Lol, yeah, this quote string is getting ridiculous. But I see your point, I'm still going to be pissed though. But I can understand why it isn't happening.

I say if you can't beat em... join em.

You should look into gaming on your PC. Your PC may already but to the task or could be only a $100 upgrade away. Hell there re budget cards out there that cost as little as $79 that will play TF2 in 1080p and max out the frame rate... easily.

I do game on my PC as well and believe me, I don't need an upgrade with an i7, gtx 295 and 6 gb of ram. It's just sometimes I'd like to play a game on a console with a 46" LCD if you know what I mean.

 

[Treblaine]

Lol, yeah, this quote string is getting ridiculous. But I see your point, I'm still going to be pissed though. But I can understand why it isn't happening.

I say if you can't beat em... join em.

You should look into gaming on your PC. Your PC may already but to the task or could be only a $100 upgrade away. Hell there re budget cards out there that cost as little as $79 that will play TF2 in 1080p and max out the frame rate... easily.

I do game on my PC as well and believe me, I don't need an upgrade with an i7, gtx 295 and 6 gb of ram. It's just sometimes I'd like to play a game on a console with a 46" LCD if you know what I mean.

Similar system myself (GTX 280, C2Q, 4GB) but not quite as good as yours.

But I'm not interested in "big screen gaming" myself I see it as irrelevant to me. I have both my PS3 and my PC plugged into the same Samsung Monitor 1080p with 24" diameter. And then my PS3 is strictly for quality PS3 exclusives, also I find PS3 is more suited for blu-ray playback than fiddling with a PC drive, also PlayTV function is much handier as it can record even if left in standby.

See what is the point in 46 inch? Resolution is the same... if it is to fill more of your vision well why not just sit closer. 46 inch at 8 foot appears almost the same size as a 24 inch at 4 foot.

The only advantage I see for a big screen is in a large TV room type environment, where it is easy for lots of people to sit around with enough elbow room them while both the screen appears large enough to see detail and with a comfortable viewing angle.

 

[lukeyboy270]

To all the people posting saying valve is lazy gabe is stupid ect.ect valve put an unbelievable amount of effort into there games witch is why the take some time to come out but they are mainly a pc(mac now to)based company they tried porting games to console it succeeded with the xbox and not with the PS3 deal with it if your really that heartbroken that valve isn't paying attention to your /sarcasm gift from the angels end/sarcasm PS3 get a comp or don't play valve its that sodding simple
also I own all three systems and I'm poor as hell so don't say I'm rich/fanboy/[insert gay remark here]

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Lol, yeah, this quote string is getting ridiculous. But I see your point, I'm still going to be pissed though. But I can understand why it isn't happening.

I say if you can't beat em... join em.

You should look into gaming on your PC. Your PC may already but to the task or could be only a $100 upgrade away. Hell there re budget cards out there that cost as little as $79 that will play TF2 in 1080p and max out the frame rate... easily.

I do game on my PC as well and believe me, I don't need an upgrade with an i7, gtx 295 and 6 gb of ram. It's just sometimes I'd like to play a game on a console with a 46" LCD if you know what I mean.

Similar system myself (GTX 280, C2Q, 4GB) but not quite as good as yours.

But I'm not interested in "big screen gaming" myself I see it as irrelevant to me. I have both my PS3 and my PC plugged into the same Samsung Monitor 1080p with 24" diameter. And then my PS3 is strictly for quality PS3 exclusives, also I find PS3 is more suited for blu-ray playback than fiddling with a PC drive, also PlayTV function is much handier as it can record even if left in standby.

See what is the point in 46 inch? Resolution is the same... if it is to fill more of your vision well why not just sit closer. 46 inch at 8 foot appears almost the same size as a 24 inch at 4 foot.

The only advantage I see for a big screen is in a large TV room type environment, where it is easy for lots of people to sit around with enough elbow room them while both the screen appears large enough to see detail and with a comfortable viewing angle.

You're last reason is what I'm talking about, my family is like all gamers. So we all like to sit down and watch the new game or whatever, that's harder on a monitor.

 

[Volafortis]

Lol, yeah, this quote string is getting ridiculous. But I see your point, I'm still going to be pissed though. But I can understand why it isn't happening.

I say if you can't beat em... join em.

You should look into gaming on your PC. Your PC may already but to the task or could be only a $100 upgrade away. Hell there re budget cards out there that cost as little as $79 that will play TF2 in 1080p and max out the frame rate... easily.

I do game on my PC as well and believe me, I don't need an upgrade with an i7, gtx 295 and 6 gb of ram. It's just sometimes I'd like to play a game on a console with a 46" LCD if you know what I mean.

Similar system myself (GTX 280, C2Q, 4GB) but not quite as good as yours.

But I'm not interested in "big screen gaming" myself I see it as irrelevant to me. I have both my PS3 and my PC plugged into the same Samsung Monitor 1080p with 24" diameter. And then my PS3 is strictly for quality PS3 exclusives, also I find PS3 is more suited for blu-ray playback than fiddling with a PC drive, also PlayTV function is much handier as it can record even if left in standby.

See what is the point in 46 inch? Resolution is the same... if it is to fill more of your vision well why not just sit closer. 46 inch at 8 foot appears almost the same size as a 24 inch at 4 foot.

The only advantage I see for a big screen is in a large TV room type environment, where it is easy for lots of people to sit around with enough elbow room them while both the screen appears large enough to see detail and with a comfortable viewing angle.

Hook your PC up to your 46" TV? Most TVs have multiple HDMI ports (and a VGA port, but VGA sucks ass), and occasionally, you'll get a TV that has a DVI port. Hook it up. Sure, you'll need a sound card t hook up your sound properly, but a good sound card hooked up to a surround sound system sounds AMAZING.

Honestly, who cares about what Gabe says about the PS3. I personally think that the PS3 could have been made a bit better to code for, because as is, no one other than Sony's first party devs have the desire to waste money on the ridiculous production costs of properly coding to max out the PS3. Which is why cross-platform games look IDENTICAL on 360 and PS3. In order to improve the graphics on a PC, you just replace the textures with un-compressed ones, and throw in higher poly count models. But to improve them on the PS3, you need to re-write the games infrastructure to get the console to display it without lagging all to hell, which shoots costs through the roof, and won't pay off, unless you went exclusive.

So, no. Gabe is not a "M1cr0$0ft f4nb01!!!11!one," as you PS3 fanboys are proclaiming with religiously vigor. He is merely pointing out a major flaw in the PS3 architecture, and re-affirming to the masses that his stance on it has not changed.

Also, to those who think the Gamecube was the least powerful last gen console; you are wrong.
Gamecube:
CPU: 486 MHz
GPU: 162 MHz

PS2:
CPU: 299 MHz
GPU: approx. 150 MHz

Xbox:
CPU: 733 MHz
GPU: 233 MHz

The PS2 was easily the LEAST POWERFUL console last generation. (The Xbox was the most powerful, but came a bit late to the party, and only really sold because it had a lot of PC/Xbox exclusive cross-overs, like KotOR. Jade Empire, Morrowind, Halo, etc... It basically introduced a lot of console gamers to otherwise PC-only games) The Gamecube had MOR power than the PS2, bu often looked equal to the PS2, again because it was closed off and difficult to code properly for.

Interesting tidbit: Estimates put the Wii at a 729 MHz CPU, and a 243 MHz GPU, basically only putting it on PAR with the Original Xbox in terms of power.

EDIT: Wow, I went off on a tangent there, I apologize. Still, no way I'm going to delete my block of text. I did too much research to delete that.