Why does Valve treat console owners like Second Class Citizens?

[Amnestic]

Ah well, remember kids, PCs are for porn, arguing and MMORPGs, Consoles are for games, they're both good at their respective areas, can't we all just get along?

I have yet to see one good RTS on a console.

I have yet to see an FPS that was better on a console.

I have yet to see an RPG that was better on a console.

Yeah, them consoles are all about the gaming and us PC guys are just for arguing.

Super /sarcasm.

If they supported the console versions, wouldn't they get more money from it? If they weren't going to support it, why release it in the first place?

Compared to the development time they have to put in? Probably not. There's the cut Microsoft takes, there's the cut that EA takes and then there's more time spent coding stuff differently to cater to the consoles so that it doesn't all break down.

I'm not a Valve employee, but it's easy to see why they don't choose to support consoles. When they're on the PC, all the money goes straight to them. Consoles they have to deal with EA+Microsoft as well, which means less profits for equal-if-not-higher development time because they're not as used to coding for consoles.

Next you'll be hearing complaints that Blizzard Entertainment treat console gamers like second class citizens... Their last non-port console game was in 1995, though they did a Lost Vikings GBA port in 2003.

Two games in the last 14 years for consoles. Them damn PC elitist developers, eh? (I <3 Blizzard, don't ever change.)

 

[kvenox]

Damn you. I was about to post a similar topic about this. And also bring up the fact that PC gamers always seem to get free expansions Eg. Left 4 Dead new map; crash course its free for Valve's beloved PC gamers but not for any console users. This is a serious question why do PC gamers get free stuff for games and we have to pay for. Oh and im not including survival mode for left 4 dead as Valve being generous as its the most un-imaginative expansion ever, its basicly blocking the exit for all the mini finalies and ramping up the numbers.

because its microsoft that forces valve toforce console gamers to pay for updates(do you guys even read rhe previus posts?)

 

[AbuFace]

I assume by that you mean play games by constantly getting error messages because your graphics drivers aren't up to date.

Seriously though, this PC elitism has nothing to do with the central issue, TF2 when it was initially released had a large number of bugs and glitches such as the gate glitch on dustbowl, they fixed that very, very early on for PC surely fixing the pre-existing maps isn't that hard.

If anything I would have thought that the group of gamers who all use exactly the same hardware on relatively controlled network would have been easier to support than the group with the disparate hardware needs and as such would have made a perfect control group upon which to test new updates.

Not to be a dick, but you (and many others, it seems) drastically overestimate the complexity of the PC as a gaming platform. Only a complete novice at computers has to put up with the kinds of problems most console gamers cite. If you're getting constant errors about your video drivers being out of date, then it's your own fault for not taking 10 minutes somewhere within the past year to update them. PCs may look intimidating, but it's really just a bigger version of "put the square block in the square hole"

Anyway, if you're reading this far into the thread you should probably just stop. Answers to the original question were posted back on the first couple pages, at this point it's just people flaming each other.

 

[Caliostro]

Because they are? There's nothing a console can do a PC can't do better.


But seriously. If you had actually done your research you would know a few things:

a) Valve started out and are deep rooted as PC developers. Not console developers. PC is what they're comfortable with, and what they know best. They recently started dwelling into xbox territory, seeing as being from Microsoft is closer to what they know than Playstation. It's still quite different than PCs though.

b) Consoles are limited. Facetiousness aside, consoles ARE far more limited than PCs. Cry "fanboy" as you might, objectively the only advantage consoles have over pcs is that you know everyone is using the same exact gear. On the other hand, that include everyone has the same limitations. With the Xbox specifically the issue is memory limitations.

c) Developing for PS3 specifically is, according to the seemingly coherent developer opinion, about as nice as jaming a rusty cattle prod up your urinary tract... Valve specifically have endlessly expressed their common hate for the needlessly complicated and tiresome process involved in developing for Sony's George Foreman Grill.

... Ok, so maybe my original statement was closer to the truth than political correctness would have it, but c'est la vie.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Which begs the question, why didn't they buy Orange box for the PC? Every gamer on the planet could have told you this would have happened months before the release of Orange Box, yet people still chose to ignore them.

I wasn't even concerning the orange box in my statement.

In a thread about Valve favouring PC games you said "Just because someone uses a console doesn't mean they don't have a PC as well."
Inferring pretty clearly that people were making the choice to buy tha console version of whatever, I chose orange Box because it's most relevant to the thread.
It still begs the question, why are people picking the console port if they already have a PC and have the option for the better version?

But surely you should have noticed my comment was aimed directly at someone else's comment. There were no implications.

 

[C0nn0r666]

How many time are we going to do the same thread over and over again! Yes i'm sad valve wou'nt give me the updates but like everyone on here will tell you it's cause valve are a pc devloper.

 

[delet]

But the consoles ARE a second class... It's a PC game, meant for PC's. Consoles are secondary. They've said before that they're simply having trouble putting all their content into a small enough form to be treated as DLC on the 360. Really, the only reason I can see for Valve to bring anything to the console format is to move people to the PC. It's what I did. If you're tired of waiting, make the move too. You'll be happy you did.

 

[Axle_Bullitt_19]

This article conserns the PS3
http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/08/14/valve-still-hates-the-playstation-3/1

 

[Foxbat Flyer]

Because PC is the shiznit. and it is easier to develop for PC (Not that id know, im just guessing)

 

[psijac]

John Smith? boy did you pick the most plain username. Anywho I think this is a bit over dramatic. You arent second class citizens, it just is what it is. Stop complaining.

I believe he was making a Doctor Who reference.

Valve's heart lies in the PC anyway. It's what they're best at.

I like to think John Smith really is The Doctors name, think of the irony

 

[JohnSmith]

I assume by that you mean play games by constantly getting error messages because your graphics drivers aren't up to date.

Seriously though, this PC elitism has nothing to do with the central issue, TF2 when it was initially released had a large number of bugs and glitches such as the gate glitch on dustbowl, they fixed that very, very early on for PC surely fixing the pre-existing maps isn't that hard.

If anything I would have thought that the group of gamers who all use exactly the same hardware on relatively controlled network would have been easier to support than the group with the disparate hardware needs and as such would have made a perfect control group upon which to test new updates.

Not to be a dick, but you (and many others, it seems) drastically overestimate the complexity of the PC as a gaming platform. Only a complete novice at computers has to put up with the kinds of problems most console gamers cite. If you're getting constant errors about your video drivers being out of date, then it's your own fault for not taking 10 minutes somewhere within the past year to update them. PCs may look intimidating, but it's really just a bigger version of "put the square block in the square hole"

Anyway, if you're reading this far into the thread you should probably just stop. Answers to the original question were posted back on the first couple pages, at this point it's just people flaming each other.

I have to admit that my original statement exhibited a certain amount of hyperbole, however what I was trying to get across was the reliability of the experience rather than the reliability of the hardware or software. Also I suspect you may be right about the flaming.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Because PC > consoles.

It's so much easier to fix shit on PC than on consoles. That and FPS/RTS games are inherently incompatible with consoles.

But then comes the console-exclusive crap. I'm just gonna leave that alone.

 

[Octorok]

Jesus Christ. I cannot believe that so many fantastically stupid people post here, just to say that PCs are better than consoles. Well, news, they're also much more expensive, less comfortable and less portable.

As for saying that they're "primarily a PC developer", check your stuff. Just because they started out on a PC does not mean that do not want to develop for 360. Otherwise we would not have Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, Portal or Half Life 2 and its associates. We would not be getting Left 4 Dead 2 or Hal Life 2 : Episode 3. So shut up about Valve preferring the PC, and research the technology behind the 360. It is just a PC. That's why PC to 360 and vice versa works so well, and why so many games come out for those two but not the PS3 or Wii. Because porting to the PS3 means rewriting a lot of stuff, as it is the hardest to port to and develop for. The 360 can communicate with PCs with no trouble, and will recognise PC data.

The reason the 360 isn't getting the updates is because of Microsoft and space. Microsoft has always wanted Valve to charge for DLC, hence why Crash Course for L4D is free on PC, but costs Microsoft points on the 360. And they had trouble getting the updates into stuff that you can download, without taking up vast amounts of space, as this stuff apparently gains e-mass on its way to the 360.

 

[Solytus]

Jesus Christ. I cannot believe that so many fantastically stupid people post here, just to say that PCs are better than consoles. Well, news, they're also much more expensive, less comfortable and less portable.

As for saying that they're "primarily a PC developer", check your stuff. Just because they started out on a PC does not mean that do not want to develop for 360. Otherwise we would not have Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, Portal or Half Life 2 and its associates. We would not be getting Left 4 Dead 2 or Hal Life 2 : Episode 3. So shut up about Valve preferring the PC, and research the technology behind the 360. It is just a PC. That's why PC to 360 and vice versa works so well, and why so many games come out for those two but not the PS3 or Wii. Because porting to the PS3 means rewriting a lot of stuff, as it is the hardest to port to and develop for. The 360 can communicate with PCs with no trouble, and will recognise PC data.

May I offer a rebuttal to your argument?

Your statement that PCs are more expensive, less comfortable and less portable is fundamentally flawed, due to the fact that PCs are diverse in nature. Considering that one can build a PC that can run Crysis at max settings for ~$600 (Gizmodo did a piece of this a while back, far too lazy at the moment to find it), I'd imagine that building a PC that can run Source games well would not be a very expensive endeavor. And In terms of comfort, that varies from person to person, so that argument is rendered moot as well. And in terms of portability, the very existence of gaming laptops disables that point entirely.

And as for why Valve prefers the PC, it's less about the hardware than the software. On the PC, Valve has STEAM, its first-party game distribution service that allows them to release everything exactly how they want to, with no middleman. I"d imagine that that convenience would act as quite an incentive for preferring the PC.

 

[Octorok]

Jesus Christ. I cannot believe that so many fantastically stupid people post here, just to say that PCs are better than consoles. Well, news, they're also much more expensive, less comfortable and less portable.

As for saying that they're "primarily a PC developer", check your stuff. Just because they started out on a PC does not mean that do not want to develop for 360. Otherwise we would not have Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, Portal or Half Life 2 and its associates. We would not be getting Left 4 Dead 2 or Hal Life 2 : Episode 3. So shut up about Valve preferring the PC, and research the technology behind the 360. It is just a PC. That's why PC to 360 and vice versa works so well, and why so many games come out for those two but not the PS3 or Wii. Because porting to the PS3 means rewriting a lot of stuff, as it is the hardest to port to and develop for. The 360 can communicate with PCs with no trouble, and will recognise PC data.

May I offer a rebuttal to your argument?

Your statement that PCs are more expensive, less comfortable and less portable is fundamentally flawed, due to the fact that PCs are diverse in nature. Considering that one can build a PC that can run Crysis at max settings for ~$600 (Gizmodo did a piece of this a while back, far too lazy at the moment to find it), I'd imagine that building a PC that can run Source games well would not be a very expensive endeavor. And In terms of comfort, that varies from person to person, so that argument is rendered moot as well. And in terms of portability, the very existence of gaming laptops disables that point entirely.

And as for why Valve prefers the PC, it's less about the hardware than the software. On the PC, Valve has STEAM, its first-party game distribution service that allows them to release everything exactly how they want to, with no middleman. I"d imagine that that convenience would act as quite an incentive for preferring the PC.

True, you can build a high end PC for $600. But not everyone can build their own PC, and like I said, it's about cost. You'd think lower quality parts would be substantially cheaper, but in reality, buying a $200 360 will always be cheaper than a PC capable of displaying anything made after 2001. Honestly, making a PC at 600 is composed of searching, and a great deal of effort. Specific parts. Most PCs that would handle Crysis on high are about 200+ more expensive, as a set, or just getting more expensive parts.

And there is a difference between what people find comfortable, true. But short of masochists, sitting away from a television screen that is usually larger than a monitor, generally on some form of furniture is more preferable to everyone than having to sit near the computer, generally on a less comfy computer chair so as to access keyboard and mouse. I can lean back when playing PC, as I use a 360 gamepad, but I still need to sit nearer the monitor in a less comfortable position than if I was on the 360. And that's not just me.

And since you say that you can build a PC that can run Crysis on high, but then switch to gaming laptops, I say this in return... pick one. I'll admit, gaming laptops are more convenient than consoles as they need not be plugged in, and played on the move. However, without a mouse, controls can be rather difficult on a laptop, and few gaming laptops have graphical and technical capabilities to match those of gaming PCs. That's why they're portable, because they do not contain the technology to run Crysis at max. So either the PC or the laptop, not both.

But you're largely right about the Steam thing. Valve doesn't "prefer" developing for the PC, it is just easier because they have their own distribution service and the entire Steam network. Hence why this topic exists ; Steam enables them to distribute their content at whatever price they like, even if its free. Microsoft want them to charge for it. Not so much that they prefer developing for the PC, as it is easier after the game is made to work with it.

 

[Solytus]

Spoiler: spoilered to save room

Jesus Christ. I cannot believe that so many fantastically stupid people post here, just to say that PCs are better than consoles. Well, news, they're also much more expensive, less comfortable and less portable.

As for saying that they're "primarily a PC developer", check your stuff. Just because they started out on a PC does not mean that do not want to develop for 360. Otherwise we would not have Left 4 Dead, Team Fortress 2, Portal or Half Life 2 and its associates. We would not be getting Left 4 Dead 2 or Hal Life 2 : Episode 3. So shut up about Valve preferring the PC, and research the technology behind the 360. It is just a PC. That's why PC to 360 and vice versa works so well, and why so many games come out for those two but not the PS3 or Wii. Because porting to the PS3 means rewriting a lot of stuff, as it is the hardest to port to and develop for. The 360 can communicate with PCs with no trouble, and will recognise PC data.

May I offer a rebuttal to your argument?

Your statement that PCs are more expensive, less comfortable and less portable is fundamentally flawed, due to the fact that PCs are diverse in nature. Considering that one can build a PC that can run Crysis at max settings for ~$600 (Gizmodo did a piece of this a while back, far too lazy at the moment to find it), I'd imagine that building a PC that can run Source games well would not be a very expensive endeavor. And In terms of comfort, that varies from person to person, so that argument is rendered moot as well. And in terms of portability, the very existence of gaming laptops disables that point entirely.

And as for why Valve prefers the PC, it's less about the hardware than the software. On the PC, Valve has STEAM, its first-party game distribution service that allows them to release everything exactly how they want to, with no middleman. I"d imagine that that convenience would act as quite an incentive for preferring the PC.

True, you can build a high end PC for $600. But not everyone can build their own PC, and like I said, it's about cost. You'd think lower quality parts would be substantially cheaper, but in reality, buying a $200 360 will always be cheaper than a PC capable of displaying anything made after 2001. Honestly, making a PC at 600 is composed of searching, and a great deal of effort. Specific parts. Most PCs that would handle Crysis on high are about 200+ more expensive, as a set, or just getting more expensive parts.

And there is a difference between what people find comfortable, true. But short of masochists, sitting away from a television screen that is usually larger than a monitor, generally on some form of furniture is more preferable to everyone than having to sit near the computer, generally on a less comfy computer chair so as to access keyboard and mouse. I can lean back when playing PC, as I use a 360 gamepad, but I still need to sit nearer the monitor in a less comfortable position than if I was on the 360. And that's not just me.

And since you say that you can build a PC that can run Crysis on high, but then switch to gaming laptops, I say this in return... pick one. I'll admit, gaming laptops are more convenient than consoles as they need not be plugged in, and played on the move. However, without a mouse, controls can be rather difficult on a laptop, and few gaming laptops have graphical and technical capabilities to match those of gaming PCs. That's why they're portable, because they do not contain the technology to run Crysis at max. So either the PC or the laptop, not both.

But you're largely right about the Steam thing. Valve doesn't "prefer" developing for the PC, it is just easier because they have their own distribution service and the entire Steam network. Hence why this topic exists ; Steam enables them to distribute their content at whatever price they like, even if its free. Microsoft want them to charge for it. Not so much that they prefer developing for the PC, as it is easier after the game is made to work with it.

Before I start, I'd like to note that I appreciate that this debate is staying well-informed and cordial. =)

Anyway. I very much agree that building a PC is definitely not a task for more casual gamers, especially not if the goal is to create a Crysis-slaying PC, so I"ll just leave the cost aspect at this: People who know how to make PC can make on that can run Source games well for extremely cheap, but for general consumers, a console is a more economically fit solution.

Controls: I personally love PC controls (except my mouse, but that's entirely due to the mouse I'm using, so pay that no mind), and I sit in my computer chair even when I play my PS3, so I'm going to have to be somewhat indifferent in terms of chair and controls. However, the discussion of controls and general comfort is far too subjective to be discussed with any real credibility without results from a survey, so this may be a moot point overall.

And while I agree that one would be hard-pressed to find a moderately priced laptop that can run Crysis well, finding one that could run Source games well would be a considerably easier task. But yes, a gaming laptops dependence on a mouse for any sort of comfort and ease while gaming does hamper it considerably.

I'll agree that Valve may not exactly be biased towards the PC, it's just easier to publish their material on it.

EDIT: Actually, reading Darkness62's post, I do find this article interesting...

Yes Valve prefers PC, not because it is easier, but because they feel that for them, PC gaming is the future.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/valve-why-the-pc-is-the-future-article

 

[Octorok]

So many mistakes and false statements in here, hard to know where to begin. First anyone can build a computer, yes anyone. I have walked an 80 year old grandmother through the breakdown of a PC all the way to the motherboard then rebuilt it. Booted to Windows first try by the way. Building PCs is the easy part, you just have to put in the effort to find the parts and get the best deals. Of course that is part of the fun of building your own creation, not what Microsoft (4 year old technology) and Sony (3 year old technology) say you can have. You just seem lazy, so PC gaming is probably not for you.

Next this is my current PC attached through HDMI to a 52" TV.

Spoiler

There goes that argument, I hate controllers, so I do not have or want one, but they are easy to find for those that want them.

My current laptop plays Crysis on high, so I don't know what the hell you are talking about there. Maybe not on insane resolutions, but still. My new laptop, on pre-order right now, plays Crysis easily on High, DX10 at 1920 X 1080. Here is the site. Now laptop gaming is expensive and is only recommended if you really need to be mobile, Desktop gaming is better anyway, as the technology changes faster (laptop is second in GPU/CPU development) and desktops get better performance.

http://www.xoticpc.com/sager-np9850-built-clevo-m980nu-gaming-laptop-order-p-2586.html

Finally this is the Xbox 360 I paid $40 for, it had RRoD and I fixed it and did a few mods to prevent the E74 error from returning (still no guarantee it won't come back, never before have I seen such poorly designed garbage no wonder Microsoft got sued for it... twice).

Spoiler

the 360s current duty is to keep dust off of my nice TV stand, playing it is painful to look at due to the poor graphics and clunky controller, so I have only used it for two days just after fixing it. Had more fun fixing it actually. XD

Yes Valve prefers PC, not because it is easier, but because they feel that for them, PC gaming is the future.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/valve-why-the-pc-is-the-future-article

Seriously do some research or at least have a shadow of a clue about the subject being discussed.

I hate to break it to you, but not anyone can make a PC. Fine, you taught an 80 year old you do it. Doesn't mean there aren't a lot of idiots in the world, shit most of them seem to go on Xbox LIVE unfortunately, who would screw it up, making a PC. You know, accidentally cut off their finger with the Disc Drive, because they're thick. And saying that I'm just lazy and PC gaming isn't for me isn't debate or contributory to the topic at all, it's just rude. True, I am lazy, but not so lazy as I'd just say "Ahh, fuck it" and spend more money than I needed to. And then saying "PC Gaming isn't for you" despite the fact that I mentioned already that I play on the PC is just stupid. Check your facts, if it comes down to that.

And you talking about your laptop and the lap-top you're getting helps me prove my point. Care to mention how much that pre-order laptop costs? 2000+. That's an almighty shit load of money, that helps me say that console gaming is cheaper. Consoles don't need regular hardware updates to keep up with technology, they just get new console every... how ever long the developers wait I guess. Your laptop can run Crysis on high, as can that thing, because you paid for that. Console gaming's different ; we don't pay ten times as much to keep up. You must be very rich. I culd easily afford one of those laptops, but I'm not getting one, because spending nearly two and a half grand on a laptop is fucking preposterous to me. Hence why I'm better off spending 200 on a 360.

You then reinforce this by saying that desktop gaming changes faster, causing you to have to buy yet more stuff while we can get very, very good graphics off normal televisions.

You can afford very good PCs and a 52" damn inch screen. That's impressive, but you're far, far above the average. Either you spend a shitload more on your technology or PC Gamers are all millionaires. Don't assume every gamer, in a global recession, can afford your setup. To coin your phrase, that annoyed me so, "There goes that argument". I could spend all my money on a flashy car and then say that since I own one, every driver has one, and can afford one, and it wouldn't be far off the point you're making. I get that you have paid far more to get better quality, but I'm talking about PC gamers in general, and console gamers in general, both of which are groups of which the majority cannot afford the amount of money you spend yourself, or the amount I spend.

I'm sorry that your 360 red ringed. The console has a high death rate, comparatively, at roughly 1 in 3 consoles dieing. But you bought it very cheap and tried to fix it yourself ; I'm sorry, but the fact that your 360 lies bricked and useless is partly your fault, and again, because yours is, doesn't mean everyone's is. I've had my 360 for over a year and she still plays fine, apart from occasional freezing in certain games. Then saying Microsoft designed a bad product? Oh, practicing what you preach much Mr "Do Some Research"? They designed a very good product, but were fucking idiots. To get their console out first, they made everything in bulk, and created a gigantic number of disc drives too large for the console. Rather than go to the expense of fixing the error, they just made the cooling unit smaller. Too small ; hence why these days your console might overheat, soldering on the GPU melts, and you get the Red Rings.

Then saying that it has poor graphics? Incredibly untrue, the graphics are excellent, especially on an HDTV. They look very good, in well made games, admittedly short of the PC, but like I said, you get what you pay for. Clunky controller? That's the PC Gamer in you speaking. You cannot adjust because you are used to mouse precision. I am the opposite, I cannot play TF2, L4D or FO3 with a mouse. I use my 360 controller, and play much better for it. That's just preferences, mentioning clunky controls.

And did you actually read that article? Because you just said part of the title then linked it. Read the damn thing first, and tell me where it says, "We prefer developing games for the PC". It is all about why Valve thinks that the PC is the strongest and most long lasting of the gaming platforms, and why they think it will outlive the consoles. Not about whether or not they like developing for the PC more. They think that it is the future. But it is the present, and in my present, Valve still makes games for the 360, console gaming is vastly cheaper and easier than PC Gaming, and you sir...

Seriously do some research or at least have a shadow of a clue about the subject being discussed.