Why does Valve treat console owners like Second Class Citizens?

[Jsnoopy]

This is what the whole Console vs. PC debate reminds me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1PllrfeiVw&feature=related .





But yeah, ignoring the whole OT debate going on over there, I am kinda pissed that they haven't released the update yet, as there is only 3 freaking classes left to update in the PC version, and consoles have only seen an update which stopped modding, which sucks as modders were saving Valve some work by doing on a goldrush mod of Dustbowl.

EDIT: dammit after reading some more posts I'm afraid I'm gonna have to get sucked into minor parts of this stupid argument. For one, even if your build-your-own PC is cheap, you could find cheaper consoles. Example: you pick up a RROD 360 for $40, find a guy who will repair it for $50 (there are several near me) and bam you have a rig that will play Crysis 2 for less than a 100 bucks. Granted it would probably take some shopping around and finaggling but probably not more than if you were to build your own PC.

 

[Laxman9292]

You forget that a piece of the profit from a console game has to be kicked back to pay for the development of the console it's run on. Why would Valve want to share their profits with Sony just so they could have a PS3 title?

you sir lost your posting abilities until you can create a relevant post. Aside from your inane rant on PC vs. Console gaming (fanboyism is detrimental to your own cause) you obviously did not even read the post you quoted. Valve would not share profits just to expand to the PS3 rather than to make more money. The post you quoted did not say "Valve should give more love to consoles for the prestige of having a cross-platform title." He said they would make more money, as indeed they would.

Posting is a privilege not a right you troll.

 

[Katana314]

There's a bit of controversy over the need to build a gaming computer at all. Yes, that's truly the best experience, but with TF2, there are still plenty of people using old PCI graphics cards and old setups to play. It's one of the last "new" games that still runs okay on old hardware.

Heck, I can probably find plenty of PC gamers in that area. They just don't play every single new game; you look at Steam or GoG.com and find "Why the heck am I paying $50 for games I HATE?" But I'm probably getting a bit too much off-topic.
Point is: You don't have to have some pimped out machine to be a PC gamer. You don't even have to be hardcore. Just play TF2 on Steam, and maybe whatever else catches your interest.

For Valve, developing for the PC is first off, what they're used to. These people came from the age of Quake, and certainly didn't stop there. They were modders from the beginning, and really couldn't live without that stuff. I guarantee you the name Half-Life would be nowhere near as household if all those countless mods didn't exist.
Second off, it's much easier for them to generate a game based off their customers. They take in a lot of data from TF2, where people die in a map, how many points each player has a round, how many people quit at X point in Episode 2, generally how many times a save game was loaded, the graphics card of the player, all that stuff. That stuff is only possible on the PC, which allows them to build their next games off the concepts they know players like from previous ones.

Point I'm trying to make is, they definitely have their preferences in where to create their games, but they certainly don't mind letting another group join in the fun.

 

[Skizle]

Consoles are for hobbyists who don't really care about how little they know of software and hardware development and just want to play games between classes. PCs are for enthusiasts who don't care about the tech curve because they want the best experience money can buy with the best selection of games available. Valve makes PC games because it's easier and more cost effective.

I would be nice to see Valve give the console more love. They can make more money

You forget that a piece of the profit from a console game has to be kicked back to pay for the development of the console it's run on. Why would Valve want to share their profits with Sony just so they could have a PS3 title?

Wow, people like you are worse than the elites who say 'console tard.'

Valve usually takes long for everything, they may come out with it eventually.

/agreed
they are a PC developer this is true, but if there anything like what Blizzard did back in the day trying to port games to consols (Starcraft 64, Diablo and i think Warcraft 2)they realized that the sales were better on the original formats.

 

[PauL o_O]

I think it's no secret that Valve doesn't particularly love console owners.

 

[Emphraim]

This is what the whole Console vs. PC debate reminds me of http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1PllrfeiVw&feature=related .





But yeah, ignoring the whole OT debate going on over there, I am kinda pissed that they haven't released the update yet, as there is only 3 freaking classes left to update in the PC version, and consoles have only seen an update which stopped modding, which sucks as modders were saving Valve some work by doing on a goldrush mod of Dustbowl.

EDIT: dammit after reading some more posts I'm afraid I'm gonna have to get sucked into minor parts of this stupid argument. For one, even if your build-your-own PC is cheap, you could find cheaper consoles. Example: you pick up a RROD 360 for $40, find a guy who will repair it for $50 (there are several near me) and bam you have a rig that will play Crysis 2 for less than a 100 bucks. Granted it would probably take some shopping around and finaggling but probably not more than if you were to build your own PC.

Just would like say that Crysis 2 is very much inferior compared to Crysis and Crysis Warhead, especially in the graphics and physics department. Look for comparison videos on youtube. The differences are so obvious you can see them on Youtube videos.

Ontopic: Valve devotes most of their effort to the PC. Source games can run on almost any PC made in the last 5 years, so it's no wonder they are ignoring the consoles.

 

[Laxman9292]

You forget that a piece of the profit from a console game has to be kicked back to pay for the development of the console it's run on. Why would Valve want to share their profits with Sony just so they could have a PS3 title?

you sir lost your posting abilities until you can create a relevant post. Aside from your inane rant on PC vs. Console gaming (fanboyism is detrimental to your own cause) you obviously did not even read the post you quoted. Valve would not share profits just to expand to the PS3 rather than to make more money. The post you quoted did not say "Valve should give more love to consoles for the prestige of having a cross-platform title." He said they would make more money, as indeed they would.

Posting is a privilege not a right you troll.

Hey, wow, I notice I can still post, which means you're not a mod but are in fact a stupid SOB. I didn't troll at all, it is a fact that console games have the price of the console's research and development included in the price of the console title. You need to look up the words "troll" and "relevant." This is a thread wondering why Valve doesn't make console games. I have very real economic reasons why Valve doesn't make console games. How dare you assume you can revoke my abilities to make an argument, just because you don't like my very real reasons why Valve won't make console games.

Have an enema, you sorely need one.

is a ridiculous fanboy rant not irrelevant to this discussion? did i miss the part where the title read "PC gaming FTW!!!!!!" thus you are a troll. both very real and valid points.

as far as your point, you didnt mention anything about development costs or anything in your first post so you are backtracking. i agree that that could be a factor as to why valve isnt supporting the consoles but you neglected to mention it in your other post. also i never claimed to be a mod or actually be able to take your rights away i was merely making a point of present your evidence in an unbiased factual way or dont post. so as a result of my critiquing of your initial post led to you presenting a valid point with a viable reason. congratulations, now just work on curbing the fanboy reflex

 

[Laxman9292]

Have an enema, you sorely need one.

oh a poo reference, you, sir, are undeniably the most mature one here.

 

[JohnSmith]

It is interesting that many PC gamers have seen this thread as a chance to say that consoles are inferior to PC's and to some extent I agree however it has to said that for a gaming company having a standardised audience on which to test things should be a positive, as should being able to charge people money for added content. This debate isn't about which platform is inherently better, and given how similar the xbox is to a PC anyway architecture wise it seems a specious argument. This thread is about why valve would de-prioritise an opportunity to make large sums of money and support a considerable number of gamers who play on the 360 and if they feel that they can't charge for content updates that doesn't explain why they can't release the patches and bug fixes that PC users got 2 years ago.

 

[Tekk Man]

Because you are LESS Than us, SLAVE!!!

Now get back to work shining my boots. Joking.

 

[Zer_]

Consoles aren't cheaper. It's a massive misconception.

A 360 Elite - $349 (Includes one game as a bundle... usually).
A second Controller - $40-60 (Wireless)
A Play & Charge Kit - $30
A recently released title - $70
12 Month Gold Card - $50

Already we're up to nearly $550
For every extra game you buy, you pay between $5-$10 more then you would getting a PC Game.

 

[Jandau]

Why does Valve treat console owners like Second Class Citizens?

Why can't I play God of War series or Gears of War 2 on my PC? Why am I being treated as a second class citizen by the console companies?

 

[Jonny49]

Although I can kinda understand what your saying, if you want to play valve games, why not use a PC? Its not like valve's games need a hench rig to play them. Valve is a PC developer, you should be galed they even port their games, let alone make updates for them.

 

[teh_gunslinger]

Consoles aren't cheaper. It's a massive misconception.

A 360 Elite - $349 (Includes one game as a bundle... usually).
A second Controller - $40-60 (Wireless)
A Play & Charge Kit - $30
A recently released title - $70
12 Month Gold Card - $50

Already we're up to nearly $550
For every extra game you buy, you pay between $5-$10 more then you would getting a PC Game.

Also, you probably need a TV for that. A lot of people seem to forget that.

 

[jeiku]

Hmm I like the orange box for one reason and one reason only, portal. If im honest I dont like Half-Life *hides awaiting fanboy backlash*

 

[ffs-dontcare]

If I was a games developer, I'd develop games for just the PC, since I'm a bit of a prick who enjoys stirring up shit sometimes.

That, and my games would be too massive for consoles.

If I ever changed my mind on that, however, I'd NEVER dumb my games down, so to speak. Any console players who don't like my games because they're too complicated can get stuffed. Also, I'll make sure there's no auto-aiming option. Because I can.

Consoles aren't cheaper. It's a massive misconception.

A 360 Elite - $349 (Includes one game as a bundle... usually).
A second Controller - $40-60 (Wireless)
A Play & Charge Kit - $30
A recently released title - $70
12 Month Gold Card - $50

Already we're up to nearly $550
For every extra game you buy, you pay between $5-$10 more then you would getting a PC Game.

I've seen console games being sold for as high as $110. The price tags say $109, but honestly, why not just go and say $110?

Is it meant to look like it's cheaper or something? Nobody's being fooled. >.<

And meanwhile in the same place, newly released PC games are being sold for $20 less.

Hmm I like the orange box for one reason and one reason only, portal. If im honest I dont like Half-Life *hides awaiting fanboy backlash*

Half-life fan here, no backlash from me, mate.