I stopped reading your post here. You know this...how? You don't, you made it up, because it sounds good with the rest of your fantasies. You don't have a clue what Valve did. Not once have they said "we've never touched the ps3, we just spend our time *****ing about it for no reason", and the fact that you seriously think this is their thought process is the worst part. Your mind is so bent towards this idea of the PS3 being an ok development platform and there's just a massive conspiracy of laziness keeping it down that you're prepared to make up absurd **** just to support an argument that shouldn't even exist.
I didn't say that at all. That just shows that you didn't even take the time to read what I said.
You did say that. I mean, it's your quote, I didn't edit it or anything. It's what you said. Right there. See?Gabe Newell said that the Playstation 3 is a waste of time, they didn't even bother with a Playstation 3 version and simply gave it to EA to do it for them instead of even trying to figure out the system's capabilities.
Ok, you're living in the past first of all. The Xbox one was just like a PC, not the 360. Totally different architectures. So no, before we even begin, it's not an issue of them being unable to move off their PC environment. Valve didn't take the easy way out, they took the sane, profitable way out, by not wasting time on a marginalized platform that's comparable to pulling teeth. Valve looked at it and said "not worth my time" because it was difficult to develop for, which seems to be what you're arguing against, in case you aren't aware anymore.Fact, Gabe Newell said the Playstation 3 was a waste of time. That means that he and Valve touched it, looked at it, then *****ed about it and handed The Orange Box port to Electronic Arts to butcher.
Instead of trying getting his team to work with the Playstation 3, they took a look at it, and ignored it and the result is a pathetic job on The Orange Box for the Playstation 3. Valve took the easy way because developing for the Playstation 3 is not like developing PC, which they are used to.
How did they do that? Ubi Soft recently delivered a game (Assassin's Creed) that's filled with graphical and performance errors and is, according to most, markedly inferior to the 360 version. Infinity Ward talked about the PS3 needing more personnel and effort, and desperate people tried to spin that into something else, so you've basically got Team Ninja and Epic (which I haven't seen Epic saying anything pro-PS3, but you've got nothing else, so I'll just go ahead and give it to you) saying "it can be done". Congrats. That totally disproves Valve's point that it just isn't worth the time. Or not.UbiSoft, Infinity Ward, Team Ninja, and Epic Games put this man to shame for the very reason that they looked at it just like Valve, and wait, take a guess, they took the time to learn how to develop with it. Infinity Ward even made sure that they had the manpower to work on both the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. Considering that Valve has the backing of Electronic Arts, they could have done the same. And when developers say that when they took the time to learn about developing for the Playstation 3, it's not the pain in the ass like some developers say. It makes them look lazy and pathetic.
I figured you'd have the idea that the phrase "it's a waste of time" means that someone looked at it and didn't like it. Newell looked at it and didn't like it. I mean unless you're a complete fanboy that has never touched the thing and refuses to, a waste of time usually means that.You did say that. I mean, it's your quote, I didn't edit it or anything. It's what you said. Right there. See?![]()
Ok, you're living in the past first of all. The Xbox one was just like a PC, not the 360. Totally different architectures. So no, before we even begin, it's not an issue of them being unable to move off their PC environment. Valve didn't take the easy way out, they took the sane, profitable way out, by not wasting time on a marginalized platform that's comparable to pulling teeth. Valve looked at it and said "not worth my time" because it was difficult to develop for, which seems to be what you're arguing against, in case you aren't aware anymore.
Morten Heiberg of IO Interactive said:The Xbox and the PC are very similar. They are just two very powerful CPUs and you can make it through your threads and be sure that it's going to run reasonably OK. The PS3 doesn't have many general purpose CPUs like a multi core system has on the PC side. It has a CELL processor which is itself a pretty powerful processor, but if you're really going to get something out of it you're going to have to utilise the SPUs on it, which are small special purpose units that you write little programs for doing whatever you need to get done.
Infinity Ward put in more effort because they wanted to deliver a quality product to the Playstation 3, Valve didn't. That's why Call of Duty 4 is identical and praised on the Playstation 3. And haven't most reviews stated that Assassin's Creed is pretty much the same on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and this video seems to agree with me:How did they do that? Ubi Soft recently delivered a game (Assassin's Creed) that's filled with graphical and performance errors and is, according to most, markedly inferior to the 360 version. Infinity Ward talked about the PS3 needing more personnel and effort, and desperate people tried to spin that into something else, so you've basically got Team Ninja and Epic (which I haven't seen Epic saying anything pro-PS3, but you've got nothing else, so I'll just go ahead and give it to you) saying "it can be done". Congrats. That totally disproves Valve's point that it just isn't worth the time. Or not.
Infinity Ward put in more effort because they wanted to deliver a quality product to the Playstation 3, Valve didn't. That's why Call of Duty 4 is identical and praised on the Playstation 3. And haven't most reviews stated that Assassin's Creed is pretty much the same on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and this video seems to agree with me:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/28006.html?type=flv
yes Epic seems to love the PS3Don't forget Mark Rein saying it was fun to develop for PS3.
Yeah, that really has no bearing on anything you said. I quoted you, you said "I didn't say that!', and then I quoted you again, and here we are.I figured you'd have the idea that the phrase "it's a waste of time" means that someone looked at it and didn't like it. Newell looked at it and didn't like it. I mean unless you're a complete fanboy that has never touched the thing and refuses to, a waste of time usually means that.
Rofl, no, they're not. You really need to stop this "spin 3 words out of a paragraph" stuff, you did it with CoD4 too, which we'll get too in a minute. He's not saying that the two are architecturally similar or that the 360 is essentially a PC like the Xbox was. He's saying that the 360 and PC don't require the kind of meticulous hand-holding programming to split your program across multiple threads. Here is the interview if you want to read it in more detail. All the quote really expresses is "multi-threaded programming on a CELL is markedly more complex than it is on the 360 or PC", which is a far cry from the two being architecturally similar.He's refering to the Xbox 360 in that quote, not the original Xbox. It was an interview over the development of Kane and Lynch. So apparently, developers do see the Xbox 360 and PC to be similar.
So basically, Valve took the easy way, ignoring the Playstation 3 after looking it, instead of trying to deliver a quality product like Infinity Ward did.
This has already been explained to you, but what Infinity Ward did was give the PS3 a disproportionate amount of manpower to achieve similar results, while also developing their content totally independent of any one platform so they could port down to each one, circumventing a few of the problems present in PS3 games development. And they said as much. Saying "PS3 development isn't so bad for the studios that have the people to throw at the problem" isn't exactly the same as "oh, yay for ps3, it's teh bestest ever, so easy if you just aren't lazy, yay!". You're so desperate for something, anything to come along and validate this belief you have that everyone is just being lazy with the playstation that you're grasping at straws and taking things that don't really mean what you want them too and holding them up as evidence that you were right all along. It's tiresome.Infinity Ward put in more effort because they wanted to deliver a quality product to the Playstation 3, Valve didn't. That's why Call of Duty 4 is identical and praised on the Playstation 3. And haven't most reviews stated that Assassin's Creed is pretty much the same on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and this video seems to agree with me:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/28006.html?type=flv
Infinity Ward put in more effort because they wanted to deliver a quality product to the Playstation 3, Valve didn't. That's why Call of Duty 4 is identical and praised on the Playstation 3. And haven't most reviews stated that Assassin's Creed is pretty much the same on the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3 and this video seems to agree with me:
http://www.gametrailers.com/player/28006.html?type=flv
And Gamespot who has been accused of being biased against the PS3, said that the PS3 version has a better framerate than the 360 version. Both sites contradict each other right thereI think IGN did one of their head to head things with Assasin's Creed on 360 and PS3 and the 360 turned out better. I don't know the exact details because I don't feel like paying to read articles online, but I think someone on these boards has read it. *waits for the inevitable comment from PS3 fanboy that IGN is biased or full of ***** even though if I would have said Gamespot or any other site they would say the same thing*
Lol this thread is too funny - You guys ability to argue online doesnt make you cool in the real world, remember that.
Lol this thread is too funny - You guys ability to argue online doesnt make you cool in the real world, remember that.
Going out of your way to assure everyone of how cool your are in the "real world" is usually a pretty good indicator that you aren't cool in the "real world", you know it, and you're insecure about the fact that everyone else might know it tooLol this thread is too funny - You guys ability to argue online doesnt make you cool in the real world, remember that.
Going out of your way to assure everyone of how cool your are in the "real world" is usually a pretty good indicator that you aren't cool in the "real world", you know it, and you're insecure about the fact that everyone else might know it too![]()
Going out of your way to assure everyone of how cool your are in the "real world" is usually a pretty good indicator that you aren't cool in the "real world", you know it, and you're insecure about the fact that everyone else might know it too![]()
Going out of your way to assure everyone of how cool your are in the "real world" is usually a pretty good indicator that you aren't cool in the "real world", you know it, and you're insecure about the fact that everyone else might know it too![]()
Lol!