Conspiracy? They said it was going to be the best version. They went from saying that the PS3 was a disaster and that Sony needed to scrap it, to announcing Steam for it and pushing it as their premier version. Valve stands to make a lot of money on console steam and that's exclusively available on 1 platform. There was no way that the PS3 version was going to turn out as anything but superior. They didn't intentionally gimp the 360 version any more than 3rd parties intentionally gimped PS3 multi-platform titles, but its naive to think that both versions were given equal effort.
The Game Technology discussion thread *Read first post before posting*
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
djskribbles
Legend
They said it was going to be the best version, simply because the PS3 version supports Steam. Maybe that gave them motive to put more effort in the PS3 version, who knows.
Or maybe they didn't put much effort in improving the engine for 360 since this is their 3rd or 4th title, whereas this is the first PS3 title, and with the help of Sony, they were able to make the PS3 version look great.
Really, I don't know if you are serious or you tries to push me at this point
The 360 game looks nasty because Valve mad a bad decision and didn't correct it.
The PS3 game is more important to Valve than the 360 game. It is more important because:
- it gets steamcloud on the PS3
- it very, very strongly encourages PS3 Portal 2 owners to put Steam on their PC, at which point Valve have their hooks into them for potentially large sums of money over many years (or longer)
It's a very smart move by Valve, and if I were them I'd throw every resource I possibly could into convincing them to put Steam on their PC. To the point where if the 360 game looked like a blurry washed out mess I'd still keep focused on the PS3 game (just so long as the 360 game still worked properly and you could play it and enjoy it). Most people won't even notice.
Why is it so hard to believe that Valve put more effort into the PS3 version because it potentially means a bigger return on their investment? It happens time after time with the 360 version of titles given priority. It would be bad business to not do this.
A company doesn't completely change their opinion of a system without reason, and there's no better reason than profit. Like joker said, the days of inferior PS3 Valve titles are over.
A company doesn't completely change their opinion of a system without reason, and there's no better reason than profit. Like joker said, the days of inferior PS3 Valve titles are over.
Lucid_Dreamer
Veteran
Why?
Because, that's almost never said when it's the other way around. People would make it sound like others were crazy for even suggesting such a thing. They would be shut down almost immediately after posting such things.
Why?Well,when games like RDR or Lords of Shadows come out and one console has advantage in frame rate or resolution its somehow understandable,games push much more and being multiplat developers probably couldn't get one version on par with other because of time limit or whatever.
Portal 2,from what I played,is a type of game where you are in one big room,fairly simple in geometry with couple of boxes here and there.It seems static,its linear,there is no AI,explosions or other stuff that could take fair chunk of time from their rendering budget and its just very simple designed game apart from portals.Thats why I think 360 maybe didn't get the same kind of treatment,that plus the fact that they seem to kind of push PS3 version of the game with all that E3/steam thing.But it surely won't hurt the sales because game is far from broken.Just a bit ugly...
Portal 2,from what I played,is a type of game where you are in one big room,fairly simple in geometry with couple of boxes here and there.It seems static,its linear,there is no AI,explosions or other stuff that could take fair chunk of time from their rendering budget and its just very simple designed game apart from portals.Thats why I think 360 maybe didn't get the same kind of treatment,that plus the fact that they seem to kind of push PS3 version of the game with all that E3/steam thing.But it surely won't hurt the sales because game is far from broken.Just a bit ugly...
They didn't go from bashing the system to giving it all their love without reason. People are mad about these "conspiracy theories" but I've yet to see a god reason as to why 1) Valve mysteriously loves the PS3 after bashing it in interviews,.2) Why a heavily PC based engine magically starts performing better on a system that's known to have trouble with them.
People are saying that "maybe Sony helped " but that only helps prove the point about more effort for the PS3 version. Some are saying maybe the PS3 just runs the game better by default. Is this ok now? Try saying that about the majority of 3rd party titles that run better on the 360 and you'll get an endless stream of people giving reasons that have little to do with hardware.
People are saying that "maybe Sony helped " but that only helps prove the point about more effort for the PS3 version. Some are saying maybe the PS3 just runs the game better by default. Is this ok now? Try saying that about the majority of 3rd party titles that run better on the 360 and you'll get an endless stream of people giving reasons that have little to do with hardware.
steveOrino
Regular
That is not by choice, valve has stated that Microsoft unwillingness to open xlive has hurt TF2 because they are not able to keep both the PC and 360 versions alike due to the strict policies they have with free content and size.
http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/09/09/interview-valve-on-13-things-theyve-failed-at
Trust me, Valve would love to have steam on the 360 but MS will not allow it. MS wants total control over the content distribution.
That is the ultimate reason why Gabe said the PS3 version would be the best version on consoles because they will be able to keep both PC and PS3 versions the same with content and patches.
Money is a very good reason for companies to do things!
I don't think it's performance so much as a couple of puzzling choices wrt the 360 game (although it could be the performance too; I've only seen screenshots so far!).
[Edit]The comparison shots linked to here:
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1545119&postcount=1339
... don't look as bad for the 360 as some of the shots I saw earlier. Sure, the blurring is still there, but the washed out look isn't as noticeable. I'm wondering if some of the earlier comparison shots taken from HDMI were using the standard (compressed, brighter) output from the 360.
The 360 still looks the worst of the three, but it doesn't seem quite as bad as I thought before.[/Edit]
Last edited by a moderator:
Money is a very good reason for companies to do things!
No, they (Sony) just allowed them to use their own network (just like Konami with MGS4) on PS3. Why would Sony pay for anything like this?
Who said Sony were paying?
Valve, who make Portal 2, own Steam. Steam is a distribution service (with cloud based storage) that makes Valve lots and lots of money. Anything Valve can do to push Steam is worth lots and lots of additional money.
I agree, they would prefer it on as many platforms as possible. Regardless of why though, it is still exclusive to the PS3 and could be Valve's console cash cow.
dragonelite
Veteran
Summer sale and winter sales have already sold my soul to valve and im not even mad
.I even buy games i can't run at acceptable framerates on my laptop just because they are cheap and every 2~3 years i upgrade my laptop.
Well, that's Hanlon's Razor for you: why attribute this to something intentional when you can explain it by stupidity?
After all, it's not the first case where some esteemed developer applies some kind of filter that makes a game look worse: Even GTA IV which was superior on the X360 technical-wise still suffered a bit from that awful dither filter which was only used in the X360 version.
Why did developers put it there? Maybe it's just that someone thought at first it will be a good idea, and then no one bothered to raise their voice and point that it actually looks worse once applied.
LightHeaven
Regular
Not sure if they changed their stance, but back at Orange Box they said wouldn't implement tiling support on their engine because it was outrageous to do that just for a single platform...
LightHeaven
Regular
Going by the fact that they don't use Msaa on 360 because they don't think its worth the trouble to implement a engine feature that could only be used in a single platform, why would they do that? I mean, on Pc there's no need and on Ps3 they already have the code implemented for a nice method for solving this issue, and most likely ran like a charm on their game...
If Ms want developers to use effective anti aliasing techniques, it should at least provide implementation examples on the sdk for people to use.
Similar threads
