Faliszek: Valve will "look at" PS3 support

By Tom Bramwell Published 22 February, 2010

"I'm sure down the road we'll do it."

Valve's stance on developing for PlayStation 3 may have softened, judging by comments from Left 4 Dead 2 developer Chet Faliszek last week.

"Before we do anything on the PS3 we need to be able to support it in the right way," he told Edge.

"But we'll look at it, and I'm sure down the road we'll do it."

Although The Orange Box was released for PS3 soon after PC and Xbox 360 versions, the conversion was undertaken by an EA team rather than Valve, and the results were mixed to say the least.

Valve has been very down on the PS3 in public, with boss Gabe Newell having labelled the system "a horrible disaster" prior to the release of Orange Box.

Later in 2007 Newell described the system as "a waste of everybody's time", apparently because figuring out the console's systems wouldn't reap any long-term benefits beyond the borders of PS3 development.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (54) Latest comment 2 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • StooMonster #1 2 years ago

    Sure Valve can do a better implementation of their highly scaleable Source engine than anyone else.

    Wonder what this tells us about the release dates of Half-Life 2: Episode 3 or Portal 2? Prolly nothing ;)

  • cianchristopher #2 2 years ago

    Gabe was't wrong per se, when he made those comments in 2007 (he's wrong now, though)...

    I was there in 2007, I bought a PS3 at launch. I remember 2007 well, the PS3 was a fucking joke at the time...

    Thankfully, it's improved tremendously in the meantime. It's now a really good console - but that first year, man... I actually thought it was going to become the new 3DO or Atari Jaguar for a while... It was shit...

  • Quint2020 #3 2 years ago

    Perhaps at the same time we get HL2 Episode 3? Or maybe when you finally update your engine?

  • Goodfella #4 2 years ago

    This wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that the PS3 is now a viable (read: much better selling) piece of hardware now would it?

  • Widge #5 2 years ago

    Do Valve licence their engine out at all? I'm wondering if they want to get in on the cross party tools party that is going on with the Metro 2033 and Crytek guys stepping in to compete with UE3.

  • kangarootoo #6 2 years ago

    @cianchristopher

    Good points. Maybe the tide is turning (both in terms of installed base, and in terms of developer support).

    The thing with Gabe Newell is, he isn't a guy who just says things for fanboy reasons. If he said the PS3 wasn't worth Valve bothering with, it probably wasn't at the time for very good reasons. If that is changing now, it is again probably for very good reasons.

  • GreyBeard #7 2 years ago

    Does anyone really care what Valve does or doesn't do for PS3 anymore?

    Steam's a big deal, but is irrelevant to console sales, which leaves a publisher that puts out maybe 1 title a year, if that.
    Sorry but I can't suddenly see lots of people buying PS3's because you can get Left4Dead on it.

  • kangarootoo #8 2 years ago

    @Widge

    They have on occasion. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines was based on the source engine (its the only example that springs to mind though).

    It was unfortunately a bit of a technical disaster (until years of unofficial patches got it in order), so I'm not sure how easy Source is for 3rd parties to work with (or maybe Valve weren't so hot at supporting devs using it back then?).

  • kangarootoo #9 2 years ago

    @GreyBeard

    "Sorry but I can't suddenly see lots of people buying PS3's because you can get Left4Dead on it."

    But people already owning PS3s might be keen to be able to buy Left4Dead for it, no?

  • GreyBeard #10 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    Seriously, how big can that market be? I mean Valve's own product is clearly targetted at the hardcore gamer, people I'm pretty sure would have either a suitable pc and/or a 360 to play it on already.

  • ignatiusjreilly #11 2 years ago

    People with just a PS3 and who like shooting games? That's a pretty big market still.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/10 @ 09:54

  • Widge #12 2 years ago

    Thats true. I would like to see L4D on PS3 (as games are made to be played on a sofa) BUT I do already have it on PC.
    To be fair, its the only thing Valve offer that I'm interested in too unless they did Day Of Defeat:Source as a downloadable title.

  • captainrentboy #13 2 years ago

    Earlbasset I bought one recently for the same reason, in that I heard it was an excellent media centre. And yet since I've had it it's been more fussy with the playback of particular video files than my 360 has ever been. My PS3 doesn't seem to want to know about HD Video files and basically tells me to 'piss off' whenever I try to stream one. :/ And yes I've converted them to MP4 with various programs and yes my network is all wired. If it wasn't for Heavy Rain and GOW3 I'd be slightly regretting my purchase.
    And whilst I'm whinging, isn't everything just that ittle bit slower when playing on a PS3, installing demos?!?, updates and software HDD installations left right and centre, it's not exactly the zippiest of consoles is it?
    On a positive note when it does stream my standard def videos it does a very good job of upscaling.

  • spiny #14 2 years ago

    Valve are a business, if there's enough money to be made in porting stuff to PS3, they'll do it. Simple as that.

  • kangarootoo #15 2 years ago

    @GreyBeard

    "Seriously, how big can that market be?"

    Well I honestly don't know, but its not like the PS3 isn't still a relatively hardcore system.

    From your initial "who would buy a PS3 to play L4D" comment, to talk of Valve fans already having a PC/360, you seem to suggest that the only market for Valve's products are commited Valve software fans. This will be true in part, but not exclusively.

    The PS3 installed base is growing hand over fist, and Valve as a business that sell game software, will naturally be interested in looking at any market than can generate extra revenue for them. It makes total sense for them to look at the PS3, now that it is a more solid proposition.

    If they had said they were looking at switching to PS3 exclusives, I would share your incredulity, but that isn't what we are seeing. They are simply looking into how they might make their operation work for 3 platforms instead of just 2, more bang for their buck if you like.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/10 @ 10:12

  • Sunyavadin #16 2 years ago

    Wonder what this tells us about the release dates of Half-Life 2: Episode 3 or Portal 2? Prolly nothing ;)

    I still laugh at how they originally announced episodic Half Life content as a means of cutting down development times, and releasing the game more frequently.

  • Widge #17 2 years ago

    I use MKV2VOB too, but I don't even split the file... just copy it wirelessly across.
    I was grabbing HD .avi's of TV shows but sometimes the conversion was terrible, so decided "if you want something doing properly..." and started demuxing the .mkvs instead. Never had a problem. Great program that actually, so fast!

    As for the market of the game. Its an interesting one. L4D does aim at the hardcore market, you've got to wonder what proportion of the PS3 hardcore also own a 360 and have the game already. I bet the way Bioshock sold would give you an indication of how well a port would have done. A similar situation.

  • funkateer #18 2 years ago

    "I remember 2007 well, the PS3 was a fucking joke at the time... "

    That might be true, but I don't think that's the customer's experience of the PS3 in 2007 was what Newell was talking about.

    Gabe Newell's comments always seemed like comments coming from a developer with xenophobia when it comes to development toolsets and API's and such. He clearly just didn't want to invest the time and money to learn something new.
    The fact that the 360 was so much ahead at the time in terms of installed base gave him that luxury.

  • captainrentboy #19 2 years ago

    Widge, any chance you download HD Lost episodes? They're the ones that are bugging me, I've tried the program you both recommended but to no avail. The weird thing is the resulting file will actually stream to my 360, but my PS3 now has the better sound system linked to it so I really want to use the console for all my video streaming needs.

  • sneetch #20 2 years ago

    @GreyBeard

    "Seriously, how big can that market be?"

    Quite big, in Japan especially. L4D2 sold well over there, unusually for an FPS (but ya know, the Japanese market loves them zombies) if a PS3 release had come out there it would have done well.

  • hiddenranbir #21 2 years ago

    "Gabe Newell's comments always seemed like comments coming from a developer with xenophobia when it comes to development toolsets and API's and such. He clearly just didn't want to invest the time and money to learn something new."

    Sounds like someone who doesn't want to learn skills/tools/api that only are of use on the PS3 (non-transferable). I can see why he likes the 360 cause what's been learnt on PC can be applied and vice versa.

  • funkateer #22 2 years ago

    "Sounds like someone who doesn't want to learn skills/tools/api that only are of use on the PS3 (non-transferable). I can see why he likes the 360 cause what's been learnt on PC can be applied and vice versa."

    Exactly. And such he willfully limits himself to the microsoft world.

  • Widge #23 2 years ago

    Yep, my Lost's have been fine. I've been grabbing them from "A PLACE" and converting them. Been doing that since the first one since the HD .avi's were a judder fest. I can check out the scene release name when I get home.

    I basically grab the file (about 1.12GB), MKV2VOB (it should say Transcoding - No and just demux) and it dumps out an .avi (I don't use any of the other file types as it seems a bit picky, perhaps this could be your problem area, change it in the config screen). I just grab a memstick, put it on it, down to PS3, insert, display all and play.

    Happily stream SD stuff, but for HD I'd rather have it plugged in directly.

  • sneetch #24 2 years ago

    @hiddenranbir
    Sounds like someone who doesn't want to learn skills/tools/api that only are of use on the PS3 (non-transferable). I can see why he likes the 360 cause what's been learnt on PC can be applied and vice versa.

    Yes and I can completely understand that: why would anyone commit time, money and effort teaching their teams an entirely new skill set until they have a commercially viable reason to do it? Back in 2007, when the PS3 was having difficulty getting off the ground, it would have been insane to take teams off their work with the PC and 360 versions of games and send them off to a "PS3 programming 101" course so they could come back and create games for a (at that time) limited market. Now with the PS3 install base so large it would be insane not to do it.

  • Widge #25 2 years ago

    If Sony wanted them on board, then they'd go in and help them. Back in the day, Microsoft provided Valve with loads of support and help with getting Half Life 1 out, so no wonder that have a good relationship.

  • captainrentboy #26 2 years ago

    Widge you're a genius (And I'm a dumb shit) as soon as I changed MKV2VOB to output AVIs instead of MP4s it all worked and streamed like a charm. I'm not sure why I thought the PS3 preferred streaming HD MP4s but clearly I was wrong. Thanks for the tip!
    Edit- You wouldn't believe how long I was looking on the net when I first bought the PS3 to see where I was going wrong, and it turned out out to be that bloody easy. I'm ashamed of myself...
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/10 @ 12:08

  • Widge #27 2 years ago

    Yes, I thought that might be it. I tried .mp4 once and it didn't work, so just stuck with .avi and it was fine. Bizarre but thats what works!

    Enjoy your new life of mkv goodness!
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/10 @ 12:09

  • chubster2010 #28 2 years ago

    @ Valve...

    Don't bother if it's really too much hassle....

  • spekkeh #29 2 years ago

    If only they'd port their engine to the Wii. A decent FPS engine (and an old version of the Source engine should definitely be possible on the Wii) would totally obliterate all the competition and sell by the bucketload.

  • funkateer #30 2 years ago

    "Microsoft provided Valve with loads of support and help with getting Half Life 1 out"

    You have a reference for that? (given HL1 was running on OpenGL and a Linux compatible engine, that kind of surprises me).

    What I do know is that Newell used to be a big wig at Microsoft.
    Wikipedia: "After dropping out of Harvard University[1] Newell spent thirteen years working for Microsoft Corporation, ultimately becoming a 'Microsoft Millionaire.' Newell has described himself as 'producer on the first three releases of Windows'."

    So it should not surprise anyone that he has a deep preference for the MS platforms as that's probably the only platform he did any serious work on.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/10 @ 12:42

  • Widge #31 2 years ago

    Yeah, takes ages to wifi across, but I do it in advance and come to it later.

  • Murton #32 2 years ago

    Forgive me for not getting too excited about this. "will look at support" is not the same as "will support" development cycles take about 18 months now so we'd be looking at 2012 as the article seems to rule out a Left 4 Dead port.

    Personally I think I would prefer it if Valve kept away from the PS3 until their overall attitude towards the platform changes. At the moment I'd eye any Valve title on the PS3 with suspicion that it was made because they felt they needed to (a'la Orange Box) rather than because they actually wanted to support it.

  • kangarootoo #33 2 years ago

    "because they felt they needed to rather than because they actually wanted to"

    Is there a difference in business?

  • funkateer #34 2 years ago

    "Is there a difference in business? "

    The difference is exactly why they choose to be a MS-only company.
    It's not as if there wasn't a businesscase for L4D on PS3. Valve didn't *need* it to be MS-only, they *wanted* it to be.

  • sneetch #35 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo
    Is there a difference in business?

    No. I've noticed that people seem to take these things personally though, any slight to my platform is a slight to me. I guarantee you that at no time in any company does anyone say "well, it won't sell on PS3/Xbox/PC and we don't know anything about the platform but, hell, let's do it anyway because we love it."

    At least no companies that survive to release a game.
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/10 @ 13:46

  • kangarootoo #36 2 years ago

    @funkateer

    My point is that Valve were a MS only company because that is what they were able to do best. Their skillset and publishing experience meant the cost of developing for PS3 would not be returned to them in sufficient volume to be worth the effort or investment (£100 invested in one project is £100 you no longer have to invest in a potentially more profitable one).

    Valve needed/wanted to be a MS only company because that strategy gave them the best return. Now they need/want to consider extending their operation to the PS3 also as that may now be the best use of part of their funds.

    Businesses WANT to do whatever makes the best return for them in their given field, because that is what they NEED to do to stay in business and make profit. Truth be told, business is all about need and very little about want, as want implies motives other than good business sense (edit: as sneetch points out with his example).
    Edited by 1 at 22/02/10 @ 14:02

  • Mnia786 #37 2 years ago

    I think devving on the PS3 would actually be worthwhile for them, at this point in time anyway. I have had my PS3 since launch and I admit for most of 2007, I only played RFOM -1st party titles were much better than any 3rd. With a bigger install base and still a LACK OF PIRACY, they are ensuring their investment is clean - everyone playing a game on the PS3 has a kosher game in their disc drive/kosher dlc. Would be illogical to not dev when you have a secure IP delivery platform would it not?

  • LiamK #38 2 years ago

    "If they seemingly find the PS3 so complicated when other developers don't i don't think i want to play the games they may produce for the system."

    Judging by most of the DigitalFoundry face-offs, I'd say other developers DO find the PS3 complicated to develop for. The fact that it's taken 3 years before we've got to a point where most multi-platform games are almost as good on the PS3 as the 360 surely means he's got a point?

    And it's all very well pointing out how many people own a PS3, but are they going to buy Valve's games. Widge is right... what were the sales on Bioshock on the PS3 compared to the 360, and how much did it cost them to make the game?

  • kangarootoo #39 2 years ago

    @LiamK

    0.48m on PS3, and 2.42m on 360.

    Assuming the PS3 port cost them a hundred thousand (it was probably less), it appears to have been a worthwhile investment.

  • des #40 2 years ago

    Valve "down the road" is in 10 years,maybe not even then...
    We will be lucky if Half-Life 3 releases in 5 years,maybe...

  • funkateer #41 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    "Truth be told, business is all about need and very little about want, as want implies motives other than good business sense"

    That I agree with. But my point is that when Newell made his infamous 'PS3 sucks' statements, it did quite appear that there might actually have been motives other than 'good business sense' at play... I mean, he didn't seem to talk about business at all.

  • funkateer #42 2 years ago

    "Do gamers still care about VALVe games being on PS3? "

    Of course, Valve makes pretty damn great games.

  • kangarootoo #43 2 years ago

    @funkateer

    In that instance I think Newell probably was in part talking from the "heart", but I don't think that has to mean business is not a factor. I guess it fair to say that rant was 70% "this is a pain to work with", and 30% "this is not a good business area for us right now".

    I'm not saying these guys are robots who always think about the bottom line, but what I suppose I am saying is that Gabe seems professional enough to put his own preferences as a code writer aside if there was a strong business reason for developing on the PS3. As Gabe he might have "wants" and personal preferences and so on, but as Mr Newell Valve Director Dude he will have business needs.

  • GreyBeard #44 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    My point was simply to question whether Valve's lack of presence on the PS3 is a hot topic anymore. Something I think that's borne out by the relative quietness of this thread.

    I'm not saying that their product isn't good, or that L4D wouldn't be a welcome addition to the PS3's library, just that its not such a big deal whether or not they choose to support the platform.

    As a developer they are glacially slow, and as they are also apparently either so greedy or arrogant that they'd rather not outsource ports of their product to third parties I can't see their rate of output increasing. They don't actually bring that much to the table.

  • byakuya83 #45 2 years ago

    An unusual turn-about-face from Vale who have made numerous negative remarks about PS3 and its owners. I certainly won't be buying any of their games in future and immediately removed Steam from my PC following their previous remarks. Valve come across as industry fanboys who are now hoping to jump on the PS3 bandwagon.

  • Les #46 2 years ago

    Not a big fan of the persons that run Valve. But then again, they do make Half-Life. Yeah, they take their time and unfortunately 'waste' some of their resources on stuff like L4D when they apparently aren't sufficiently staffed to get the next Half-Life episode out of the door. But still, there just isn't another FPS that can come close to HL. COD, Killzone 2, Resistance, Far Cry, etc. Really nice shooters. But they're not HL. So if Valve's reconsidering PS3 might mean a better PS3 version of Episode 3, I'm quite happy.

    Or to put it another way: nobody gets hurt by Valve supporting PS3. The only downside might be that their games will arrive at an even more glacial pace... ;)

  • GamesConnoisseur #47 2 years ago


    Byaukya83

    You accused Valve of being a rabid anti PS3 fanboy when all I could see was Gabe's comment which was publicly well known and don't see any further ant ps3 this or that?

    Seem perhaps just as much a fanboy, who would go as far to remove Steam (hope not too many games?) and refusal to touch any of their games? If all PS3 does that then never will see any of their treasured games on PS3!

    Gabe comment is well known, but just a more public one and there are lots more views from others devs/publishers that indicated the same or frustrations of coding for a difficult platform.

    Thankfully more devs are in a better position now compared to 2007, and yes a matter of rational business case where Valve can see themselves doing work on PS3 and this is what they said. On record so that is a good news no?

    There were previously PS only games but welcomed with open arms on rival console, just as pretty much PS1 did for previously Nintendo titles.

  • kangarootoo #48 2 years ago

    @GreyBeard

    I don't know if its a "hot topic", but I think it is of interest whenever a large developer extends its business onto a previously unexplored (HL2 not withstanding) platform.


    And I think its a little unfair to brand Valve as greedy or arrogant, just because they have standards that prohibit them from outsourcing ports of their titles. HL2 was done that way, the result was not perfect, they have learned a lesson from that experience.

    If anything, they could be accused of NOT being greedy for the same reasons. Not being greedy and shortsighted no less. They could have a bunch of their stuff ported by 3rd parties for a quick buck, but they feel it would harm their long term business because the end result would be of a lower standard than they like to maintain?

    Now they are looking again at the subject, but still focussing on maintaining an even standard across all platforms. Nothing wrong with that imo.

  • Syrette #49 2 years ago

    @byakuya83

    I bet they're gutted you removed Steam from your PC in some form of redundant silent protest.

    I imagine they're re-evaulating their stance with regards to the PS3 primarily because of you.

    Perhaps you should stop taking your hobby so seriously.

    ;)
    Edited by 3 at 23/02/10 @ 10:40

  • kangarootoo #50 2 years ago

    "Valve come across as industry fanboys"

    There is a clear way to differentiate between "industry fanboys" (whatever that really means) and serious businessmen.

    Serious businessmen make lots of money, have a stable business, and you have likely heard of them.
    Industry fanboys make no money, go out of business, and live in anonimity.

    Which band do you think Valve fit into?

  • GreyBeard #51 2 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    I know it sounds harsh and judgemental of me to suggest that Valve are greedy and arrogant, but the fact remains that they apparently don't trust other people to port their stuff to their standards.

    Kind of ridiculous given that L4D is hardly the most technically demanding title out there, so there's absolutely no question whether its technically feasible, it just requires the time and money required to ensure the port gets the same level of TLC as the original did.

  • kangarootoo #52 2 years ago

    @GreyBeard

    "but the fact remains that they apparently don't trust other people to port their stuff to their standards"

    I'm not sure that is inherrently a bad thing though is it?

    Anyway that trust was tested once, with HL2, and Valve were unhappy with the result. So it seems fair for them to be cautious.


    "it just requires the time and money required to ensure the port gets the same level of TLC as the original did"

    Well, specifically it requires MORE time and money. But its is probably down to Valve to decide whether that extra time and money is worth it. If they say it isn't, it indeed does seems harsh (and also maybe just plain incorrect) to label them as greedy or arrogant as a result.


    They are a business, with a bottom line and brand image to maintain. If they say something doesn't make business sense, then lets face it they are probably right (Valve's record in "getting shit right" is as strong as you might hope to find).

    We as gamers might be annoyed because we wanted to play their game on PS3, but that is entirely different issue and should really be measured on a different scale. When we measure the two on the same scale, we start to forget that no games developer is OR SHOULD BE a charity, in business purely to make sure we have a lovely time.

  • GreyBeard #53 2 years ago

    @kangarootoo

    So now doing a PS3 port wouldn't be financially viable if they had to do it to a sufficient standard not to be considered the "red headed stepchild" version?

    Stop making excuses for them.

    The reality I suspect is really simple and what Gearbox's Randy Pitchford called them out on:

    Its GREED. Porting it themselves would be considerably more lucrative for them than licensing it out to another publisher. So they are sitting on it.

    What bugs me is the ARROGANT way they make vague promises they may condescend to support the PS3 somewhere "down the road".

    I wouldn't mind if they were at least up front about it, but the reality and their version of events just doesn't add up.

    The truth of the matter is that PS3 Orange Box should have made money -it certainly sold well enough, and even though it may not have been as polished as the original PC and 360 versions it sure as hell didn't sully their precious brand image.

  • kangarootoo #54 2 years ago

    @GreyBeard

    You seem to have this distored view of things where you define GREED (your uppercase, not mine) as a company wanting to maximise profits generated by their IP instead of just making less money FOR NO REASON.

    Here is the question that you seem to be avoiding. WHY on earth should Valve outsource any of their products to a 3rd party if that would be less lucrative for them? You say it as if wanting to be more lucrative is just some minor side issue, far less important that not "appearing greedy" in the eyes of a few gamers. Truth is, being lucrative is (and should be) pretty much in the top 3 "things we should be doing" list of EVERY company that is being ran in a competent fashion.


    And as farticusmaximus says, the PS3 port of HL2 did garner negative feedback. It did affect the brand (albeit in minor ways, as most hardcore fans knew it wasn't Valve's fault directly). And it certainly did leave Valve thinking "this PS3 porting business isn't as straight forward as we hoped".


    "and what Gearbox's Randy Pitchford called them out on"

    Oh look. Randy Pitchford is a businessman, just like Gabe Newell. Just 'cos he says something doesn't mean he is speaking from the heart and Gabe is speaking from the wallet. Randy Pitchford was smarting because things played out in a way that meant his company made less money. There is nothing wrong with that, but lets call it what it is.


    And on the subject of ebing up front about things, that isn't always possible in business. Sometimes it isn't even our business. And furthermore, does it really matter? That sort of thing just sounds like more ammunition for someone who is already annoyed, rather than a tangible problem that should get anyone's nose out of joint.



    Valve made games for the PC, they branched out to 360 as it seemed like an easy fit. They didn't have the tech setup to make games for PS3, but they tried outsourcing one of their main brands via a 3rd party. The end result was poorer than they hoped for, so they said they wouldn't do it again. They are now examining the option again, this time doing things in house to avoid getting burned again in the same way.

    I really don't see the problem. Seriously.
    Edited by 2 at 24/02/10 @ 11:01