Slashdot Mirror
Valve's Gabe Newell Speaks on Console Development
DelitaTheFridge writes "Gabe Newell, of Valve fame, criticizes Microsoft and Sony on how difficult it will be for next-gen developers to produce games on their upcoming hardware. He is especially critical of Sony's model, where code written to run on Cell will be very hard to port to other systems, and vice versa. Will this bring upon a new era of PC Game superiority? Only time will tell. In the meantime, Newell says he believes that Steam-like systems will be extremely helpful for developers on the new consoles due to their ability to provide updates and new content."
I don't think systems like Steam are viable in the long run. They'll be successful for a bit while they manage to force them on us, but in the long run they're just too restrictive. The market is (hopefully) going to reject them.
Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
Will this bring upon a new era of PC Game superiority?
When the day arrives that I can take a brand-new & high-end PC game out of a box, insert it into the CD-ROM and play it immedietally without installation or having to customize 2 dozen settings: Yes. Till then: No.
Gabe Newell - the guy who's company has chosen to make their games NOT portable to any thing other than Windows, is criticizing Sony for making their games hard to port?
The same Gabe Newell who took a relatively portable game framework (Quake) and made it NOT portable (Half-Life)?
The same Gabe Newell who chose to use a non-portable graphics framework (Direct-3D) rather than a portable graphics framework (OpenGL) for Half-Life II?
Well, I guess he is an expert in non-portable - we'll allow his testimony.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Will this bring upon a new era of PC Game superiority?
God, this is a sad attempt to revive a tired flamefest.
The answer is no, for two reasons.
First, the PC and the console are two different beasts. The different peripherals and capabilities of each system tend to lend them to different types of games. My favorite PC games have not hit the console, and visa versa.
Second, console games sell a lot more copies (partly due to the greater Joe Sixpack appeal from easier setups and partly because it's a pain in the ass to pirate games on modern consoles, so you don't see two-thirds of the games out there being pirated, as you do on the computer). A lack of compatibility would probably not be a really good thing for the PC, given that there are more development dollars in console games (actually, a lack of compatibility almost always screws over the end user and benefits only the system vendors).
In the silver lining department, this is probably a good thing for Linux -- the large and current commercial game library on Windows is one of its greatest strengths in the college crowd, and whatever college students use is what everyone uses in a couple years.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
Yeah, I really hate it how it automatically, within notime (on a decent DSL connection) brings me my updates to my game(s) : I much rather go back to the good old days to connecting to a server, only to discover there's a new patch out I which I have to download.
Then I will have to find that patch with a decent download and no ridiculous artificial ques (yes, I am talking about you Fileplanet), and then install it. And all do this within half an hour... max.
Ohwait, I forgot to add the sarcasm tag.
If you're talking about the online activation ; Yes. it sucks : But over here on Slashdot the tendency seems to be to focus on those 'negative' points (and no, I am not losing -any- of my privacy by using Steam), rather than the few great things Steam added (eg. IM-messaging/playing chess ingame, ingame server browsers, automatical updates, a-way-to-say-f*ck-you-to-the-publishers)
What happens if you want to play it 15 years later?
I can still play Ultima Underworld (the original). Will you be able to say the same about HL2?
Great game btw, UU.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
Maybe I'm just too impressed with Cell's architecture to see things clearly, but here's my opinion...
Generation after generation, developers have been given ever more powerful processors with a corresponding extra cost in hardware. Some of this is really needed to overcome architectural limitations (register renaming to make up for the scarcity of registers in x86 comes to mind) -- indeed I think x86 is too crippled to perform well without lots of hardware assistance.
But the fact is that we've hit a wall of performance. Power increases due to ever more complex chips, plus certain effects like leakage currents (that were disregarded in previous manufacturing processes) are becoming ever more problematic. So the free performance lunch is over, and CPU designers are having to trim the fat of their designs. The result is nice power-efficient architectures like the Pentium M, but there's only so much that power-conscious design can do if you still must have the complexity of out-of-order execution and other modern CPU features.
So there's really no way around. If you need a power-efficient processor, you're going to have to resort to completely new architectural ideas, like extensive use of SIMD and multi-core as Cell does. Programmers are going to pay a price in terms of complexity and cost of software development, yes; but there's no other way, the growth of CPUs we're used to is flattening out, unfortunately, and can only grow again through adoption of these alternative programming models.
Which is why I say these people are spoiled brats. If CPU designers are guilty of anything, it's feeding off this illusion that infinite growth without laying any burdens on programmers was possible. But complaining is no good now; either they're going to adapt or die. It's clear that no ordinary out-of-order design, using the same transistor budget, can reach the peak power of Cell if correctly programmed. So if these guys really want the extra power to make better games, they'll have to learn these new programming models and bear the burden of extra complexity.
Join the NFSNET. Our prime goal is making little numbers out of big ones. http://www.nfsnet.org/
"Newell says he believes that Steam-like systems will be extremely helpful for developers on the new consoles due to their ability to provide updates and new content."
This is to be expected, he has funded the creation of Steam from scratch, of course he is going to sign it's praises and say software like it is the future. The thing that he doesn't have control over is the customers, and they will decide what the future is.
Business Voyeur
With Unreal 3 and Havok already on XBOX360 and PS3, I would be worried about trying to sell Source too.
All I read was:
Blah blah blah, Consoles are hard to develop for, blah blah blah, we can't get our technology to work on them, blah blah blah, buy our product, blah blah blah.
"My cat's breath smells like cat food." - The Tao of Ralph Wiggum.
You've got some sort of evidence to back up this assumed truism, have you?
Before you answer, consider that for example, on a PS2, the sound is handled by a different CPU anyway, so you can't avoid having multi-process code for sound/syncing.
Games do have some difficult problems to solve, to maximise performance, so while you don't mean to belittle the game dev community, you probably are anyway. They usually involve trade-offs - e.g. you want to animate a character's vertices, but due to your parallel architecture, that data is currently being used to render the character. So you have to double buffer the data...but that uses up pretty significant resources...so you might have to come up with some complex interlocking mechanism. Oh, and you're also trying to run the AI at the same time in this parallel world, which probably needs to know the current position/orientation of the character, not what it was for the previous frame, etc. Physics too, maybe. Have fun with that.
That's not to say Gabe's complaints are all that valid though. Technology changes, and you move on, as you say.
It's just a pain when you have a large code base that is hard to port (through no particular fault of your own). Direct3D issues are pretty small compared to re-architecting your system to run on 7 cpus instead of one.
I still remember when a few guys came back from a Sony conference, and said that Sony's advice for performance optimisation was to not use C++, because the EE was piss-poor at running it, due to the tiny I/D caches. Apparently on most PS2 games, the EE was idle/stalling for about 50% of the time due to C++ usage patterns.
Of course, most engineers' reaction to that was, why did they build a console that would run C++ code poorly, when they knew the majority of devs would use C++?
I think Gabe is fearing a similar situation with the PS3. Having experienced Sony's idea of what constituted 'development tools' for the PS2, I'd probably be worried too, if I was in his shoes.
That's easy for you to say, but some of us don't have DSL. I live in a rural area, so the best connection I can get is 56K. I don't see why I should have to register and update HL2, when all I want is a decent single-player experience. It's gotten to the point where I disconnect from the internet every time I want to start Half-Life2 just to avoid having to download updates.
You mean disadvantages like these?
- having to have an internet connection to play the single player game, and spending several hours waiting for it to decrypt when I bought it release day
- how they first required both steam activation AND a dvd check for the store-bought version
- that I can't resell my copy of HL2 when I get bored with it
- that when steam goes belly-up, I can't play (had that problem at a LAN party, massive counter-strike problems for lots of people as the net connection couldn't handle steam logins for 200 ppl)
- if valve goes out of business, I lose the ability to play the game I paid for
- mandatory patches tying up my internet connection unexpectedly, a real problem for dialup users
- piracy protection that does nothing to stop hacked copies showing up on torrent sites, but makes me jump through hoops
-randomly losing my installed game files, forcing me to spend hours downloading and reinstalling the game via steam (happened to me twice now)
I'm sorry, but these far outweigh any good points of steam. I for one won't be purchasing any new games from valve that require it. I'm a customer, not a damn lab rat. Make steam optional so you can use it for the handy features, such as easy patch download, and purchase games through it if you wish. But don't sell something in a box in a retail store, then turn round and treat it like a rental.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
I rarely play the game after I beat HL2, but I have had at least two times where it won't play when it verifies my game.
I went to a lan party, this lan party didnt have the internet. When they wanted to play CS Source for some reason the two of us with a legal copy could not play the game, it needed to verify something with a server or something like that. I ended having to get a CRACKED copy off of someone, even though I legally own the game.
Their is also the problem that steam uses 20 megs of ram to run in the background, if you want to "autoupdate". While 20 megs isnt a ton for someone with 1 gig of RAM I dont want to see a day where Epic wants 20 megs, EA wants 20 megs, Blizzard.............. I wont have any memory left to USE my computer by the time all the companies are done.
Their are numerous problems with Steam and Steam like systems, they are a poor idea. When owners of the game are finding it easier to use cracked versions of a game, you know that their are issues with the system that they are using. And it is not just me that has had this problem, I have numerous friends that have had similiar problems.
Finally, you are correct HL2 was amazing, if it wasnt for Steam I would love it a lot more.
The PS3 architecture is quite odd...
No it's not. It's basically a better-organised and larger version of the PS2's Emotion Engine... Albeit with a different instruction set.
The PS2 developers love it. "256KB of memory per SPE? And we can program it in C? Woot!"
Its a fact that, n parallel processors is less efficient than one n-times-faster processor.
It's a fact that you can't get n-times-faster processors, so tough bickies.