Portal 2 Bringing Steam To the PS3, Possible Early Release

itwbennett writes "Portal 2 is breaking some new ground – at least the PlayStation 3 version is. 'Portal 2 marks the first time that Valve's social gaming network (and digital distribution system), Steam, will appear on consoles,' writes blogger Peter Smith. What this means is that once you link your Playstation Network [PSN] and Steam accounts 'you'll be able to keep tabs on what your Steam friends are up to from within a game of Portal 2 on the PS3,' says Smith. And, you'll be able to play Portal 2 with friends playing on PC or Mac. 'I can think of at least one other example of cross-platform gaming (Shadowrun supported both PC and Xbox players in the same game servers),' says Smith, 'but it's still very rare.'" This afternoon Valve launched a countdown to Portal 2 which can be accelerated by playing any of a group of indie games.

Comments

GOATSE

[Anonymous Coward]

GOATSE

Re:But that doesn't worth much

[Anonymous Coward]

Again? Really?

Re:But that doesn't worth much

[MozeeToby]

Why do I have a sinking feeling, without even clicking the link, that this points to one of the classic gross out pictures, probably goatse.

A) First post within seconds of the article going live.
B) Link obfuscated using a URL shortener
C) User has a history of one comment, including this one
D) Username is of the theme Slash'X' which has been posting a goatse link in every article lately

I await other people clicking the link to see if I'm right, I don't have tinyurl set to preview pages and I'm at work, so I won't be taking the risk.

Portal 2

[arun84h]

Now you're thinking with cross-platform gaming portals!

Re:Portal 2

[RoFLKOPTr]

FTA: "In this case Xbox 360 gamers are still left out in the cold so we're still waiting for a truly platform-agnostic online game."

And whose fault is that? I'm sure Valve would have put Xbox into the cross-platform mix if it were possible, but it's not. Xbox Live is a closed environment.

Re:Portal 2

[Anonymous Coward]

The more interesting thing is how Sony is willing to let Valve bring Steam to the PS3. Microsoft did Shadowrun crossplatform from PC to 360 when it was an internal group, and they were trying hard to push Windows Live. Valve hated the PS3 when Orange Box hit (they just shoved it off on EA to port), but slowly changed over the freedom they are afforded for online play.

Goatse yet again

[MozeeToby]

And again, SlashX troll attemts the Goatse link. You really are the worst troll ever.

Re:Goatse yet again

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, it's really just pathetic. I mean, if you're going to troll, be original. And if you're trying to shock, then maybe you should link to a picture that the entire world hasn't already seen 50 times. It feels a lot like some 13 year kid trying to learn how to be troll by halfassedly emulating the trolls of yesteryear who have long since moved on to new ideas.

Re:Goatse yet again

[Tolkien]

Uh no, he's basically laughing at how bad you are at trolling. He's calling you pathetic at being a troll. In other words, you suck at trolling. Shall I paint you a more accurate picture?

Re:Goatse yet again

[HaZardman27]

And you are effectively feeding the troll.

Re:Goatse yet again

[Tolkien]

*shrug* As if it would make a difference. He's already demonstrated that he has no life or intelligence.

Re:Goatse yet again

[Canazza]

it's not like we can actually OPEN any of the links, what with slashdotscript having a mind of it's own

Re:Goatse yet again

[Tolkien]

Try double-clicking (I think). I learned recently that double-right-click brings up the browser context menu. Then you can select "Open in new tab" or whatever.

Crafty, I guess

[RogueyWon]

I think this is actually a pretty crafty (and aggressive) move by Valve. One of the frustrations of gaming on the PC is seeing consoles get exclusive content in many games, paid for by the console manufacturer. Usually, the PC is left to languish and pick up the scraps - and sometimes doesn't get the extra content at all (for example, Dead Space 2). Now, an early release (and likely only a very slightly early one) isn't exactly the same as extra content, but it's still a perk for PC players - and various forums today illustrate that this has upset a lot of console gamers.

Why should Valve do this? Because they now have a huge vested interest in the PC as a gaming platform. They're taking a cut on every PC game sold via Steam - which is a large proportion of PC games these days. So for the first time in many years, the PC actually has somebody fighting its corner as a platform in a vaguely effective way. And by dangling a (largely neutered) version of Steam in front of PS3 gamers, they're getting free advertising for their own service and platform.

And if anybody wants to call them evil and scheming, then they have the counter-argument that they're doing all this by getting people to play indie games.

Me? I like gaming on the PC... and on the 360 and PS3. But the PC does have unique features as a platform and I'm glad that there are people out there with actual industry clout who are promoting it.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[slimjim8094]

Well, it's probably more like "we can flip the download switch early even if we can't magic the disks into the stores before we'd planned".

The rest of it too, I suppose... but Steam gives them the logistical flexibility to do this kind of thing. They can't just say "oh it's out now, go to Gamestop!" when they feel like it for a PS3 disk.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[dstyle5]

IWhy should Valve do this?

Probably the main reason they are doing it is because they can now update games at their desired frequency. Currently on consoles game updates have to be tested/vetted by the console companies, which takes a long time and costs developers/publishers money and time. With Steam on PS3 they can quickly and cheaply fix bugs, security issues, etc. The 360 version of L4D2 is always far behind the PC version in updates and by time they actually get released as a bundle of updates on the 360 the PC version has already far ahead again.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[RogueyWon]

That's true in as far as it goes, but I think there's more to it than that.

The money Valve will be raking in from Steam must surely dwarf the money they get from the sales of one of their in-house games. So even if it's not the ideal way to manage one of their game properties in its own right, the incentive for them is to do whatever they can to get people onto the PC and using Steam. And if that means screwing over the console versions a bit, then so be it.

As I said in the original post, I like my 360 and PS3 and use them lots. But my word it is nice to see the boot on the other foot from the PC perspective for once.

The 360 and PS3 are aging and have no successors on the horizon. If I were a betting man, I would put money on the Wii2 being the next Dreamcast. If Valve really want to make a big PC gaming push, then now is the time.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[h4rr4r]

I would put money on the Wii2 being the next Dreamcast

An awesome console killed by stupid management decisions?

Re:Crafty, I guess

[dave562]

But the PC does have unique features as a platform

Like aimbots, and wall hacks. I like the idea of cross platform gaming, but I hope they resist the urge to merge the two platforms (consoles and PCs) on FPS titles. I can deal with people who think their mouse / keyboard are a superior interface (and in most instances I'd agree). I can't deal with cheaters. They ruin the games for everyone.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[bigstrat2003]

Console games have cheaters, too.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[dave562]

[Citation needed]

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Tolkien]

Yeah. I really wish Heavy Rain had been released for PC as it was originally going to be. I definitely would have bought that game. I find it rather stupid how people sign these exclusivity deals thinking they'll make more money when in reality they miss out on tonnes of sales from those who don't want to fork over hundreds of dollars just to buy the console required to play their game.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[bigstrat2003]

Are you serious?

MW2 and the Halo games are two good examples off the top of my head. Lots of asshats cheat at console games, just like lots of asshats cheat at PC games.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[RogueyWon]

Yes, quite possibly. The stupid management decision in this case being to put out a Wii1 that was utterly obsolete even at the point of release - which allowed for loads of cheap sales in the first few years, followed by utter paralysis and the need to release a successor before the developer market was ready for one.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[RogueyWon]

The PS3 has had cheaters galore ever since Geohot did his thing with it. I'd just been starting to dip my toe into online multiplayer on the platform, since PS Move support actually made Killzone 3 feel... almost PC once you got used to it. Unfortunately, the wave of cheating that followed the system's protection being broken pretty much killed my interest dead.

Which is yet another reason why I can't blame Sony for trying to flay the little fucker alive...

Re:Crafty, I guess

[h4rr4r]

They are still so far the number one console and unlike Xbox have actually made money year over year.

I do not own a wii, but might get one soon for the mario games.

I think nintendo is here to stay. MS will continue to make consoles and never really make any money on it, Sony will also stay pretty much where they are.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Pretty damned obvious that the 'next big console' is the iPad, for better or worse.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

If I were a betting man, I would put money on the Wii2 being the next Dreamcast.

People have been saying this about Nintendo consoles for ages, even before the Dreamcast existed to use as a metaphor. I don't see it happening.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah. Suing security researchers is the reasonable approach to solving the problem of online games being insecure.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[RoFLKOPTr]

MS will continue to make consoles and never really make any money on it

False. They sell the console itself at a loss, yes. Where they make their money is licensing and Xbox Live. Developers must pay Microsoft for every copy of an Xbox 360 game that they press, and the end-user must pay Microsoft for every month of online play they want. The Wii is so flipping cheap that Nintendo is able to sell them for a reasonable price and still make an upfront profit on each unit.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[RoFLKOPTr]

Pretty damned obvious that the 'next big console' is the iPad, for better or worse.

Nah. Have you ever heard of a major developer releasing full-sized games for iOS without backroom cross-promotion deals? Also there's still the problem that your greasy fingers must be in the way of what you're seeing. I don't see the iPad (or any tablet device) catching on as a major player in the serious gaming market.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[larry bagina]

Have you ever played the PS3 Orange Box? It is an EA port (more bugs than Kathleen Fent's cooch), lacks features on the PC version and receives no updates.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Khyber]

That's exactly what I'm thinking. Sure the iPad may have some innovative uses where games like Bejeweled or other simple time-wasters are going to definitely dominate, and maybe for that market it will be successful. However, when it comes to serious gaming where you need BUTTONS to perform multiple actions at once, unless the iPad comes with a magical gaming attachment, it's not going to be very easy to work with, I suspect, and thus it will be utterly creamed in the serious/hardcore gamer market.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

On-screen buttons are a joke and games that rely on them are nothing more than a novelty(Hey look, I can play Sonic on my phone!). I think it'd catch on well enough if Apple would release an official Bluetooth gamepad. They'd just have to come up with some name for it other than the "iPad." "Magic Gamepad," maybe?

Re:Crafty, I guess

[dave562]

Thanks for the info. I have been playing MoH lately. I skipped out on MW2 when it came out and refused to buy Black Ops because of the way they treated the IW devs. I figured it was only a matter of time, and now I'm pretty bummed out, truth be told.

We're talking about recent developments though, right? This is all because of that GeoHotz bullshit?

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

MS will continue to make consoles and never really make any money on it

False. They sell the console itself at a loss, yes.

Error. You are being short-sighted.
The Xbox division of Microsoft was created around 2000 and ran in the red for years, they have accumulated something like 10billion in debt. Currently the division draws a minor profit, Microsoft needs to run in the black for potentially over a decade to reclaim all the money they "invested" in the first place. Designing new consoles isn't exactly cheap what with all the hardware engineering that needs to be done so, with their modest profit, they are always going to loss lead for the first few years after a console release which isn't likely to change given the way things are.

---
I'm not sure what exactly everyone is going on about the Wii2 being the worst idea ever, although I do still remember people saying that the Wii1 was the worst idea ever and that Nintendo should just have followed Sega out of the hardware business. The simple fact is that the Wii1 has pretty much reached saturation, the pie is almost as big as it is going to get so it's time to build a new pie. The fact that the Wii1 hardware blows and its major selling point (motion controls) has been aped by their competitors, whose offerings are generally more reliable (Sony) and cool (Microsoft), doesn't exactly leave much to write home about.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Daniel Phillips]

Nintendo is the only console maker that made money this generation, in the process surpassing Apple in market cap for a time. Please explain how that is bad business in any way.

Not to say that the same formula will work for the next generation. My prediction: consoles are done, it's game over. The android game market alone will dwarf any future console generation, if there even is one.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Daniel Phillips]

They sell the console itself at a loss, yes. Where they make their money is licensing...

Too bad most of their exclusives walked out the door or jumped the shark. Still about 7 $billion in the hole too. Just keep doing it, sure thing.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Daniel Phillips]

It's not farfetched. All the stupid 2D games get the customer used to viewing the pad as a game device, then 3rd parties come out with game pads etc. It's going to happen for sure, but actually I think Android will be the big winner.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[RogueyWon]

The "Nintendo are the only ones who made a profit this time" line is a bit of a myth, based on old data and checking a few annual reports can dispel this pretty quickly.

The Wii did incredibly well during its first 2-3 years on shelves. Since then, it has had a rapid decline. Nintendo's profits have been falling for a while and this year have been badly under expectations. That's partly due to the strong yen, but by Nintendo's own acknowledgement, it's also due to poor console and worse game sales. The Wii gets the occasional game that shoots to the top of the sales chart and stays there a while - mostly casual stuff like Wii Sports Resort and Wii Fit - but most weeks, if you leave the handhelds aside, the mid and upper ranks of the sales charts are dominated by the PS3, 360 and increasingly over the last year, the PC. Plus those Wii games that do succeed have been getting rarer and rarer - and almost none of them are third party (third party games being pure profit for the console manufacturer, since they cream off their cut despite putting in only a tiny investment into the development via the certification process - often just a few days of man-time).

The 360 took a while to reach the break even point - probably a year longer than it should have done due to the RROD fiasco that dogged the console for the first 12-18 months. However, it passed the break even point a couple of years ago and has actually improved its financial performance since then. Kinnect has been a huge boost for MS - they make an obscene profit on each unit sold and if you look at their latest annual results, MS's gaming division actually significantly ahead of most of the rest of the company as a result of it. If you extrapolate forward from current sales trends, the 360 would pass the Wii's total installed base in probably less than 2 years - while maintaining a much higher attach rate.

The PS3 has been the tricky one. It had a very poor start to the cycle even without an RROD fiasco of its own. It seems clear in hindsight that Sony put out a machine that was just too expensive and which couldn't justify that extra cost over the 360 in terms of what it actually gave to the customer. It also took a long time to build up a really tempting games library - I remember pretty much every year since 2008 being forecast as being "the year of the PS3", while in reality I don't think anything even remotely resembling that has happened until 2011 (when the PS3 does get the biggest and best lineup of platform exclusive releases of any of the consoles). However, the machine is now performing strongly and is the fastest selling home console in some markets. It would also probably be on course to overtake the Wii's installed base if current trends were to carry forwards.

So what's happened this generation isn't that Nintendo have massively outperformed the competition; they haven't. They put out a cheap console which got a lot of good publicity and got a very front-loaded sales curve giving Nintendo a lot of cream early on. However, the thing then went into decline and for the last 6-9 months has basically flatlined. So if you like, Nintendo have been the hare this time around. MS and Sony have (probably unintentionally in the case of Sony), followed a tortoise strategy and are seeing the benefits now after a few rough years at launch. This is why Nintendo needs a new console - as was probably always part of their strategy. The problem is that jumping to a new platform before your competition have theirs even close to the market is a risky strategy - as Sega showed with the Dreamcast.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[tlhIngan]

The PS3 has had cheaters galore ever since Geohot did his thing with it. I'd just been starting to dip my toe into online multiplayer on the platform, since PS Move support actually made Killzone 3 feel... almost PC once you got used to it. Unfortunately, the wave of cheating that followed the system's protection being broken pretty much killed my interest dead.

Which is yet another reason why I can't blame Sony for trying to flay the little fucker alive...

MW2 was the problem, not PSN. Infinity Ward did some incredibly stupid things with their network code that enabled such things. In fact, the MW2 cheating happened *before* the GeoHot hack - remember the keys were only exposed at the beginning of the year. It was flawed to begin with, and without the keys, it still would've happened.

I blame Sony and not GeoHot though because they've basically gave me another bill for my PS3. It says "If you want to keep all your features of your PS3, pay us another $300". You see, prior to Sony's idioticy on April 1, 2010, I could do all these things with my PS3: OtherOS, Games, Blu-Ray. Now, I can do OtherOS and old games *OR* Games/Blu-Ray. To do both requires me to buy a new PS3.

I personally don't care for the PS3 anymore, and I hope PSN dies because of cheaters before I invest another 50% into my PS3. I hope cheaters infect all games through PSN hacks. Either that or Sony should give me another PS3 as compensation. All GeoHot did was make it possible to regain our PS3s back to their former state.

And yes, the same problems have plagued the Xbox360 as well - the Halo cheats are well known and they don't rely on a hacked system to perform. Later revisions to matchmaking and stats tend to fix the problem of "standbying" and "ragequits".

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Daniel Phillips]

So what's happened this generation isn't that Nintendo have massively outperformed the competition; they haven't.

You are completely and utterly wrong about that. Nintendo made billions while Microsoft and Sony lost billions. Especially Microsoft.

Nintendo massively outperformed Microsoft and Sony in the console market. Massively. You saying black is white doesn't change that fact.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Nnope - MW2 was waaaay before anyone started seriously considering the PS3 to be hacked (that is - way before the first hypervisor hack).

Re:Crafty, I guess

[RogueyWon]

And you are linking to old annual reports. The latest linked on that page is 2008. At which point Nintendo absolutely were surging ahead. Nintendo's profits for 2010-11 are... ok... but they are below expectations and trending downwards (though the impact of the 3DS remains to be seen. At the same time, the latest MS quarterly results show a healthy profit from Entertainment and Devices division, which you will also find (albeit to a slightly lesser degree without the Kinnect bubble) in previous statements.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Daniel Phillips]

And you are being intentionally dense. What do you suppose the cumulative result for each company is?

It is neither here nor there whether Microsoft now manages to eak out a slim profit. The billions that were paid to buy that little trickle make the whole adventure an unmitigated disaster in a business sense. As a charity, sure it's been great.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[RogueyWon]

Hundreds of millions of dollars in a quarter is not a slim profit - and they've been raking in those figures for a while now. You make back billions pretty quickly at that pace. I think you're just clinging to the comforting (if you don't like MS/Sony whatever) illusions that come about as a result of the economics of the first year or two of a console cycle.

I bet you think they still make a loss on every unit sold - that's the other old chestnut that does the rounds. They were still saying that about the PS2 at the end of its cycle - by which point it hadn't been true for about 4 years (or more, depending on when you define the end of the PS2's cycle).

Re:Crafty, I guess

[android.dreamer]

At least on the PC, if you pre-ordered Portal 2, you already have it on your machine and downloaded it. The thing is that it is locked, so what you are waiting for is for Valve to unlock the game on Tuesday ~9 AM EST or maybe a few hours earlier after this weekend.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[bigstrat2003]

No. Halo 2, Halo 3 had cheaters and that wasn't even on PS3. MW2 was out long before GeoHot did his thing.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[h4rr4r]

Xbox lost so much money 360 will never pay it back. Heck, even the 360 is only profitable in a single year or quarter case. It may never pay off its own development.

Re:Crafty, I guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Your the one being dense... basic rule of business if you aren't going to make significant profit including all development costs within a few years the shareholders won't like it so you don't do it.

If you develop something and it turns out you won't make a profit within a few years you either
a. stop making it
b. redesign to make production cheaper
c. sell/licence the tech to someone else and get your money back

Since Sony or Microsoft have done none of the above you can be sure they must actually be making good profits from selling consoles... and the argument that they are making money on game licences not consoles is crap. Consoles are pointless without games so in effect the game (and the licensing fee) is part of the console sale.

This is the way cross platform should be...

[rbollinger]

As a bonus, purchasers of the Playstation 3 version of Portal 2 will get a code to unlock the PC and Mac version, too.

Most important thing I found in the article. I'm wondering if it will work the other way around too. I would love if I could eventually play all my steam games on both the PS3 and PC if they are available for both!

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

As of right now it doesn't go the other way around. I think it's part of the way they're trying to justify the higher price for the console version of the game

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[slimjim8094]

I doubt it. The beauty of Steam/Steam Play is that there's nothing more than a flag in the account. Type in the key, or get a Mac (or PC), and just download the files you're authorized to. For PS3 they'd have to send out a disk (unless the PSN does 10GB+ downloadable games?), and BDs are still expensive to make, and they'd be shipped, so they wouldn't just eat the cost. I could see them doing some nominal fee ($10), but I don't really think there's the demand.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 10+GB downloadable games on PSN. The full version of the Dragon Age: Origins expansion is the first one that comes to mind, but I believe there are probably some others.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[slimjim8094]

Thanks, I didn't know that. I don't think it changes the circumstances, though. A big part of this is that Portal 2 is preloaded on thousands of computers already, just waiting for the switch, and that switch is directly under Valve's control. I doubt the PSN allows them the same flexibility.

In any case, I don't think it's going to be sold on the PSN. Not sure how much that matters, or how fast they could change that.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[jgtg32a]

Well if you are wanting to do that go through Amazon, it is $5 cheaper to buy and comes with a $20 gift card. If I hadn't already preordered it on Steam, I would have picked that up and I don't even own a PS3 because who knows maybe one day I will own one.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[Charliemopps]

Valve seems to be the only Game producer that "gets it" and treats their customers as something other than livestock to be harvested in the most efficient way possible. Do you think other developers wonder why 80% of all PC Game sales go through Steam now despite Valve being so un-hostile to their customers?

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[Fallingcow]

Buy the PS3 version.

Put in Steam code.

Sell PS3 version at Vintage Stock (regional Gamestop-like shop) for store credit.

Buy a $20 PS3 game with store credit.

Any reason I can't do this? Is the PC version going to be $20 cheaper so it's not really worth it?

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[spire3661]

Whats funny is that it is an actual physical switch. They set up a podium with a big button or something to release games onto Steam.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[ShakaUVM]

>>Most important thing I found in the article. I'm wondering if it will work the other way around too. I would love if I could eventually play all my steam games on both the PS3 and PC if they are available for both!

The question I have is: if I buy the PS3 version and I already have the PC version, do I get a gift copy of the PC version?

My wife is only a console gamer, whereas I'd go crazy trying to play Portal (which requires precision aiming) on a controller. But it would be pretty darn cool to be able to play co-op with her cross platform.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

PSN distributes (or at the very least *can* distribute) 10GB+ downloadable games. Then again, it can just allow a Steam app for the PS3 and have that app connect to Steam for the download instead of having it need to go through PSN.

Sony are surprisingly far less protective of content being passed through PSN when it means they can save bandwidth and/or can charge for bandwidth use.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[h4rr4r]

Nope, but your PS3 used game will not be worth that much since you used the code which is surely once per disk.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[RoFLKOPTr]

I doubt it. The beauty of Steam/Steam Play is that there's nothing more than a flag in the account. Type in the key, or get a Mac (or PC), and just download the files you're authorized to. For PS3 they'd have to send out a disk (unless the PSN does 10GB+ downloadable games?), and BDs are still expensive to make, and they'd be shipped, so they wouldn't just eat the cost. I could see them doing some nominal fee ($10), but I don't really think there's the demand.

You missed the headline of the article: "Portal 2 Bringing Steam to the PS3". The PSN store is irrelevant as Valve can now do whatever the hell they want because it's their own store now.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[Anubis IV]

Oddly, it's actually cheaper (in a way) to pre-order the PS3 version from Amazon than the PC one, even if you plan to play it on PC, due to the fact that they're offering a $20 credit on the PS3 version. If you're planning to buy more games from Amazon anytime soon, it'll work out as a better deal for you to buy the PS3 one than the straight Mac/PC copy, despite the fact that it starts with the typical $10 console markup over the Mac/PC version.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you do. Valve have confirmed this.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course it will be. Plenty of games have one use codes already, and those actually affect used buyers. In this case pure console gamers wouldn't care in the least about not being able to activate a PC game. They probably don't even have a gaming PC.

Re:This is the way cross platform should be...

[TheThiefMaster]

It doesn't say they're bringing the steam store to PS3.

The features it lists are:
You can bind a PSN account to a steam account.
Trophies earned in Portal 2 on PS3 also unlock the steam achievements. Achievements earned in Windows or OSX do not unlock PSN Trophies.
You buy the PS3 version of Portal 2, you get the PC version free. Via a code in the box.
While playing Portal 2 you can chat to people on steam on either platform.
You can play Portal 2 multiplayer across-platform.
Savegames are automatically copies between PCs and between PS3s using the steam cloud. They are not copied between PC and PS3 though.
You can't play Portal 2 on PS3 and anything else on your PC's steam account at the same time.

awesome plan

[demonbug]

Buy more stuff from us, and we'll sell other things to you faster.

I can't help thinking that Portal 2 must be a dud, with all the advertising and marketing gimmicks surrounding it.

Still hoping, though.

Re:awesome plan

[Anonymous Coward]

So what do you look for in a game? Is there some mystical amount of advertising that is "just right"?

Re:awesome plan

[milbournosphere]

Sure, Valve makes money off of the sales, but so do the indie dev companies. I think that Valve and the indie groups have outdone themselves with the promotion of this game. I really think it's a win for everybody involved: Valve makes more money, the indie devs get a lot of exposure(and probably increased sales), and gamers get the game early. Plus, I'm still geeking out about the ARG. It's good marketing that helps to further define the universe that Portal and Half Life live in. And I give it two thumbs up. With the level of commitment Valve has given to the ARG and its viral marketing, I fully expect them to develop a good game to boot. Sure, it could be a dud, but I've seen plenty of game trailers that seem to show that they've really put some thought into the new gameplay aspects introduced in Portal 2. I would expect a media blitz for a crappy game from Ubisoft and the like, but I think I'll give Valve the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Re:awesome plan

[_xeno_]

I'm hoping that the advertising is to try and get the word out to a larger non-gaming audience.

No "serious gamer" doesn't already know about Portal 2, and I expect most already have the game pre-loaded. But remember that the surprising thing about Portal was that it reached an audience of non-gamers as well as the core FPS crowd.

The advertising is presumably an attempt to let this new audience know about the sequel.

Is it a bit much? Well, yes. I'm not sure why there were Portal 2 ads on every single bus in Boston starting the week after PAX East. (Portal 2 was playable there, but I didn't even bother trying.)

But I think the advertising campaign has more to do with trying to reach an audience Valve doesn't really know how to reach rather than the game necessarily being disappointing.

Not that I know, of course - I've never played it. I guess we'll all find out in a few days.

Re:awesome plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Except if you own these games already you can join in at no additional cost while receiving in some cases new content for an already purchased game for FREE. And if you don't, you can buy them and play a new game that otherwise you would have passed up. Its not like Valve is forcing you to do this, you can simply not buy any of these games. This is great marketing for Portal 2 as well as smaller developers.

Re:awesome plan

[slimjim8094]

Something's bad if it's advertised? Sure, advertising makes bad things more successful than they "should" be, but plenty of awesome things are heavily advertised.

I saw the ads as more of a "let's show the world this gameplay". The people who bought Portal the first time around, like myself, were already FPS fans. We loved that it wasn't a shoot-em-up, but the exposure was pretty limited outside of that circle.

Meanwhile, something like 40% of Portal players are female. I imagine it took a long time for the ratio to shift that way, because it wasn't presented as a non-"gamer" game. They're definitely trying to change that, to appeal to people who wouldn't play Half-Life or Counter-Strike.

Or it could be that the game sucks, despite every piece of gameplay footage I've ever seen and the fact that Valve has *never* - to my knowledge - released a bad game.

Re:awesome plan

[Wraithlyn]

Valve has gone on record saying Portal 2 is the best single-player experience they have ever crafted (and multiplayer is on par with L4D).

Valve is not known for making empty boasts, so I'm inclined to believe them until proven otherwise. In other words, STOKED!

Re:awesome plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, none. I'll play every demo when they're available and make my own mind up.

Heavily advertised games are trying too hard and it puts me off.

Re:awesome plan

[h4rr4r]

As a sort of serious gamer I would have bought it but I need to build a new PC. I agree this is to reach the non-hardcore market.Hopefully it works in wine as well as Portal does.

Re:awesome plan

[h4rr4r]

I have gone on record saying "WHERE THE FUCK IS HL:EP3?"
I loved portal, but DAMMIT WHERE THE FUCK IS HL:EP3?

Re:awesome plan

[locallyunscene]

after PAX East. (Portal 2 was playable there, but I didn't even bother trying.)

No it wasn't, they just showed a video and you got an Aperture Science Salt Asbestos Curtain(t-shirt).

Re:awesome plan

[_xeno_]

Ah well - I just saw the unreasonably long lines, and stayed away entirely. :)

I could have sworn I read some article about someone who played Portal 2 at PAX East, but either that was a media-only thing or I misread it.

Re:awesome plan

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too soon to tell whether it will be a triumph, or whether it will break all of our hearts. Or maybe both.

Anyway, the first Portal wasn't exactly well-advertised. People bought it mainly because they were getting the other games in Orange Box (HL3/TF2). And a great many of those people enjoyed Portal. There's a huge, untapped market out there that probably doesn't even know what Portal is. [Cave Johnson voice] The solution? Advertising. [/Cave Johnson voice]

In any case, the degree of advertising doesn't necessarily correlate with quality of product either way (positive or negative correlation). And Valve has shown before that they would rather spend money on their own advertising ideas than pay a load of money to conventional advertisers, who usually don't get it (A game with no explosions? How are we supposed to market this?).

Re:awesome plan

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

So what do you look for in a game? Is there some mystical amount of advertising that is "just right"?

I'm genuinely baffled as to how this comment got modded up. You and three other dudes have never seen shit products that are over-advertised to make up for their shortcomings? Isn't that about 25% of what we bitch about around here?

Re:awesome plan

[DJCouchyCouch]

> I can't help thinking that Portal 2 must be a dud

Yeah, because Valve isn't known to be the makers of some of the best games of all time. It's not like there's an assumption the game would be good because of their pedigree or anything. But no, the evil advertising must be a clue that something is definitely wrong!

Re:awesome plan

[Journe]

I think it's actually a rather brilliant plan. Indie companies make some money, the game maybe gets released sooner..what's not to love? I don't think it's being pushed in a manner that will make people think they absolutely *have* to buy into this.

Re:awesome plan

[Anonymous Coward]

But, but it's Valve!

Re:awesome plan

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. The amount seen by baby bear.

A More Dynamic Countdown

[milbournosphere]

Here's a countdown that gives current percentage, as well as a countdown based on people's gaming patterns thus far: hasportal2launchedyet.com

Re:A More Dynamic Countdown

[CornflakeJustice]

THIS is a much more useful gauge. So thank you for showing this to me. I'm picking it up for the PS3 myself, but I like what Valve is doing and if I had money/a more significant interest in the games being offered in the Potato Sack Bundle, I'd probably be helping a bit more myself. As it stands, it's clever, and fun, and it's supporting a good/interesting cause in indie game development, and an opportunity for Valve/Steam to experiment with a new concept. Go them!

Re:A More Dynamic Countdown

[vicious0000]

Interesting link, but it tells me: "Current predicted release time (Your Timezone): Wednesday, 31st December 1969 @ 19:00 GMT-5"

Wow! They must be doing portals through time in the new version! ;)

Re:A More Dynamic Countdown

[milbournosphere]

Yeah...it appears to be working now though.

Re:teach them gamepad fps losers a lesson!

[Anonymous Coward]

Not to burst your silly elitist bubble, but PS3s are quite happy using keyboard and mice.
Also, Portal2 isn't exactly the game that could be used to show this, besides some faster times in some levels.
You'll not be aiming for people's heads this time around, you will be aiming for huge surfaces that don't require too much precision.

Of course, whether or not Valve decided to allow K+M is another question.
Anyone know?

PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[DarthVain]

I doubt you will be able to play cross platform any games really. PC players would destroy their lowly console brethren.

See who is online and buy stuff maybe.

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[Anonymous Coward]

You realize portal 2 is a cooperative game right? There is no deathmatch mode.

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[odin84gk]

It is a co-op game, not a competitive game. It doesn't matter if the PC gamer has an advantage, since you are still working together to reach the same goal.

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[JorgeFierro]

Except in games where having a keyboard and a mouse doesn't really give you an upper hand, like Portal 2.

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[MrHanky]

Bah! As a 1337 PC gamer, I'd pwn you, even in a co-op.

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[nschubach]

Actually, you could probably grief the PS3 player to hell and back simply by portal'ing them into things (like pits.) Heck, you could even treat them like companion cubes.

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[Tolkien]

Absolutely, provided the aiming aids built into console titles are disabled. People claim to kick ass at console titles with huge kill counts and so forth. I've even personally heard people say they believe they do better at consoles than on PC (bullshit). All those console games have code specifically geared around correcting the player's aim. Let's disable that code in those games and see just how awesome those players think they are when they fire at their feet or straight up into the sky instead of directly at an enemy's head.

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[Slutticus]

Or an infinite portal.

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[penguinchris]

Auto-aim on some games can be really obnoxious actually, and turn you away from where you wanted to point (Call of Duty Black Ops does this on PS3). Most games are subtle, though. You don't really notice it at all in Bad Company 2 for example; in fact I'm just assuming that it does anything at all (I know it's there because there's an option in the menu - yep, you can turn it off).

For a good, balanced game, a subtle bit of help with aiming is a good thing to have. Otherwise it would be near-impossible, except for the 13-year-olds who spend all their time playing. It *is* possible to adapt to the gamepad and to be able to aim decently, even without heavy-handed aim assist. Not like with a mouse, but not as badly as you may think. Just takes a lot of practice. Even with aim assist it takes a lot of practice to get good on a gamepad - but the same is true for using a mouse.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if many people do better on consoles than on PC, and yes, it's partly because of aim assist. I played Counter Strike recently for the first time in years and got destroyed - could hardly get a shot on target. I used to be pretty good at it. Haven't played a computer FPS in years (other than Fallout 3 and NV) so I'm out of practice. Meanwhile I do quite well on the PS3, usually near the top of the score board.

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[DarthVain]

Yeah I know many games used to have Autoaim for FPS on the PC. Most consider it cheating, and insist it be disabled. On multiplayer most servers have it turned off.

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[DarthVain]

Sure there is a cognitive element, however there are plenty of tricky parts that require some fast reflexes or a steady hand, usually while falling to hit a particular spot with your portal gun in quick succession.

Yes it is coop. However how fun will it be when trying to coordinate with your "friend" a complex puzzle only to get your part complete, and to sit there and watch your partner fail and fail over and over again to move, fall, and hit some moving target with his portal gun for you or him to fall through.

Ya, because that won't be frustrating as hell or anything.

This is how I see that matchmaking process....

"Hey", "Hi" "Let's go!", "Alright!", fail, fail, fail, "damn another console player", quit, rejoin....

Re:PC VS PS3 Pwonage!

[DarthVain]

Did you even play Portal?

Sure there is a cognitive element, however there are plenty of tricky parts that require some fast reflexes or a steady hand, usually while falling to hit a particular spot with your portal gun in quick succession.

Re:teach them gamepad fps losers a lesson!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahhh ... as much as I despise console FPS's, you realize Portal 2's multiplayer co-op only, right?

Re:teach them gamepad fps losers a lesson!

[Anonymous Coward]

that's exactly the problem. Some games may support K+M if the devs decide to support it, which is not acceptable.

Re:teach them gamepad fps losers a lesson!

[haystor]

This means that the PC player will jump through portals and dodge fire while the PS3 player stands on the button to keep the door open.

Re:teach them gamepad fps losers a lesson!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sweet, and now peeps can teach them gamepad fps players a lesson on what works best. Of course, cries of PC & MAC players cheating because they will mop the floor against the gamepad fps playing retard peeps.

You idiot, both controller schemes work well for a number of different genres, and concessions have to be made for any type of control. Controlling an airplane, tank turret, vehicle of any sort, etc is _retarded_ with a mouse because you can't get away with the ridiculous turning speed that is 'OK' in an FPS. Close quarters fighting is so retarded with about any type of controller that developers have pretty much given up and implemented first button smash wins rules. How do you pan the map in an RTS now with today's gigantic monitors? We used to touch the sides of the screen and didn't have to go far to get there. Times have changed and now most people (AFAIK) use keys for panning now.

Games have to be built around the controls. That doesn't make one better than the other. You sorry dumbass.

The real loser is Microsoft

[elrous0]

They refuse to open up their Live network to MMO's, Steam, or anyone else. And they have the audacity to charge their users $60 a year for the privilege. So PS3 users get DC Universe online and a Steam enabled Portal 2. Xbox users just get a bill for $5 a month--and jackshit to show for it.

Between shit like this and all the exclusives that they've lost in the last two years, sometimes I wonder if MS even has anyone working in their Xbox division anymore. If there is anyone, it doesn't look like they're doing anything.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey! We get access to tons of stuff, like the ability to pay for Netflix! ... wait.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

They refuse to open up their Live network to MMO's,

Aren't the Final Fantasy MMO's on the 360? I know 11 is.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[MooseMuffin]

Depends on how you define loser I suppose. They're providing similar services as the ps3, except they're raking in subscription cash while doing it.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[Darinbob]

Do people actually care about this stuff? Who cares what achievements a total stranger has gotten? The whole concept is just foreign to me.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[Fancia]

FF11 (and Phantasy Star Universe) predates Games for Windows Live, which is Microsoft's official solution for cross-platform play. I'm pretty sure it's now a requirement that games with cross-platform play can only do it through GFWL - and that limits your platforms to only Windows and 360.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

DC Universe Online on the PS3 has a subscription fee.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[Mashiki]

Live is a terrible service. Anyone advocating it should be dipped in sheep it.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[Jaytan]

Strangely, Sony can't even get their act together to do cross platform play in a game they developed (DC Universe Online). Officially it is because

We want DC Universe Online to be an experience that's fun, rewarding and balanced for both console and PC gamers, so we've decided to keep the platforms separate.

but I've been told by people in the know it is because of an accounting argument between Station Cash and PSN dollars.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[Xarius]

Final Fantasy XIV is also on its way to the PS3, albeit delayed!

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft opened up the Live network for FFXI. So they WILL open up their network, if the conditions are right.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't actually know anything whatsoever about Microsoft's Live service do you?

"They refuse to open up their Live network to MMO's"

Completely and utterly wrong. The 360 has several MMOs such as FFXII, PSU. The Live network isn't closed off from the internet even. Several non-MMO games link to internet services, Microsoft let you run your own servers and connect to them if you are a full 360 developer, although XNA indie developers see more restrictions. Consoles in general are pretty shit for MMOs though, it's one of the few genres that just doesn't work well on consoles, largely because people want keyboard text chat and many more shortcut keys than a console controller can provide. The 360 does have a chatpad, but really, it's not ideal.

"Xbox users just get a bill for $5 a month--and jackshit to show for it."

Apart from the fuckton of exclusive content you mean?

"Between shit like this and all the exclusives that they've lost in the last two years, sometimes I wonder if MS even has anyone working in their Xbox division anymore. If there is anyone, it doesn't look like they're doing anything."

On the contrary, I wonder if you actually know anything about their XBox division at all. I'm not really aware of many exclusives they've lost since Mass Effect, and even then the PS3 version comes out later and has much less content. The 360 is still getting far more exclusive content than the PS3, and often for the biggest games to boot- CoD, Red Dead, GTA etc.

Re:The real loser is Microsoft

[brkello]

-1 Fanboi. 360 is doing quite well right now...largely due to the Kinect...which I am sure they are not losing any exclusives from.

Re:teach them gamepad fps losers a lesson!

[pushing-robot]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZMSAzZ76EU

Re:teach them gamepad fps losers a lesson!

[slimjim8094]

I happen to agree with him. The mouse is a far superior input device for a FPS (even without the S). I was playing a PS3 FPS a few months ago on a friend's machine, might've been MW2 but I don't remember. I was playing with a keyboard and mouse I stole from his desktop, and people kept bitching me out for "hax". I'm not even sure how you'd write an aimbot for a console...

In any case, it makes a huge difference. Consoles are either-or; you're precise or fast. With my mouse, I can rotate around half the screen and accurately target a player's head once I get there. It's just so much faster it's not even funny.

Thankfully, Portal 2 isn't likely to require "twitch"-style aiming. But something like CS:S on PC vs. console would be a joke.

Re:teach them gamepad fps losers a lesson!

[Anonymous Coward]

... *aneurysm*

Yes PSN allows that

[SuperKendall]

A big part of this is that Portal 2 is preloaded on thousands of computers already, just waiting for the switch, and that switch is directly under Valve's control. I doubt the PSN allows them the same flexibility.

There's nothing about PSN that would disallow this. Some game demos work this way already (you flip a switch when you purchase).

How did Steam with Portal2 already get pre-loaded onto anything though? It had to be downloaded sometime. There's no difference I can see between downloading it to a PC vs. a PS3.

Re:Yes PSN allows that

[slimjim8094]

Preload, in Steam land, means just that you download the game but can't play it yet. The idea is so that you don't need to wait for hours after release for the download.

Thanks, I don't keep up on consoles. I was entirely mistaken, it seems. But Portal 2 for PS3 is still shipping on disk, and I don't think they can change that in the next few days.

Re:Yes PSN allows that

[SuperKendall]

Preload, in Steam land, means just that you download the game but can't play it yet.

Yes, I know, I use Steam.

But Portal 2 for PS3 is still shipping on disk

Sure, but there's no technical reason the PS3 can't do the same kind of pre-download deal as Steam does (as I said, game demos where you unlock the full version are the same thing).

Interestingly if you buy Portal2 on a PS3 you can also play it on the other platforms, which means if you have a PS3 you are better off ordering the physical disc than pre-ordering on Steam.

Re:Yes PSN allows that

[milkmage]

"Sure, but there's no technical reason the PS3 can't do the same kind of pre-download deal as Steam does (as I said, game demos where you unlock the full version are the same thing)."

Except for the part where Steam has fast servers, and PSN doesn't. their download speeds suck. I rather go to the store than wait for 10GB from PSN.

Re:Yes PSN allows that

[SuperKendall]

I javen't found that to be the case; as far as I can tell they use CDN's just like everyone else. Download speeds have seemed decent to me.

Now installation speeds...

Cake...

[Anonymous Coward]

now Valve can eat their "Cake" and have it as well ;)

Re:Cake...

[cobrausn]

Lies.

Online play tied to a Steam account

[Xian97]

Some of the cross platform features sound nice, but it is a big change from the way that online play has worked on the PS3. It sounds like you are going to have to link your PSN account to Steam to play online instead of just playing through PSN. That means that other accounts on your PS3 will need their own copy if they want to play online.

I can't think of any other game on the PS3 that does this - for example I have Killzone 2, CoD, Motorstorm, and more. My PS3 has 3 PSN accounts on it, myself and my two sons. We can each play online under our own PSN account with the one game disc - it isn't tied to a single account.

Re:Online play tied to a Steam account

[Psx29]

Metal Gear Online has it's own registration/user ID system that is separate from PSN

Re:Online play tied to a Steam account

[Anonymous Coward]

"That means that other accounts on your PS3 will need their own copy if they want to play online. "

No, it doesn't. Steam accounts are free.

Obviously

[Bobfrankly1]

Portal 2 Bringing Steam To the PS3

Something needs to bring some steam to the smoldering heap that is the PS3.

Evil Robot AI

[Georules]

I don't understand why we are working to try to reboot an evil robot AI. This sounds like the kind of thing that you do not do.

Re:Evil Robot AI

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand why we are working to try to reboot an evil robot AI.

She promised moist delicious cake in return.

Re:teach them gamepad fps losers a lesson!

[ElKry]

Of course, whether or not Valve decided to allow K+M is another question.
Anyone know?

Yep, I know: no, they didn't allow it.

“No, unfortunately we don’t do that. The whole game is built around playtesting, which extends to the hardware and how people use it. We have people internally who played on the PS3 – we use it all the time – and we constantly iterated it.”

Also,

  "Luckily, Portal 2's not a super twitchy, complicated game, so we just focused on making a comfortable controller experience"

Portal 2

[Flipstylee]

Been watching this one for awhile, following the odd links and i'd have to say, valve is the shit.
This potato sack frenzy would have to be of viral status for the 4 something million+ potatoes..
I'm playing because i bought the pack anyhow, and enjoy the games.
And day early would be better.

PC+Console online is nothing new.

[Anonymous Coward]

PC and Console gamers have been sharing games on servers as far back as the Dreamcast. Quake III allowed DC and PC players to frag together, provided the PC players stayed at a current version (support was broken with a certain PC patch).

Will it run..

[Anonymous Coward]

..on my Linux-ready PS3? If not, then I'm not interested.

Yet another reason to love my ps3 and pc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cracks me up to see so many people on here excited about this and yet 2 weeks ago it was nothing but hate for sony. Your all a bunch of hypocrits that arent real gamers, you just want to be on whatever bandwagon is cool to be on.

I own about 25 systems including a ps3, 360 and my gaming pc but one thing I have never done on my 360 is pay to play games online. I bought a 360, I pay for a internet connection, I pay for a 360 game, Im sure as hell not going to pay again just to play that game online. Thats paying for 4 things just to play one game online, heaven forbid I want netflix though because Id have to pay for xbl just so I could pay for netflix. Especially not so I can listen to a ton of immature people scream insults at everyone. I like my 360 well enough and it has some good exclusive games but the quality of the systems are horrible and MS will rape your wallet at every single chance they can.

I love my pc because of how powerful it is, how versatile it is, the mods, the variety of games and I can play online for free. I love my ps3 because its simple, it has a lot of great games and I can play games online for free. And now valve and sony are marrying the two, its a small step but its a step. Im excited to see what becomes of this.

Postal2

[hduff]

I got excited when I thought that I would be able to play Postal2 on my PS3. Portal2, not so much.

Re:Postal2

[Anonymous Coward]

Because shooting children and pissing on people is clearly far more entertaining than a thoughtful intelligent and insanely funny puzzle game. Clearly.

I Haven't Seen Portal

[Anonymous Coward]

because Steam screwed up my machine and I couldn't seem to run it without Steam. Hopefully there will be a no-steam version of Portal 2. If not, I guess I won't be playing it either. I'm surprised that there aren't more people howling about how horrible Steam is. Maybe I've just been unlucky with it.

Cross Platform Games

[Anonymous Coward]

There were cross platform games available on Dreamcast, like Quake III (PC, Mac and DC), and 4x4 Evolution.

And, since I'm already here, fuck Sony.

But PS3 won't be compatible with PC/Mac saves

[saikou]

Per Steam support article the saves won't be compatible, which kills primary advantage of linking your PSN and Steam accounts. Yes, you will be able to play on PC/Mac and PSN. No, your progress won't be tracked, so you'd have to play them independently, not just picking up where you left off on PS3. Hopefully with time they will resolve this problem (or make some sort of PC/Mac utility that will convert the save data).

Some other Steam games (i.e. Torchlight) also have this limitation when you go from Mac to PC -- saves don't work cross-platform, which is a bit pity.

So, one step closer to "buy once, play everywhere", but not there yet :)

cross-platform gaming

[Paintballparrot]

He forgot Final Fantasy XI which since 2002 has been supporting Playstation 2 and PC and since 2006, XBox 360 players on the same servers.

Re:cross-platform gaming

[anane]

Also you are able to play on PS3 if you have the old ps2 compatible one or if you have hacked it. So 4 systems... no other game really has come close yet..

Re:cross-platform gaming

[Gibgezr]

And it was actually a great game on all those systems, as well as perhaps the single largest game ever made (the shear amount of content dwarfs any other game I can think of), quite a feat for so much cross-platform compatability.

So I guess it's out already ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can see it is available on Amazon, it says Get it by Wednesday, Apr 20 if you order in the next 7 hours and choose one-day shipping.
http://networkedblogs.com/gQoPE

Re:But that doesn't worth much

[monkyyy]

i think slashdot should put a "WARNING:"(in red) before url shorteners