Blood Bowl developer: making PS3 version 'a bit risky and expensive'
by JC Fletcher 
{ Feb 9th 2009 at 9:00AM } 
In an interview with Destructoid, the developer explained its apparent snub on the platform. "Cyanide is a small company," a representative said. "We have no previous experience on that platform [and] it would have been a bit risky and expensive for us. But, we are hoping to do a PS3 version if the game is selling well."
So, rather than a lack of faith in the platform, Cyanide has somewhat of a lack of faith in its own ability to develop for it without killing the budget. It still means no PS3 version for now, but it also means no janky, poorly ported PS3 version for now. That's ... something. And if the other versions of the game, coming out in Q2 of this year, are successful, we may see a (good) PS3 version yet.
[Via VG247]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Danie @ Feb 9th 2009 9:14AM
Talk to me when u got the skill. Until that just STFU.
MLS @ Feb 9th 2009 9:24AM
That sounds like a bad bumper sticker.
Topsu @ Feb 9th 2009 9:31AM
''It still means no PS3 version for now, but it also means no janky, poorly ported PS3 version for now. That's ... something.''
Oh my fucking god we have gone down.
skyrous @ Feb 9th 2009 9:28AM
Hey just a couple of weeks ago Sony themselves said they intentionally made the PS3 difficult and expensive to program specifically to keep little companies like this from dumping their games in the market. This is Sony's marketing plan working perfectly. Though companies run by management that isn't nutz would probably find fault with this plan. As does anyone who isn't an idiot. For better or worse this is Sony's plan.
Since I'm getting the PC version this bothers me not at all.
Andrew @ Feb 9th 2009 9:32AM
At least we don't get a ton of shovelware like the Wii
jumpshot @ Feb 9th 2009 9:55AM
Right Andrew, but you know, I'd like to at least have the CHOICE to have it or not.
Also, bigger game companies are perfectly capable of churning out crap as well.
Jerk Face @ Feb 9th 2009 9:56AM
I'm going to start a flamewar, but I don't even care:
That is the most arrogant, moronic Sony rhetoric yet. There are a lot of great indie game companies that are out there who won't even consider making their games on PS3 because of a poorly designed system, and you're going to act like that's a good thing?
Some of these developers aren't even small. How about Valve? To act as if it's a good thing that Valve refused to develop for that platform because it is unnecessarily complicated and expensive to do so, is just blind fanboyism. I think the PS3 is starting to come into its own and have some great titles, but to act as if Sony's design choice hasn't hurt the system is ludicrous.
Levi @ Feb 9th 2009 10:33AM
I'd like to see a link, skyrous. The only reason the PS3 shoul be any more difficult is because developers have to train their programmers to use the Cell, which has a different structure than a normal multicore processor. Maybe another idiot Sony guy said that to poorly cover their decision to go with the Cell.
vDopey @ Feb 9th 2009 10:38AM
valve aint devloping for the ps3 because its against their interest, they are MS fanboys that love the PC, simple as that dont even mention valve without looking at the company.. Nothing about PS3 being too difficult to develop for comes into it...
Haggard @ Feb 9th 2009 10:42AM
@vDopey
Your idea of how the gaming industry works is so insane that I just can't come up with something ironic enough to mock it.
PSN: Aggie_CEO @ Feb 9th 2009 11:21AM
I think Dopey got that from when the dude from Valve said "Sony is just wasting every ones time with the PS3, and should just give it up"
vDopey @ Feb 9th 2009 11:24AM
@Haggard,
I suggest you go and do some research on Valve. I was responding to jerkface who mentioned valve as not being capable of developing for the ps3. The truth is it makes no sense for them to develop for it, the founders of valve are both ex-MS employees that made millions developing for Microsoft.
they said its too hard to develop for the ps3, because they couldn't be bothered simple as that, their main revenue has been the PC, aka half-life, et al..
So no my view still stands, valve as a big company isn't developing for the ps3, because they don't want to develop for it, not because its too hard, simple as that. prove me wrong..
Even if it hurts their overall sales, it probably benefits them because they probably have long standing deals with Microsoft, also who knows they might have even been involved in the development of directx which is a Microsoft only technology used in both windows and x360 which would make it very easy for them to develop for pc and port to x360 and very heard to port to ps3..
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 9th 2009 11:29AM
Yeah, Kaz Harai was a jackass to say that, no doubt about it.
I wouldn't read too much into Valve's decision. They did it because of the money, same as these guys. They don't feel they will make their money back because of the smaller PS3 base. So he is trying to avoid hiring specialized programmers who can do the kind of multiprocessing programming that PS3 requires.
But wait until the new Source engine comes out. In order to provide up-to-date graphics on the PC, they are going to have to do plenty of GPU programming, which is similar to what PS3 requires.
zuburi @ Feb 9th 2009 1:48PM
How the fuck did Jerk Face's comment get whited out?
Oh, right. This is cross-posted on the Sony site.
Haggard @ Feb 9th 2009 1:52PM
OK vDopey -
Valve's Steam service? It's competing with microsoft on two fronts - Games for Windows Live, and GFW Marketplace.
The only ties the two have are that Valve put their games on the 360, and they were fine with The Orange Box being on the PS3 as well. If you think that grown adults who run one of the top three most successful PC gaming companies are fanboys who don't put their stuff on the PS3 because of some bizarre prejudice, then you're batshit crazy.
davaporz @ Feb 9th 2009 9:37AM
Im so tired of devs acting like lil hoes,
fob2000 @ Feb 9th 2009 9:50AM
Are you kidding me with that comment? This is what kills me about comments like this.
There is this thing that most gamers are not aware of. It's called REALITY. Every once in awhile, try understanding that gaming is a business. We are in an age of economic downturn. Most development studios have difficult decisions to make, including which platform to create games for.
You read it the news every day, EA layoffs, Midway going under, THQ cutting jobs, etc. Companies can't spread themselves so thin just so they can make gamers who champion one console over the other happy. If they do, you'll continue to get lack luster ports, poor sales, more layoffs, and eventually LESS QUALITY GAMES.
So these devs are not acting like "lil hoes", they're doing the right thing be ensure that a quality product will lead them to porting over a successful game over another platform for all to enjoy. If anything, you should be THANKFUL that they're not making a PS3 version.
Jerk Face @ Feb 9th 2009 9:59AM
davaporz, this is literally the worst comment that has ever been made on any forum, ever.
Jerk Face @ Feb 9th 2009 10:08AM
By the way - I just noticed you literally signed up just to post that comment. This makes it even worse, if that's at all possible.
Haggard @ Feb 9th 2009 10:44AM
@davaporz
I want to see all the PS3 games you've successfully developed within budget and made a profit on.
SnakeOzilla @ Feb 9th 2009 9:46AM
but in all honesty they are doing it right. If they know they can't focus on a 3 platform especially one they are not skilled at why risk your assets especially when you don't know how well the game is going to sell. The fact that they would be willing to bring it over once they know that the is a market for it and they would have the capital for it then they can invest in developing for the PS3 not only for this game but in their future IPs and games.
Jerk Face @ Feb 9th 2009 10:01AM
Can I just say that I am very excited about this game?
Good old table-top game ported to next gen system: Check
Orcs + Rats + Lizard dudes playing bloody footbal: Check
Cheap? : Check
Sounds like a great way to spend some nights online with a couple brews in hand.
Courtney @ Feb 9th 2009 2:07PM
I'm excited that there are both real time and turn based options. I'll try both, just just for nostalgia's sake, inviting a couple of old buddies over to play turn based Blood Bowl sounds awesome!
drdre74 @ Feb 9th 2009 10:09AM
This game is a Epic Fail and it wont sell for jack. Nobody is going to pay for this. So there will be no version for the PS3 since the studio will go belly up after release.
Spallit @ Feb 9th 2009 10:22AM
Did the developers kill your baby, or something?
Shaun Jennings @ Feb 9th 2009 10:16AM
That's not what I got from the development company. When I wrote Cyanide Studio to ask why they didn't develop the game for PS3 they put the onus square on the publisher saying that they were the ones to pick which platforms the game was to be developed. Since I have written the publisher with no response. I still have the email from Alexandre Scriabine for verification.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 9th 2009 11:31AM
Developers trying to shift the blame to the PS3 for their own problems? Say it isn't so!
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 9th 2009 11:34AM
Wow, that wasn't supposed to go out like that. Somehow hitting return pressed "add comment" instead of putting a CR in the text.
The rest of that statement was that whenever you ask a PR person for the reason for something, they'll frequently just make up the most advantageous thing to them. And blaming themselves or their publishers is rarely the most advantageous.
Vidikron @ Feb 9th 2009 11:37AM
Except in the case he's saying they did blame their publisher. If this guy is telling the truth maybe it's publisher more than the developer that thinks the PS3 is too risky for now. And now the dev is just regurgitating their publisher's view.
Shaun Jennings @ Feb 9th 2009 11:55AM
As I stated, I do have the email to prove my point on this case. I still don't understand why they are telling two different stories on this game. Either they can't do it on the PS3 or it's the publisher thinking it won't do well for that platform. I've emailed the publisher and I don't have a response from them.
AwRy @ Feb 9th 2009 10:27AM
The real controversy here is: do people really care that much about Blood Bowl in the first place?
IMHO, besides Castle Crashers, the offerings on PSN far outweigh the content available on the XBL Marketplace, especially in terms of originality. In other words, is the lack of Blood Bowl really worth creating the headline: "Blood Bowl developer: making PS3 version 'a bit risky and expensive." I think not.
Dave @ Feb 9th 2009 10:40AM
"IMHO, besides Castle Crashers, the offerings on PSN far outweigh the content available on the XBL Marketplace, especially in terms of originality."
No offense, but it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about.
why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 9th 2009 11:43AM
I agree with him. Sony has pushed much harder on PSN than MS has on XBLA. I spend half my time playing PixelJunk Monsters.
Sony dropped lousy arcade ports off PSN to make room for more original games. Later, MS says "yeah, you know, we're trying to trim our offerings too". Sony encourages devs to sell full game experiences, with no game size cap. Sony sells PS1 games on PSN, MS follows with "Xbox Originals". Sony sells entire full-fledged games starting with Warhawk and right now including even 3rd party games (Burnout:Paradise) on PSN, MS still hasn't caught on with that.
Remember when Xbox Live 360 started on day one with a great downloadable game, probably the best for the platform (Geometry Wars), giving us huge hope for downloadable gaming? Then for the next year XBLA mostly was about crummy games, horse armor and selling cheat codes.
MS has had some very good games on XBLA (many would point immediately to Braid), but for the most part, I think Sony has been in the lead on selling games online.
Vidikron @ Feb 9th 2009 11:53AM
I think the level of the games on PSN is overall higher than what's on XBLA. BUT XBLA has so many games that there still more than enough good games available. We actually own more XBLA games than PSN games largely due the fact that my wife likes to play puzzles games. So we have all the Zumas and Jewel Quest type games. PSN has very few of those.
Overall I think both are great services, though I think Sony is really missing out on some easy money by not releasing more PS1 games outside the Asian markets. I also think the Wii's service is very good. I think they games are bit overpriced and I've played many of the best titles numerous times through the years, but the quality of the classic titles they have available is undeniable. Great for people who missed some of them or for someone looking to scratch that nostaligc itch. The download services providing cheap new titles mixed with classics is one of my favorite features of this generation.
nickaus805 @ Feb 9th 2009 4:07PM
I would buy it, that being said I feel the need to comment about Valves relationship with sony. It is no secret that Gabe Newell made all of his money with microsoft before he decided to branch out and co-found valve. Gabe's decision not to develop for the PS3 is not solely based on the difficulty of developing for the system but rather many factors must be considered, such as his inherent fondness of all things Microsoft. Not trying to fan the flames, just trying to set the record straight
mystictaco @ Feb 9th 2009 4:12PM
If Gabe was so desperate for Microsoft to succeed he probably wouldn't have left the company, created his own, and then made the Steam service in direct competition to their Live service that offers everything Live does except better and free.
mikael @ Feb 9th 2009 11:02AM
Yes, I am acutely, painfully aware of this =(
pigeonreaper @ Feb 9th 2009 11:32AM
This is heartening. I am a big fan of Games Workshop and was disappointed to see that there was no PS3 version of this game. Now there is at least hope :D
Vidikron @ Feb 9th 2009 11:31AM
This is the first I've even heard of the game.
Giroro @ Feb 9th 2009 11:35AM
'risky'
Read: Probably won't make a profit
Zamzoph @ Feb 9th 2009 11:51AM
As much as I appreciate the use of Games Workshop IPs, I can't help but agree with this statement, even for the platforms it is being released on =(
rollntider @ Feb 9th 2009 12:05PM
Valve is crap...they dont understand something they bash it. Thats why the Do Do is not longer with us.... I think they will be around a while because of their steam service, but for games, meh...not into FPS, thats why valve halo and kill zone doesnt excite me....Yeah, I like the PS3 better, yeah their are few games that are xbox exclusives, I would like on the ps3, but it doesnt warrant a console purchase for a game or two I could play on the PC.
I would like Blood bowl on the PS3, but will prolly play it on the pc or psp when it comes out if they still are making it for the psp.
jpw21683 @ Feb 9th 2009 1:18PM
Leave the do do's out of this!!!
PS: I have no idea what the hell you were trying to say.
zuburi @ Feb 9th 2009 1:46PM
rollntider is crap. He doesn't understand something, he bashes it.
StarCasm, formerly known as Rastafario, formerly known as HB96st @ Feb 9th 2009 1:40PM
What a laugh.. I can't believe some of you guys.. Blaming a independent developer because he can't afford to develop a version for the ps3!
Blame sony!!
They made the ps3 hard to develop for On Purpose! I mean really, since Its been out, how many devlopers made games for it compared to the 360/Wii?? -how many were from Japan??
We should be rooting for the small guy, not wishing for their doom. I predict the next wave of consoles will be closely based off the consoles now. The 360 will be like 360 5.0, but will be way easy to design for. Same thing with the wii. sony needs to fall back to the ps2 and improve on that rather than the ps3.
But they won't.. We can all be sure that the ps4 will ship with blu-ray.
Ain't we lucky that sony included blu-ray and couldn't compete price-wise. Because if they didn't include blu-ray, they might've deystroyed the 360 in sales!!
Thanks sony!!
Mike @ Feb 9th 2009 2:24PM
If people didn't want to learn how to program harder things we would all still be playing pong.
Cell Processing is still somewhat new and there is nothing wrong with a company pushing technology. There is plenty wrong with game companies not wanting to use that technology cause its "too hard" to program for, don't we pay them good money for the games they make?
magicfett @ Feb 9th 2009 1:58PM
Now this is how a representative of a company is supposed to act. We don't know how to program games for that system and if it becomes feasible in the future we would sure like to do it. Valve needs to take a lesson here. Hope Gay-be is taking notes.
StarCasm, formerly known as Rastafario, formerly known as HB96st @ Feb 9th 2009 2:37PM
Buy it's not about learning to program harder.. It's about "resources" and "budgeting". You can't blame them for putting their money on something "they" think is "good money".
That's like free radical putting all their bets on the ps3 with haze. Look what happened to that.
Vidikron @ Feb 9th 2009 2:50PM
@StarCasm
Not sure it would have mattered with Haze. It was simply a bad game.
magicfett @ Feb 9th 2009 4:08PM
@starcasm
No you can't which is why I said no such thing. Also Haze is a very bad example in the fact that it would have sucked had it been multiplatform or even a 360 exclusive such as too human.