The difference being that EA are beholden unto shareholders whilst Valve aren't - and are also rich-as-fuck enough to piss about as they see fit anyway (which EA, again, aren't). And have shown they're perfectly happy to develop plentiful amounts of content for absolutely free. And I don't want to start sounding repetitive here, but EA don't, either.Bhaalspawn said:Hey look, yet another person holding the delusion that EA is evil and Valve is Superman, rather than the reality that both are just neutral and will follow money.Dexter111 said:HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABhaalspawn said:Why is this some massive issue?
Valve make billions of dollars by being the biggest game retailer on the planet.
If EA bought them, why would EA see any reason to interfere with what is obviously very successful? Valve isn't a developer, it's a retailer.
If this had happened (this was multiple years ago, according to said articles, maybe 5+?) Valve would right about now be producing Free2Play and Facebook games according to the "new company strategy", half their staff would have probably been laid off and Steam merged with Origin in a corporate campaign to "Streamline Digital Distribution" or something.
Then again, nobody ever accused gamers of being bright... or sane for that matter.
Pretending they're equal is woefully more ignorant of the two companies than what he said - which, whilst probably laying it on a tad thick for the funnies, has plenty of basis in reality. He's also not the one who said a company that develops games isn't a developer.
And no, none of that is asserting them as Superman and Lex Luthor, that's just the result of having some basic knowledge of the two companies.