Well kinda actually, if I didn't have fun doing my job I would probably look for another one.

I bet you wouldn't switch before doing some calculations on the cost of switching jobs, though...

Well, valve has some good games but seriously ps3 doesnt need those games unless they realese something big that i doubt i like storyline games like mgs4 not just killing aliens without reason so yea we dont need valve

idk the one i actually wanted is on ps3, which is portal. left 4 dead would be aight but not really needed. they dont make too many games im really interested in.

Valve is primarily a PC developer. 360 games are easier to port than PS3 games. Why is this even a discussion?

And lol at the Sony fanboys claiming they don't want Valve games.

Thing is, we don't know how much extra it's going to cost them to develop for three platforms at once (PC,360,PS3). We do know that a delayed port is going to be more expensive than porting code over through a simultaneous planned release. Even if a PS3 version sells a lot less, your ROI can STILL increase with a triple plat release IF the cost of porting to the PS3 is cheap enough. I'll illustrate a hypothetical example of what I mean...

Let's say Company A develops Game X for PC (Steam), 360 and PS3.

Let's say it costs them say $10m to develop for PC/360 and $2m extra to develop for PC/360/PS3 (assuming that it's going to be cheap to simultaneously release on the PS3. Say only 20% more cost in this example).

Let's say the PC/360 versions gives them $40m revenue. And the PS3 version gives them $10m revenue (so PC/360 revenue beat PS3 revenues at a 4:1 ratio).

The ROI for PC/360 would be a ratio of 4:1. The ROI for porting the code to PS3 also would be 5:1 (despite the fact that the PS3 version sold a lot less).

In this kind of scenario, triple plat development would be worth your while.

What we do know though is that PC to 360 porting is cheaper than PS3 porting. By porting the PC code to 360, it's easy easy money for Valve. Definitely increases their ROI even after EA takes a huge chunk of the pie. If it didn't increase their ROI to do 360 releases, I'm sure Valve would be happy to stay Steam exclusive after all.

Exactly.  We don't, but Valve does.  Obviously they've seen something in their projections regarding PS3 development that they didn't like, and decided not to develop for it.  Your scenario is meaningless because one could just as easily assume numbers that would show the port not to be worth it.  What if those $2M spent on the PS3 version could have been used to enhance the PC/360 version and drive $15M extra in revenue?  That would be an ROI of 5.5:1. 

At then end of the day Valve is still one of the few companies out there still making profits so I trust that they know what they're doing.

That's true too. The situation is very complex when we don't know the numbers. This is why it's unreasonable when you see PS3 fanboys tell Valve to go eat shit and die. It would be nice if Valve just told it straight and said exactly why PS3 development isn't attractive to them. Would it kill them to say "the PC/Xbox 360 gives us a higher return on investment and if we invest in triple platform development, this is why it won't be as profitable for us." Why can't they just tell it how it is instead of just saying that the community is better on Steam and XBL.

JFYI, it's entirely possible that Valve merely prefers PC and 360. The company is small, private, and was started by a bunch of Microsoft millionaires. They might choose projects based on what they want to do, rather than just the bottom line.

Just a thought, not saying 100% this is the case.

^^^ Right now, the bottline is that they are banking major $$$ doing what they are doing.