Valve owns all the IPs so they must've known that it was a bad port.

Well...for the most part, you're wrong. Didn't one of the guys at Insomniac say they would love to make a Wii game at some time?

Valve, on the other hand? Without even developing for the PS3 "it's shit, not worth it, too hard, too many resources needed"....for THREE YEARS!

Now they want to retract their statement (still not having developed a PS3 game yet) and say it's a viable platform? Because it's selling more now? MGS4 has sold more than any of their games on the 360, and cost more than any of their games. But when it released, Konami was rolling in money afterwards. And that was in 2008 when the PS3 had a userbase of like 12M. So to say that it wasn't worth it, and that their input would eclipse their return was just ignorant. 

But I already know what's going to happen. They've done this before. The 360 is going to get another price later this year, and the US media is gonna be all like "PS3 is doomed again, because the 360 outsells it by 9k each week", and Valve will hop back on their original bandwagon and say PS3 sucks again

So? Pretty much every Sony game developer has mentioned the Xbox 360 in some negative fashion. Why don't you condemn them or something? If you cannot condemn them then anything you say about Valve is irrelevant as you'd be a hypocrite. Sony talks smack all the time, Sony gets their developers or lets them talk smack all the time. Its only fair in a fair world that Sony gets blasted in return.

For very little effort they have created 3 very profitable games and sold them on the Xbox 360. Effort vs reward is extremely good for them. For less effort than it took to make one single average PS3 game they have reeled in over 6 million units of sales. Sony hasn't even approached this ROI for anything they have done.

What? By saying "this game wouldn't be the same on the 360"? Because it's TRUE! Their engines are tailor made for the PS3, and they simply wouldn't work on the 360. They could change some things....but then it wouldn't be the same game. 

And less effort (for a 360 games) to make an average PS3 game? How do they know how much effort it takes to make an "average" PS3 game? What benchmark are they able to compare to? THEY HAVEN'T MADE ANY PS3 GAMES, NOR HAVE THEY EVEN ATTEMPTED TO! If I'm not mistaken, LBP cost $10-15M to make. That's an ABOVE average game. And it's sold over 3M. Media Molecule, which was basically a whole in the wall developer, who's idea would've probably not been picked up by anyone other than Sony, has tons of money now. What POSSIBLE excuse could you come up with to defend Valve, knowing the above statement? 

How about Infinity Ward? They spent plenty of money making Modern Warfare on the PS3 (as a contrast to LBP relative cheapness). What was the result? Only the biggest entertainment launch in history. "But the PS3 isn't worth it", right? "Too much effort, not enough return", right? The industry is making Valve continually look retarded.

But keep defending them and their delusions. Keep believing that it's pointless to make money and that they made a smart decision badmouthing the PS3 for 3 years. Meanwhile, every other developer can throw their money in Valve's face

SCREW YOU VALVE!!! Your games suck anyway.

You can gussy it up however you want to, but when it comes down to it, Gabe Newell said that the PS3 was a terrible platform, a mistake and that his company would never support it directly.

Now his company is saying... so uh, we are sorry about that, we were wrong about the PS3 failing, can we haz moneys nao?

That is the TEXT BOOK definition of eating Crow, which is EXACTLY what started your whole strange sex related metaphores and arguements. You failed sir, on every level to make anyone take your side of the arguement, everyone that has responded to you has seen this as a form of Valve eating crow.

Just google Gabe Newell and PS3 and you'll find his quotes which were extremely derogative, and frankly Im glad to see him eat a giant plate of shut the f up. No head of any company that is in the business of pushing a product out on multiple platforms should ever burn bridges with any of hits platform holders.

LOL at some of the responses in this thread. Gabe Newell probably doesn't give a f*ck about the PS3 and the only reason a writer at Valve even had this response was to shut people up. You want to look at companies that messed up on the PS3 look at Free Radical which no longer even exists after their PS3 exclusive Haze or all the other developers that took at bath on the PS3.

Uh, Valve is making billions off of Steam, and over each of the past five years, game sales on it have doubled.  Meanwhile, the rest of the industry proclaims that PC gaming is dead.

Who's making who look retarded now?

And moreover, for every MW2, there's a tons of games that have bombed, studios that have closed, and so on.  MW2 is by no means an example of how a PS3 game sells.

1. GTA IV for the Xbox 360 or any multiplat falls into that category. Either inciteful or lame, pick one.

2. When the PC game is their core business and the Xbox 360 version is just a recompile and tweaking away, then yes the 360 version of Left 4 Dead 1/2 probably cost them less to make than LBP. The PS3 doesn't fit their development model which is GPU centric and designed for a 2-4 core X86 CPU.

3. They are a console centric company, they set their development up to work on 3 platforms right from the start and they set their business model up around that. For them its console first, PC second, for Valve its PC first by a loooong way and then console 2nd, and never to the extent where activities on the console side would impinge on their PC development.

4. Its a cost/benefit. A lot of companies wouldn't have supported the PS3 had they known in advance it was going to sell badly relative to the competition and they had already spent that money. Valve had not so they got the benefit of considering their options. At the time it simply wasn't worth it for them.

By defenition, backtracking on previous statements equals eating crow.