I think Valve need a reality check personally, they get away with murder running their titles through Steam where they're overseer to the network.  Why should Microsoft allow them to pound their network with updates FOC simply because the company is too disorganised to have a structured update system.  I'm not saying I don't think it would be nice if Microsoft cut them some slack but by the same token it's ludicrous to think the consumer benefits by having a completely open network.  I want to turn on my console and play games, not wait 5 minutes at a time because they've released 3 updates in the space of a week. 

I guess it's easy to point the figure and blame others rather than accept some responsibility yourself.

Seems to me that they Assumed something to change for their benefit when there really was no reason to do so for microsoft. Console gamers do not want to wait for a year of updates for a game to be complete or to get updates even weekly. But knowing that they would not be able to patch it as much as they wanted to before hand why would they release the game expecting to do so? They should of had some sort of back up plan for dlc if they were not sure how patching would work, and especially if they knew they wouldn't be able to patch as wanted.

Original article was titled "Vale: XBox Live ' such a train wreck', but then after reading the beginning of the article I changed it.

I thought the original title was off point.

For one its rare to see 3 updates in a week for a single game, let alone two updates. If you own multiple titles, including 3rd party titles, you might get a patch or two updating at the SAME TIME.

Valve is far from disorganized with their updates. Truthfully they are far better then Microsoft will ever be case in point their Windows update only happening once a month when there are critical issues that need resolving pretty much yesterday then announce they are canceling a patch the day before the monthly update day saying the patch busts something else in the Windows OS when they had a freaking month to test the damn thing. I would much rather see bug patches released when they are tested and ready.

Just because you are jealous that PC gamers get 100% amazing support for our games, including new content and bug fixing years after a title is released doesn't mean you have to be inaccurate and biased towards a fully working system. Microsoft is just being greedy, slimy pigs like they always are. They would rather see TF2 get DLC hat packs that make them $2 in profit because they will not allow loads of FREE content for a game. Even Sony knows better then to not screw the customer or developer with DLC pricing and allow content patching whenever needed.

I think the disagreement between Valve and Microsoft stems from a few issues:

First, Valve created and owns Steam for the PC. By and large, the extra content via Steam for TF2 is free. As a result, Valve is coming at it from almost a freeware angle.

Microsoft with Xbox Live wants to charge for each and every little content down to the wrist watch on your Live Avatar. When you have one esteemed developer who has basically a freeware platform (concerning after release patches and content) wanting to bring that content to Microsoft, there will be a fundamental disagreement on whether it should be priced and exactly how much.

Second, Valve may actually be quite envious of Microsoft's Xbox Live being so lucrative compared to Steam. PC gaming compared to consoles in the past decade is down the tubes in profit potential for game developers. Xbox Live being the Microsoft equivalent of Steam has found a boon in console gaming that Valve has not quite found in comparable numbers with Steam and PC gaming.

Finally, Valve is letting management speak when the board should shut them up. Allowing Gabe Newell to run his mouth without a PR rep right by his side may cause Valve to burn bridges and future profitability with one of the console makers. A single interview from a higher up gives us all insight on the corporate culture. If that corporate culture is openly dismissive and possibly antagonistic towards one of the console makers, then don't underestimate either of the console makers. Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are powerful enough alone to blackball a company such as Valve. Valve never created Mario, Gran Turismo, or Halo which are 10 million seller series and the faces of the console. What has Valve done for either Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo that they have not done themselves? Port the Orange Box? Puh-lease.

Just stop, I've probably been a PC gamer longer than you've gamed period.  You're first paragraph proves you have zero knowledge of QA, I would suggest you don't go there fella.

Think what you like about Microsoft, it's not like they pay me to try and paint them in a better image, I can actually see the benefits in a closed model like Live currently is. 

Do you know Steam isn't as lucrative as Live?  I don't.  It sells a heck of a lot of stuff and gets a lot of traffic, much of it focused purely on purchasing via Steam.  I wouldn't be surprised to find it very lucrative.  A lot of full price titles will sell via Steam vs Live, for example, with many PC gamers buying Black Ops from Steam vs retail.  In fact, when looking at PC sales it's worth noting a lot of them are hidden from view, taking place via Steam (Ias the market leader on PC) as well as other Digital stores.

Also, why should Valve shut up?  They've always been vocal and it's part of their identity.  I prefer the fact I always have a sense of what Valve really think vs the usual corporate bullshit.  I can't think of any other developer where someone like Gabe would jump on a plane to Australia due to a community bet to show commitment to their fans concerns and requests.

In terms of these comments in particular, I'd note that Valve seem to be taking the burden of responsibility on themselves - they're stating their assumptions were wrong and didn't pan out.

Valve's development approach is different and geared to how they operate on Steam, end of story.  Clearly, looking at things from their point of view what they want is:

1 - an open infrastructure where they can deliver and evolve games their way

2 - an easy to program for development environment focused on the SDK and the developer.

Their comments this gen have been consistent and no surprise.  Initially they focused on PC and commented on PS3's challenges for a developer because the 360 was, at that time, far better for point 2) above and Valve hoped to evolve a relationship with MS that would also get them point 1) as well.

This hasn't happened, and now they are in a situation where PSN on PS3 is clearly better for point 1) and while 360 remains better for point 2) PS3 would appear, on more recent comments from developers, to be pretty close to the 360 in terms of SDK.

Therefore, right now, and probably for the rest of the gen, the PSN/PS3 combination is clearly more attractive to Vale specifically.  They can put Steamworks on it, they can continue with their way of supporting games and evolving them, and they can develop realitively easily on the platform.

I don't see any one side as more or less right or wrong here - it's about the specifics of what different companies are offering/looking for and all that's happened is that from seeming the better choice for Valve the 360 has switched places with the PS3.

I personally like Valve's approach, I like the way they see a game as being something in evolution, to be continuously improved over its life.  Too many people think they are just releasing bug fixes all the time, which is wrong.  They monitor actual gameplay, they alter balance over time to improve the game on the basis of actual observation of the game in action, they release lots of free updates with new content... all of which doesn't fit too well with Live, which doesn't mean Live has to change per se, but that Live isn't that well suited to Valve.

Finally, I'd note this doesn't mean they're suddenly backtracking on their earlier comments about the PS3.  The thing is I'm sure they still believe them, or believe they were correct at the time, and I suspect they were correct at the time.  For a developer like Valve, the PS3 was a bit crap at launch, with a weak SDK and poorly documented libraries vs the great SDK the 360 shipped with.

Valve, unlike many people, seem willing to evolve with time themselves, accepting change and responding to it instead of sticking to early assumptions and trying to defend them.  They see the PS3 was weak at launch but they respond to its improvements in SDK.  They see Live was the better choice at launch for them but respond to changes in PSN which make it the better choice today.

Finally, they're not going to abandon 360, they're simply going to put a bit more focus on PS3/PSN for post release efforts vs Live where they feel those efforts are essentially blocked.

If the numbers are hidden from view, then they might as well never happened. As for the numbers, just consider the yearly million sellers for the consoles vs. PC. I can name plenty of console games who have reached the 3 to 5 million mark in the past 2 years. I can't do the same for the PC. Thus, the PC gaming market is a whole hell lot less lucrative than the console gaming market.

I am not going to go tit-for-tat on open sourced vs. closed source. Both work.

I guess I should have said, "show greater prudence" instead of shut up on my last point. If you like Gabe Newell because he is an in your face, tell it like it is sheriff then good for you. I don't because video gaming, consoles in particular have gone from being run by the devs to including more and more straight up business types like Bobby Kotick. If you want to get to the table to talk business, then you need to speak their language. Furthermore, lambasting a company or companies will mean you as the dev CEO will have a lot of backtracking, ass kissing and explaining for that interview you gave a year or two ago.

My point is Gabe Newell should be more cognizant of his words. They aren't just heard and read by his fans. Potential business partners are tuned in. Why would I want to sit across the table from Gabe if I know he is a reputable backtalker who trashes every company when he doesn't get exactly what he wants or things don't pan out as expected and the deal falls through?

Your point on prudence is certainly fair enough.  I personally like outspoken types - say Jim Cameron breaking into the editing suite when locked out of it on his magnum opus Piranaha 2 - but of course this has to be balanced against business prudence, but right now it's clear that, with their own distrubution platform and a market lead on PC Valve remain pretty able to say what they want.  This might change over time - and if it does I'll be willing to bet Valve start showing more prudence, too.

But to say if it's hidden it's as though it didn't happen is plain wrong.  Valve sell a lot of their own titles through Steam, they sell a lot of other titles through Steam and get a cut.  They make a lot of money from Steam, and whether they chose to make it public or not that money is sitting is their back account - it happened and that's what counts, not whether we know about the numbers or not.

Sure, console seems more lucrative, but you have to consider the focus.  Activision make more money from PC than console simply due to one game - WoW.  With Steam, Valve are the dominant digital download store for PC gamers, and unlike PSN and Live, Steam's store is home to AAA titles at launch.  People are pre-ordering Black Ops from retailers for 360/PS3 but on PC many are pre-ordering from Steam, this gives Valve huge power and influence beyond a mere developer of individual titles.  They are also, at the same time, a retailer of games as well, and make money from the titles they sell just like any other retailer.

Lucrative is specific to the company, not the platform.  Console games individually can sell more, but as Wow (and I'd argue Steam also shows this) it is possible to be more lucrative on an individual basis on PC because the platform is open.

People make the mistake (not saying you are) of seeing PC as an MS platform due to Windows, which is nonsese.  360 is the only big platform for MS, on PC they are a minority player with the PC version of Live (which is a minow next to Steam relative to the market), PS3 is the platform for Sony and in both cases they control those platforms and make money from every game on them in some form or other.

On PC, Valve is the only developer (so far as I know) making money in a similar way through Steam, and as the market leader by far they are clearly making the most money (i.e. being the most lucrative) compared to anyone else bar maybe Activision with WoW on the platform.

So individually, the PC is clearly far, far more lucrative for Valve than consoles and that seems unlikely to change anytime soon.  Sure, they make a nice bonus selling 2 million copies of something on 360, but I'm pretty sure that's the small end of the equation to what they make from PC as a platform thanks to Steam.

But should they be a bit more prudent from a business perspetive?  Sure, probably - but again, give me the big characters any day vs the corporate suits (and Gabe is for sure a big character!).

its not just patching sizes, it can also include free dlc which on live they are very tight about.