It isn't, because they are pretty much the same thing, which is the point I'm getting at.
Except it isn't really. Getting to continue work on the same product and then getting guaranteed work on future projects is more stable than fishing for developers, and it's not like Valve forces people to churn out bad games (see: Valve Time). If Activision backs a company and then decides it isn't worth it any more, that company is screwed unless someone else backs them, and that's not really something you want to bank on.
"EA acquired Black Box Games in 2002 and became part of EA Canada under name EA Black Box. It later became an independent EA studio in 2005. Since its acquisition, EA Black Box has been home to the Need for Speed franchise, among others."
Not the best example really.
In what way? Are you arguing that a subsidiary of EA creating a content still isn't EA creating the content when it's staffed with EA employees, funded by EA, and using the same resources in the same location?
Bully isn't a 'Rockstar' title but rather a Rockstar Vancouver/New England/Toronto game (depending on the platform). And that's the point I'm getting at. With publishers, the games get tagged with "developed by X, published by Y". With Valve though it's just "developed by Valve" even though their approach is the same as that of a publisher.
Except Valve doesn't create branches (steam infrastructure aside) and the devs they hire/companies they purchase don't work independently for very long, if at all. There's no guarantee that a game made by "Valve: Turtle Rock" would have even been made by the same group of people, or that there would ever be a distinctly "Turtle Rock" game made by any of Valve's teams.
Also Rockstar Vancouver is now gone, as is Radical (the company exists to support other Activision products, according to an announcement from Activision, and will not actually release any of its own games)
By team I mean 'developer/s that created/are creating game X'.
I thought it was previously established that hiring single people is okay, and separate from hiring a whole team.
Or does the LBP example (amongst others) now count?
And you should know what 'mod' means in the context of PC gaming. If you take it right back to it's most basic definition like you're doing then almost every game in existence is a mod because very few actually get coded from scratch.
What constitutes modding is really an argument of degrees. How much do you have to change a piece of software before it counts as another? How much do Gabe and his original employees have to contribute to each project before it counts as a Valve game?
See also: How many of Bethesda's game engines actually "count" as new engines?
Which they did, hence the "and then disbanding the original dev team after release" part.
Source? They shut down the studio and invited people to their main office (most likely because their company culture and hierarchy don't really work well in franchise form) and then some of them left 1-2 years later to start the company back up again. That's considerably different from the sort of thing that went on here in BC over the past couple of years with our dev studios.
And also how popular it still is. Which is the main factor in a f2p title's longevity. While it is still popular and is bringing in more than it costs to support then there is little reason to stop supporting it. Sure, burnout can be a problem but for larger developers they could easily just shuffle the developers around so they aren't just making hats all the time.
Does that particularly matter? Is Riot's support of their game meaningless because it's ridiculously popular?
The thing is though, is that Valve's attention has clearly been on areas other than game development. Whenever there is any Valve PR as of late you can guess that it would be something about their Steam machines/OS/controller or a Steam feature and you'd be right 9 times out of 10. And that time you get it wrong is just Gabe talking about general game design, development or business structure.
1. Most of the PR stuff is based around what people are asking about or are interested in. Many interviews involve people asking Valve about their unusual company structure and sudden focus on the hardware market because those draw in extra attention.
2. Most PR stuff is based on the nearest upcoming product. If you look at Sony, Microsoft or (with other generations) Nintendo, the attention swaps to "This console now" leading up to the next gen. Would it be accurate to say, by the same standards, that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo are giving games a low priority (even though ensuring console sales hinges on having a strong lineup soon after launch, and games take easily more than a year to produce outside of rehashes)?
I don't think anyone is suggesting otherwise. The whole thing is about what Valve are focused on now, not in a years time. And it's clear that there focus right now is in other areas.
Except it hasn't been. Focus was on previous years (hence the disqualification of Portal 1/2, L4D 1/2 and Dota2)
Oh, you mean 'original' as in 'something that hasn't really been done before'. Not sure why you made that link with Valve then, all of their stuff has had similar stuff done before. I thought from that link you were meaning 'original' in the context of the developer, as in them taking risks and trying out different things. Hence why I gave those examples.
There's nothing even particularly innovative about Blood Dragon. The only arguable improvement it made was including FC3's gameplay without the poor pacing or awkward plotline, and that still does nothing for it mechanically
It's literally FC3 condensed, with everything covered in chrome or neon, with 1001 80's action movie lines
Again, it's fun, and probably one of my favourite games this year (along with the goofy and sincere idiocy of SR4), but it's really not particularly special