PercyBoleyn said:
They did not. Portal was originally an indie game and Turtle Rock Studios started development on Left 4 Dead in 2006.
I'm not sure whether to laugh or not. It's almost as if you've skimmed news articles on the matter, but only picked up a few details and filled in the rest with nonsense.
Portal was conceived of and developed
in it's entirety within the walls of Valve. What you're likely referencing is Narbacular Drop. Which, beyond proof of concept of portal techniques, is unrelated to Portal. Narbacular Drop was a project, for a final, by Kim Swift and her team at DigiPen. It was the project that so impressed Chet Faliszek and Gabe Newell that they hired the team on the spot.
After that point, Kim and her team (as joined by several veteran Valve designers and writers) conceived of the idea for Portal. After getting enough people on board with the idea, they began production.
Where you're getting the idea that Portal was made outside of Valve is beyond me. It's a bit silly, really.
As for Left 4 Dead, if by "starting the project" you mean mucking around with a server-moddification of Counter-Strike, wherein they would spawn a team of 20~30 bots with knives only and finding it to be "fun", then sure; Left 4 Dead started at that point.
The truth is, shortly after the project began, Turtle Rock became a part of Valve. Turning Turtle Rock Studios, effectively, into Valve South.
At one point, given that most of the people working at TRS had moved to Washington to work at Valves primary HQ, Valve decided it was best to close TRS.
However, two members of the TRS team (Chris Ashton and Phil Robb) decided they wanted to try to branch off on their own. And, with the blessing of Valve, they were given full rights to the TRS name. They have since then reopened the studio and have been aggressively hiring new talent and licensing new projects.
Portal is not Valve's game. Portal was originally conceived by a bunch of college students. They were then hired by Valve who then proceeded to copyright and sell the game whilst giving nothing back to the actual developers. There's a reason Kim Swift left Valve you know.
Firstly, see above.
Secondly, Kim Swift left Valve because she wanted to work on her own projects. To try something different.
There were no disagreements or animosity in her leaving. In fact, she and many at Valve are still on very friendly terms.
From her own mouth, when asked about leaving Valve in 2009:
"...I felt that working at Valve gave me a great foundation and I knew I could do a good job and make something fun and interesting, and I wanted to branch out on my own and see what I could do." - Kim Swift
Oh yeah. She seems REALLY pissed about Portal and all that. Yep.
Do you think that "high paying job", which isn't exactly high when compared to other profesions, meant anything when compared to the amount of money Valve made from selling Portal? Those students could have made and sold the game themselves making millions in the process just like Notch did.
So...because the company
as a whole made more money on the project than any individual that was a part of the team behind the game...it means Valve somehow "ripped off" Kim Swift and the others?
I'm sorry, but your logic is starting to astound me. Just because a pro-sport athlete makes more than, say, a doctor it doesn't mean that that doctor doesn't have a high-paying job.
Also, if you think Portal would have been the same game had they made it on their own, you're deluding yourself.
Much of the dialog, story elements, and character designs came from long-time Valve employees. Specifically, Erik Wolpaw, Chet Faliszek, and Jay Pinkerton.
Ergo, Portal, as done solely by the DigiPen team, would never have been the Portal we know today.
If you have spent a moderate amount of money on Steam then you do have a vested interest in defending them. Cognitive dissonance is a very real and it's actually the reason why most arguments on this forum end inconclusively.
No, the only time these "discussions" end "inconclusively" is because people like you simply ignore or dismiss anyone that refutes, often with quantifiable evidence, your claims.
Much like you're doing here. Instead of answering my questions you are simply asking other, much more vague, questions.
I also notice you like throwing around "cognitive dissonance". I've seen you use it, quite inappropriately, in many of your posts. I know it's fun to use a "cool" phrase you recently discovered, but bare in mind it doesn't apply to everything. Might want to cut back on it.
Vigormortis said:
No, in fact, I have several grievances with the company. Some I've actually e-mailed them about. And some that have yet to be rectified to my liking.
For example?
An example of a grievance? Okay. The unstable network status of some of their titles. Most notably, Left 4 Dead 2. One that has been persistent for the past few months. One that is in serious need of repair.
It would clarify your position. If you invested a lot into Steam then you are probably quite biased towards it making any discussion with you regarding Valve and Steam worthless.
That's a cop-out assumption and you know it.
In fact, if I do have any money invested in Steam, then I more than most would have a greater concern for it's function and related issues. It's failings would be more detrimental and more obvious to me, meaning I would be more vocal about them. Not the opposite, as you seem to assume.
Remember that fervent denial I was talking about? This is it. I don't blame you for not realizing it, it's only natural. Waking up is going to be hard, it always is, but when you do it's going to be painful.
These passive-aggressive insults are cute. Though, perhaps you should cut back a little. The quite numerous number of warnings you've received seem to indicate that you do it quite often, but aren't very good at hiding it.
I don't think you understand what bias means. Maybe you should look it up.
See what I mean? This one isn't even passive-aggressive. It's all-but blatant.
Do you like being rude?