EA has a PC storefront as well, though, so technically that is not a difference between the two, but I'm not gonna be disingenuous and pretend the two storefronts are comparable or as much of a priority. And published releases absolutely count, otherwise you'd have to tally each individual EA studio. Valve has published third party games, too. And, in fairness, EA has published Valve games in the past as well.

Either way, by any reasonable metric you choose Valve is at best as deeply invested in MTX and games as a service as EA. Unless you count "how many total games with MTX each has published", because when you make no games you make no MTX, I suppose.

[–] Barbarian@sh.itjust.works 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

by any reasonable metric you choose Valve is at best as deeply invested in MTX

Completely agree with this. I honestly believe the best apples-to-apples metric is to look at their most popular games and compare the mtx across them, in which case Valve doesn't exactly come across as good in the comparison.

In terms of publishing, with the exception of Aperture Hand Lab (basically a little tech demo), they haven't published any third party developer's game since 2010. For the purposes of this conversation, I think it's fair to count EA subsidiaries as EA.

When you make no games you make no MTX

Absolutely, this was the counterpoint I was trying to make about the raw "number of games" argument.

EDIT: Oh, I see the misunderstanding! I mean "published" as "financially backed the development, advertising and releasing of the game", not "published to their storefront". Same word with multiple meanings can be a major source of misunderstandings.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 4 points 6 months ago

Oh, no, I meant it the same way you do. In either case it's nitpicking and we're agreeing too much to bother with that, honestly.