Haha, okay if you say so! You might want to re-read the comment that sparked all of this before you set that in stone however. If you do, you'll maybe understand where our argument came from.

Actually, I'm sometimes a nice guy, so I'll save you the effort: We interpreted OP's idiocy differently:

I think OP is dumb for asking why an EA game that costs a third and took a third of the likely development time is not equivalent to a game with 3x the resources/time devoted to it. Packed into my reading of OP's comment was an implicit respect. Specifically I don't think OP is a big enough idiot to think that it's even remotely sensible/possible for a publicly traded company to spend $150 million and 6 years (with several more years of development on the horizon).

You on the other hand seem to believe that OP is in fact a big enough idiot to think that it's sensible and possible for a publicly traded company to spend $150 million and 6 years (with several more years of development on the horizon) on development of a single title and remain in business; correct me if I am wrong.

Anyhow, re-read OP's comment and you'll see that both interpretations are possible, it just depends on how much of an idiot the author was.