Newell: Specialization in Gaming is "The Enemy of the Future"

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Steam is good, yes, but like iTunes, its good because its the only one. Its a monopoly, so by definition its successful.

I agree what he said is BS, but you should really, really look up the definition of words before you try to use them to complain about someone.

http://www.greenmangaming.com/
http://www.impulsedriven.com/
http://www.gog.com/
https://www.origin.com/en-us/store/-ANW.html
http://www.desura.com/

and those are just five fairly large alternatives I know off the top of my head. When you have that much competition in the space you are not a monopoly.

Technically those exist. But no one uses them. Just as people can buy music off of Amazon, and maybe someone's aunt does. Everyone uses iTunes. Just like everyone with a gaming PC has Steam. And I've only heard of one of those before - Origin. The others I didn't even known existed. Granted, that's my own ignorance, but I have many gaming friends and no one has ever mentioned those others. I'd wager they don't know about them either.
But your point it well received, technically they're not a monopoly. Legally. In practice? Different story I think.

 

[Somebloke]

Suggestion:

Forget reading this blurb-piece and its (...as per usual) clicky-baity nature, and instead follow the "source:" link at its bottom.
This will spare you lots of unnecessary gastric acid secretion.

Actually; Make that course of action routine.

 

[Agayek]

Technically those exist. But no one uses them. Just as people can buy music off of Amazon, and maybe someone's aunt does. Everyone uses iTunes. Just like everyone with a gaming PC has Steam. And I've only heard of one of those before - Origin. The others I didn't even known existed. Granted, that's my own ignorance, but I have many gaming friends and no one has ever mentioned those others. I'd wager they don't know about them either.
But your point it well received, technically they're not a monopoly. Legally. In practice? Different story I think.

Steam is absolutely not a monopoly. It's the biggest by far, but that is very different from a monopoly.

A monopoly is when a business is the only competitor and can therefore abuse their customers however they please and the customers will take it because there's no choice. Steam can't do that. There's a number of very visible alternatives for people to take their business, and as soon as they go too far, their customers will do so. It's the basics of the free market. Valve does a very good job of making Steam competitive, mostly through holiday sales but also through (for the most part) fairly customer friendly policies. The only thing they really can't compete with the others in is their refund policy. And since they were first and consistently retain good policies, they've become the de facto digital storefront and are likely to keep it for a long time.

 

[black_knight1337]

How is "publisher backs them" any better than "Valve hires them and then gives them long-term access to their workforce and resources"?

It isn't, because they are pretty much the same thing, which is the point I'm getting at.

You'd say that EA developed the NHL titles right? Except they were developed by Black Box, which EA bought out and assimilated. Same goes for Need for Speed (Hot Pursuit 2 was also Black Box) and a number of other EA titles. What you're ultimately looking at is how larger companies handle game development.

"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.

Is Bully not a Rockstart title anymore because it was handled by a company Rockstar bought out? They also were responsible for Homeworld Cataclysm by the way.
Mass Effect is still a "Bioware" title, because Bioware hasnt stopped being its own entity, unlike "EA Black Box" (itself a studio that was shut-down and recreated) and "Rockstar North"

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.

Icefrog is a team?

By team I mean 'developer/s that created/are creating game X'.

I'm merely pointing out how broad the term "mod" is, and how you're ultimately splitting hairs in trying to decide which "mods" count and which don't. The games industry is not one in which original ideas and technology sprout out of nothing. They typically are modifications of one thing, are heavily inspired by another, or will take the latest set of "acceptable" mechanics.

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.

Except the company that made Homefront is basically gone. L4D's team has been working on content at a steady pace unless Gabe fired them.

Which they did, hence the "and then disbanding the original dev team after release" part.

TF2 went F2P years after it came out so that it could survive longer as a title. Additionally, I' trust action over dev promises. The lifespan of a game is heavily determined by how much of a drain on resources is and how long the developer can deliver content at a constant rate without getting burnt out. I'm sure MOST f2p devs have enough ideas/motivation/etc to last them at least 5 years, if not 10, by their own estimates, but to say it and to do it are monumentally different things.

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.

And I'd suggest that it's relevant when dealing with prioritization and development. In the years between WoW and SC2, or if SC2 hadnt come out and the gap had been between WoW and Diablo 2, I'd think one would still be hard-pressed to convince others that Blizzard had stopped prioritizing development. Many of the folks at Valve not working on a new title are still working on game content.

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.

Also, things like the Steam Box aren't going to take up vast quantities of time on a regular basis. If we look at the console manufacturing companies, they too have something of an ebb and flow when it comes to development cycles, though theirs are more dependent on cash from exclusives than they are from practicalities. I suspect that after finishing their current hardware projects (some of which pertain directly to gaming software anyway, either in terms of feature addition or accessibility) that those resources will go elsewhere and assist on many of these gaming projects
Gabe has also mentioned that they are, in fact working on HL3 (aka "Ricochet 2").

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.

I liked blood dragon, but it's a paint by numbers shooter filled with 80s action movie cliches. It's awesome, but not particularly original

What's original about Hearthstone exactly? Isn't it yet another online CCG in a growing genre of online CCG's?

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.

also, because it's been brought up so many times in this thread
I personally read the statement about multiplayer being more important than HL level design as "We have one game in development that requires HL's level design and multiple titles that are still being supported that require intimate knowledge of the inner workings of MP games and online communities"
When you have to compare the support required for some of the top games on Steam (TF2, CS:GO, DOTA2) to a single game in a franchise that will only make you cash on the initial purchase (unless Valve has another trick up their sleeve with HL3DM or something). It's pretty clear where your priorities as both a developer and a business need to be. This doesn't mean that level design "isn't important" but that supporting and creating content for the multiplayer juggernauts they've got is a higher priority.

Yeah, I took it as a more specific 'we value broad skill sets rather than specific ones'. Agreed completely on that point.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

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

 

[Dango]

"We're still a really boring company that won't release Half-Life 3" -Gabe Newell.

EDIT: Also, Valve games by year starting at 2004:

2004: HL2, Counter-Strike Source
2005: Day of Defeat: Source
2006: HL2 Episode 1
2007: HL2 Episode 2, Portal, TF2
2008: Left 4 Dead
2009: Left 4 Dead 2
2010: Alien Swarm, Mac OSX ports (alright I'm kinda pulling out of my ass for this year)
2011: Portal 2
2012: Counter-Strike GO
2013: DOTA 2

Damn, Valve sure doesn't make any games.

Also I don't mean to say this for argument's sake, but all of those are either sequels or updates of games that already existed, so it could definitely be said that Valve doesn't "make" games.

 

[Vigormortis]

Also I don't mean to say this for argument's sake, but all of those are either sequels or updates of games that already existed, so it could definitely be said that Valve doesn't "make" games.

Good lord, people are still making this assertion?

If we're to discount any game made by Valve that came from an outside project or idea, then we'll have to discount vast swaths of game releases from other developers as well.

[edit]
I'm just saying, the numerous teams at Valve, including the people they've hired, put in a LOT of work into the games the company releases. To say that they "don't make games" is basically saying the original modders didn't make the game; seeing as those modders are a part of Valve.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Also I don't mean to say this for argument's sake, but all of those are either sequels or updates of games that already existed, so it could definitely be said that Valve doesn't "make" games.

Good lord, people are still making this assertion?

If we're to discount any game made by Valve that came from an outside project or idea, then we'll have to discount vast swaths of game releases from other developers as well.

But, this being the Escapist, we won't do that. Double standards are the modus operandi. So if another developer, say Bioware or some other popular dev around here, were to hire someone for their idea and talent, it's a good thing. If Valve does it, it's lazy and evil.

Also: you can't say you're not saying something for arguments sake and then follow that up with an argumentative assertion.

To be fair, in a lot of Origin vs. Steam stuff, it becomes the exact opposite. Steam does it? That's fine. Origin does it? EA is evil and abusing its customers. Just look at the kerfluffle over the TOS preventing class-action lawsuits. It was totally wrong for EA, but when Valve followed suit? Well, that was fine, because no one was going to sue Valve anyways. And no, I'm not exaggerating. That's the exact logic I heard.

In this case, saying "Valve doesn't make games" is, in fact, in error, because they have. But don't act like it's some double standard that is Escapist wide. If anything, the majority of The Escapist thinks Valve/Steam can do no wrong.

Edit: And you edited it out. Great, now I look like an idiot. I do agree with your point, by the way. If anything, Valve is a lot more hands-on than EA when it comes to development, despite being a publisher.

 

[Vigormortis]

To be fair, in a lot of Origin vs. Steam stuff, it becomes the exact opposite. Steam does it? That's fine. Origin does it? EA is evil and abusing its customers. Just look at the kerfluffle over the TOS preventing class-action lawsuits. It was totally wrong for EA, but when Valve followed suit? Well, that was fine, because no one was going to sue Valve anyways. And no, I'm not exaggerating. That's the exact logic I heard.

Oh, I'm aware of that double standard as well. It's another that irks me; along with the myriad of others that commonly pop up.

Though the prevention of class-action suits in the Steam TOS is different from the same prevention clause in the Origin TOS. The Steam clause adds the caveat of Valve paying all legal fees for anyone filing a suit, should that person win their case. As far as I'm aware, the Origin clause has no such caveat.

[sub]I'm not implying this makes the clause, in either case, a good thing. I feel the opposite, in fact. However, I'm just pointing out that there is some precedent to someone saying the Steam clause isn't as bad as the Origin one.[/sub]

In this case, saying "Valve doesn't make games" is, in fact, in error, because they have. But don't act like it's some double standard that is Escapist wide. If anything, the majority of The Escapist thinks Valve/Steam can do no wrong.

Edit: And you edited it out. Great, now I look like an idiot. I do agree with your point, by the way. If anything, Valve is a lot more hands-on than EA when it comes to development, despite being a publisher.

While I can't really agree with the claim that most of the Escapists think "Valve can do no wrong", especially in light of the frequency of "Valve hate" threads over the years[footnote]I'd argue most are indifferent, with smaller, more vocal minorities making up the fanatics and the detractors.[/footnote], I will admit I was a bit too hasty in my first posting. I was already agitated over something else and posted without really thinking. I had to go back and edit another post on another forum for the same reason.

I guess I'm just weary of the cynicism and hyperbole that permeates the gaming community. It's actually starting to suck the joy I used to get out of this pass-time.

 

[Dango]

Also I don't mean to say this for argument's sake, but all of those are either sequels or updates of games that already existed, so it could definitely be said that Valve doesn't "make" games.

Good lord, people are still making this assertion?

If we're to discount any game made by Valve that came from an outside project or idea, then we'll have to discount vast swaths of game releases from other developers as well.

[edit]
I'm just saying, the numerous teams at Valve, including the people they've hired, put in a LOT of work into the games the company releases. To say that they "don't make games" is basically saying the original modders didn't make the game; seeing as those modders are a part of Valve.

To clarify, I'm not saying Valve doesn't put work into their games, I was just saying that from the perspective of someone who doesn't work at Valve they don't seem to be the most creatively minded company, but then again I've never seen them as too creative compared to other developers.

In other words I take issue with Valve being too safe of a company, they just don't seem to be willing to do anything anymore that won't assure them a certain degree of profit, which seems to have taken a toll on their willingness to do something that genuinely feels different. It's especially irritating that Gaben seems to see this model as the industry's future.

 

[Vigormortis]

To clarify, I'm not saying Valve doesn't put work into their games, I was just saying that from the perspective of someone who doesn't work at Valve they don't seem to be the most creatively minded company, but then again I've never seen them as too creative compared to other developers.

If you consider the differences between games like Narbacular Drop and Portal (or even more so Portal 2), or even the differences between Team Fortress and Team Fortress Classic (let alone TF2) then it becomes quite apparent there's a wealth of creative talent behind the scenes at Valve.

Besides, the minds behind things like Narbacular Drop are a part of Valve. So saying Valve's not a "creatively minded company" is like claiming that those people aren't creative.

In other words I take issue with Valve being too safe of a company, they just don't seem to be willing to do anything anymore that won't assure them a certain degree of profit, which seems to have taken a toll on their willingness to do something that genuinely feels different. It's especially irritating that Gaben seems to see this model as the industry's future.

I can appreciate that their games don't appeal to you, but that doesn't mean those games aren't creative and of good quality, or that Valve doesn't take risk with their games.

Games like Portal and Left 4 Dead were big risks, in terms of trying something new with untested mechanics, designs, and concepts. Likewise, games like Team Fortress 2 were equally as risky simply because of the switch-up in design and aesthetics from it's roots. Even more so we have games like Alien Swarm, which was a very risky community-support experiment. (sadly, one that mostly failed)

The fact that the games were successful doesn't mean Valve didn't take creative risks with them.

 

[black_knight1337]

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?

As in, they weren't just absorbed by EA but rather were made an 'independent' studio within them. As in, their games wouldn't just have EA on them but rather EA Black Box on them. With Valve's way of things even with Turtle Rock, who were referred to as 'Valve South' around the release, just got 'Valve' slapped on it.

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.

They were actually called "Valve South" and they were 'independent' until after L4D was released.

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?

You're not getting what I'm saying. By "team" I was meaning the developer/s behind the game, whether that be one person or many, who were then hired and given funding to make that game better. That's a completely different thing to hiring someone to join a team because they are a great level designer.

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?

Think of it this way, say there are two houses being built. The first uses X for it's foundation but the second uses a modified version of X for it's foundation. Would the second house just be a modified version of the first? No, because the second wasn't built off of the first but rather a modified version of it's base. It's the same thing here, they're not 'mods' of the first game to use an engine but rather games built off of that engine.

I wouldn't call any of Bethesda's engines "new" but rather just modified versions of the same thing. I take stuff like Bethesda calling it the "Creation Engine" as just a fancy way of saying Gamebryo v2 (Or whatever they're up to now). That's mostly just PR spin to make it seem better than what it is.

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.

And why are they getting asked about it? Because it's what they are pushing. If Gabe announced that they are working on a new game then people will be interest and will ask about. They can't do that if there's nothing to be asking about.

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)?

Which is my point, no? I never said that they aren't still working on their current titles or that there isn't some unannounced title their working on. I said that there focus lately has been elsewhere. And seriously, when their last game reveal was over two years ago, it paints a pretty clear picture of their current priorities.

Except it hasn't been. Focus was on previous years (hence the disqualification of Portal 1/2, L4D 1/2 and Dota2)

Sorry, should have referenced myself instead. Admittedly I rarely read every post in a thread, but rather grab a few points that I'm interested in to respond to.

-Snip-

Wasn't your original point saying that they were trying something new rather than rehash the same thing over and over? If so, titles like Blood Dragon and Hearthstone can be categorised the same way.

 

[SonofSpermcube]

I gotta say, that beard is probably the next best thing Gabe Newell could have done for his appearance, next to losing 100 pounds.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

As in, they weren't just absorbed by EA but rather were made an 'independent' studio within them. As in, their games wouldn't just have EA on them but rather EA Black Box on them. With Valve's way of things even with Turtle Rock, who were referred to as 'Valve South' around the release, just got 'Valve' slapped on it.

Except EA and Activision do it too, in addition to keeping certain studios open separately. I imagine it has to do with the amount of money they make and the brand power of that name (Black Box was doing an awesome job prior to being bought out by EA, and is one of the big reasons why Need for Speed is still a franchise today)

They were actually called "Valve South" and they were 'independent' until after L4D was released.

And then they were absorbed, and all subsequent work was handled by Valve
So even if we agree to not count "L4D1", that's one year out of how many?

You're not getting what I'm saying. By "team" I was meaning the developer/s behind the game, whether that be one person or many, who were then hired and given funding to make that game better. That's a completely different thing to hiring someone to join a team because they are a great level designer.

He wasn't hired to improve the original Dota, or some nebulous partially done project. He was hired for a whole title in itself

Think of it this way, say there are two houses being built. The first uses X for it's foundation but the second uses a modified version of X for it's foundation. Would the second house just be a modified version of the first? No, because the second wasn't built off of the first but rather a modified version of it's base. It's the same thing here, they're not 'mods' of the first game to use an engine but rather games built off of that engine.

I wouldn't call any of Bethesda's engines "new" but rather just modified versions of the same thing. I take stuff like Bethesda calling it the "Creation Engine" as just a fancy way of saying Gamebryo v2 (Or whatever they're up to now). That's mostly just PR spin to make it seem better than what it is.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070301012630/http://collective.valve-erc.com/index.php?go=q1_or_q2

Valve's methodology for GoldSRC wasn't unlike Bethsoft's for Gamebryo. Additionally, the engine encompasses more than simply the foundation, or else your idea of foundation differences are drastically different than how an actual foundation would work. If it was a matter of foundation only, a game made in two distinctly different engines would have far fewer differences, and yet the methodology in creating, say, Tribes in UE3 or even making Quake in basically any other distinctly different engine would be similar or the same. However, there are huge limitations that certain engines carry, as well as issues with particular experiences being essentially difficult to optimize for. An engine determines ultimately what materials will be used, to an extent, to create the end product. The reason why you find fast responsive movement in many GoldSRC and Source games, and the reason why movement is clunky and buggy in UE3

And why are they getting asked about it? Because it's what they are pushing. If Gabe announced that they are working on a new game then people will be interest and will ask about. They can't do that if there's nothing to be asking about.

I guess we'll see about that if/when they announce L4D3, or Hl3... not that they haven't, in their own way, confirmed that there are people working on the latter.
not to mention Dota2, or any of the other games they've released on what is practically a yearly schedule

Which is my point, no? I never said that they aren't still working on their current titles or that there isn't some unannounced title their working on. I said that there focus lately has been elsewhere. And seriously, when their last game reveal was over two years ago, it paints a pretty clear picture of their current priorities.

If we're talking about information they've let out about products they're working on, the "Ricochet 2" interview happened just last year

Sorry, should have referenced myself instead. Admittedly I rarely read every post in a thread, but rather grab a few points that I'm interested in to respond to.

Fair enough, if we're talking about where a large portion of their current focus is currentlyh, the Steam Machine, the OS for it, and the controller for it are high priority. Steam and its maintenance is also a large resource drain, which is one of the reasons why Greenlight was implemented. However, the issues being brought up in this thread were more far-reaching than that.

Wasn't your original point saying that they were trying something new rather than rehash the same thing over and over? If so, titles like Blood Dragon and Hearthstone can be categorised the same way.

How is Blood Dragon not a rehash? 90% of the game is reskins and slight modification. It's not like the story and the like are anything new either. In fact, they go out of their way to follow cliches. Skyrim's modding community regularly makes more changes than Blood Dragon does. If you consider Blood Dragon distinct enough to not be a rehash, how is Valve's contribution to games like Portal not acceptable, despite the fact that there are larger differences between those releases and the original projects (even in terms of focus) than there are between FC3 and Blood Dragon

 

[black_knight1337]

He wasn't hired to improve the original Dota, or some nebulous partially done project. He was hired for a whole title in itself

Exactly.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070301012630/http://collective.valve-erc.com/index.php?go=q1_or_q2

Valve's methodology for GoldSRC wasn't unlike Bethsoft's for Gamebryo. Additionally, the engine encompasses more than simply the foundation, or else your idea of foundation differences are drastically different than how an actual foundation would work. If it was a matter of foundation only, a game made in two distinctly different engines would have far fewer differences, and yet the methodology in creating, say, Tribes in UE3 or even making Quake in basically any other distinctly different engine would be similar or the same. However, there are huge limitations that certain engines carry, as well as issues with particular experiences being essentially difficult to optimize for. An engine determines ultimately what materials will be used, to an extent, to create the end product. The reason why you find fast responsive movement in many GoldSRC and Source games, and the reason why movement is clunky and buggy in UE3

So.... how does that make it a mod of Quake rather than a game built off of it's engine? That link is saying they took the Quake 1 engine, added parts of the Quake 2 engine and then rewrote and added to it so it suited their needs. Half-Life's engine is a heavily modified version of Quakes, yes, but that doesn't make Half-Life 1 a mod of Quake 1.

If we're talking about information they've let out about products they're working on, the "Ricochet 2" interview happened just last year

I wouldn't call that an announcement. Mentioning they are working on an unnamed project isn't really much. You could presume that of any studio who haven't got any announced but unreleased games. If it were an announcement it'd be along the lines of "We're working on X, here are some screenshots and videos of what's been done so far!".

How is Blood Dragon not a rehash? 90% of the game is reskins and slight modification. It's not like the story and the like are anything new either. In fact, they go out of their way to follow cliches. Skyrim's modding community regularly makes more changes than Blood Dragon does. If you consider Blood Dragon distinct enough to not be a rehash, how is Valve's contribution to games like Portal not acceptable, despite the fact that there are larger differences between those releases and the original projects (even in terms of focus) than there are between FC3 and Blood Dragon

*points back at your original argument*
You were saying that instead of just doing the same thing over and over (ie. CoD) they are 'taking risks' and trying new things. Both Blood Dragon and Hearthstone fall into the same category. The former because of the huge stylistic changes that could have very easily killed the game. If it wasn't, then why were people thinking it was just an April Fool's joke when they announced it? As for the latter, it's a whole new genre for them. That alone makes it a huge risk. I was merely pointing out that Valve are not the only ones that do that and also that they shouldn't need to continually buy the ideas of indie developers to be able to do so.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

Exactly.

So him being hired as part of something Valve wanted to do is the same as Valve hiring a whole team that is working on a game, yet distinct from hiring a designer for their expertise in general?

So.... how does that make it a mod of Quake rather than a game built off of it's engine? That link is saying they took the Quake 1 engine, added parts of the Quake 2 engine and then rewrote and added to it so it suited their needs. Half-Life's engine is a heavily modified version of Quakes, yes, but that doesn't make Half-Life 1 a mod of Quake 1.

If we're discounting things like differences in engine, and focusing purely on differences in the games themselves (and I really do mean focusing, since there are many mechanical similarities between the two) then we're dealing with further arbitrary distinctions when it comes to mods. What makes CS or DoD a mod considering they have their own maps, setting, weapons, and general gameplay mechanics distinct from HL? If the difference between engines is as negligible as that of the difference between Gamebryo and Creation, and the product is a third party work within the same genre and using many of the same design choices, then where's the line being drawn? How many degrees towards "our own stuff" do you have to go before you no longer "modded" something?

I wouldn't call that an announcement. Mentioning they are working on an unnamed project isn't really much. You could presume that of any studio who haven't got any announced but unreleased games. If it were an announcement it'd be along the lines of "We're working on X, here are some screenshots and videos of what's been done so far!".

The question and answer both clearly pertain to HL3. A lack of footage doesn't "unmake" an announcement, or there'd be far fewer announcements that "count" at E3 and other events.

*points back at your original argument*
You were saying that instead of just doing the same thing over and over (ie. CoD) they are 'taking risks' and trying new things. Both Blood Dragon and Hearthstone fall into the same category. The former because of the huge stylistic changes that could have very easily killed the game. If it wasn't, then why were people thinking it was just an April Fool's joke when they announced it? As for the latter, it's a whole new genre for them. That alone makes it a huge risk. I was merely pointing out that Valve are not the only ones that do that and also that they shouldn't need to continually buy the ideas of indie developers to be able to do so.

So any of the changes in setting in the CoD franchise make those titles not rehashes?
Additionally, stylistic changes don't kill expansion packs
People thought it was an April Fools joke because it was a goofy 80s themed announcement on April 1st. Most of the gaming media sites I read about it on either included some hope that it wasn't a joke in the article, or the comments sections were filled with people who figured it might not be. Nobody really did a double take when they announced it was a real thing, and that was before it was revealed that it was mostly just a pallette swap
You also mention "new" ideas, yet Blood Dragon had none. It was actually really quite safe

And no, you don't necessarily need to grab new people to get new ideas, but if you're out of ideas it's certainly better to get a few fresh perspectives in the mix.

 

[black_knight1337]

So him being hired as part of something Valve wanted to do is the same as Valve hiring a whole team that is working on a game, yet distinct from hiring a designer for their expertise in general?

They hired him to port his mod. It's more the former than the latter although it's a port of an active mod rather than just a polish. Can't be the latter because it "belongs" to him (it actually belonged to Blizzard but somehow Valve broke through all the copyright laws for it but that's a whole other story).

If we're discounting things like differences in engine, and focusing purely on differences in the games themselves (and I really do mean focusing, since there are many mechanical similarities between the two) then we're dealing with further arbitrary distinctions when it comes to mods. What makes CS or DoD a mod considering they have their own maps, setting, weapons, and general gameplay mechanics distinct from HL? If the difference between engines is as negligible as that of the difference between Gamebryo and Creation, and the product is a third party work within the same genre and using many of the same design choices, then where's the line being drawn? How many degrees towards "our own stuff" do you have to go before you no longer "modded" something?

I don't know if you just don't understand modding in this context or you're just intentionally blurring the lines as much as you can to try to give yourself some credibility. You can't call a game a 'mod' of another if it was never built off of it. Simply sharing an engine, even if it's the exact same version of the engine, does not make it a mod. What makes it a mod is taking the other game and using it as a foundation for whatever you are trying to create. That's what modding is. It's taking something and then changing parts to create whatever you wanted to. And it simply can't be a mod if it never even took the other game to begin with.

The question and answer both clearly pertain to HL3. A lack of footage doesn't "unmake" an announcement, or there'd be far fewer announcements that "count" at E3 and other events.

So we can get game announcements/reveals without even naming the game nor giving any information on the game? Never seen that happen before but okay then.

-Snip-

And I can ask you the exact same things. How are any of Valve's titles new/fresh? The only one I can see as being arguable (outside of Half Life and Ricochet) would be Left 4 Dead, but that's only because I've got little interest in force co-op games so I know little about what kind of games are there.

And no, you don't necessarily need to grab new people to get new ideas, but if you're out of ideas it's certainly better to get a few fresh perspectives in the mix.

So you're saying Valve's 'designers' have been out of new ideas for over 6 years now? That really speaks volumes for the 'talent' involved then.

 

[Scootinfroodie]

They hired him to port his mod. It's more the former than the latter although it's a port of an active mod rather than just a polish. Can't be the latter because it "belongs" to him (it actually belonged to Blizzard but somehow Valve broke through all the copyright laws for it but that's a whole other story).

Except it's not just a port. Valve didn't "somehow" break through copyright laws, Blizzard claimed ownership over something they had nothing to do with and both companies came to a mutual agreement. Additionally, copyright laws are hugely vague and dont actually utilize precedents, so it's not like there was anything stopping them from necessarily winning the case aside from the power of the legal team.

I don't know if you just don't understand modding in this context or you're just intentionally blurring the lines as much as you can to try to give yourself some credibility. You can't call a game a 'mod' of another if it was never built off of it. Simply sharing an engine, even if it's the exact same version of the engine, does not make it a mod. What makes it a mod is taking the other game and using it as a foundation for whatever you are trying to create. That's what modding is. It's taking something and then changing parts to create whatever you wanted to. And it simply can't be a mod if it never even took the other game to begin with.

And I'm pointing out two things
1. It's a product that only exists because of modding
2. Your overall attempts to discredit the titles Valve has released leaves several very broad definitions. Whether you're considering something a "mod" or "port" (the latter pertaining even to games whose features ended up being wildly different from the original product) or some other thing, your definitions for what "counts" and what doesn't seem conveniently tailored to your opinion of Valve, and not the other way around

So we can get game announcements/reveals without even naming the game nor giving any information on the game? Never seen that happen before but okay then.

Valve has mentioned Half Life 3 multiple times, and you can get an announcement out of some guy coming up onto stage and saying "We're releasing X" with a related song (even if it's well-known outside of the context of promotion for the title) or semi-related image

And I can ask you the exact same things. How are any of Valve's titles new/fresh? The only one I can see as being arguable (outside of Half Life and Ricochet) would be Left 4 Dead, but that's only because I've got little interest in force co-op games so I know little about what kind of games are there.

So wait... out of 7 franchises you've already admitted that nearly half of them could be non-rehashes? What are we comparing Valve to in terms of game development wherein not only having 50% of your products be new is common, but also where we're immediately discounting rather large differences between products (portal 1 and portal 2) in determining what is a rehash?
Also how are you counting HL2 and not Portal? As stated previously, the mod it was inspired by is rather distinct, both in art style and in the actual gameplay itself.

So you're saying Valve's 'designers' have been out of new ideas for over 6 years now? That really speaks volumes for the 'talent' involved then.

Now you're just being deliberately obtuse. There's more to game design than just the core concept of a new title, and it could very well be that they're just trying to find ideas that work (you know, like everyone else in the industry). The thing is though, instead of creating another modernbattleduty shooter, they'll pick up small mod teams and game devs and collaborate with them on a project. Because Valve isn't big on expanding like a standard corporation would, they choose to invite employees from those teams to work with them in Seattle, and the unstructured work culture they strive for means that they wont put much emphasis on creating or assigning teams.

Also, the fact that you appear to consider Blood Dragon to be a more distinct product than Portal 2 is hilarious. Please tell me I'm mistaken