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

Aeshi

New member
Dec 22, 2009
2,640
0
0
BlameTheWizards said:
"...you want them to recognize that being really good at Half-Life level design is not as nearly as valued as thinking of how to design social multiplayer experiences. ..."
Oh, so that's why Rottenburg crashes about 30% more than any other map & Manhattan is flat-out unplayable, it's because level design isn't as valuable as social multiplayer!

Thanks Gabe, I can rest easier knowing that I can socialize with the other players in the game in a better-designed manner than usual in the 45 minutes I have before TF2 inevitably freezes again.
 

AdrianCeltigar

New member
Jan 8, 2011
68
0
0
I once had a manager who treated our crew of 10 people like they were human beings with individual lives. We're a very easy group of people to blame because we work at night and none of the upper management ever see us, or how much work we do. "Oh, _______ didn't get done, the night guys are just lazy." This manager stood up for us, fought for us and argued against changes to our job designed by people who had never done it. His job description basically had him supervising us, but he trusted us to do what needed to be done without being watched and he joined in and did the same work we did. He even made sure our schedules were to our liking every week. We go years without applicants to our job and the people we do hire don't show up, or quit after two days - he knew we were very difficult to replace.

He was fired; replaced with an incompetent Yes-Man who agreed to everything upper-management said and puts us at fault when changes don't work and impossible amounts of work don't get done. The conditions in the company have fallen dramatically due to numerous flaws in the new system, and huge drops in morale, job satisfaction and employee trust.

Say what you will about their games, or their business practices - I don't personally play their games much aside from Portal - but I think they're on to something with their internal structure. The crew I work with had a similarly lax environment where we were trusted to do what needed to be done without supervision. We didn't need a manager's approval for every little detail and we didn't need to report to management on our progress. A lot of work got done, and conditions were very good all around. Since they abandoned that 'system' (or lack-there-of) much less work gets done, and conditions are steadily dropping. We used to be among the best in the province, now we are the worst; a fact our new manager continues to throw at our feet and blame us for.
 

BarkBarker

New member
May 30, 2013
466
0
0
If you love the job, and you bloody SHOULD if your in game development, you won't WANT to be designated to one position, I want to be a designer, I'd be happy to write the story if I wanted to, I have an extreme fixation on the sound and music, I want to be THAT GUY standing in front of an audience revealing the games we have been working on, I could never be "designated" because I enjoy so much of a game and want to see it all raised to a high standard, I refuse to have a weak link because we didn't try, a standard of quality is a sign of a professional and I WILL NOT be seen as anything otherwise should the opportunity present itself.
 

Multi-Hobbyist

New member
Oct 26, 2009
167
0
0
Ssssooooo ..... HL3 confirmed. No but srsly, flexibility is nice. Adaptability is better. Why is it that only this guy seems to understand the right business approaches to the modern games industry? Fucking take notes, EA. But that aside, what really makes a company productive is a multitude of factors. The work has to be challenging, but not too much so. The payoff for the work has to be worth the endeavor, the bosses have to work with you rather than on top of you, employees need to be encouraged and have their progress recognized, etc etc etc. But most of all, you need employees that LOVE what they do. But he knows this already, it seems. Gabe Newell, well done mate, and KBO. If shoving another $10-15 bucks at your Steam sales keeps you happily shoveling quad-triple cheeseburgers down your gullet and a plump, happy man, I'll do so with gusto. Just focus on getting us all those 3's.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
CManator said:
So maybe i'm misinterpreting, but his words (in this article at least) seem pretty sound to me, if a little idealistic.
They are a bit idealistic.

I do not know how things go down creatively behind closed doors at Valve, but what I do know is that Gabe Newell has the financial power to let his tiny population of developers fight and argue and revise all they want.
His wealth buys them the luxuries every game developer dreams of: Time and a good Paycheck.

The only other company that grants such luxury, seemingly, is Blizzard.
But that's only based on what I knew about Old Blizzard. I imagine New Blizzard isn't quite as rosy.
 

zombflux

New member
Oct 7, 2009
456
0
0
All of you complaining about Half-Life 3 not being released fast enough and saying Valve needs more structure so that they can meet deadlines: there are plenty of EA Games out for you to play.

I'll keep waiting patiently for Half-Life 3 because I know even if they don't release it until 2020 it will be the best game yet.
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
zombflux said:
All of you complaining about Half-Life 3 not being released fast enough and saying Valve needs more structure so that they can meet deadlines: there are plenty of EA Games out for you to play.

I'll keep waiting patiently for Half-Life 3 because I know even if they don't release it until 2020 it will be the best game yet.
This. If there was a news story about an EA employee who had a great talent for designing single player levels, but was being ignored because his job title at EA was exclusively 'multiplayer designer', people would be rolling their eyes and going 'lol EA'.

Story about Valve having the opposite attitude and what happens? Outrage because still no Half Life 3.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
synobal said:
According to valves detractors any game put out by valve isn't actually a game unless it is a half life game. I'm not certain how it works but apparently this is the case.
Yeah, I know. I know. I've been posting on this forum for years so I should've known better. I should've just expected the usual line of nonsense.

But sometimes...the nonsense, untruths, and hyperbole get so damned ridiculous; and in this one case so contradictory; that I can't help by chime in.

I guess it's just in my nature to call out bullshit when I see it. It's partly why I sometimes stay out of the more controversial threads, regardless of the topic. The "BS levels" get so high in those that it's overwhelming.

I'll be happy when Half Life 3 comes out myself but I'm hardly begging for it or demanding it like so many people seem to be. Indeed I tend to be more interested in the new stuff valve is working on, they will release a new half life game when they are ready and it will be good, until then I'm more curious about the other stuff they are doing.
My thoughts exactly.

The Half-Life series is still one of my favorites within the video gaming medium. It holds a special place in my "heart". Even so, I'm just as interested in seeing what things the creative minds at Valve come up with as I am seeing them churn out a third installment to the series.

So if Valve wants to put out Dota 2 and TF2 events, Left 4 Dead 3, a game-centric operating system, and a controller instead of a sequel they may or may not be ready to make....so be it.

:/
 

ckam

Make America Great For Who?
Oct 8, 2008
1,618
0
0
Welp, gotta appreciate the guy. That's some pretty positive thinking.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Agayek said:
Valve has more or less stopped focusing on creating games, at least to any level of public scrutiny,
Perhaps you can explain to me what this means, exactly. Specifically: what "public scrutiny" means in regards to game releases. Because, to be frank, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

and has instead shifted their focus onto other, ancillary aspects of the industry, such as running Steam, putting together the SteamOS, working on an Occulus knock-off, etc. Very little of their core business is about the production of video games anymore. They still do it, certainly, but it's far from central to their business.
Based on what evidence there is (i.e. their public releases), it seems they have every bit as much vested interest in releasing new games as they do any of their other endeavors. Not sure how you can claim otherwise.

My original point was that I'd rather they don't try to spread their corporate structure throughout the industry, because such a shift in focus is inevitable, because it really isn't a structure. The business will shift and move at almost complete random, drawn by the whim of the employees. Valve has made it work fantastically well, through a solid combination of talent, drive, good recruiting practices, and a decent helping of luck, but very few other businesses could handle such a setup and stay in business for long.
Their business structure is unorthodox, yes. But you seem to be indicating that, because of this, they are inevitably doomed to fail.

Not really sure how you can think this. The "standard" business structure used by most developers and publishers certainly isn't "failure proof".
3D Realms ? 2009

7 Studios (Activision) ? 2011

Backbone Vancouver

BigBig (Sony) ? 2012

Bizarre Creations (Activision) ? 2010/2011

Black Rock (Disney) ? 2011

Blue Fang Games ? 2011

Blue Tongue (THQ) ? 2011

BottleRocket ? 2009

Brash Entertainment ? 2008

Budcat (Activision) ? 2010

Castaway Entertainment ? 2008

Cheyenne Mountain ? 2010

Cing ? 2010

Clover Studios (Capcom) ? 2006

Codemasters Guildford ? 2011

Cohort Studios ? 2011

Concrete Games ? 2008

Deep Silver Vienna ? 2010

DICE Canada ? 2006

EA Chicago ? 2007

EA Bright Light ? 2011/2012

EA Japan ? 2007

Eidos Manchester ? 2009

Eidos Hungary ? 2010

Ensemble Studios (Microsoft) ? 2008

Factor 5 ? 2009

FASA (Microsoft) ? 2007

Fizz Factor ? 2009

Flagship Studios ? 2008

Flight Plan ? 2010

Frozen North Productions

FuzzyEyes ? 2009

Gamelab ? 2009

Game Republic ? 2011

GRIN ? 2009

Helixe (THQ) ? 2008

Hudson Entertainment ? 2011

Humannature Studio (Nexon Vancouver) ? 2009

Ignition London ? 2010

Ignition Florida ? 2010

Incognito Entertainment (Sony) ? 2009

Indie Built (Take-Two) ? 2006

Iron Lore ? 2008

Juice Games (THQ) ? 2011

Kaos Studios (THQ) ? 2011

Killaware ? 2011

Killspace Entertainment ? 2011

KMM Brisbane ? 2011

Krome Studios (might still be operating on skeleton crew) ? 2010

Kuju Manila ? 2009

Kuju Chemistry ? 2009

Kush Games ? 2008

Locomotive Games (THQ) ? 2010

Luxoflux ? 2010

Mass Media (THQ) ? 2008

Monte Cristo ? 2010

Monumental Games ? 2012

Midway Austin ? 2009

Midway Newcastle ? 2009

MTV Games ? 2011

Multiverse ? 2012

NetDevil ? 2011

Ninja Studio ? 2009

Outerlight ? 2010

PAM Development (Take-Two) ? 2008

Pandemic Australia (EA) ? 2009

Pandemic LA (EA) ? 2009

Paradigm Entertainment ? 2008

Pi Studios ? 2011

Pivotal Games (Take-Two) ? 2008

Propaganda Games (Disney) ? 2011

Pseudo Interactive ? 2008

Rainbow Studios (THQ) ? 2011

Realtime Worlds ? 2010

Rebellion Derby ? 2010

Red Octane ? 2010

Rockstar Vienna ? 2006

Sandblast Games (THQ) ? 2008

SEGA San Francisco ? 2010

Shaba Games (Activision) ? 2009

SOE Denver ? 2011

SOE Seattle ? 2011

SOE Tuscon ? 2011

Stormfront Studios ? 2008

Straylight Studios ? 2009

Team Bondi ? 2011

The Code Monkeys ? 2011

Titan Studios ? 2009

THQ Studio Australia ? 2009

THQ Digital Warrington ? 2009

Transmission Games ? 2009

Universomo (THQ) ? 2009

Venom Games (Take Two) ? 2008

Vicarious Visions California ? 2007

Visceral Australia (EA) ? 2011

Wolfpack Studios ? 2006

Yuke?s Company Of America ? 2010

Zoe Mode London ? 2009

Regardless, I'm not saying Valve can't fail. That's always a possibility. And with the rather uncertain outlook of the industry's future, anything can happen.

But given the ever-increasing success their company has seen for over the past decade, I hardly believe "luck" played any part of it.

Agayek said:
It's one per two years, unless I missed something,
You have.

which is entirely possible but if there are other games, they sure as hell didn't advertise them any.
Are you saying that unless a game is advertised (regardless of it's success), or unless you specifically know of it, it doesn't "count"?

But it's also irrelevant to my point.

They've made it fairly clear over the past year or two that they are becoming less and less interested in creating games.
Again, how so? If the recent info "leaks" are to be believed, they have at least two more games in active development. Specifically, Left 4 Dead 3 and Half-Life 3.

They may be branching out into other endeavors, but there's no evidence indicating they've "lost focus" on crafting new games. Especially when one considers that they've been actively developing their "non-game" projects for quite a few years now; having only gone public with their plans last year; and all-the-while developing and releasing numerous game projects.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Scootinfroodie said:
Shhh! Stop it. You're making sense and pointing out a major flaw in the average detractor's logic.

You're not supposed to do that. Reasoned, logical discussions free from untruths and double-standards are verboten!

Atmos Duality said:
The only other company that grants such luxury, seemingly, is Blizzard.
But that's only based on what I knew about Old Blizzard. I imagine New Blizzard isn't quite as rosy.
It's not quite as, but Blizzard still retains a decent level of cart-blanche with their designs. Primarily due to their rather sizable revenues.

Activision's influence can be felt in this area or that, but for the most part Blizzard still gets to dictate what they do and when.
 

Itsthefuzz

New member
Apr 1, 2010
221
0
0
amaranth_dru said:
One thing I think you're missing is that games like CS:GO, DOTA 2, and TF2 are still popular and successful not because Valve just bought a popular game and released it with a coat of paint. Valve's input with those titles have been on heavily improving the structure for players (professionally and casually) with updates and other means of support. TF2 is still alive in kicking thanks to the constant updates involving gameplay and cosmetics. The game pretty much updates itself now thanks to their connection with content creators, something that other companies haven't taken advantage of as much before. DOTA 2 and CS:GO are both being changed with the idea to make it easier for players to get into, and better for professionals to continue playing the game. The International 3 was hugely successful and pretty much paid for itself, thanks to Valves creation of the Compendium. They're likely to do the same with the Counter Strike competitive scene, and the game is seeing a healthy, growing player base.

Valve may not innovate their titles gameplay-wise, but they're completely changing the support structures around those games to make them successful as they are. Why try to change the gameplay if it's already solid?
 

black_knight1337

New member
Mar 1, 2011
472
0
0
Scootinfroodie said:
Sorry but if we're excluding mods and buyouts, we're going to have to exclude a large portion of gaming
Not really, most of the time it's the modders turning it into a game themselves or having a publisher back them to do so. Feel free to provide some examples of other developers doing it the same way Valve does though.

Major publishers? They're responsible for basically nothing if you take out companies they've purchased/merged with, yet in a lot of cases those devs wouldn't have been able to create what they have without a large company backing them.
I wouldn't say 'EA developed Mass Effect' or 'Activision developed Call of Duty', the same as I wouldn't say Valve developed ... most of 'their' games.

Also, I guess Little Big Planet deserves less credit in terms of level design, because they hired a guy for the community explicitly for his level design
That's ... another thing entirely. There's a difference between hiring someone to work on a game (Which is how almost every developer got their job) and buying out a team while their making a game to give it a bit more polish and put your name on it instead of theirs (Which is what Valve does).

And why not take credit away from Valve entirely? I mean, Half-Life is based on a modified version of the engine id used to make Quake.... and so is Call of Duty for that matter
Now you're just taking it to an absurd level. If that were the case that almost every game in existence is just a mod.

This is just how the industry works. Companies that want to survive hire people who can prove they have done, or will do, something worthwhile, and then they get paid or bought out. Heck, the current publisher model basically forces devs to make at least part of the game, then hope someone funds it. The publisher then oversees the project, and sometimes lends its own staff to the company in question. Homefront, for example, had a team come in to help them finish the game for its stated release date.
Have Valve ever, technically, published a game? Nope. As for your example, swap Homefront for Left 4 Dead and that team that helped finish it off was Valve (Along with other things like taking all the credit for them and then disbanding the original dev team after release).

It's also one of the generally accepted ways to get into the industry without necessarily going through the usual career path. Make a mod or game that is big enough, and someone will come knocking at your door to have you replicate it or create something new at their company. If you don't keep trying to bring in new ideas and talented people, you fall behind and fail.
See above.

The fact that they're still going out of their way to hire these people and throw their weight as a company behind them shows that games are still a priority for them, even if new/unfinished projects aren't getting as much attention as their ridiculously large storefront or attempts at getting into hardware.
I haven't weighed in on this but I agree for the most part. The only difference would be that I'd say it was a rather low priority for them currently. It's still something they do but lately it's being overshadowed by their efforts in other areas.

It's also worth noting that the support their games get years after launch is far better than that of most other companies. As much as I don't really care for the game, compare TF2's free content creation to that of pretty much any other title over the same period of time. Unless you're looking at mods there really isn't much else.
Fair enough point, not particularly relevant but true. That's the good thing about their structure, they don't have people forcing them to rehash the same games over and over like some other big name developers do. I wouldn't count TF2 in that as much though, constant support is just what has to be done for a F2P title to remain successful. Games like Path of Exile would fit in the same category, of course it hasn't been around as long but according to the devs they've got a good decade of support in them. And their are others that do the same, Blizzard comes to mind and so does CDPR.


The alternative, really, is to only go with safe franchises. Valve could have been releasing Half Life 14 or HL2 Episode 8 but I suspect that most people in this thread would not really be all that happy with that proposal.
No, not at all. People can come up with 'original' ideas themselves y'know, they don't need to go and buy out indies so they can have a flow of fresh ideas. Games like Hearthstone and Blood Dragon are good examples of this.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
5,178
0
0
Vigormortis said:
Perhaps you can explain to me what this means, exactly. Specifically: what "public scrutiny" means in regards to game releases. Because, to be frank, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Simple. To all external appearance, they seem to be focusing almost entirely on 1) maintaining Steam, 2) the Steam Box/SteamOS, and 3) fiddling around with other miscellaneous projects, most of which are hardware. They haven't announced the development of any games in recent years.

Thus, to any level of public scrutiny, they have stopped focusing on creating games.

Based on what evidence there is (i.e. their public releases), it seems they have every bit as much vested interest in releasing new games as they do any of their other endeavors. Not sure how you can claim otherwise.
See above. They haven't made a peep in any press release or public statement that I've seen over the last two years regarding active development of any games.

Their business structure is unorthodox, yes. But you seem to be indicating that, because of this, they are inevitably doomed to fail.

Regardless, I'm not saying Valve can't fail. That's always a possibility. And with the rather uncertain outlook of the industry's future, anything can happen.

But given the ever-increasing success their company has seen for over the past decade, I hardly believe "luck" played any part of it.
You're deliberately misreading what I said. I did not say Valve was doomed to failure. Matter of fact, I said the exact opposite. They make it work phenomenally well.

What I said is that their business structure is not one that most companies can follow. Valve makes it work through the perfect combination of talent, passion, luck, and good recruiting practices. Very few other companies are in a position to make it work anywhere near as effectively, and for them, such a setup would be doomed to failure.

Valve's structure is not bad, but it's, frankly, a miracle that it's worked as well as it has, and I'd really prefer that other companies do not attempt to follow them.

Are you saying that unless a game is advertised (regardless of it's success), or unless you specifically know of it, it doesn't "count"?
Not at all. What I mean by that statement is that for a company to create and release a game, and then not advertise it in such a way that someone who browses their own store daily, they obviously must not care about it a great deal.

I freely admit, it's possible that I've missed a couple of games that they've made and released, but I spend a great deal of time on Steam, and it boggles my mind that Valve would release a game, then have no mention of it in the "recent releases" pop-up, let alone in the store itself.

Again, how so? If the recent info "leaks" are to be believed, they have at least two more games in active development. Specifically, Left 4 Dead 3 and Half-Life 3.

They may be branching out into other endeavors, but there's no evidence indicating they've "lost focus" on crafting new games. Especially when one considers that they've been actively developing their "non-game" projects for quite a few years now; having only gone public with their plans last year; and all-the-while developing and releasing numerous game projects.
See the first response in this post. Their public face is that of a company growing less and less involved in actual game development. That may or may not be the behind the scenes truth, but it is the appearance, and we have nothing to go on but their appearance for the purposes of this discussion.
 

Scootinfroodie

New member
Dec 23, 2013
100
0
0
black_knight1337 said:
Not really, most of the time it's the modders turning it into a game themselves or having a publisher back them to do so. Feel free to provide some examples of other developers doing it the same way Valve does though.
How is "publisher backs them" any better than "Valve hires them and then gives them long-term access to their workforce and resources"?

black_knight1337 said:
I wouldn't say 'EA developed Mass Effect' or 'Activision developed Call of Duty', the same as I wouldn't say Valve developed ... most of 'their' games.
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.
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"

black_knight1337 said:
That's ... another thing entirely. There's a difference between hiring someone to work on a game (Which is how almost every developer got their job) and buying out a team while their making a game to give it a bit more polish and put your name on it instead of theirs (Which is what Valve does).
Icefrog is a team?

Also a very large number of employees in the industry actually get in through education and networking. While a lot of the industry veterans may have earned their way in through being self taught, a great deal of the newer employees get in wherever they can and attempt to show their true ability, or get the best education they can from the "right" schools.

black_knight1337 said:
Now you're just taking it to an absurd level. If that were the case that almost every game in existence is just a mod.
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.

black_knight1337 said:
Have Valve ever, technically, published a game? Nope. As for your example, swap Homefront for Left 4 Dead and that team that helped finish it off was Valve (Along with other things like taking all the credit for them and then disbanding the original dev team after release).
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. Even if the game had actually made a profit, if that profit did not match the expectations of the publisher (if you want to see what I'm talking about, check out Tomb Raider, Hitman Absolution and Sleeping Dogs) then there could potentially be trouble for the franchise (in the three listed cases, thankfully there doesn't seem to be)

black_knight1337 said:
I haven't weighed in on this but I agree for the most part. The only difference would be that I'd say it was a rather low priority for them currently. It's still something they do but lately it's being overshadowed by their efforts in other areas.
If you wanna get picky about it, Steam has probably taken up most of their attention since it became a success, which is something they've tried to minimize with Greenlight and other features.

black_knight1337 said:
Fair enough point, not particularly relevant but true. That's the good thing about their structure, they don't have people forcing them to rehash the same games over and over like some other big name developers do. I wouldn't count TF2 in that as much though, constant support is just what has to be done for a F2P title to remain successful. Games like Path of Exile would fit in the same category, of course it hasn't been around as long but according to the devs they've got a good decade of support in them. And their are others that do the same, Blizzard comes to mind and so does CDPR.
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 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.
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").

black_knight1337 said:
No, not at all. People can come up with 'original' ideas themselves y'know, they don't need to go and buy out indies so they can have a flow of fresh ideas. Games like Hearthstone and Blood Dragon are good examples of this.
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?

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.
 

Aiddon_v1legacy

New member
Nov 19, 2009
3,672
0
0
I always suspected that Valve was no longer interested in making GAMES, despite that being their origin, but now it looks like my suspicions have been confirmed. This is why I can't really consider Valve a game developer, so much as a publisher/distributor. And I can't really BLAME them per say considering how their borderline monopoly with Steam makes them a lot more money
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Agayek said:
Simple. To all external appearance, they seem to be focusing almost entirely on 1) maintaining Steam, 2) the Steam Box/SteamOS, and 3) fiddling around with other miscellaneous projects, most of which are hardware. They haven't announced the development of any games in recent years.

Thus, to any level of public scrutiny, they have stopped focusing on creating games.
Even if there wasn't already evidence that they've got two to three games in active development, the fact that they are still actively creating new content and events for the games they've already released proves they're still prioritizing games.

Now, you could argue that some teams within Valve are prioritizing other endeavors besides games, but it's still pretty clear that the vast majority are still working on game-content creation.

See above. They haven't made a peep in any press release or public statement that I've seen over the last two years regarding active development of any games.
There's the possibility that Valve are simply not ready to talk about the games they do have in development. It's already been confirmed that they're actively working on Left 4 Dead 3 and Half-Life 3, but maybe these games aren't in a state in which the respective teams are willing to talk about them publicly.

Silence doesn't mean inactivity. It doesn't indicate activity either. It just means one must rely on other avenues of evidence on what the teams are doing, or not doing. As such, the other evidence indicates that they are, in fact, developing new games.

To what degree is unknown, so making an assertion one way or the other in that regard is pointless.
You're deliberately misreading what I said. I did not say Valve was doomed to failure. Matter of fact, I said the exact opposite. They make it work phenomenally well.
You said their business structure would lead them to wander and ultimately to lose direction. These things imply failure. That may have not been your intention but that's how it came off.

If that was not the point you wanted to make, so be it. My misunderstanding. I was just trying to clarify that their structure doesn't inherently lead to meandering or failure; at least no more so than the standard structure. It can lead to such things, as has happened to others, but it's not inherent.

What I said is that their business structure is not one that most companies can follow. Valve makes it work through the perfect combination of talent, passion, luck, and good recruiting practices. Very few other companies are in a position to make it work anywhere near as effectively, and for them, such a setup would be doomed to failure.
For many, yes. I agree. Such a structure would lead to failure.

However, I believe some could function in such a way. Notably, smaller devs or those already functioning independently.

It would take time to find their footing but given the fluid nature of game design I believe there are plenty of dev teams out there that could make it work.

Valve's structure is not bad, but it's, frankly, a miracle that it's worked as well as it has, and I'd really prefer that other companies do not attempt to follow them.
But Valve isn't the only company to use such a "flat" structure.

Google uses a similar structure and they've been incredibly successful. So the success of companies like Google and Valve isn't so much a "miracle" as it is smart planning, business savvy, and shared communal vision.

That said, I agree in that I too would rather not see all devs adopt such a system. The system can and does work, but wouldn't for all. As such, adopting it would be a death knell for some.

Not at all. What I mean by that statement is that for a company to create and release a game, and then not advertise it in such a way that someone who browses their own store daily, they obviously must not care about it a great deal.

I freely admit, it's possible that I've missed a couple of games that they've made and released, but I spend a great deal of time on Steam, and it boggles my mind that Valve would release a game, then have no mention of it in the "recent releases" pop-up, let alone in the store itself.
Well, these are the games they've released in the past four years:
Dota 2
Portal 2
Left 4 Dead 2
Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
Alien Swarm

If you've missed these I'm not sure what to say. The releases were pretty public; with three of them seeing numerous TV adverts.

And, besides Alien Swarm (which was a community-support experiment that failed to take off), Valve very much cares about those games. The post-launch support verifies this.

See the first response in this post. Their public face is that of a company growing less and less involved in actual game development. That may or may not be the behind the scenes truth, but it is the appearance, and we have nothing to go on but their appearance for the purposes of this discussion.
Approximately six or seven months ago they publicly released Dota 2. Not even a year's gone by since their last game release. Many companies go years in between new game announcements and releases. Why should Valve be an exception?

Likewise, they've run not one but five major events in three of their respective games (not counting minor events and other content releases) within the past three months. That's a pretty good indication that they're still very much interested in developing gaming content.

Besides, if we were to infer a companies goals and intentions solely by their public announcements, then EA is the most trust-worthy and reliable publisher in the industry.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Regardless of all of this, I think you and I agree on some things, but are splitting hairs over semantics. And our discussion is getting ever-so-slightly off topic.

The one thing I think we both agree wholeheartedly on is: if Valve doesn't get some fresh, new game releases out within the next two years, things could start to get rocky for them, even with Steam revenues.
 

deadish

New member
Dec 4, 2011
694
0
0
Easy to say and all, but game development isn't getting easier. Specialisation is inevitable if you want to be decent at something - at least for the technical aspect of game design. Heck, even in the later days of id software, before he left, John Carmack doesn't solo write the game engine anymore. It was just getting too big.
 

Silentpony_v1legacy

Alleged Feather-Rustler
Jun 5, 2013
6,760
0
0
I'm always offended whenever he comes out and says, well...anything about the game industry. I mean, who the hell is he to give advice or brag about anything anymore? Its not 2001, and he's not the messiah of gaming. He's the dude whose a little too in-love with his own farts. Steam is good, yes, but like iTunes, its good because its the only one. Its a monopoly, so by definition its successful. Yes, good for Valve for doing the whole digital game distribution network in a user-friendly manner. Great, good job. How about releasing a game? Last one was what, Portal 2? In 2010?
Its 2014, and our nostalgia only lasts so long before we turn on you. Ask Nintendo or Sega how they're doing riding high off of not doing anything.
Gabe needs to spend a little less time bragging about how revolutionary Steam was and a little more time...I dunno...developing a game?