Valve Not Interested in "Selling Out"

[MercurySteam]

The guys at Valve Software [http://www.valvesoftware.com/] say they have no interest in taking the company public because they don't want to have to worry about keeping shareholders happy.

Activision made this mistake a loooooooooooooong time ago. It's good to see Valve doesn't want to make the same mistake.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Look at him! Look how supportive he is of his best friend. ;.;
​

Yeah...that picture of Jesus...really not helping

 

[Last Bullet]

The back of my head is disappointed I might never have Valve stock. Honest to god, I would give Gabe money to hand me a rock and call it "Valve Stock." Just so I could say I have it.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Yeah...that picture of Jesus...really not helping

Spoiler: Come on down to the Jesus Emporium and get a Jesus custom built for you today!

I was looking for something a bit more Jewish? Possibly with a smidgen of pigmentation? And less modern fibres? Possibly got that "born in a stable" look?

 

[Dectilon]

I think the comment about Walken wasn't so much critique of the actor so much as suggesting that people who don't understand the business think cameos of famous people is what sells games.

Actually, some people who allegedly DO understand the business think so too. I mean, just look at ME2.

 

[viciouspen]

Yes yay for Valve for having the balls to stick to what they really believe in.

Really nice people too. Met them a few times at developer conventions. I got a bag of swag for saving some of them from a fanboy who was practically leg humping the guy upfront in the booth.

I think that there's a lot of studios out there that could take a LOT of ques from Valve. Pretty rare for a company to consistently satisfy the people that play their games as much as they do.
Dump a gigamillion pile of cash and throw a lot more cooks in the kitchen and see where it gets you.
It gets you games like Haze and corporate lame trash like that.

On a relate note, I'm fairly certain that if they don't get the next Half Life out at some date in time before the next decade, that a sea of geeks will surround the studio and assail it all zombie horde like in not much longer.

 

[dochmbi]

Merge Valve with Activision-Blizzard and put Bobby Kotick in charge. New Half-Life sequel every year! Yay!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Will that be cash or credit card today sir?

Sorry, paying for it? Have you not read Revelations 13:16-18 and it's relation to barcodes?

 

[GonzoGamer]

While I would personally own VALVe stock, I am really glad to hear this. When companies go public, they have the responsibility of answering to their stockholders and not to their community.

They would be forced to deliver products before they were completed and polished, and that just isn't their style. Also, God forbid they ever decided to replace Gabe... The gaming community might rise as one and bring about the apocolypse.

...like to own a piece of their action but they're right: if they went public, their decisions would be based on what "the board" wants and not what their fans want. It's the reason we have halfway functional consoles and halfway finished games this gen.
Board members are only concerned about the bottom line (raising the stock's prices for shareholders) and not about the consumer's wants and needs. It's one of the major flaws of capitalism.

What's an IPO?

IPO = Initial Public Offering, where company offers public shares for the first time, prompting much speculative buying

Though publicly traded shares can be a great way to accumulate a bankroll for a major game project, the downside is that voting rights typically are awarded on a 1-share = 1-vote basis, which can lead to voting pressure to focus on short-term gain, whilst damaging their long-term viability.

An interesting idea had been put forth to introduce voting limits on newly bought shares, such as not allowing them to count towards voting for a certain length of time (e.g., months, or a year). The counter argument to such schemes is that voting limits would discourage investors from buying shares in the first place.

They also have a very loyal fanbase they can take advantage of. Gamestop gets people to pre-order games (and some people pay for the full game) months ahead of time, what if Valve did the same thing directly with consumers. Maybe even offering early release, beta testing (which somehow has become a prize instead of a job), and other premiums like DLC. To really get people into it, they can arrange elements of the game for "investors/pre-orderers" to be voted on. Things that aren't a big deal like: do witches need a haircut. Or big things like who the next TF2 class should be depending on how daring they want to be.
There are plenty of people who would buy into a Valve game before they even know anything about it. The question is would there be enough people to make it worth it.

 

[mishagale]

Didn't Gabe already sell out when he totally changed his attitude about the PS3 once he had product to shift on it?...

Given your username, I find your choice of words ironic.

You should read your bible good sir.
According to the Gospel of Judas he was asked by Jesus himself to "betray" him since he had to be crucified for mans sins.
Since Judas was his most trusted disciple he was the only one Jesus could rely on to do such a task and have people cursing his name for all eternity.
A great and greatly misunderstood man was Judas.

Didn't someone recently discover "The Gospel According to Judas" wherein he made that same point? I always figured he kinda got the short end of the stick, what with the crucifixion being part of the divine plan and all (and when I say divine, I guess I mean "batshit insane".)

 

[mikecoulter]

I don't really mind the amount of time they take, you can always fill said time playing their back catalogue.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

While I would personally own VALVe stock, I am really glad to hear this. When companies go public, they have the responsibility of answering to their stockholders and not to their community.

They would be forced to deliver products before they were completed and polished, and that just isn't their style. Also, God forbid they ever decided to replace Gabe... The gaming community might rise as one and bring about the apocolypse.

...like to own a piece of their action but they're right: if they went public, their decisions would be based on what "the board" wants and not what their fans want. It's the reason we have halfway functional consoles and halfway finished games this gen.
Board members are only concerned about the bottom line (raising the stock's prices for shareholders) and not about the consumer's wants and needs. It's one of the major flaws of capitalism.

What's an IPO?

IPO = Initial Public Offering, where company offers public shares for the first time, prompting much speculative buying

Though publicly traded shares can be a great way to accumulate a bankroll for a major game project, the downside is that voting rights typically are awarded on a 1-share = 1-vote basis, which can lead to voting pressure to focus on short-term gain, whilst damaging their long-term viability.

An interesting idea had been put forth to introduce voting limits on newly bought shares, such as not allowing them to count towards voting for a certain length of time (e.g., months, or a year). The counter argument to such schemes is that voting limits would discourage investors from buying shares in the first place.

Going bankrupt is generally a FAR, FAR better idea than going Public. External shareholders are almost universally short-sighted morons, excepting those with no voting power. The best idea is to scrap the regulations requiring that companies act in the interest of shareholders, replacing them with ethics regulations carrying extremely stiff penalties.

I like this idea of yours because it would mean the stock market wouldn't have so much power over the future of companies that are traded over it.

 

[Evilsanta]

Id rather have Valve time releases then bad games realsesd more often.

 

[Callate]

I'm just as happy to not see Valve in any of these articles with analysts pushing bullshit about how the company is failing to live up to the expectations of investors.

 

[linkzeldi]

Woot! Way to go Valve.

Christoper Walking is awesome no matter where he goes. I'm sure he'd be great in a Valve game.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

But nobody takes it too seriously because although Valve is slow, it's also unerringly brilliant.

OK. Detente time here. If you game journalists will agree to stop making unsupportable blanket assertions like that, I'll stop calling you out for them.

This is your one pass.

I suppose it depends upon what mechanism you use to qualify brilliance. If you choose to use a measurable benchmark, such as critical and commercial success, the statement can, in fact, be supported seeing as each of their games has been both critically and commercially successful.

If you use some metric that is impossible to measure, then yes, the statement is impossible to support. From a simple rhetorical standpoint, I'd say this statement is a valid argument. The counter to such an argument generally lies in definition, specifically what is "brilliance" and how does one measure it.

 

[SaintWaldo]

But nobody takes it too seriously because although Valve is slow, it's also unerringly brilliant.

OK. Detente time here. If you game journalists will agree to stop making unsupportable blanket assertions like that, I'll stop calling you out for them.

This is your one pass.

I suppose it depends upon what mechanism you use to qualify brilliance. If you choose to use a measurable benchmark, such as critical and commercial success, the statement can, in fact, be supported seeing as each of their games has been both critically and commercially successful.

If you use some metric that is impossible to measure, then yes, the statement is impossible to support. From a simple rhetorical standpoint, I'd say this statement is a valid argument. The counter to such an argument generally lies in definition, specifically what is "brilliance" and how does one measure it.

It's not presented as an argument or an opinion or a qualified statement of fact. It's a an assertion of opinion as fact. Popularity or acclaim do not require one to agree with any of those statements, as they are both just as subjective as the original statement. And consumers of The Orange Box on PS3 might have something to say about the use of the phrase, "unerringly brilliant". Since reasonable dispute exists, a word like "unerringly" crosses the line of qualification into assertion absent any qualifiers.

Opinions aren't facts. My request is that the fine folks that contribute here stop speaking as if they were.