Valve's Newell Issues Firings Statement

[Ilikemilkshake]

To be fair people have ample reason to be that way when it comes to Valve, nobody wants to think something might be wrong with them when you've got hundreds or possibly thousands of dollars worth of games tied to their platform.

I don't agree with you.

When you built a reputation of EXTREME trust and have millions of players playing games on your non-transferable account-based platform, you are subject to a large amount of scrutiny. You are not paying for a service (no matter how hard others try to convince you, games are a PRODUCT) that is easily replaceable if the conditions are unfavorable. This isn't like netflix where you can just view whatever your feel like whenever and just keep paying a nominal fee. If that was the case, the nominal fee would result in FULL ACCESS TO THE ENTIRE STEAM LIBRARY ON DEMAND(wouldn't that be fantastic?). If something happens, your library is GONE and there is only one way to regain access to what you paid for.

Uh.. I actually agree with that but what does any of what you just said have to do with my post? Infact if anything you're only backing up what I said. People don't want to see valve in trouble because they don't want all their games to disappear. So what exactly are you disagreeing with?

 

[cerebus23]

Let's see, 25 high-profile employees. That's at least $300k/yr saved.

...nope, couldn't have been a financial decision when Valve nets that kind of money weekly.

I'm honestly curious as to why Valve purged that many people at once. Trying to maximize something on the spreadsheets before the end of the Fiscal year?

is that in 1960s dollars? isn't 300k est. seemingly a bit low for a high profile heads of departments type people? especially when one of them collects pinball games to put in your office.

25 seems rather excessive for nothing out of the ordinary however, maybe they were all planning a coup and gabe caught wind nipped it in the bud.

and some of these people were long time employees by the look of it, maybe it was simply a case of old dogs not learning the new tricks fast enough for gabes taste and it was just time to trim the fat so to speak.

 

[VinLAURiA]

I'm starting to feel a little wary of VALVe. I pretty much loved them as much as I love Nintendo, but it seems to me lately that the entire company is shifting its focus to just maintaining Steam while they work on DotA 2: Another Godawful Piece of MOBA Trash. Guess that smell of money emanating from LoL was a bit too strong.

 

[Spygon]

This is why companies don't just jump into the hardware market as companies need a lot of financial backing to pull it off.

 

[Reeve]

He should have said "No, this isn't about Steam or Linux or hardware or [insert subject game name here].

 

[cjspyres]

Yeah, I have to agree. This worries me just a little bit. My best guess is that the Steambox isn't going exactly as planned. Maybe they're scraping the idea? I always figured that if it didn't live up to their expectations, they wouldn't release it for the quick bucks back. Doesn't seem like Valve's style.

 

[CommanderL]

I think it's obvious what's happened - the cuddly Gabe we know and love has been replaced by his evil self from a parallel dimension, which explains his Beard of Evil. [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BeardOfEvil]

Either that or he found out they've just been arsing about for the last eight years instead of working on Half Life 3 like they were supposed to.

You son of a ***** i had plans why did you have to link me to tv tropes my day is gone -kidding- But people need to remeber valve is a bussiness and bussiness fire peopl

 

[piinyouri]

It's really no one else s business anyway.

 

[Strazdas]

When you OWN a company you do sort of have the right to decide who you do or do not employ. Discussing reasons for termination by a company can also be a breach of privacy of the individual. Many a lawsuit has been started on grounds of a company making a public statement about an individual, ruining their potential employment opportunities in the future and therefore drastically harming their personal livelihood.

The few who really do know what will happen are obliged NOT to tell the public and those who were laid off/fired will not likely have been told the true reason for their dismissal.

while in general i would argree, i think that we should not be allowed to hide such things as reasons for firing. of course the problem is - stupid public misinterpreting everything. however if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to be afraid of. if you got something to hide, well, id rather you pay for your crimes than hide them.

However from the people in the article i have a feeling that the people who have used to create good products, now have felt asleep on their victories and just go by hoping to do little work and get paid is getting the boot. i may be wrong, i know too little to decide, but thats jut a hunch i have.

You are not paying for a service (no matter how hard others try to convince you, games are a PRODUCT

This is simply wrong. You are paying for a license to play this game. essentially you are RENTING a product for an indefinate time period, however if the business shut down they have the right to recall the rented product. you do not "own" the games on steam. (to be fair valve has said they have a safelcok redundancy that allows them to very easily switch steam into offline client allowing users to play their games indefinitely if servers were to shut down for whatever reason)

 

[bafrali]

Guess they failed the peer review but why would they fire people based on their performance in Portal 2?

Seriously though, this confuses the fuck out of me. Is it a restructring thing? Were they bad apples for a long time now? It can't be a financial problem since they are even making money from the Dota 2 Beta.

I could understand one or two but this many? It does feel like great cleansing.

Oh well, under circumstances Gabe probably said and did the best thing regarding the interview but I would be lying if I said "I-it is not like I want to know what is going on in there"

Also Half Life 3.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

Hmm, I'm sure in the end he made the right decision.

They probably argued and fought him, but in the end, they learned the true moral of the story:

Once he's made up his mind,

Spoiler: You can't stop a GabeN

 

[Abomination]

When you OWN a company you do sort of have the right to decide who you do or do not employ. Discussing reasons for termination by a company can also be a breach of privacy of the individual. Many a lawsuit has been started on grounds of a company making a public statement about an individual, ruining their potential employment opportunities in the future and therefore drastically harming their personal livelihood.

The few who really do know what will happen are obliged NOT to tell the public and those who were laid off/fired will not likely have been told the true reason for their dismissal.

while in general i would argree, i think that we should not be allowed to hide such things as reasons for firing. of course the problem is - stupid public misinterpreting everything. however if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to be afraid of. if you got something to hide, well, id rather you pay for your crimes than hide them.

However from the people in the article i have a feeling that the people who have used to create good products, now have felt asleep on their victories and just go by hoping to do little work and get paid is getting the boot. i may be wrong, i know too little to decide, but thats jut a hunch i have.

There is a very big feeling of "got nothing to hide so why don't you tell?" but the thing is that Valve CAN NOT tell the public why someone was fired. I believe it could even be illegal due to breach of privacy.

I think the shoe could be on the other foot. The people who were fired could have been fired for abuse of privilege. Remember a few years back how we learned that people who worked for Valve had a high degree of personal freedom but also responsibility. Perhaps that management and employment strategy has come full circle and certain members needed to be reminded that if you want to have an awesome work environment then you better work awesomely.

 

[Strazdas]

There is a very big feeling of "got nothing to hide so why don't you tell?" but the thing is that Valve CAN NOT tell the public why someone was fired. I believe it could even be illegal due to breach of privacy.

I think the shoe could be on the other foot. The people who were fired could have been fired for abuse of privilege. Remember a few years back how we learned that people who worked for Valve had a high degree of personal freedom but also responsibility. Perhaps that management and employment strategy has come full circle and certain members needed to be reminded that if you want to have an awesome work environment then you better work awesomely.

Yes, my comment went broad enough to argue that americas current law system is not perfect.

 

[Abomination]

There is a very big feeling of "got nothing to hide so why don't you tell?" but the thing is that Valve CAN NOT tell the public why someone was fired. I believe it could even be illegal due to breach of privacy.

I think the shoe could be on the other foot. The people who were fired could have been fired for abuse of privilege. Remember a few years back how we learned that people who worked for Valve had a high degree of personal freedom but also responsibility. Perhaps that management and employment strategy has come full circle and certain members needed to be reminded that if you want to have an awesome work environment then you better work awesomely.

Yes, my comment went broad enough to argue that americas current law system is not perfect.

Actually that particular law IS good. A company with that much media coverage could be devastating to an individual, especially in such a niche employment market.

Imagine it, any significant employer in the gaming industry would be watching this particular situation quite closely and taking notes. A future interview with those who were laid off/fired from Valve WILL include this question "So why did you leave Valve?". If Valve has already given a public reason for it that particular individual might not even get an interview, let alone be shortlisted and would have no way of countering the claims made by Valve's statements.

 

[Strazdas]

There is a very big feeling of "got nothing to hide so why don't you tell?" but the thing is that Valve CAN NOT tell the public why someone was fired. I believe it could even be illegal due to breach of privacy.

I think the shoe could be on the other foot. The people who were fired could have been fired for abuse of privilege. Remember a few years back how we learned that people who worked for Valve had a high degree of personal freedom but also responsibility. Perhaps that management and employment strategy has come full circle and certain members needed to be reminded that if you want to have an awesome work environment then you better work awesomely.

Yes, my comment went broad enough to argue that americas current law system is not perfect.

Actually that particular law IS good. A company with that much media coverage could be devastating to an individual, especially in such a niche employment market.

Imagine it, any significant employer in the gaming industry would be watching this particular situation quite closely and taking notes. A future interview with those who were laid off/fired from Valve WILL include this question "So why did you leave Valve?". If Valve has already given a public reason for it that particular individual might not even get an interview, let alone be shortlisted and would have no way of countering the claims made by Valve's statements.

A company stating why they laid off an employee is a GOOD thing with one caveat: the company has to tell the truth. This is hard to achieve in real life, so a lie from Valve could negatively affect his career. telling the truth will not, unless he did got laid off for wanking, in which case its good that others know. and any seriuos employer will be curiuos, regardless. If lie is not a factor, lack of privacy is good. if lie is a factor, its a big gray area, but if valve woudl be known for lieing usually seriuos employer woudl disregard any claims from them anyway.

 

[Abomination]

Actually that particular law IS good. A company with that much media coverage could be devastating to an individual, especially in such a niche employment market.

Imagine it, any significant employer in the gaming industry would be watching this particular situation quite closely and taking notes. A future interview with those who were laid off/fired from Valve WILL include this question "So why did you leave Valve?". If Valve has already given a public reason for it that particular individual might not even get an interview, let alone be shortlisted and would have no way of countering the claims made by Valve's statements.

A company stating why they laid off an employee is a GOOD thing with one caveat: the company has to tell the truth. This is hard to achieve in real life, so a lie from Valve could negatively affect his career. telling the truth will not, unless he did got laid off for wanking, in which case its good that others know. and any seriuos employer will be curiuos, regardless. If lie is not a factor, lack of privacy is good. if lie is a factor, its a big gray area, but if valve woudl be known for lieing usually seriuos employer woudl disregard any claims from them anyway.

And therein lies the problem, how many false positives or false negatives would be generated? The number of times a company would have to defend itself from such lawsuits even if they DIDN'T lie - especially given the United States' sue happy climate.

It's better for everyone involved if the prospective interviewee is asked why they were fired, asked to provide a reference (that the interviewee supplies) and the interviewer decides if that reference is valid and synopsis given of the interviewee's character is positive.

Not disclosing reasons for dismissal to the public (short of criminal convictions) is best for all parties involved.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Fair enough, it's his company and if I were him I wouldn't want people casting disingenuous aspersions either.

 

[Strazdas]

And therein lies the problem, how many false positives or false negatives would be generated? The number of times a company would have to defend itself from such lawsuits even if they DIDN'T lie - especially given the United States' sue happy climate.

It's better for everyone involved if the prospective interviewee is asked why they were fired, asked to provide a reference (that the interviewee supplies) and the interviewer decides if that reference is valid and synopsis given of the interviewee's character is positive.

Not disclosing reasons for dismissal to the public (short of criminal convictions) is best for all parties involved.

Yes, i can ageree that the source of many problems is lieing and sue-happy enviroment. however in your method the chance of lieing goes toward the employee, and he has much more reason to lie beucase that may earn him a job in the interview. The reference would be as public as any valve statement anyway, which would pretty much either render it useless or break the privacy of the situation, so its a tool that doesnt really do anything for us now.