Now before you start, I actually like Valve. They do good work, make good games, and have developed a character I assume every PC gamer has been trying to push as the mascot of video games (Gordon Freeman) and replace Mario with him. They have a positive track record, the one place I look to when judging something is their past. They gave us Team Fortress 2, Half Life, DotA 2, the Source engine (possibly the easiest and friendliest level engine I've ever used), and the Portal series (within minutes of someone reading this their will be at least 3 references to the cake being a lie and the end song to Portal 2 on here). They have a good model, especially with Steam backing up their ventures the way they do. It's just with the release of this Valve employee handbook that has me thinking.
I'm one for the creative process and all and supporting an artist's right to create freely, but the whole lack of leadership thing kind of disturbs me. For those of you not familiar with it, Valve recently released their employee handbook which can be summed up to this:"Work on what you want, don't worry about deadlines, work freely, answer to no one, be creative, enjoy it." I know someone will correct me st some point, and I am open to it if you wish to correct me. Now while this sounds like a good method of making games, it sounds a bit counter-productive. There's no better way I can explain this than with an example.
Let's say you ran a game studio and had about 100 employees all trained in whatever is needed. Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B.
That's my problem, and it's most likely the reason why none of us have seen hide nor hair of Half Life 3 yet, it's because everyone is working on something else. Call me old-fashioned or close-minded, but working on a project you need someone to take charge so something is done. Valve is the only one who can pull of this because they have Steam to back them up financially, anyone else trying this would probably fail.
So my question is this: Does anyone else question the way Valve is run? Or find it kind of dumb?
P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?
They're one of the most successful icons of the gaming industry, clearly whatever they're doing is working. Besides as cliche as it sounds a happy employee is a productive and creative one.
Most of their games are just meh to me. I like the first Half-Life, Portal was okay, still just meh. Can understand why other gamers like them, but they haven't really made anything that has made me take notice. Have to say that I could give two shits that they are a respected company because I am here to play their games, not praise them for how well they treat their consumers. I would take a corrupt Capcom that went back to the days of the Nes and Snes ways of thinking, over Valve anyday. Alot of the ways they do business is really good, but I don't really like their games. Literally could care less that they give free DLC when the game it's for is not something I am going to buy in the first place.
For the people calling me a troll, go fuck yourselves and not being able to take somebody not liking your favorite game company.
The problem with your example is that Valve are also their own publisher, so they don't have to answer to anyone's deadlines or have to make those four games.
If no one wants to work on Half Life 3 then don't make anyone work on it, if the people making the game don't want to make it then it's not going to turn out half as good as the game they want to and do work on.
I'm also all for the "when it's done" style instead of having the games that have been pumped out over the years that have been so obviously rushed and bombed because of it.
If Valve couldn't afford to publish their own games they'd have been shut down a LONG time ago. They've zero direction, and no effective leadership for their talent.
That said, the talent they do have is very good, and their lucky enough to be sitting on several huge cash cow franchises and Steam. So they can afford to be a little aimless if it keeps getting results. I don't like it, but thats how it is.
I personally don't care how long it takes for Valve to make their games as long as they deliver. Look at what happened to Bioware. Their masterpieces were ruined because EA rushed them.
Since Gabe Newell is the only known gamemaker to be a billionaire, I think it's safe to say that their system is unusual but definitely effective. I mean hell, with the way Valve not only has mountains of cash but also a monumental amount of support from its fans I think what we should be questioning here is how other developers run their businesses.
Since Gabe Newell is the only known gamemaker to be a billionaire, I think it's safe to say that their system is unusual but definitely effective. I mean hell, with the way Valve not only has mountains of cash but also a monumental amount of support from its fans I think what we should be questioning here is how other developers run their businesses.
The only reason Gabe can afford this model of business is because he has Steam financing Valve. To put it another way, Steam is like a pro-profit form of crowd-funding. I'm just saying it's kind of counter-productive because it seems like Valve has no director. There's no Captain at the helm of the ship; no Sherpa up the mountain; no General to lead the army. I mean by this model, if anyone can work on any current developing projects at Valve and completely ignore other games, games like Half Life 3, Counter Strike 2, L4D 3 could have no one working on them. That the reason we're not seeing the games we really want to see, is because there is no one on hand actively pushing the project.
Since Gabe Newell is the only known gamemaker to be a billionaire, I think it's safe to say that their system is unusual but definitely effective. I mean hell, with the way Valve not only has mountains of cash but also a monumental amount of support from its fans I think what we should be questioning here is how other developers run their businesses.
The only reason Gabe can afford this model of business is because he has Steam financing Valve. To put it another way, Steam is like a pro-profit form of crowd-funding. I'm just saying it's kind of counter-productive because it seems like Valve has no director. There's no Captain at the helm of the ship; no Sherpa up the mountain; no General to lead the army. I mean by this model, if anyone can work on any current developing projects at Valve and completely ignore other games, games like Half Life 3, Counter Strike 2, L4D 3 could have no one working on them. That the reason we're not seeing the games we really want to see, is because there is no one on hand actively pushing the project.
Steam wasn't released until 2003. Valve was founded in 1996, putting out seven games before 2003 including Half-Life and Counter-Strike, still considered to be among the best games of all time. Not to mention Half-Life's unusual and innovative cutscene-free story structure. I don't think they could have pulled off a couple of megahits like that with a system that is inherently flawed. I am no business expert, I can't explain how it works. But obviously it works for them. The evidence of that is right in front of us.
If I remember correctly from the Employee Manual, they said they put a huge focus on which employees they select for interviews. It kind of feels like being an adaptable team player to the Valve 'method' ensures they get productive workers, while having an alternative Business approach.
Ps Step 1 - Find Delorian on ebay/ carsales Step 2 - Hit head on porcelain sink Step 3 - Invent Flux capacitor Step 4 - 2002 here I come... Step 5 - Release JeebSteam! in 2003 Step 6 - It's the power of love! Step 7 - Profit Step 8 - Release Half Life 3 but with Joanna Dark as optional DLC playable character Step 9 - more profit /possible alternate Biff controlled future
I doubt that nobody's working on Half-Life, there'd be a group there that are guilty/interested enough to be trying to figure it out. I think what they're doing is working great for them, and that to change it would be the stupid thing to do.
Now before you start, I actually like Valve. They do good work, make good games, and have developed a character I assume every PC gamer has been trying to push as the mascot of video games (Gordon Freeman) and replace Mario with him. They have a positive track record, the one place I look to when judging something is their past. They gave us Team Fortress 2, Half Life, DotA 2, the Source engine (possibly the easiest and friendliest level engine I've ever used), and the Portal series (within minutes of someone reading this their will be at least 3 references to the cake being a lie and the end song to Portal 2 on here). They have a good model, especially with Steam backing up their ventures the way they do. It's just with the release of this Valve employee handbook that has me thinking.
I'm one for the creative process and all and supporting an artist's right to create freely, but the whole lack of leadership thing kind of disturbs me. For those of you not familiar with it, Valve recently released their employee handbook which can be summed up to this:"Work on what you want, don't worry about deadlines, work freely, answer to no one, be creative, enjoy it." I know someone will correct me st some point, and I am open to it if you wish to correct me. Now while this sounds like a good method of making games, it sounds a bit counter-productive. There's no better way I can explain this than with an example.
Let's say you ran a game studio and had about 100 employees all trained in whatever is needed. Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B.
That's my problem, and it's most likely the reason why none of us have seen hide nor hair of Half Life 3 yet, it's because everyone is working on something else. Call me old-fashioned or close-minded, but working on a project you need someone to take charge so something is done. Valve is the only one who can pull of this because they have Steam to back them up financially, anyone else trying this would probably fail.
So my question is this: Does anyone else question the way Valve is run? Or find it kind of dumb?
P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?
Now before you start, I actually like Valve. They do good work, make good games, and have developed a character I assume every PC gamer has been trying to push as the mascot of video games (Gordon Freeman) and replace Mario with him. They have a positive track record, the one place I look to when judging something is their past. They gave us Team Fortress 2, Half Life, DotA 2, the Source engine (possibly the easiest and friendliest level engine I've ever used), and the Portal series (within minutes of someone reading this their will be at least 3 references to the cake being a lie and the end song to Portal 2 on here). They have a good model, especially with Steam backing up their ventures the way they do. It's just with the release of this Valve employee handbook that has me thinking.
I'm one for the creative process and all and supporting an artist's right to create freely, but the whole lack of leadership thing kind of disturbs me. For those of you not familiar with it, Valve recently released their employee handbook which can be summed up to this:"Work on what you want, don't worry about deadlines, work freely, answer to no one, be creative, enjoy it." I know someone will correct me st some point, and I am open to it if you wish to correct me. Now while this sounds like a good method of making games, it sounds a bit counter-productive. There's no better way I can explain this than with an example.
Let's say you ran a game studio and had about 100 employees all trained in whatever is needed. Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B.
That's my problem, and it's most likely the reason why none of us have seen hide nor hair of Half Life 3 yet, it's because everyone is working on something else. Call me old-fashioned or close-minded, but working on a project you need someone to take charge so something is done. Valve is the only one who can pull of this because they have Steam to back them up financially, anyone else trying this would probably fail.
So my question is this: Does anyone else question the way Valve is run? Or find it kind of dumb?
Agile Development. It is a fairly well-respected and well-known way of developing software, and they seem to use it (or a variant on it, since they are their own publisher) just fine. So, I honestly don't see the problem here.
Now before you start, I actually like Valve. They do good work, make good games, and have developed a character I assume every PC gamer has been trying to push as the mascot of video games (Gordon Freeman) and replace Mario with him. They have a positive track record, the one place I look to when judging something is their past. They gave us Team Fortress 2, Half Life, DotA 2, the Source engine (possibly the easiest and friendliest level engine I've ever used), and the Portal series (within minutes of someone reading this their will be at least 3 references to the cake being a lie and the end song to Portal 2 on here). They have a good model, especially with Steam backing up their ventures the way they do. It's just with the release of this Valve employee handbook that has me thinking.
I'm one for the creative process and all and supporting an artist's right to create freely, but the whole lack of leadership thing kind of disturbs me. For those of you not familiar with it, Valve recently released their employee handbook which can be summed up to this:"Work on what you want, don't worry about deadlines, work freely, answer to no one, be creative, enjoy it." I know someone will correct me st some point, and I am open to it if you wish to correct me. Now while this sounds like a good method of making games, it sounds a bit counter-productive. There's no better way I can explain this than with an example.
Let's say you ran a game studio and had about 100 employees all trained in whatever is needed. Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B.
That's my problem, and it's most likely the reason why none of us have seen hide nor hair of Half Life 3 yet, it's because everyone is working on something else. Call me old-fashioned or close-minded, but working on a project you need someone to take charge so something is done. Valve is the only one who can pull of this because they have Steam to back them up financially, anyone else trying this would probably fail.
So my question is this: Does anyone else question the way Valve is run? Or find it kind of dumb?
P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?
No. No you're not.
You are never the only one, ever.
You fucking clown.
#CriticalMiss
Care to offer a little intellectual input into the debate rather than being a f#$*&@ clown yourself by just reciting phrases from a webcomic no one would really no about unless they frequent this site? Yeah I'm the clown here; 'course, 'course.
Now before you start, I actually like Valve. They do good work, make good games, and have developed a character I assume every PC gamer has been trying to push as the mascot of video games (Gordon Freeman) and replace Mario with him. They have a positive track record, the one place I look to when judging something is their past. They gave us Team Fortress 2, Half Life, DotA 2, the Source engine (possibly the easiest and friendliest level engine I've ever used), and the Portal series (within minutes of someone reading this their will be at least 3 references to the cake being a lie and the end song to Portal 2 on here). They have a good model, especially with Steam backing up their ventures the way they do. It's just with the release of this Valve employee handbook that has me thinking.
I'm one for the creative process and all and supporting an artist's right to create freely, but the whole lack of leadership thing kind of disturbs me. For those of you not familiar with it, Valve recently released their employee handbook which can be summed up to this:"Work on what you want, don't worry about deadlines, work freely, answer to no one, be creative, enjoy it." I know someone will correct me st some point, and I am open to it if you wish to correct me. Now while this sounds like a good method of making games, it sounds a bit counter-productive. There's no better way I can explain this than with an example.
Let's say you ran a game studio and had about 100 employees all trained in whatever is needed. Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B.
That's my problem, and it's most likely the reason why none of us have seen hide nor hair of Half Life 3 yet, it's because everyone is working on something else. Call me old-fashioned or close-minded, but working on a project you need someone to take charge so something is done. Valve is the only one who can pull of this because they have Steam to back them up financially, anyone else trying this would probably fail.
So my question is this: Does anyone else question the way Valve is run? Or find it kind of dumb?
P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?
No. No you're not.
You are never the only one, ever.
You fucking clown.
#CriticalMiss
Care to offer a little intellectual input into the debate rather than being a f#$*&@ clown yourself by just reciting phrases from a webcomic no one would really no about unless they frequent this site? Yeah I'm the clown here; 'course, 'course.
Now before you start, I actually like Valve. They do good work, make good games, and have developed a character I assume every PC gamer has been trying to push as the mascot of video games (Gordon Freeman) and replace Mario with him. They have a positive track record, the one place I look to when judging something is their past. They gave us Team Fortress 2, Half Life, DotA 2, the Source engine (possibly the easiest and friendliest level engine I've ever used), and the Portal series (within minutes of someone reading this their will be at least 3 references to the cake being a lie and the end song to Portal 2 on here). They have a good model, especially with Steam backing up their ventures the way they do. It's just with the release of this Valve employee handbook that has me thinking.
I'm one for the creative process and all and supporting an artist's right to create freely, but the whole lack of leadership thing kind of disturbs me. For those of you not familiar with it, Valve recently released their employee handbook which can be summed up to this:"Work on what you want, don't worry about deadlines, work freely, answer to no one, be creative, enjoy it." I know someone will correct me st some point, and I am open to it if you wish to correct me. Now while this sounds like a good method of making games, it sounds a bit counter-productive. There's no better way I can explain this than with an example.
Let's say you ran a game studio and had about 100 employees all trained in whatever is needed. Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B.
That's my problem, and it's most likely the reason why none of us have seen hide nor hair of Half Life 3 yet, it's because everyone is working on something else. Call me old-fashioned or close-minded, but working on a project you need someone to take charge so something is done. Valve is the only one who can pull of this because they have Steam to back them up financially, anyone else trying this would probably fail.
So my question is this: Does anyone else question the way Valve is run? Or find it kind of dumb?
P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?
No. No you're not.
You are never the only one, ever.
You fucking clown.
#CriticalMiss
Care to offer a little intellectual input into the debate rather than being a f#$*&@ clown yourself by just reciting phrases from a webcomic no one would really no about unless they frequent this site? Yeah I'm the clown here; 'course, 'course.
its true you are never the only one. its amazing how many people miss use those words
They made and continue making great games, while remaining independent and private, and dominate the digital distribution market despite EA and Microsoft's competition. Didn't even turn into assholes when the big money started flowing in.
...is because there is no one on hand actively pushing the project.
How many games and developers have we seen ruined by either management or the publisher pushing too hard? A freeform approach is clearly working for them. Don't fix what isn't broken.
As things stand I think it's hard to tell whether Valve's way of doing things is efficient or not. A lot of people seem to be of the opinion that "they're doing fine, so clearly it's working" but I don't think that proves anything.
Steam is so phenomenally successful (with good reason I might add, it's a great service) that they could probably stop developing games altogether and be just fine.
I don't think we'll be able to tell whether Valve's way of doing things works or not until Steam has some serious competition. I think you could get away with any corporate culture if you own something like Steam that is basically a license to print money.
It's a company, and the only thing that would ruin it, is if they get their fanbase and customers to hate them. And if they don't get any money from sales.
Valve have done neither of those. They are richer than god, and everyone seems happy with that.
Of course we'd be HAPPIER IF THEY ANNOUNCED HALF LIFE FUCKING EPISODE SHITTING THREE. URRRRGHSJDSFALSDAS
Shawn MacDonald: Most of their games are just meh to me. I like the first Half-Life, Portal was okay, still just meh. Can understand why other gamers like them, but they haven't really made anything that has made me take notice. Have to say that I could give two shits that they are a respected company because I am here to play their games, not praise them for how well they treat their consumers. I would take a corrupt Capcom that went back to the days of the Nes and Snes ways of thinking, over Valve anyday. Alot of the ways they do business is really good, but I don't really like their games. Literally could care less that they give free DLC when the game it's for is not something I am going to buy in the first place.
For the people calling me a troll, go fuck yourselves and not being able to take somebody not liking your favorite game company.
This guy more or less sums up my thoughts in a nut shell. Also I think valve spreads themselves WAYYYYY too thin. Pick a project and focus on it for Pete's sake.
Yes, the business model at first glance seems rather shitty, because there really isn't one except for the "just try to keep yourself busy with whatever you want". It promotes creativity and it really does show in their games. It means that the people are actually putting effort into what they're making because they want to be making it. Basically, the business model for Valve is designed around people enjoying their work and having free reign to do what they want.
It's just goes to show you the talent of the people working there. And this is coming from someone who actually isn't a Valve fanboy.
*If TL;DR skip to the bottom*
Now before you start, I actually like Valve. They do good work, make good games, and have developed a character I assume every PC gamer has been trying to push as the mascot of video games (Gordon Freeman) and replace Mario with him. They have a positive track record, the one place I look to when judging something is their past. They gave us Team Fortress 2, Half Life, DotA 2, the Source engine (possibly the easiest and friendliest level engine I've ever used), and the Portal series (within minutes of someone reading this their will be at least 3 references to the cake being a lie and the end song to Portal 2 on here). They have a good model, especially with Steam backing up their ventures the way they do. It's just with the release of this Valve employee handbook that has me thinking.
I'm one for the creative process and all and supporting an artist's right to create freely, but the whole lack of leadership thing kind of disturbs me. For those of you not familiar with it, Valve recently released their employee handbook which can be summed up to this:"Work on what you want, don't worry about deadlines, work freely, answer to no one, be creative, enjoy it." I know someone will correct me st some point, and I am open to it if you wish to correct me. Now while this sounds like a good method of making games, it sounds a bit counter-productive. There's no better way I can explain this than with an example.
Let's say you ran a game studio and had about 100 employees all trained in whatever is needed. Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B.
That's my problem, and it's most likely the reason why none of us have seen hide nor hair of Half Life 3 yet, it's because everyone is working on something else. Call me old-fashioned or close-minded, but working on a project you need someone to take charge so something is done. Valve is the only one who can pull of this because they have Steam to back them up financially, anyone else trying this would probably fail.
So my question is this: Does anyone else question the way Valve is run? Or find it kind of dumb?
P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?