the OP is absolutely correct this wouldn't work if they didn't have steam providing money for them they would have no choice but to be a lot more focussed and if I am honest it would probably help there release schedule if they did just so say you work on this project but do what you want within it.

They have created a method that
1) Makes them boatloads of money (the bottom line being the entire point of a business)
2) Makes good games because they have loads of talented employees and no forced completion times (as previously mentioned, that's shot a few wonderful sereis in the foot. I'm looking at you EA. Glaring, really).
3) Makes their employees happy, which helps you keep them aboard and creative, not to mention likely to recommend it to other creative types not interested in having their enthusiasm dampened by "how the system works".

The only disadvantage I'm seeing in practice is their lack of care over when something is completed. And you know what? A spectacular game long in the waiting is INFINITELY SUPERIOR to a rushed game that looses what could have made it great. Even when you're building on strong foundations, you can't push too fast or you'll end up with bug-ridden messes or formulaic crap. Valve does a great job and, better still, shows that you don't need to be a behemoth corporation never deviating from things that will sell to make golden mansions. That catches on? Oh, that'd be fantastic.

Seems like a good idea to me, people work harder on something they want to do, rather than something they've been told to do.

I guess this explains why franchises generally only get worse and worse.

I understand the argument but only IF no one is working on things such as HL3. Why would people who work for valve, and have the opportunity to work on one of the most anticipated games of our generation, choose to work on something else? everyone seems to assume all the employees are busy working on something else, but I have no idea why anyone would think that.

I think it's a good idea. Say you worked for Valve, and hated Half Life, and prefered L4D or Dota or something.

Your talents are easily going to be better spent working on Dota than on HL3.

Exactly why I want to work there. Because it's awesome.
It's the best business model ever, and they hire the right people to make it work.

It only works because they have the people working for them that are absolutely brilliant.
They are their own publisher too, so their deadlines are not set in stone and they can make whatever product they want.

It's brilliant and they get an amazing quality of work out of their employees.

It's actually a VERY good method of working.

No command structure means no unenthusiastic workers, or wasted talents. Developers can mix and match to suit their strengths (or weaknesses).

Plus, developers will also gravitate towards projects that are the most entertaining, meaning that the ones that appeal the most to everyone are the ones that everyone wants to work on.

Compare that to every developer in the building working on a single project, where at least half of them are under-utilised, uninterested in the project and ultimately just want it over with.

Kahunaburger:

They seem to do just fine.

I see your picture

And raise you:

Valve is like Bungie, only they have Steam and Bungie has access to the Halo franchise when they want (I KNOW THEY DON'T OWN IT, but I do know for a fact they have to just whistle to Microsoft and then BAM! new Halo game from Bungie in the works)

No.

Just no.

I've actually been to Valve HQ in the Seattle area. This was during a trip where I also visited Arenanet, EA, Microsoft, etc.

And I can tell you, of all the places I've visited, they had the best system, powered by the best mentality. I can't go into specifics because they made everyone who visited sign and NDA, but trust me: the way Valve is run is the exact opposite of stupid.

Pfft. Half-Life 3 might be on many gamer's minds, but it's not the only thing that Valve employees have in their mind.

I'm a lot more interested in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.

Besides: Making games is a creative process and they're all pros knowing what they do. The non-leadership seems to work just fine. Actually many developers seem to have a bit similar ways of management, like DICE for example.

I read the whole handbook, too, and I don't think that this is a stupid way of running a creative business. I actually think it is amazing.

Hectix777:

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.

Well, your example doesn't really fit here. Valve does not need to answer to any higher entity like a publisher. The only thing they are responsible for is their own company.
You actually could say that they are an indie developer in the sense that they're independent from any publisher except that retail thing with EA.
The scenario you depict above would be a desaster in any other company with a publisher in your back. Deadlines wouldn't be meet and projects wouldn't get finished or would differ from the product that the publisher desires. They would pull your funding in an instant.

That is the reason why Half-Life 3 is taking so long. Because they don't have to get it out because they made some deal and if they don't obey they loose their income.
But this isn't really bad. Maybe HL3 is taking its time but that means that they are not rushing it. If they realise halfway through the development that the game so far is just really bad and not what they want it to be they can just scratch some or all of it and start over or work on something different (as happened with most of their games, for example Portal 2 didn't have portals in it in its first development cycle, which didn't work, so they changed the whole concept). They could never do that if they wouldn't run their company like they do.

And while there is a lot of experimentation and failed projects and release dates get pushed back when they release a game like Portal 2 they do so because they pleased with their result and not because the publisher deadline was getting close. And they know that their players appreciate their quality.
So Valve could already have released HL3. They probably could make a Half-Life game every year. But the games would be really bad, it's that simple.

I think that Valve really understands how a creative process works (something most publishers don't really do) and they found and amazing way to run their company without sacrificing any creativity of their employees by seeing them as the artists that they are and not just as an asset that is needed to make a game.

Hectix777:
P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?

At the time the first Half-Life was released he was probably interesting because he wasn't the run-of-the-mill DukeNukem like badass action hero. He was just a nerdy scientist with glasses, someone you can identify with more or less.

Kahunaburger:

They seem to do just fine.

This may be the fastest /thread ever.

From what I've read of interviews with Valve they still have different teams for different games, I imagine the handbook more refers to you being allowed to pick from a bunch of different tasks that need to be completed for the game your team are working on.

For instance if you do 3d modelling perhaps the list will show like a chair, a door, a table, a lampshade and you'll be able to pick and do any one of those that you want to rather than be told "YOU MUST DO THIS LAMPSHADE RIGHT NOW OR YOU ARE FIRED!".

I don't claim that what I say is correct but it's an educated guess.

JoesshittyOs:
"Am I the only one" is a very common figure of speech that has been around for a long time

Yes, but it's been around a lot longer as a literal question!

Personally, I find it a little annoying when it's used as a rhetorical question because it makes it more verbally awkward to disagree with the questioner's point of view. Logically, it is extremely unlikely that the questioner is the only person in the world who holds that view, so the answer is always "no". But answering "no" implies agreement with the sentiment. I.e. "No, you're not the only one because I think that way too."

But (a lot of the time) what I actually want to say is: "No, you're not the only one. But I don't agree with you."

This style of "weighting" a question towards a desired answer is abused a lot by lawyers. And is thus evil and should be purge. With fire.

[/bizarre-rant]

OT: If Valve are making money, then their strategy works from a business sense. If they're producing games with merit, then it works from an artistic sense. If both are true, it just works.

Ickorus:
From what I've read of interviews with Valve they still have different teams for different games, I imagine the handbook more refers to you being allowed to pick from a bunch of different tasks that need to be completed for the game your team are working on.

For instance if you do 3d modelling perhaps the list will show like a chair, a door, a table, a lampshade and you'll be able to pick and do any one of those that you want to rather than be told "YOU MUST DO THIS LAMPSHADE RIGHT NOW OR YOU ARE FIRED!".

I don't claim that what I say is correct but it's an educated guess.

That would make a lot of sense. I work as a software developer (though not making games) and at the start of every two-week iteration the whole teams sits down and picks which features they want to work on from the big-pile-of-stuff-that-needs-to-get-done. There tends to be a bit of "Shotgun F!" "Aww, I wanted that one!" until all the fun ones get picked.

One of the big advantages of the system is that it allows everyone to drive their own personal development. I want to get better at Javascript, so I've been picking a lot of Javascript stuff lately. It also means that (at least most of the time) people don't get stuck with tasks they really don't want to do.

I didn't read all of the replies, so someone probably said this, but ALL of the most successful games have come from a "when it's done" mindset.

Hectix777:
-snip-

For starters,

Anyways, you mention an example of "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." The thing with Valve is that they don't have a publisher, they publish their own games.

As for my opinion of Valves practices... while it can have some issues, the way you resolve most of them is by hiring the right sort of people.[1] I, for one, feel that I would thrive in that sort of environment.

Just because the employees can do whatever they want, and just because there is no real defined leader. Does not make them incapable of working together, or eliminate leadership potential.

'Call me old-fashioned or close-minded, but working on a project you need someone to take charge so something is done.'

Which they do: project leaders are either elected or fall naturally into the role on specific projects. The only unusual bit really is that people get to choose what they work on, and it's left up to them to decide on what they can best contribute to a project. They obviously don't hire people who look like obvious procrastinators.

They're critically-lauded, their games sell a metric fuck-tonne, and they're rich as fuck, so I'd say it does alright for them. No, they probably couldn't do it without Steam, but they do have Steam and it obviously works. No publishers or shareholders is an obvious and massive plus, as well.

Hectix777:

P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?

The appeal lies in the reaction of people who don't understand irony when he inevitably gets voted 'best character of all time'. Oh, how they scream.

i would find it very hard to work under those kind of conditions, i like being told what direction to take. however, they do very well, so it doesn't matter what i think, it clearly works

erttheking:

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.

They are 293 heads and work right now on 2 projects + the maintenance and improvement of Steam... How the fuck is this "spread to thin"?

Maybe it's dumb, but it clearly works.

They have legions of fans that still support them even if they never end up releasing Half Life 3.
Plus they probably have enough money to build life-size statues of each of their developers, made out of solid gold, and still have the necessary funds left over to buy a first-world country.

I dunno if it's stupid so much as it must take a very specific type of person to be able to work at Valve. I don't think I would be able to work in a setting with so little structure, but then again, Valve employees are probably much more self-motivated than I am, so it works for them.

TheKasp:

erttheking:

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.

They are 293 heads and work right now on 2 projects + the maintenance and improvement of Steam... How the fuck is this "spread to thin"?

Half Life, Portal, Team Fortress, Left 4 Dead, Dorta, Counter Strike, steam. THAT'S spreading themselves too thin. Also if they haven't spread themselves too thin, then why haven't they released Half Life 3? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?

I'm in an odd position because when Valve started getting big, I was too busy chasing tail to notice. Never played TF2, half life or counter strike. I played doom, tfs, duke quake and ultima online. By 1998 I was 16 and I started having other priorities. I didn't really come back to gaming until 2004 when someone showed me PlanetSide. Then it was FEAR MP in 06 and BF2142 in 07/08.

Valve had such a short time where they were "relevant" I honestly just missed them and don't have time to go retro and revisit dead games no one plays. Unless it's something dear to my heart like MW2 mercenaries or HOMM III.

So while I don't think they're stupid, I don't really think anything of them at all. Valve was big for 4 years, back then it felt like you could have blinked and missed it. That's exactly what I feel like when I hear everyone talk about them like gods. I just don't get it.

PS:

I guess "valve" is the "id software" of people 5-10 years young than me.

edit

It's allowed them to avoid the sequel milking mess EA and activision have fallen into, so leave them the hell alone.

I believe more game studios should run like this, we would probably get less cookie cutter piles of garbage

CAPTCHA: wild and woolly

Lets go with the actual Question, is the way Valve is run dumb? Yes it is. And no, put the pitchforks away, yes the Torches too.

Lets forget for a second here that Valve is essentially so popular that the Guys working there could write their names on the moon and get away with it. Lets go back to when they started, now do you think that when they first picked up work they thought that this was the business model they would go with? That this is how it would work internally for their Company? Probably not. Like any developer back in the day, they got a game, worked on it and hoped to make profit so they could work on more stuff. The franchises they picked, or rather the decisions they made for it, were so popular at the time that it made them such a buttload of money that they simply said "screw it, lets spend this cash and see what happens". It paid off. Valve is essentially that one Moron that is so dumb that he will stand in the middle of a field during a thunderstorm, get hit by lightning and survive it, and to prove it, he gets a metalrod and tries it again.

Sure the method works and made them massively popular and able to do essentially what they want, but if we simply look at the approach from a different perspective, its essentially suicidal, yes it can pay off, but its as likely as winning the lottery, they got lucky and it paid off, they had the capital to try at least from making successful games like Half Life. Look at 3D Realms, they had the same mentality in a way, the "When it's done" Mentality, where did it get them? How successful was the last game they "made"? Exactly my point. On paper that all sounds awesome, but in practice it rarely works, if it did, we'd not even have companies like EA or Activision which we can rant about nowadays, i doubt they started out with the Idea of becoming what they are now.

But should it be changed? Nope. It works for them, sure its a borderline miracle that it did, but still it worked and we're off better for it.

TL;DR: They gambled and won. So let them do their thing.

This video sprung to mind as soon as I read this. Skip to 5:05 for the most relevant stuff.

Also, If I can think of two developers who consistantly make quality games, it would be Valve and Blizzard who have the "it's ready when it's ready" attitude. I'd rather wait for a good game than play a crap one now.

SaneAmongInsane:
[

No. No you're not.

You are never the only one, ever.

You fucking clown.

#CriticalMiss

Its almost like "am I the only one who..." is a general way of asking about the popularity of ones belief, and not meant to be taken literally as a question, because that would be fucking stupid.

Seriously, people, stop quoting that webcomic. You just showing you don't understand common sayings.

Well no you can't argue with the results and they get the job done so I can honestly say Steam or no Steam they have to be doing something right.

The way Valve is run is stupid and ineffective. Valve has released very few games (relative to other devs that have been around for as long as they have) and this is not even compensated by the quality of the games. On multiple occasions Valve has disappointed their fans, the failure of the Half Life 2 episodic model is evidence of this.

The fact that they have lots of money proves nothing, they only have that money because they make a profit on selling OTHER GAME DEVELOPER'S GAMES through Steam. If they were only able to sell games that they had made they would be no where near as successful.

/rant :P