I suppose as long as they keep being showered with money from Steam, they don't really have an incentive to end with that chaotic way of organising the corporation.
At the same time, it would be nice to have that level of resources to devote to a project like HL3, even if it was only "sold" to the bean counters as an excellent way to boost the company's reputation and "standing" from a marketing angle.
Then again, as picky and vocal as gamers can be, would they even want to risk ending up with a less than stellar result? At this point the status of HL3 has become so huge as to provide countless running jokes and cliches. Could they even risk putting out something that wasn't the second (third?) coming?
Is it long-term good to make a something no one wants to make well?
Remember what happened to Star Wars? Lucas pumped out a prequel trilogy that made a ton of short-term money, but then put a 15 year delay to wash away the filthy taste, before Disney took over and started self-perpetuation engine pumping out enjoyable and massively profitable movies
I think it's a correct assessment. CSGO came out 3 years ago (and they didn't even foot all of the development). Dota 2 came out 4 years ago (same story - they brought IceFrog in for it). That's a long time since they've released anything major that they've mostly developed in house.
But it makes sense that they've stopped developing new IP / games - the above games, alongside Steam, make them a ton of money. They can probably get away with not developing a new game for a long time.
This is commonly mentioned on the internet because Valve puts a lot of effort into Steam and hardware, but they also have (at least) three games in active development that are among the top grossing games on Steam, and among the top grossing and most played PC games.
No one would say, Blizzard, Riot, Supercell or Machine Zone aren't game companies because they rarely release new games and most of their revenue comes from a few, large player count (or high monetizing), consistently played games. I've taken it mostly as code for "Valve doesn't release Half-Life or Portal games as much as I'd like" :).
Interesting that there isn't anyone at Valve that feels enough ownership to the franchise to push it along.
It seems like if you threw a compelling script into a development studio it would be hard NOT to make it happen... there's such a desire for it (but maybe that's also scary now).
On the other hand... I guess a huge part of Valve isn't a development studio these days and a lot of their development projects involve short-term profitability vs long-term investments (DOTA kind of is/isn't an exception to that).
I also wonder if the flat "do something good for the company" structure cramps the creative process a bit — if someone tools around with an idea for a year without anything beyond concept work to show for it... is that welcome at Valve? or would it be perceived as a burden by others who are working on short-term projects?
I do recall there being a previous falling-out there with an employee doing R&D hardware work (was it VR related? I can't remember)
So what? They couldn't be bothered to create another sequel. They went on and did something different. That is admirable, not something to frown upon...
An interesting tidbit about Valve is that for some time, Yannis Varoufakis worked there, before he became the finance minister of Greece. He became of course (in)famous for his work in the left-wing government, his rejection of the "troika"'s demands, and being one of very few influtential economists with a Marxist background (not to speak of his unconventional style). But before that, he was advising Valve on virtual enconomies (I think for Team Fortress 2).
So, I wonder if there is any connection between Valve's unconventional organisational structure, and the fact that they attracted this influential left-wing thinker. What I heard about Valve reminds me of some left-wing cooperatives I know in Europe (factories, shops, farms, ...), where the employees share ownership and decision making. Unfortunately, many of those struggle with similar problems - but not all, some are also fairly successful.
I don't think there is neccessarily a left-wing or liberal political idea going on at Valve, but probably there was a kind of co-evolution of this hierarchy-less idea in tech and in leftist circles? A quick google search suggests that Varoufakis (who blogged about his time at Valve) was aware of this similarity.
Although I know gamers and fans want HL3, and I say this as a huge Half-Life fan, I can't imagine a scenario where releasing Half-Life 3 would be a good business decision for Valve.
Releasing Half-Life 3 or episode 3 in 2008-2010 could have been good for Valve, in the sense that it would tie up lose ends in the story for players and would have sold well enough to be profitable. At this point Half-Life 3 is the most hyped game that has never existed and it'd be very hard for them to live up to most people's expectations. Valve is a pretty data driven company, and they have a lot of data about what sells and what players are playing. I don't think it's coincidence that most of the top played and top grossing games on Steam are Valve games and that Valve has moved away from single player games in favor of multiplayer games as a service.
There haven't been many commercially successful single player only, or primarily single player AAA campaign based first person shooters in recent history. Half-Life 3 could probably follow the model of last year's Doom and be successful, but it wouldn't live up to a lot of people's expectations. Doing something weirder, niche, outside of the box or supporting Valve's new business models (making HL3 VR only or a online competitive multiplayer or sandbox game) would alienate people, even if the game is amazing and innovative, because its once again not what they want from a Half-Life game. I don't believe Valve can make a Half-Life game without angering a large segment of fan base and ending up in a No Man Sky type situation. The cost of AAA single player games has skyrocketed as well, so I'm not sure if Valve wants to hire and spend the money on Half-Life 3 in terms of production values and content. Maybe eventually there will be an HL3 once Valve creates a game making AI that can read your mind and perfectly tailor a game to your expectations :). Valve could also make "Half-Life 3" without calling it Half-Life 3, I guess.
That Valve has not released HL3 and probably never will shows a strength in their business and business model, not an inability to execute or a flaw. Current day Valve is not the same company that made Half-Life and Half-Life 2, but I think they foster innovation and high quality games in a more impactful way (Steam, hardware, VR, etc.)
They could avoid the hype situation by just releasing HL3 without any buildup. Drop it on us out of the blue. Sure, it wouldn't live up to many people's (unrealistic) expectations, but they wouldn't have an NMS problem because nobody would have pre-ordered it, or been actively anticipating it before release. It would just be out, and people could buy it, or they could read reviews first, or whatever else they want to do before plunking down their money for a copy.
That said, I agree that Valve will probably never release HL3. There's not much benefit to doing so at this point, and it will likely piss off a lot of gamers when the game doesn't match their expectations.
This is consistent with discussions I've had with various Valve employees and former employees over the years. If you want your project to succeed you need to evangelize it within the company and get people to join you. Which is a lot of work!
Note: I have never worked at valve!! Though I visit friends there from time to time.
When they use "central planning", they mean when the decision making process is interfered by a govt/state authority. Their wiki is down, but here is an archive for more info. on their definition of "central planning": https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YXC5Xl...
27 comments
[ 4.2 ms ] story [ 70.2 ms ] threadThen again, as picky and vocal as gamers can be, would they even want to risk ending up with a less than stellar result? At this point the status of HL3 has become so huge as to provide countless running jokes and cliches. Could they even risk putting out something that wasn't the second (third?) coming?
Remember what happened to Star Wars? Lucas pumped out a prequel trilogy that made a ton of short-term money, but then put a 15 year delay to wash away the filthy taste, before Disney took over and started self-perpetuation engine pumping out enjoyable and massively profitable movies
Which is a shame because even an inferior hl3 would have been guaranteed to make money. Hell they couldn't even finish hl2 episode3.
"I personally believe all unidentified anonymous sources on the Internet".
source: https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Gaben/comments/5olhj4/hi_im_gab...
But it makes sense that they've stopped developing new IP / games - the above games, alongside Steam, make them a ton of money. They can probably get away with not developing a new game for a long time.
No one would say, Blizzard, Riot, Supercell or Machine Zone aren't game companies because they rarely release new games and most of their revenue comes from a few, large player count (or high monetizing), consistently played games. I've taken it mostly as code for "Valve doesn't release Half-Life or Portal games as much as I'd like" :).
It seems like if you threw a compelling script into a development studio it would be hard NOT to make it happen... there's such a desire for it (but maybe that's also scary now).
On the other hand... I guess a huge part of Valve isn't a development studio these days and a lot of their development projects involve short-term profitability vs long-term investments (DOTA kind of is/isn't an exception to that).
I also wonder if the flat "do something good for the company" structure cramps the creative process a bit — if someone tools around with an idea for a year without anything beyond concept work to show for it... is that welcome at Valve? or would it be perceived as a burden by others who are working on short-term projects?
I do recall there being a previous falling-out there with an employee doing R&D hardware work (was it VR related? I can't remember)
Anyway, Valve can always do another sequel, I don't think age will make that any worse an opportunity.
Many economists don't have a clue...
So, I wonder if there is any connection between Valve's unconventional organisational structure, and the fact that they attracted this influential left-wing thinker. What I heard about Valve reminds me of some left-wing cooperatives I know in Europe (factories, shops, farms, ...), where the employees share ownership and decision making. Unfortunately, many of those struggle with similar problems - but not all, some are also fairly successful.
I don't think there is neccessarily a left-wing or liberal political idea going on at Valve, but probably there was a kind of co-evolution of this hierarchy-less idea in tech and in leftist circles? A quick google search suggests that Varoufakis (who blogged about his time at Valve) was aware of this similarity.
Releasing Half-Life 3 or episode 3 in 2008-2010 could have been good for Valve, in the sense that it would tie up lose ends in the story for players and would have sold well enough to be profitable. At this point Half-Life 3 is the most hyped game that has never existed and it'd be very hard for them to live up to most people's expectations. Valve is a pretty data driven company, and they have a lot of data about what sells and what players are playing. I don't think it's coincidence that most of the top played and top grossing games on Steam are Valve games and that Valve has moved away from single player games in favor of multiplayer games as a service.
There haven't been many commercially successful single player only, or primarily single player AAA campaign based first person shooters in recent history. Half-Life 3 could probably follow the model of last year's Doom and be successful, but it wouldn't live up to a lot of people's expectations. Doing something weirder, niche, outside of the box or supporting Valve's new business models (making HL3 VR only or a online competitive multiplayer or sandbox game) would alienate people, even if the game is amazing and innovative, because its once again not what they want from a Half-Life game. I don't believe Valve can make a Half-Life game without angering a large segment of fan base and ending up in a No Man Sky type situation. The cost of AAA single player games has skyrocketed as well, so I'm not sure if Valve wants to hire and spend the money on Half-Life 3 in terms of production values and content. Maybe eventually there will be an HL3 once Valve creates a game making AI that can read your mind and perfectly tailor a game to your expectations :). Valve could also make "Half-Life 3" without calling it Half-Life 3, I guess.
That Valve has not released HL3 and probably never will shows a strength in their business and business model, not an inability to execute or a flaw. Current day Valve is not the same company that made Half-Life and Half-Life 2, but I think they foster innovation and high quality games in a more impactful way (Steam, hardware, VR, etc.)
That said, I agree that Valve will probably never release HL3. There's not much benefit to doing so at this point, and it will likely piss off a lot of gamers when the game doesn't match their expectations.
Note: I have never worked at valve!! Though I visit friends there from time to time.
I'm really interested in understanding/criticising Valve flat management but this article doesn't seem to make a good argument