EDIT: Another comment mentioned Chet Faliszek, he was probably the source.
People keep forgetting our time is limited and nothing lasts forever.
Nothing lasts forever.
CS:GO (remake of a remake)
Dota 2 (remake)
Artifact (flopped)
Underlords (flopped)
Alyx (good)
Counter-Strike 2 (remake of a remake of a remake)
Deadlock (early beta, but promising)
Now, the game isn't exactly out yet, but it is pretty widely accessible, and the core of the game is just fantastic. They really cooked with this one, especially the movement system.
There was a recent streamer that said it best: the game design fundamentally punishes you for engaging with other players. Instead, it rewards you for running around the map breaking static entities (boxes, statues, static creeps, etc.). Which is, frankly, boring.
There's just no way imo that will ever be successful in an FPS/shooter. It might work for MOBAs, but I think the idea of a MOBA-first shooter is just never going to get much traction beyond a niche.
Maybe Valve will see the light and significantly change things. I'm not sure. The "open alpha" was also kind of a disaster in killing off the first wave of the player base.
Previous discussion:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3871463 (21 April 2012 | 16 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8818893 (31 December 2014 | 17 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9250527 (23 March 2015 | 14 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12157993 (25 July 2016 | 197 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17935030 (7 September 2018 | 31 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33170988 (12 October 2022 | 165 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41329274 (23 August 2024 | 112 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26960473 (27 April 2021 | 7 comments)
They're the idealized version of what a small company making a shitton of cash would be. They can afford plenty in terms of work-life balance.
Gamedev is also very stressful industy because both constant crunches and job instability. So you not only paid worse, but you'll work 2-3 times more that average SWE. And often fired when project is complete regardless of success.
So working at Valve is somewhat like a pipe dream for many people in the game industry. Especially because whole Valve is under 500 people which is like 10-20 times less people than work for Epic, Ubisoft or EA.
Source: I work in indie game company.
However, non-hierarchical structures are often open to manipulation and land-grabbing (see Tyranny of Structurelessness, etc.) so I am also skeptical that a company may have continued with this practice.
But how many billion-dollar companies would do that? Just give the rights to the ex-employees? I think most other companies would have not. So, in that sense, Valve is unusual, even if it's not the oranizational utopia that was promised.
After she left Valve, she and partners did get at least $15 million funding from outside investors to develop the AR technology, but after several years of trying, it didn't work out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CastAR
I'd agree it's a meaningful distinction if the company wasn't actually as written... but it sounds like everything in there is accurate?
When smart people say ads don’t work on them - this is a counterexample. It’s just that different groups respond to different branding. And this was highly tuned to Reddit interests.
This comment is literally the first search result of "Chet Faliszek Valve employee handbook" for me. I've waded through several pages and haven't found a credible source of him saying that.
Steam is still like what Netflix used to be. You have pretty much everything you care about in one place. Even big monster AAA developers like EA have given up and put their content on the platform. If I had to pick between having HL3 and a coherent gaming ecosystem, I'd pick the latter.
A HL3 team could essentially function as an independent studio using the Steam platform, with some funding thrown from Valve. Assuming the ROI is positive what exactly is holding them back?
Absurd expectations.
The Google problem where every project that is not Search has a much worse ROI.
Despite that gamers think it's worth the convenience and utilities steam provides to keep shopping there.
Steam isn't dominant because it's strangling competition like the app store and similar. People can trivially download alternatives, but they choose steam anyway.
But as you’ve hinted at, Steam is very different from the iOS App Store because it is competing organically with other app stores on Windows. Steam does not control Windows or the hardware, so it cannot “force” itself to be the only option to download games on Windows.
And even when it does have full control over the platform and HW (Steam Deck), it’s just a light wrapper around a standard Linux distro (Arch).
According to the developer:
> [Valve] would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.
> I believe that other developers who charged lower prices on other stores have been contacted by Valve, telling them that their games will be removed from Steam if they did not raise their prices on competing stores.
https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-cla...
"This includes communications from Valve that “‘the price on Steam [must be] competitive with where it’s being sold elsewhere’” and that Valve “‘wouldn’t be OK with selling games on Steam if they are available at better prices on other stores, even if they didn’t use Steam keys.’” Dkt. No. 343 ¶ 158, 160 (quoting emails produced at VALVE_ANT_0598921, 0605087). "
(This is a new case, not the 2021 suit, which was rejected by the court, then amended and refiled, later with an additional plaintiff added)
[0]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.29...
I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
Because they have been consistently good citizens for more than 2 decades. They built a reputation. Something other companies are eager to piss away at the first opportunity to sell out or squeeze their customers.
It’s not surprising that Valve is successful and trusted with this approach. What is surprising is that it is apparently so incredibly hard for other companies to understand this very simple fact.
1. Build a good product.
2. Consistently act in good faith.
3. Profit.
They're not, really, but they've given us little reason to distrust them.
I'm also fairly confident there would be some fun legal stuff going on if Steam tried that. People have thousands - tens of thousands - of dollars worth of stuff on Steam. That isn't really the same as, say, having to watch ads even after paying for a subscription.
1 - Let's say you invested $100,000 of your own money for vertical slice and managed to find a publisher to give you $200,000 to complete the game.
2 - Ignore that you had some failed games before, but this time you let's say sold 100,000 copies for $10 each average. 100k sold is a big success really.
1 - Valve got $1,000,000 as gross revenue for 100,000 sales.
2 - Usually 16% is VAT and immenient refunds. So now $840,000 left.
3 - Now Valve took their 30% cut. $588,000 left.
4 - Now your publisher took $200,000 to recoup invested money. $388,000 left.
5 - Now publisher split remaining $388,000 by honest 50/50.
So you did all the work, somehow managed to fund it, worked on game for a year and got $155,000 while Valve made $252,000 for payment processing and CDN. Steam do not provide marketing - it only boost already successful products.
PS: This is best case scenario. Usually your publisher will also recoup whatever expenses they had on their end for marketing and whatever.
It's totally okay to like Valve or Steam as gamer. As fellow gamers I totally agree with you.
Just next time when you wonder why you favorite studio went bankrupt or why you niche genre game never got a sequel this is why: because some monopoly took 50% of their profit.
30% for this is high, but then there is also the discoverability. Which I think does beat google by long way. So they probably would not have sold as many copies without popular platform.
This is like complaining that AMC won't screen your student film. You're playing in a very niche space and the key is to keep costs under control so you can actually make money.
Gamedev is a hit industry. Even of released games 90% never make back the investments. Then 1% hits make 90% of money.
And situation is as bad for $3,000,000 game studio as it's for one like mine that makes $300,000 games.
Well that hits close to home. I wonder why every other mega successful company thinks the opposite.
And because self managing people do not automatically organize to achieve the same goals.
That's extremely rare and even in overall success stories you will find plenty of unhappy folks.
But as a general excuse for some micro-management-obsessed middle manager with 0 trust into anybody else its good enough excuse I suppose.
Think about how common it is for someone to be effective at work and totally confused and aimless in their personal life. They might have trouble sticking to projects, or not know what goals are worthwhile, or make bad decisions - all while performing great at work.
I am an IC at the lowest rung of any org chart with no aspirations to change that.
> Team leads Often, someone will emerge as the “lead” for a project. This person’s role is not a traditional managerial one. Most often, they’re primarily a clearinghouse of information. They’re keeping the whole project in their head at once so that people can use them as a resource to check decisions against. The leads serve the team, while acting like as centers for the teams
I appreciate the out-of-the-box-thinking+creativity foundation theyre trying to lay here, but... this is what management is. I understand management has other emergent properties and misaligned incentives, but those are literally the core (technical) value-adds of managers.
exitb•4h ago