Am I the only person who kind of hates Valve?

[mikespoff]

You're certainly in the minority, but you're likewise entitled to your opinion.

IMHO, Valve are awesome. They make great games, albeit to their own peculiar timetable. In Steam they run an online service that actually works and actually adds value to the games on it. They are pretty open about their plans and their interaction with the gaming community.

Think of it like Google: They do some crazy stuff, they're not perfect, but they're also miles ahead of any comparable company in terms honesty, integrity and service.

From what I've seen, and heard, yes Valve does want to make their DLC free. Which is a wonderful thing, but is not a lasting or sustainable business model. The opportunity cost of spending time making DLC, paying your employees for their man hours, rent, bills, and all other expenses for something that's net income can only really be measured by the possibility of more people buying the game for the prospect of free DLC (A statistic that is almost down right impossible to keep track of).

I'm not sure that it follows that free DLC is unsustainable as a business model. There is only an opportunity cost if it takes time away from other projects. With any complex development cycle there will be unavoidable downtime for some parts of the process: if the devs who have some free time before they can get on with the next real game want to use that time making some DLC (or making Portal, for that matter), there isn't really any opportunity cost there. The positive reaction from customers probably makes up for it in the long run.

 

[floobie]

I like Valve, but I definitely don't like everything they do. I can't say I enjoyed L4D2 at all. And, for whatever reason, the game runs terribly on my computers... but every other Source engine game runs great. I've always loathed Counterstrike. I loved TFC, but just can't get into TF2 (probably more my changing preferences than anything, though). Steam is great in theory, and the selection is very good, but I've always found it rather buggy and bloated.

So... it's a wash. When the next Half Life instalment is released, I'll buy it instantly. If another Portal game is released, I'll buy it instantly. But, aside from those... meh.

 

[Jimi Bove]

They take forever to release games, and while those games are usually of a very good quality, they don't rank high up on my list.

It seems all the other points have been made, so I'll just say that they take forever to release games because their games are true quality. Honestly, the only game I've ever truly liked that didn't take forever to make was Call of Duty, and that's because Call of Duty STILL took forever to reach its current state through many yearly releases. Which is a rip-off way to improve and masterpiece-ize your game when you think about it.

A good game takes a long time to make. In fact, no developer except the makers of CoD and sports games release new games faster than 2 years, and while Valve is way slower than that, that's because they release so much free DLC to all their games that they actually make a lot more REAL CONTENT than those CoD people. Although I'm sure those CoD people work as hard on their flashy graphics (because the CoD engine is such a "Porsche").

 

[TitanAtlas]

Valve isn't my favourite dev by a long shot.

They take forever to release games, and while those games are usually of a very good quality, they don't rank high up on my list.

They take long to create something people would like to play, not the same piece of crap that's released constantly every single month.

They provide, visual and audio components that are rare nowdays, create, trash and re-create till they perfect the story (a constant process), and they introduce fun elements that makes people acctually like to play the games more then one time... The maps and scenarios they provide are complete and extremely detailed nd the engine even after so many years, is still able to top graphic engines from nowdays!!

If you want some rushed piece of trash you already saw 10.000 times, i'm sorry to tell you, but you won't find it among the valve developers...

 

[Daystar Clarion]

They take forever to release games, and while those games are usually of a very good quality, they don't rank high up on my list.

It seems all the other points have been made, so I'll just say that they take forever to release games because their games are true quality. Honestly, the only game I've ever truly liked that didn't take forever to make was Call of Duty, and that's because Call of Duty STILL took forever to reach its current state through many yearly releases. Which is a rip-off way to improve and masterpiece-ize your game when you think about it.

A good game takes a long time to make. In fact, no developer except the makers of CoD and sports games release new games faster than 2 years, and while Valve is way slower than that, that's because they release so much free DLC to all their games that they actually make a lot more REAL CONTENT than those CoD people. Although I'm sure those CoD people work as hard on their flashy graphics (because the CoD engine is such a "Porsche").

Valve isn't my favourite dev by a long shot.

They take forever to release games, and while those games are usually of a very good quality, they don't rank high up on my list.

They take long to create something people would like to play, not the same piece of crap that's released constantly every single month.

They provide, visual and audio components that are rare nowdays, create, trash and re-create till they perfect the story (a constant process), and they introduce fun elements that makes people acctually like to play the games more then one time... The maps and scenarios they provide are complete and extremely detailed nd the engine even after so many years, is still able to top graphic engines from nowdays!!

If you want some rushed piece of trash you already saw 10.000 times, i'm sorry to tell you, but you won't find it among the valve developers...

I never said the games were bad, but they take so long to release something, that I just really don't care or get excited about them. I'll play them, and I will most likely enjoy them, but they're hardly worth the wait, especially since Valve ain't exactly stepped far from the FPS genre (yes, I know about DOTA and I don't care for it, and while still a puzzle game, Portal is still an FPS at the core). And honestly? I don't really care much for their FPS games in the first place. I play Half-Life for the story and atmosphere more than anything, take that away and it's a terribly dated mediocre shooter.

You don't need to defend Valve, I know how good they are. I just don't care for them as much as the fanboys.

 

[aashell13]

No, valve aren't my favorite developers as such, but I don't tend to think of them in that vein anyway. Practically all of my business with them consists of buying third party titles via steam, so I tend to think of them as more of a publisher/distributor than anything else. And they are out and by far away my favorite publisher/distribution outlet.

And they've got sense enough to not treat me like a potential criminal when I'm paying them for games, which is more than I can say of certain other parties...(glares at Activision whilst flipping EA the bird)

 

[samsonguy920]

This may sound kind of backwards, and it is, but while I like their games, as developers they wouldn't be in my Top 5.

This is mostly because they just don't seem to know how to make a console game if their lives depended on it. Sure Valve's PC releases are great and all (Although I know quite a few people that say TF2 is a pile of shit now), but their (they're?) console release record is pretty damn spotty.

Yes, I know, Microsofts update/DLC policies are kind of shit. But when you can't even get a map pack out, that's pretty sad. What really annoys me is that for years they've been pointing the finger at Microsoft (And Sony) going "It's not us! It's them! They won't let us!" whilst other, more competent developers are able to get out a ton of DLC with little fuss. I mean, they announced the next bit of DLC for L4D2 around January. And it's not like they're building entirely new maps, they're just porting some old L4D1 maps. Any other developer could have knocked that out in a few short months. How is it other developers like Bethesda and Gearbox and even Infinity Ward/Treyarch are dependent enough to get out a good amount of DLC and updates for their games yet Valve can only get out, what? 2 bits of DLC for L4D2? Over almost two years? Both using the exact same last map to boot!

I've tried to criticism Valve in the past and am usually met with a tidal wave of hate because "They made Steam!" or "They made Half-Life/TF2/Portal!" Everybody seems to give them a free pass and I just find it shameful.

Hating a company because their product doesn't port over to console when their games aren't even made for console is really a bit on the ignorant side. Not to mention, self-serving. The strongest part of everything Valve has made has been user-made content, not DLC. There are people still playing Half Life 1 Deathmatch because it still feels playable with the content that users can make themselves, download for free, and play on their own servers.
That factor alone would leave Valve wondering why make the effort to port a game to consoles when it is going to stay vanilla for console players? None of the big three(Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony) will ever create a system where user-made content can be shared on their servers. For one it would open up Live and PSN to vulnerabilities of malware. They already have enough troubles getting their servers hacked from the outside.
And I wouldn't put the blame solely on Microsoft, as EA can carry some of that burden as well.
Yes, it sucks that games made for PC don't port that well over to consoles. It sucks that games made for console don't port that well to PC. We are victims of circumstance, and until losers find something better to do and quit hacking stuff that isn't their's to touch, consoles will remain closed systems and restrict how games are played on them.
If you really want your questions answered on why Valve doesn't cram DLC down our throats like others do, it may be worth talking to them directly instead of ranting on here trying to just feel justified for how you feel. Unless Gabe Newell or any other senior staff of Valve were to actually come on here, there is nobody on here that will help answer your questions. Not even me. You can either sit and whine, move on, or find out the real answers to your questions. One of the last two choices would be better for yourself and others. Sitting in ignorance does nobody a service.

 

[RuinsHand]

I'll say that I'm neutral towards Valve. Portal is enjoyable and Steam is functional. Also, two good examples of games that have released all their new content through patches and updates, and not DLC or expansion packs, are League of Legends and RIFT. Both have released an enormous amount of new content (new mode and champions in LoL, constant fixes and balancing in RIFT along with new dungeons, more warfronts, etc.) for free in their updates and patches. I know that Trion and Riot are smaller developers, but they honestly listen to the players, will fix the things that are brought to their attention, and really do care about their players (yay free stuff). I personally couldn't care less about those devs who don't listen to their players, and simply release what they want, when they want. There is the option available to companies to put out patches and updates completely for free (so long as you have an internet connection) that contain a lot of new content. I don't hold many devs or publishers in high regards. I will say I like some more than others (Bioware, Blizzard, and Retro Studios) but that doesn't mean that the rest are totally bad or evil (except EA, they're evil).

 

[UltraXan]

Valve? Console releases? Oh lordy lordy... Valve = Steam = PC = Their primary domain. They care more about PC releases than console releases because they have more control over it all.

 

[Zeh Don]

The only problem I have with Valve and Steam is the Steamworks DRM package. It forces a game - any game, retail or otherwise - to launch the Steam Store Client and requires a user make a Steam Account. I don't care about their own games, I care about every single major PC Release requiring you to go to Valve for your game. In a few years time, the entire PC industry will simply be "Valve's Platform".

Civilisation V? Anyone who bought that is a Valve customer, whether they wanted to be or not.
Deus Ex: Human Revolution? Anyone who bought that is a Valve customer, whether they wanted to be or not.
Call of Duty? Anyone who bought that is a Valve customer, whether they wanted to be or not.
Fallout 3? Anyone who bought that is a Valve customer, whether they wanted to be or not.

Valve boast about their 30,000,000 customers. How many of these people were forced to make an account to simply play the game they paid for?

Steam is a forming monopoly. Other Digital Sellers are already selling Steamwork Games... sending their own customers to Valve, who force them to open their store every time they want to play their game.

 

[Ryotknife]

This thread on Valve hate does touch off on something that has been bothering me for awhile. The blending of PC and Consoles. In my mind, each has its strenghts. PC is the best when it comes to first person shooters or any type of RTS games. Consoles are the best when it comes to games that basically revolve around movement (which is pretty much everything else).

Sports games? consoles.
third person shooters? consoles.

but lately consoles are focusing more and more on first person perspective, and not just for shooters. It is infecting rpgs as well. Now, some FPS work well on consoles, but they are kinda a rarity (i would put halo on that list. works better on consoles than pc).

but a game like left for dead has no place on consoles. it is a game about coordination and PRECISION (key word here). at least once you get past the normal difficulty. I cringe whenever someone picks up an autoshotty because they will most likely be a bigger threat to my livelihood than any zombie can possibly be. and that is on the PC where you have much more precision. If i played that on the console and my teammate picked up an autoshotty i would run screaming from my teammates as that is more frightening than facing 2 tanks.

thats on the advanced level. the friendly fire is not so bad on normal, but honestly what is the point? the zombies are laughably easy on normal.

although on versus speed is the only important factor. i could not imagine how annoying it must be to get a good pounce as a hunter on the console.

 

[Icehearted]

Episodic milking, silly hats. I totally hate valve.

I guess we're not on the same page, buddy.

 

[Fanfic_warper]

Obviously not the only one, and I know I don't like them either....To me they just have NEVER come up with anything good.

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Spoiler: To start...

Ok. No. You aren't. There are many people who dislike Valve for one reason or another. Their slow development, their near monopoly on digital PC games, their being very vocal against the other gaming companies to promote themselves, Steam's lack of offline support and their lack of console support all come to mind.

 

[Vigormortis]

Snipped

No my friend, you are right, but at the same time wrong.

Your right in that most major studios DO buy out talent, IPs, etc. That IS the nature of the industry and No one faults valve for doing that.

Your wrong however in your comprehension of why I bring that up as a point. Its not that valve buys an IP and then claims it as its own. Its that Valve hasnt released anything of its own that wasnt directly someone elses creation, or a sequel to a franchise that was previously bought since 2004. One truly proprietary property in ....7 years?!?! How many other developers could stand going over 7 years without releasing a new property of their own?

So to make it perfectly crystal clear. Its not that valve does it. Its that valve has practically done nothing else.

Just as you mentioned, they hire the teams of which they purchase the property, so they still arent developing anything themselves. Its the original team developing with Valve pulling the reigns of that development on sequels and continued installments. Which really moves them away from being developers and more into the realm of being publishers with much more strict rules and regulations over intellectual property. Thats why I am not fond of valve. They get this unmitigated loyalty for being "awesome developers" when really all they are is a group of overly controlling publishers that havent developed anything of their own in the last 7 years.

Let's be fair here. While they may have hired the teams behind these projects, the resulting game isn't necessarily the same game. Take Portal, for example. Sure, it borrows the "two portal" game mechanic from Narbacular Drop, but that's where it ends. The entirety of Portal beyond that mechanic is built, designed, and written in house. The Narbacular Drop team didn't do it just by themselves. In fact, virtually all of the writing and dialog you hear in both Portal and Portal 2 came from writers already working at Valve.

There also seems to be some confusion on how Valve operates. They use a "cabal" system. This means that anyone can work on any project they want. (that's in development, of course) Therefore, if a mod team is hired by Valve (even if they don't use the intellectual property owned by the modders), the team members don't have to work on any specific project. If they hired the Team Fortress team, for example, and a few of them decided they wanted to make some Day of Defeat or Counter-Strike maps, then that's what they'd do. Granted, there are still project leads and what have you, but these are not people appointed by the Valve "higher ups" (Gaben) but rather the people that came up with the project idea.

Valve is not comprised a bunch of small "groups" who are hierarchically controlled and told what to do. That's how other devs work. Valve doesn't.

Ever notice how their end credits virtually never have any job titles beside the names involved? This is because, when they write the credits, they just list everyone at Valve. This is usually because everyone has, at some point, some part to play in the games creation. Even if it's just a pat on the back to a fellow designer and some words of encouragement.

The only exception to this was the release of Counter-Strike: Source, which was developed by Turtle Rock Studios. During the production, however, Turtle Rock and Valve merged. So by the time it was released it was, in effect, a Valve product only.

I get what you're saying and I can appreciate where you're coming from. However, I think some of that ire is misplaced. Hating Valve because they recognized the talent behind some mod teams and not only hired them but gave them the tools and resources to make their games seems a bit harsh. Besides, let's face it, most "original" properties you see from other developers are nothing more than an idea taken from someone they hired (after seeing their creative potential, just as Valve does) or just a blatant copy or clone of something else. The only difference between them and Valve is, in terms of hiring the people with the ideas, that Valve is more open about it. They're proud to say they give aspiring designers the tools needed to make their dream game exist.

By the way, Bungie has been releasing games in the "same" property for about a decade and they're doing just fine. So...

 

[Vigormortis]

not true,fable 3 has free dlc(albeit a hat) and i am sure others have free stuff(actually i think SC4 has some free stuff too) but go ahead,bad mouth MS cause its the cool thing among douchey people nowadays.

This is what gets me. Constantly.

"But you can't have free DLC!"

TONS of games have had free DLC. A lot of it has been pretty minor, but still.

"But you can't update or patch games!"

I don't know, I get tons of updates and patches. Some of the updates have included pretty major overhauls. Hell, that game Hydrophobia or whatever it was called got completely overhauled and was hailed as practically a new game.

I kind of wonder if the people who rant have any clue what they're talking about.

I'm sorry, but how is getting a free hat in Fable 3 even remotely the same as expecting Valve to release 20+ maps for Left 4 Dead 2 for free? (and yes, it's 20+ maps. 5 campaigns, between 4 and 5 maps each)

Microsoft has a policy that DLC or other content beyond a certain file size requires the developer of the DLC to pay for the hosting rights and storage space on the Microsoft servers. As such, Valve would have to pay, an not-so-insignificant amount of money, to keep the files hosted on Live. (which is expected and I have no issue with) Not to mention Microsoft requires a certain amount of profit from DLC sales. This means, were Valve to make the DLC available for free, that they'd have to foot one hell of a large bill. Thus, even though they're still one of the more gamer friendly devs out there, they're still a company. And venturing into something that is literally just a money sink with no returns is just bad.

They've worked out deals and workarounds before. For example, Left 4 Dead 1 got it's first DLC free because Valve reprinted and then re-released the game discs with the new DLC on them. Thus forcing Microsoft to offer the DLC as an "update". They've even offered to pay for some of DLC at certain points.

Even so, this doesn't address the bigger issue. And that is with updates.

See, Microsoft has yet another policy wherein developers are only allowed a certain amount of file space per update. Likewise, the developer is only allowed to release an update on Live after a certain amount of time has passed since the last update.

This rule applies to all games on Live. However, the more prolific or popular a title is (i.e. COD), or if the title is a first-party game from Microsoft (i.e. Gears, Halo) these file size and time restrictions are much more lenient. Ergo, seeing as, say, Left 4 Dead 2 doesn't sell as many titles as Halo: Reach, L4D2 doesn't get as many "leniencies" in it's support as Reach would. This ties Valve's hands as they have a very organic and fluid update method. This is why it often takes so long for an update to hit Live.

So, unlike some, my dislike of Microsoft isn't some attempt at being "trendy". I have genuine reasons for not liking them. Including having to suffer with Windows 7. And while some of the people you reference may not know exactly what they're talking about, they're not necessarily wrong.

Oh, and Hydrophobia didn't really get an "overhaul", it was replaced by new game code that was the original game optimized for Live/360. They effectively removed the old game and replaced the stored code on Microsoft's servers with the new code. That's why the update was so large yet is still "free". This isn't something that's possible with a physical media copy of a game since a majority of the game files are on the disc and any patches have to be downloaded to the hard drive.

 

[brainslurper]

As do Valve's "spotty" console record, they are primarily a PC developer, and as for their long production times, they are running Steam as well as creating all their new games and DLC and maintaining all their old games. They've got a lot to do, and they do consistently turn out quality games. Can anybody name an unequivocally *bad* Valve game?

They are also a relatively small studio. The fact that they are able to make any games at all, good or bad is amazing by my standards.

 

[mr.mystery]

why? have they shamed your family or burnt your dog?
hate is such a strong word. You just dont like their work. big difference.

 

[qeinar]

well beeing a pc guy i love valve. : p if i cared about the console releases they have i might not like them as much.