Are Valve Considered The 'Good Guys' ?

[Laura.]

I'd give my life savings to Valve.

and I'd have Valve's babies.

Also: it's not about being good guys or being bad guys, I think the important thing is how well liked they are, because of the quality of their games, and the great attention they pay to their customers even after they have taken their money.
They are smart enough to know happy people will continue buying their stuff, and people like being happy, so it's win-win.

And Modern Warfare 2 for 60 bucks doesn't make many people happy.

 

[GonzoGamer]

I also point to my reply on an earlier and similar post:
These companies don't care about gamers. They care about money.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see a ton of hippie developers band together and make a non-for-profit game company that only cares about the gamers, but I doubt it will be started by Gab Newman or whatever his name is.

They make great IP for PC's, but I personally think they let their guys talk to the media too much. Commenting on things they have A) No experience with, and B) No willingness to learn about such things, prior to commenting on them.

Probably why most ps3 owners wouldn't consider them "good guys."
"We can't make ps3 games because it's too hard." is becoming a very loose excuse and it was always a little hard to swallow.

I think there's also some L4D1 fans who wouldn't paint them as the good guys either.

I should also probably point out the half dozen "where's ep 3" posts that pop up on these forums every week.

Please don't put words in my mouth.

Sorry.
So then what were you referring to exactly?

BTW, I know valve's PR department was quick to respond to the "ps3 is too hard" thing, EVERY time someone said it. But after the 3rd time they start to seem more genuine than the PR, and quite a bit more stupid too.

 

[Worgen]

Valve is just like any other game company. Anyone who thinks different is fooling themselves. The only reason people think Valve is DIFFERENT is because they ask fans opinions (and sometimes listen to them) and know stupid internet jokes (lol boom headshot)

But face this fact, they are a company out to make money, which doesn't make them evil, it makes them a business.

The video game industry is NOT like some spaghetti western film where we have valiant "white hats" and evil "black hats". Stop kidding yourself

of course they are out to make money but the reason why they are seen as good guys is that they are more then willing to give gamers back alot of value such as the constant content updates for tf2 and the orange box which was loaded with value

while alot of other publishers are obviously trying to sqeeze every last cent out of consumers they can, see activisions price for mw2 pc version and european version

 

[Scarecrow38]

Publishers have a hard job. They have to reign in the talent and energy of developers so that everyone can actually make a profit on the games. Deadlines need to be met and all that.

I think it's just the nature of the industry. Someone needs to distribute the games and they need to do it at the right time of the year and in accordance with factors X, Y and Z.

I don't think any of us can really comment on the industry because we're on the outside looking into the shadowy interior.

 

[Avatar Roku]

They're a lot better than publishers like Activision or EA, but I wouldn't consider them the "good guys." They still whored half life 2 with episode 1, 2, and 3, and probably more episodes to come when they should just make half life 3. Not to mention they're making Left 4 dead 2, with only 1 new multiplayer map pack being released a couple months before L4D2 is released.

I don't think that's totally fair. I mean, it's either an episode every 2 or so years, or another 6 years before HL3. I'll take the episodes, especially since that allows them to improve with the new technology.

You know what? You can keep going on and on about the publishers and corporations and money and shit, but inevitably you must remember that Valve are the heroes who have never ever ever ever EVER EVER EVER made a bad game. YEAH they are the good guys.

How quaintly naive of you.

Care to expand?

Sorry.
So then what were you referring to exactly?

BTW, I know valve's PR department was quick to respond to the "ps3 is too hard" thing, EVERY time someone said it. But after the 3rd time they start to seem more genuine than the PR, and quite a bit more stupid too.

It's all good, this is kind of a touchy subject for some, but really, I couldn't care less as I don't play any of Valve's games actually.

Basically, Valve fucked themselves from the start by giving Newell the stand to be a mouthpiece for the company. Sorry, but I really feel that way. Newell made some seriously inflammatory remarks, from day 1. And all we've seen since that point, is Valve...easing back, ever so slowly, on exactly what they say regarding the system. From my perspective, it feels like damage control. Valve realized they made a huge error by allowing someone under their name, to speak in such a way, regarding a system that really isn't doing that badly given it's initial price point(when you actually look at sales numbers). I'll agree, their PR department is definitely stepping up their game, and I personally applaud them for simply stating that they don't have the resources to be able to work on learning PS3 architecture, nor do they have personnel who're interested in taking up that endeavor. However, they did indicate they'd be willing to hire such individuals. Which is promising.

And as I said, they simply need to avoid giving their employees free reign with interviews and press releases. Do what they do best, make PC and 360 games...no need to comment on something that they have no interest in learning, nor the experience to make valid commentary, right?

Fair enough, although Newell gets a free pass with me (likely because I'm a 360 gamer, to be fair). While I can understand what Newell said, and even agree with the logic*, it could have been handled much more tactfully.

*The logic being that programming for a PC and a 360 are virtually identical, whereas a PS3 is very different (on purpose [http://news.cnet.com/sony-ps3-is-hard-to-develop-for-on-purpose/]), meaning that Valve would have to spend time and money learning how to make PS3 games when they're already being forced to make their games for the 360 by EA as well.

 

[Left4Meds]

I'd give my life savings to Valve.

I'd give all his life savings to Valve.

But for serious.

Valve is really the only company that still cares about letting the community make modifications and listen to their complaints and ideas.

 

[tsolless]

Developers job is to make games. They make money from making games of course, but because their job is primarily making games they sometimes sacrifice profit to make a better game, occasionally.

Unfortunately, a publishers job is not to make games. A publishers job is to make money, plain and simple. They will always sacrifice quality to maximize profit, always.

It's sad and unfortunate but it's incredibly necessary. Developers lack the resources for funding, marketing and contracts which is what the publisher provides.

This is a symbiotic relationship which often result in toxins that affect you, the consumer.

 

[LoopyDood]

Developers are usually much better liked than publishers, so comparing valve to EA or activision isn't really fair.

True. But, isn't Valve it's own publisher, too?

Nope. Only for Steam, EA handles their retail publishing.

Only for the console versions of their games. None of my Valve PC games have EA on the box.

 

[SantoUno]

Valve just seem like PC gaming elitist jerks to me, giving their fans another stupid excuse to consider PC gaming superior to console gaming.

So no, I don't consider them the good guys. Actually when I think of "good guy" developers Bioware comes to mind.

EDIT: Ok so Valve aren't PC elitist jerks but I still don't think they're good guys because of their preference of PC gaming over console gaming.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Valve is actually a little bit like Bungie. They are so involved in their fanbase even if they manage to piss a whole lot of them off. They have been dicking around recently by not releasing Episode 3 just to focus on the sequel to a zombie game that was released last November, but how do you go wrong with Steam, Half Life, and Left 4 Dead?

 

[phar]

Everyone hates publishers because they try to combat piracy. Most gamers just expect them to turn a blind eye to the thousands of people making/downloading copies of the game.

Heck if you owned a magazine stand you wouldnt let people take all your magazines for free. Its just basic business. I just wish I could find good employees like these companies seem to...

Ok some people might hate them for other things like cost and things like that but they doing their job. I hate what the company does not the people that run it.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

Valve just seem like PC gaming elitist jerks to me, giving their fans another stupid excuse to consider PC gaming superior to console gaming.

So no, I don't consider them the good guys. Actually when I think of "good guy" developers Bioware comes to mind.

EDIT: Ok so Valve aren't PC elitist jerks but I still don't think they're good guys because of their preference of PC gaming over console gaming.

Why is that a bad thing? There's a reason why they pick PC's over consoles. Superior controls is one thing so that people don't feel very handicapped with controllers, they can update the platform multiple times over for updates and patches, and best of all, it's one of the most customizable systems ever. So nothing's wrong with them supporting the PC.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Developers are usually much better liked than publishers, so comparing valve to EA or activision isn't really fair.

It's actually quite fair. Both EA and Activision develop games as well as publish them. Valve likewise is both a developr and publisher (Steam). The scales are different, obviously.

Of course, how does one quantify "good guy"? Valve certainly produces games that are well recieved, and their publishing practices don't seem to generate any more flack than anyone elses (Sideline question - feel free to PM the answer: European gamers - is it commonplace for games to shift up and down in price with the exchange rate? Do games from a brick and morter store still cost significantly more than they do in the US?). They also seem to be willing to drive the industry forward with meaningful innovations rather than delivering simple iterations. Still, they are a business and they are bound to make decisions that piss people off from time to time. I don't think any of three companies mentioned are actually doing any of the silly things they do out of malice - it's all about the bottom line.

Still, since I haven't answered the question, I suppose I actually will. Valve delivers games that are fun to play and they seem to have as much respect for their audience as business allows. EA has a long proud history of producing shovelware but they have been making strides against that image of late. I'm not sure if they've done anything about their abhorrent working conditions, which is certainly a strike against them in my mind. Still, it's been awhile since EA has done anything that struck me as an overt and unfair grab for cash. Activision on the other hand is doing full steam ahead with iterations, and though Guitar Hero might be an excellent game I'm not sure we need 3 of them in a year. Their recent legal shenanigans with Double Fine (settled out of court) seemed just a little vindictive and petty. Their experiments at pushing the price point up to absurd levels for certain titles (Tony Hawk Ride, Modern Warfare 2) leave a bad taste in my mouth as a consumer. And their demonstrated willingness to conduct publishing practices that likely reduce the sales of a competing title in favor of one they produced (allegedly one of the reasons id joined with Bethesda Softworks) make them seem like they live on they unhappy side of the ethic-o-meter.

 

[veloper]

Developers are usually much better liked than publishers, so comparing valve to EA or activision isn't really fair.

It's actually quite fair. Both EA and Activision develop games as well as publish them.

Valve only publish their own stuff and only for the PC.
EA and activision buy dev studios left and right, but alos publish for more independent developers. So when we talk about the developer of Dragon Age or KOTOR, we talk about Bioware, not EA, even though EA owns it all.

This is why Valve is seen as a dev and EA and activision are not.

 

[Pendragon9]

Capcom is better than all of those greedy jerks.

/thread

 

[Shadowfaze]

Valve are not the "good guys". they didnt release L4D for the ps3. id say they are "the greedy exploitative guys, who dont care" yes, i was upset. who wasnt. (obviosly xbox people and pc people.)

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Developers are usually much better liked than publishers, so comparing valve to EA or activision isn't really fair.

It's actually quite fair. Both EA and Activision develop games as well as publish them.

Valve only publish their own stuff and only for the PC.
EA and activision buy dev studios left and right, but alos publish for more independent developers. So when we talk about the developer of Dragon Age or KOTOR, we talk about Bioware, not EA, even though EA owns it all.

This is why Valve is seen as a dev and EA and activision are not.

Any game put on steam is technically being published by Valve, meaning they act as the publisher for a great many companies. They are different from EA or Activision in one distinct area: they only publish digitially. That said, it is still a fair comparison because all three both develop and publish games. Different distribution models and vastly different scopes come into play, but that doesn't change the facts at hand.

 

[veloper]

Developers are usually much better liked than publishers, so comparing valve to EA or activision isn't really fair.

It's actually quite fair. Both EA and Activision develop games as well as publish them.

Valve only publish their own stuff and only for the PC.
EA and activision buy dev studios left and right, but alos publish for more independent developers. So when we talk about the developer of Dragon Age or KOTOR, we talk about Bioware, not EA, even though EA owns it all.

This is why Valve is seen as a dev and EA and activision are not.

Any game put on steam is technically being published by Valve, meaning they act as the publisher for a great many companies. They are different from EA or Activision in one distinct area: they only publish digitially. That said, it is still a fair comparison because all three both develop and publish games. Different distribution models and vastly different scopes come into play, but that doesn't change the facts at hand.

It changes the perception of these companies. Valve gets associated with making games, while EA gets associated with selling games.

What is the general perception of game companies? That was the topic.

 

[Gerazzi]

I like all developers, I don't like Publishers, who force release dates.