Poll: Am I the only one who thinks the way Valve is run is kind of stupid?

[viranimus]

I honestly don't care.

Ok, well I still offer this up as to why I DO care.

Spoiler: Grievous

Your absolutely right, I DO take this seriously. The reason is? I have to because there's more people perpetuating this garbage of a business model that is destroying not only the gaming industry but all commerce than there are people railing against it. People are now willingly giving up their rights of ownership and giving away their money in exchange for absolutely NOTHING other valves good graces

I get up in arms about it because the people doing this are forcing this model as the only viable model on everyone and yes I take grievous offense at that because I do not want my right and freedom to choose HOW I wish to purchase my entertainment away. I get up in arms because of the many people who had to suffer for rights of ownership do not see those rights willingly given away. I am tired of those who hold no value of ownership to force their ideology on me with their wallet. I get pissed because it is this exact model that is killing the used market and thus will end up crippling the industry as a whole. And I call bullshit when people do not think of the consequences of their actions on the others around them.

If people do not call bullshit when they see it, nothing ever gets done about the problem.

"Discontent is the first step of progress of any man or nation"

So When valve relinquishes their "you own nothing" stance I will kindly shut the fuck up and offer apologies to valve for my vile and venom over the years.

Spoiler: Water

Now pray-tell how exactly does my "rhetoric" not hold water?

Does valve grant ownership rights?
Does valve charge less at base MSRP given that a license is worth substantially less than a re-sellable copy?

Does not every single media company based in digital distribution not look at Valve and conversely steam in order to try to emulate their success in offering digital only products that compete with physical counterparts?

Spoiler: Another thing.

Suggesting that I have ever insulted any one is an out and out complete fabrication. If all I have ever done is insult people and call them names I think it stands to reason I would have had many more incursions with moderators over that type of behavior. I am not above mod wrath. I think its safe to say I am likely one of the most reported people on this site, but at the same time I know I do not singled one person out and insult them for their choice. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just like I should not be subject to this sort of personal and focused attack for expressing my opinion on the matter because I speak in dissent on a subject people take too personally and with entirely too much offense at the mere mention of the obvious and well known negatives. The only people I insult is Valve as a corporation for perpetuating this model. Every individual is entitled to their opinion and it is my sincere hope when I re post in essence the same thing that maybe people will actually look and see what is wrong with this model of DD, how it is done right, what valve is doing and how their actions are indirectly screwing not only themselves but every single gamer. My intention has never been or never will be to insult people for their choices. Just to point out where they need to look to see the problems with those choices.

Spoiler: The way they are ran

The point of the thread is on valves developmental structure. Yet one of the biggest complaints from valve fans right now is that Episode 3 does not yet exist, nor does half life 3. Thats what I call attention to because the whole "work on what ever you feel would be productive" as a developmental model has to play a part in why there is no Ep3 or HL3. Instead choosing to ignore what fans have been asking for and working on building a 5 hour long expansion pack to portal. History has long shown how these ideological commune type organizations almost always fall flat when it comes to longevity with very few notable exceptions.

So if you have fans making claims that your single viable in house property has become vaporware, does it really make a lot of sense for your core in house development team to divvy up their resources to work on everyone elses side project rather than the corporate flagship?

Spoiler: Apology

You know I am sorry you have read what is in essence the same ideology multiple times. I honestly do not want to annoy anyone. But the fact is, If it did not still exist, If there were not attempts like the PSPgo pushing the DD only model, If there were not rampant rumors of which developers publicly supporting of anti used consoles, If I did not come on here and see unmitigated and unjustified love for a developer who has developed all of 2 franchises and has not released anything from in house development in a half a decade get propelled to winning developer of the year, If I did not see bullshit regarding valve, I would not call it. So sorry if your offended by it. Its not my intent to do so, but I call it as it is.

Spoiler: Supporty

And another thing. Despite how much I might speak out against valve, you do fully realize I am not actually against valve or steam for that matter? I have over 100 games in my steam library (predominantly valve titles and indie titles ive gotten from indie bundles) With the exception of Bethesda titles (of which I liceense all of 1 and I own a physical copy of it too)I rarely if ever buy main stream titles through Steam. I try whenever I can to buy physical copies, and thats why my game library dwarfs my steam library 5 times over. Steam has its place in the gaming world, but its not the place it is in as it stands.

Spoiler: Fiery uncool

Though please understand, No, bitching about valve/steam does not make me cool. I am NOT cool. I do not concern myself with what others think of me. There is no dictating other peoples perceptions because people make their own minds up on whatever criteria the choose regardless of if it is accurate or even relevant. I see no point to waste my time with other peoples perceptions.

Now you can take my words to heart and see that I do want what I feel and history suggests what is best for gamers, Or you can simply add it to the pile of things you do not like hearing me say. Its your prerogative what you choose to do with the information I put forth, just like it is for those who have NOT heard it, and those who dont even understand that with steam all they hold is a license that can be revoked at any time and for any reason valve chooses to do so. If valve would do so is irrelevant. It is the fact people willingly turn over their money into that inequitable of an arrangement. Honestly I dont like expressing the opinion either, I wish I didnt have to. However the simple fact is this needs to be pointed out every time it comes up until people do something about it because this is most certainly not one of those problems that if you ignore it long enough it will go away. If you ignore this long enough it grows to be an uncontrollable monstrosity.

 

[DarkRyter]

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

You're wrong, and you only think this because you're old fashioned and close-minded.

But yeah, I know we're really romanticizing the idea that stuff can be done without structure or authority. But hey, Valve is hardly the first kind of company to do this. Google does this kind of stuff all the time, apparently.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

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.

Whelp. That's one hell of a sentence.

Think of this: They made Steam using this business model. I think that's all I need to say, really.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

The way that I see it: they make good games, so why should I complain? They friggin' get results. Their business model is unusual but highly successful. The only real problem is with release dates (*cough*Episode3*cough*). From a financial standpoint, it sounds absolutely stupid, but it works, and I love it.

 

[funcooker11811]

etc... I seriously loathe how valve is ran because they are built around the same locust hoard principle that EA functions on but the general gaming public is so gullible it does not even realize that valve is screwing every single gamer, and basically every consumer of any sort of product with perpetuating this "license" garbage. No valve isnt the only one who does it, But Valve runs these low prices which should be representative of what a "licensed" copy should be valued against a physical/sellable copy that they have indoctrinated people into thinking this model should be acceptable without deducting for the lost value of the product between a licensed digital copy and a physical copy, so with how many they have indoctrinated with this ignorant model as being acceptable, Valve has done more damage to the gaming industry as well as commerce in general.

Agreed. The idea that violating terms of service leading to wasting every cent ever spent through steam(or any other digital service) is appalling to me, and its something that can very easily be remedied by simply allowing people to still access their games through the client, but disabling their ability to make purchases or downloads.

However, I can honestly say that's the only complaint I really have against Valve and Steam, which in this day and age is pretty damn good. Yeah, they buy up a bunch of companies and then publish those games as their own, but you know what they don't do? Use completely unrealistic expectations to justify shutting down those companies after they force them to compromise what they set out to design in the first place, leading to a sub-par game that imitates in order to maintain "market-approved" appeal that doesn't do so well critically or commercially. The hippie-commune vibe thing you described is probably one of the best places to design games, because designing an entire game pretty much requires you to throw yourself into it, and to really love what you're working on, and it's something you can't really get through the standard model that most companies currently use.

That being said, Steam is literally the only reason valve currently exists. Had it not been for the cash flow from it, Valve would've folded a hell of a long time ago. I'm guessing they realized this, and have spent a hell of a lot of time and money perfecting it, in order to maintain that cash flow. Besides, you can't deny the good its done in getting exposure for a lot of indie games that would've otherwise never gotten any spotlight at all.

 

[viranimus]

Snip

A: If they would adjust it so as you retain your items and are able to access them via an offline version of the client and blocked off from future purchases as well as online multiplayer servers hosted by valve, I could be persuaded to forgive the lack of true ownership If I knew that would always be the case.

B: I agree that Valves "Indie Cred" is one of their saving graces, though even there they are not perfect, but yes they have done a fair amount of good on that front.

 

[somonels]

John Romero's Ion Storm was also run differently, and it worked, for a time.

 

[funcooker11811]

Snip

A: If they would adjust it so as you retain your items and are able to access them via an offline version of the client and blocked off from future purchases as well as online multiplayer servers hosted by valve, I could be persuaded to forgive the lack of true ownership If I knew that would always be the case.

B: I agree that Valves "Indie Cred" is one of their saving graces, though even there they are not perfect, but yes they have done a fair amount of good on that front.

Well that's not... wait, what? You agree?(EDIT: with the parts you posted, don't want to imply total agreement to statements you haven't commented on and this edit completely ruins the flow of the post)

Well shit... that's never happened before.

 

[Keoul]

etc... I seriously loathe how valve is ran because they are built around the same locust hoard principle that EA functions on but the general gaming public is so gullible it does not even realize that valve is screwing every single gamer, and basically every consumer of any sort of product with perpetuating this "license" garbage. No valve isnt the only one who does it, But Valve runs these low prices which should be representative of what a "licensed" copy should be valued against a physical/sellable copy that they have indoctrinated people into thinking this model should be acceptable without deducting for the lost value of the product between a licensed digital copy and a physical copy, so with how many they have indoctrinated with this ignorant model as being acceptable, Valve has done more damage to the gaming industry as well as commerce in general.

I don't get what you're complaining about
You're saying that licensing is bullshit which I kind of agree, but it is the future of gaming. more gaming studios can start up as they don't have to find a publisher to make a hard copy of their games.
So you hate the very thing that's making new companies therefore new and innovative games.

Spoiler

Valve runs these low prices which should be representative of what a "licensed" copy should be valued against a physical/sellable copy that they have indoctrinated people into thinking this model should be acceptable without deducting for the lost value of the product between a licensed digital copy and a physical copy

So you're angry these digital games are cheaper?

I just don't get it If I'm wrong please explain because your argument right now makes no sense to me

 

[funcooker11811]

I don't get what you're complaining about
You're saying that licensing is bullshit which I kind of agree, but it is the future of gaming. more gaming studios can start up as they don't have to find a publisher to make a hard copy of their games.
So you hate the very thing that's making new companies therefore new and innovative games.


I just don't get it If I'm wrong please explain because your argument right now makes no sense to me

No, it isn't the future of gaming. It's the past of software development in general. Even back in the days of the disc, technically you only owned the physical disc, not the information on the disc. Rock paper shotgun had a thing about this, but I can't really remember the article title.

And basically what he's saying is that you don't actually own games you purchase. You're essentially renting them. The length and terms of that rental are pretty much decided by them, and traditionally the customer has gotten screwed by the companies. Valve doesn't do it quite as hard, but if they can still cut off your access to something you paid for, that's still unacceptable, at least to me.

Also, and I know this is pretty rude, but the "the very thing that makes new companies bit" is completely stupid. Their licensing method has absolutely nothing to do with how much money they make, because it only kicks in at very select times, i.e. when you get banned from steam for violating their TOS. It's because of this that people pretty much roll over and accept it, because it doesn't affect them. It's pretty much only when you're the one getting screwed over by the policy that you start caring.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

They seem to do just fine.

Likewise. It seems to working for them, so no I don't think it's dumb.

 

[Blobpie]

As long as it works, that's all that matters

 

[Flizzick]

If Valve ran itself like most other game developers, Half- Life would have as much lasting appeal as COD.

People complain about how much time it takes Valve to release a game, but there's a good reason for it. Valve is one of the few companies that doesn't tend to cut corners when it comes to game quality, which is attributed to the fact that they are able to nitpick everything without the pressure of specific release dates. Sure it might get frustrating when you're left in the dark for half a decade without any indication of a game release, but the consistently high quality of the games they put out more than makes up for the wait.

I will admit that as a consumer, Valve seems to neglect my existence, and I have every reason to hate them in the time they aren't releasing games, and yet they still seem to manage to keep my anger in check for being just so damn good at what they do.

In the end I'm a gamer who enjoys a good game that has lasting value and keeps me entertained. If that means waiting a little while longer for the good games, then so be it, because I'd wait 6 years for a game I'll love and want to play years after I finish rather than wait one year for a game I'm going to forget about five minutes after playing it.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well they have an open creative process without time restraints, that is how you get the best designed game out of your team, obviously Steam is the only reason they can do this because it gives them an infinite amount of resources.

If you want a dead set schedule however you need to look over to the accountants, sports titles go out on a conveyor belt just for every demanding ounce left in you.

Yes we all want a new hit game from Valve every year but good creations can not be forced.

 

[funcooker11811]

Yes we all want a new hit game from Valve every year but good creations can not be forced.

FFFFFFF- Why didn't you just say "can't"?! WHY?!

 

[Keoul]

No, it isn't the future of gaming. It's the past of software development in general. Even back in the days of the disc, technically you only owned the physical disc, not the information on the disc. Rock paper shotgun had a thing about this, but I can't really remember the article title.

And basically what he's saying is that you don't actually own games you purchase. You're essentially renting them. The length and terms of that rental are pretty much decided by them, and traditionally the customer has gotten screwed by the companies. Valve doesn't do it quite as hard, but if they can still cut off your access to something you paid for, and that's still unacceptable, at least to me.

I found these two sentences contradictory, if it's happened in the past why get all up in arms now? Also you're renting it "indefinitely" unless you break TOS. Though I agree the whole cutting off access to what you paid for is pretty bullshit. Though I was under the impression breaking Valve TOS only cut you off from the multiplayer parts of these games?

Also, and I know this is pretty rude, but the "the very thing that makes new companies bit" is completely stupid. Their licensing method has absolutely nothing to do with how much money they make, because it only kicks in at very select times, i.e. when you get banned from steam for violating their TOS. It's because of this that people pretty much roll over and accept it, because it doesn't affect them. It's pretty much only when you're the one getting screwed over by the policy that you start caring.

I was talking about how they don't have to find a publishers anymore. They simply license their product so people can download it online, cut out the middle man as it were. This way the only costs the developers face are from actually making the game, not turning it into hard copies, artists for cover art and plastic for the cases. So basically making games just got a lot less scary thus urging more people into the industry.

 

[veloper]

I guess the OP could be the only one, in a million, say.

There's always someone who thinks quality and games that work out of the box are a bad thing, that employees should work in shitty conditions and that companies should have poor customer relations and should not make any money.