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

[thom_cat_]

Exactly why I want to work there. Because it's awesome.
It's the best business model ever, and they hire the right people to make it work.

It only works because they have the people working for them that are absolutely brilliant.
They are their own publisher too, so their deadlines are not set in stone and they can make whatever product they want.

It's brilliant and they get an amazing quality of work out of their employees.

 

[Joshimodo]

It's actually a VERY good method of working.

No command structure means no unenthusiastic workers, or wasted talents. Developers can mix and match to suit their strengths (or weaknesses).

Plus, developers will also gravitate towards projects that are the most entertaining, meaning that the ones that appeal the most to everyone are the ones that everyone wants to work on.


Compare that to every developer in the building working on a single project, where at least half of them are under-utilised, uninterested in the project and ultimately just want it over with.

 

[Terminate421]

They seem to do just fine.

I see your picture

And raise you:


Valve is like Bungie, only they have Steam and Bungie has access to the Halo franchise when they want (I KNOW THEY DON'T OWN IT, but I do know for a fact they have to just whistle to Microsoft and then BAM! new Halo game from Bungie in the works)

 

[Arqus_Zed]

No.

Just no.

I've actually been to Valve HQ in the Seattle area. This was during a trip where I also visited Arenanet, EA, Microsoft, etc.

And I can tell you, of all the places I've visited, they had the best system, powered by the best mentality. I can't go into specifics because they made everyone who visited sign and NDA, but trust me: the way Valve is run is the exact opposite of stupid.

 

[BENZOOKA]

Pfft. Half-Life 3 might be on many gamer's minds, but it's not the only thing that Valve employees have in their mind.

I'm a lot more interested in Counter-Strike: Global Offensive.

Besides: Making games is a creative process and they're all pros knowing what they do. The non-leadership seems to work just fine. Actually many developers seem to have a bit similar ways of management, like DICE for example.

 

[VoEC]

I read the whole handbook, too, and I don't think that this is a stupid way of running a creative business. I actually think it is amazing.

Let's say you ran a game studio and had about 100 employees all trained in whatever is needed. Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B.

Well, your example doesn't really fit here. Valve does not need to answer to any higher entity like a publisher. The only thing they are responsible for is their own company.
You actually could say that they are an indie developer in the sense that they're independent from any publisher except that retail thing with EA.
The scenario you depict above would be a desaster in any other company with a publisher in your back. Deadlines wouldn't be meet and projects wouldn't get finished or would differ from the product that the publisher desires. They would pull your funding in an instant.

That is the reason why Half-Life 3 is taking so long. Because they don't have to get it out because they made some deal and if they don't obey they loose their income.
But this isn't really bad. Maybe HL3 is taking its time but that means that they are not rushing it. If they realise halfway through the development that the game so far is just really bad and not what they want it to be they can just scratch some or all of it and start over or work on something different (as happened with most of their games, for example Portal 2 didn't have portals in it in its first development cycle, which didn't work, so they changed the whole concept). They could never do that if they wouldn't run their company like they do.

And while there is a lot of experimentation and failed projects and release dates get pushed back when they release a game like Portal 2 they do so because they pleased with their result and not because the publisher deadline was getting close. And they know that their players appreciate their quality.
So Valve could already have released HL3. They probably could make a Half-Life game every year. But the games would be really bad, it's that simple.

I think that Valve really understands how a creative process works (something most publishers don't really do) and they found and amazing way to run their company without sacrificing any creativity of their employees by seeing them as the artists that they are and not just as an asset that is needed to make a game.

P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?

At the time the first Half-Life was released he was probably interesting because he wasn't the run-of-the-mill DukeNukem like badass action hero. He was just a nerdy scientist with glasses, someone you can identify with more or less.

 

[NinjaDeathSlap]

They seem to do just fine.

This may be the fastest /thread ever.

 

[Ickorus]

From what I've read of interviews with Valve they still have different teams for different games, I imagine the handbook more refers to you being allowed to pick from a bunch of different tasks that need to be completed for the game your team are working on.

For instance if you do 3d modelling perhaps the list will show like a chair, a door, a table, a lampshade and you'll be able to pick and do any one of those that you want to rather than be told "YOU MUST DO THIS LAMPSHADE RIGHT NOW OR YOU ARE FIRED!".

I don't claim that what I say is correct but it's an educated guess.

 

[MetalMagpie]

"Am I the only one" is a very common figure of speech that has been around for a long time

Yes, but it's been around a lot longer as a literal question!

Personally, I find it a little annoying when it's used as a rhetorical question because it makes it more verbally awkward to disagree with the questioner's point of view. Logically, it is extremely unlikely that the questioner is the only person in the world who holds that view, so the answer is always "no". But answering "no" implies agreement with the sentiment. I.e. "No, you're not the only one because I think that way too."

But (a lot of the time) what I actually want to say is: "No, you're not the only one. But I don't agree with you."

This style of "weighting" a question towards a desired answer is abused a lot by lawyers. And is thus evil and should be purge. With fire.

</bizarre-rant>

OT: If Valve are making money, then their strategy works from a business sense. If they're producing games with merit, then it works from an artistic sense. If both are true, it just works.

 

[MetalMagpie]

From what I've read of interviews with Valve they still have different teams for different games, I imagine the handbook more refers to you being allowed to pick from a bunch of different tasks that need to be completed for the game your team are working on.

For instance if you do 3d modelling perhaps the list will show like a chair, a door, a table, a lampshade and you'll be able to pick and do any one of those that you want to rather than be told "YOU MUST DO THIS LAMPSHADE RIGHT NOW OR YOU ARE FIRED!".

I don't claim that what I say is correct but it's an educated guess.

That would make a lot of sense. I work as a software developer (though not making games) and at the start of every two-week iteration the whole teams sits down and picks which features they want to work on from the big-pile-of-stuff-that-needs-to-get-done. There tends to be a bit of "Shotgun F!" "Aww, I wanted that one!" until all the fun ones get picked.

One of the big advantages of the system is that it allows everyone to drive their own personal development. I want to get better at Javascript, so I've been picking a lot of Javascript stuff lately. It also means that (at least most of the time) people don't get stuck with tasks they really don't want to do.

 

[Najos]

I didn't read all of the replies, so someone probably said this, but ALL of the most successful games have come from a "when it's done" mindset.

 

[Hazy992]

If you think piles upon piles of cash and one of the most loyal fanbases in gaming is stupid, then yeah sure.

 

[Zen Toombs]

-snip-

For starters,

Spoiler: No. You're never the only one.

Anyways, you mention an example of "Your publisher has given you the IP to make 4 games released pretty frequently to each other. What you would probably do is assign 25 people to each game; the way Valve runs means that those 100 people can freely choose which game to work on, that means while 37 guys work on game A only 13 go to work on Game B." The thing with Valve is that they don't have a publisher, they publish their own games.

As for my opinion of Valves practices... while it can have some issues, the way you resolve most of them is by hiring the right sort of people.[footnote]Which the Valve handbook talks about quite a bit.[/footnote] I, for one, feel that I would thrive in that sort of environment.

 

[GenericAmerican]

Just because the employees can do whatever they want, and just because there is no real defined leader. Does not make them incapable of working together, or eliminate leadership potential.

 

[Woodsey]

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

Which they do: project leaders are either elected or fall naturally into the role on specific projects. The only unusual bit really is that people get to choose what they work on, and it's left up to them to decide on what they can best contribute to a project. They obviously don't hire people who look like obvious procrastinators.

They're critically-lauded, their games sell a metric fuck-tonne, and they're rich as fuck, so I'd say it does alright for them. No, they probably couldn't do it without Steam, but they do have Steam and it obviously works. No publishers or shareholders is an obvious and massive plus, as well.

P.S. Can someone explain to me the appeal of Gordon Freeman?

The appeal lies in the reaction of people who don't understand irony when he inevitably gets voted 'best character of all time'. Oh, how they scream.

 

[suitepee7]

i would find it very hard to work under those kind of conditions, i like being told what direction to take. however, they do very well, so it doesn't matter what i think, it clearly works

 

[RatRace123]

Maybe it's dumb, but it clearly works.

They have legions of fans that still support them even if they never end up releasing Half Life 3.
Plus they probably have enough money to build life-size statues of each of their developers, made out of solid gold, and still have the necessary funds left over to buy a first-world country.

 

[YuheJi]

I dunno if it's stupid so much as it must take a very specific type of person to be able to work at Valve. I don't think I would be able to work in a setting with so little structure, but then again, Valve employees are probably much more self-motivated than I am, so it works for them.

 

[Erttheking]

This guy more or less sums up my thoughts in a nut shell. Also I think valve spreads themselves WAYYYYY too thin. Pick a project and focus on it for Pete's sake.

They are 293 heads and work right now on 2 projects + the maintenance and improvement of Steam... How the fuck is this "spread to thin"?

Half Life, Portal, Team Fortress, Left 4 Dead, Dorta, Counter Strike, steam. THAT'S spreading themselves too thin. Also if they haven't spread themselves too thin, then why haven't they released Half Life 3? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm?