Valve is a bunch of hirers.

[Vigormortis]

snip

snip

Now while that is true, you can't just suddenly complain about it because the posts are attacking a thing that you like.
Every day this forum is filled with threads such as this one, where they talk about their dislikes for something. A company, a game, whatever, but it always happens, just about different things. It may be trolling, but then this site has had trolls for years, because threads such as these can make up a decent amount of the threads here.
I'm not disagreeing with you on Valve, and I'll hold my opinions about them to myself, but on a general level, you can't just suddenly call out these types of threads when they have been around forever, just on topics that might not always relate to you.
That's just how I see it, anyways.

Uh...I'm not complaining about anything. I was simply pointing out the bevy of Valve-hate threads that have cropped up lately. Far more than usual and far, FAR more than most of the other "I hate this" threads. There's no need to be condescending as if I'm "new" to this forum or that I am somehow unaware of the kinds of threads that are started.

I wasn't "calling out" these threads. I'll be the first to defend a legitimate thread where the OP brings up their dislike of something and states a point of view to build a discussion from. However, many "I hate this" style threads aren't anything like that. They're simply someone complaining about something or purposefully insulting something and those that admire/use it for the sole purpose of angering people and inciting "flame wars". I.E. Trolling. In this case, most of the far-too-numerous Anti-Valve threads that have been flooding this forum as of late fit more into the latter than the former.

[/edit] By the way, I'm not saying this is one of those threads.

 

[Vigormortis]

I don't dislike valve, actually they're one of my favourite companys . I just find it interesting that unlike developing most of their own games from scratch such as Blizzard or Bioware, they only join them partway through development. I created this thread just to point out that I found this rather interesting and so that I can get opinions on it.

I think this all stems from Valve having a completely different mindset to game creation as compared to, say, Blizzard. Both companies create masterfully crafted, extremely polished games. However, where they differ is in their design philosophy. Blizzard finds a game mechanic or idea that works and sticks to it. Refining it more and more as they go. "Going with what they know.", so to speak. Valve, on the other hand, always strives to innovate. They're primary intention is to either create a new mechanic or idea that's not been done before or to take one that's been around and refine it to it's utmost potential.

Both methods are valid and have lead to some of the best and most beloved game franchises in the industry. Blizzard's method allows them to retain much of their creative processes in house since they continue to build on only a few franchises. Valve (of which is VASTLY smaller than Blizzard) continues to search for new ideas to add to it's repertoire. Bringing outside talent into the fold to add to and expand their list of titles.

 

[Spaloooooka]

If we're ripping release dates and stolen ideas.

Didn't half life effectively re-write how fps's were designed?

weren't they just quake style, find a key to a switch & then shoot the bad guy in the weak spot repetitions? then afterwards there was a 'wave' of games which became more of a mix rather than one or the other. The only reason half life 2 was 'ground breaking' was because the market was seperated in how it executed its designs again - half life 2 brought back the puzzles & a much improved/new physics engine to play with.

for release dates, what about all the other amazing titles which looked better and better and then never made it too the shelves just before/after beta??
like say, Starcraft:ghost or duke nukem: forever.
then when someone finally does give a date its bumped back for testing. ghost recon: future soldier.

However;
when one is released on a given date or schedule, without the testing, its crap!
look at Empire total war. good game but it was working to a schedule and even the developers were saying it shouldn't have been released when it was.
--Or take fallout 3 - or new vegas. Plenty of bugs to work out but it was released on time, so a buggy game was released.

bitching about one company in particular makes no sense. and neither does bitching about all of them. They do nothing different and are good a recognising and using talent.

=)

 

[Vigormortis]

The sad thing about all that is - they have a huge, huge huge team of very various people, working on multiple projects. Where are the games then?

A "huge, huge huge team"? Where do you get this information? I'm curious. Because, from looking at the employee list, Valve appears to have around 150 employees. Not all of them game designers. Ever watch the end credits of, say, Half-Life 2 or it's episodes? All of those names you see there weren't all necessarily involved in the creation of the game. They're just employed at Valve. They're mentioned because Valve uses a "cabal" style work structure. (not going to take the time to explain, just look it up)

So, seeing as they're working on multiple projects at once, including new game releases, DLC and other updates, as well as Steam, it would seem that they have their hands full. That's "where the games are". So please, before you let the verbal diarrhea flow from your mouth, maybe do some research first.

[/edit] As a side note, Portal was developed by a whopping eight designers at Valve. Portal 2? They've decided to devote a much larger team with greater assets. There by upping the dev team count to a staggering....twenty eight.

 

[odeed]

OP, you are imagining Valve as a single person, who just buys ideas off people, because he can't come up with his own... However, you're failing to take into account that when Valve buys a team, they BECOME part of Valve. It is a company made up of a bunch of people, many of whom have been hired from previous projects... I'll put it simply, Valve likes a project in development, Valve decides to support the developer with their resources, Valve buys the devloper, that developer IS VALVE.

We are Valve. Lower your shields and surrender your creative team. We will add your design and technological distinctiveness to our own. Your games will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile.

Haha, well, it's kinda true, a company is made up of a bunch of people; Valve is essentially employing promising devleopers, which is what every company does. The fact that the devs come up with ideas before they enter Valve is irrelevant.

 

[No_Remainders]

Well, in Blizzards defense, it took them three different versions of Diablo 3 before they could even officially begin.

How is that a defense? It's just saying "Well, they were too incompetent to get it right the first time, and the second time, so they had to do it three times in total before they could actually make a decent game."

You shouldn't have said "in Blizzard's defense" it should have been "to prove Blizzard's incompetence".

 

[No_Remainders]

Valve has around 200 people, some of which are Steam people. If Portal was made by 8 people, what are the rest doing?

Human Resources, Management, Servers, Steam Support, Concept Artists, Developers? Probably more, but I just got up and I'm not able to think.

 

[Something Amyss]

That can be definitely be argued, but it's a 2 way system IMO. The people with these ideas don't have the money or resources to make it into a big thing, and a big company has those resources and so a deal of sorts is made. :x

It really can't be argued as a two-way street. Especially since it's unrpvoable these games would not have been made. Sure, it adds finances to their coffers, but so would a successful release.

Still, the thread uses the term "hirers," not "thieves" nor "thugs." The point doesn't appear to be so much that they were forced to sell their ideas to Valve, but that for all the fellatio the fanbase lays upon them, they haven't really come up with many of the ideas they're considered so "brilliant" for.

By a similar stretch, Bill Gates has to be the craftiest dude alive, given all the "innovations" he was behind buying back when he had a major hand in Microsoft's activities. People don't praise him for that, though. In fact, he's accused of stealing many of the ideas his company bought. I'd be willing to bet often by the same people who love Steam for their brilliant ideas.

At the best, bringing up that nobody was forced to sell to Valve is a strawman, and it neatly misses the point. Sorry. There does seem to be a strong air of hypocrisy in the Valve fanbase, to boot.

 

[Lord_Panzer]

So we have a company who acknowledges that they don't have every single good idea ever already, and are willing to acquire and fund ones they find.

Uhh... you'll excuse me if I find there's not a lot in this statement to talk about. Go go sound business strategy?

 

[czfjrod]

Speaking of business strategy, let's take Garry's Mod. You can see the huge success and potential surrounding this mod, and Valve legally has the right to buy it and make it their own, since it is a mod of their game.
However they did not touch it. The only thing they get out of selling it on Steam is 50% of the profits.
It may not sound that good at first, but they get $5 profit per copy, plus whatever money they get from users buying the required Source games. Multiply that by millions of people and it's a sure money-maker.

 

[archvile93]

They seem to have a tendency to pick up mod teams and small devs, which is why I don't get why they haven't picked up the developers of Black Mesa yet.

Because they couldn't get that mod out the door. Valve is very hypocritical that way (it's a joke).

 

[Vigormortis]

Be polite, all right? I'm not even going to react on your insult, I'm just reporting you.

Okay, not huge huge huge. That might be the Ubisoft's AC2 team of 300+ people, who could make such a large game in 2 years. Doom 3 was developed by less than 20 people in 3 years and that's a 25-hour game with a then-revolutional technology. Valve has around 200 people, some of which are Steam people. If Portal was made by 8 people, what are the rest doing? From what I know, most people there don't do much most of the time, because Valve's management relies on cash-ins (L4D2) instead of actually motivating the creative people do something. Of course, the pay is good, Steam and L4D are profitable after all, so many don't leave; they just stagnate. Well, maybe the next HL game will surprise; I don't trust Portal 2 that much.

Valve has around 200 people, some of which are Steam people. If Portal was made by 8 people, what are the rest doing?

Human Resources, Management, Servers, Steam Support, Concept Artists, Developers? Probably more, but I just got up and I'm not able to think.

You know, it's ironic in a way Mr. Sykes. You act all well-to-do and non-confrontational in the beginning of your responses, but that quickly changes. The very nature of your posts seem to imply you're sole intention is to aggravate others. You don't really offer a counter-point to the topic, just an insulting complaint meant to be confrontational.

As for your latest post, I believe No Remainders summed it up pretty nicely. However, and I wonder if you even read my original post, I find myself correcting you once again. Valve does not have "around" 200 employees. They have "around" 150. Likewise, Doom 3 was NOT developed by less than 20 people. There were quite a few more than that working at id Software. It also took longer than 3 years from conception to final product. And, finally, that "300+ people" from Ubisoft that were responsible for Assassin's Creed II were primarily ALL designers and programmers. That's not counting the total number of employees at that particular branch of Ubisoft. Also keep in mind how long it took those 300 people to make ONE game. Valve has 1/2 that number of employees but is always working on at least 3 projects at any given time. So it comes at no surprise that their time-tables are sometimes longer than some would hope.

In regards to the rest of your post, I'm not going to bother. You offer no real talking points, only abstract opinion and insults. It's clear to me you have no intention on having a real conversation or debate. You only intend to "rile" people up. Therefore, this will be the last morsel I give you, as I intend to stop feeding the troll.

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

That's another reason why I like Valve, they hire people who are willing to make unique games for free, and now Valve gives them the experience, technology, etc. and pay them.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Hold the phone...

What's with all this seemingly anti-Valve dribble recently?

Seriously, they're one of the most community-involved gaming companies that exist.

But you're also missing out on the fact that while TF and CS WERE mods, they WERE mods for a Valve game. So, really, they had every right to buy them off

Team Fortress was a mod for an Id game. That game, for the record, was Quake.

 

[odeed]

The reason Valve takes so long to make their games, is that they trash, and start again multiple times. If it isn't good enough, they won't release it, which is why every single one of their games is considered to be among the best of all time. Half Life 2, is still the highest rated PC game on Metacritic... 6 years after it was released.
Let me say this again, Valve hires developers because they see promise, and want them to be part of the company. every. company. does. this. Valve isn't some guy sitting in an office with no ideas of his own, Valve is a company of developers, when Valve hires them, they become part of the team. It's like saying "NASA is pathetic, they have to hire geniuses and rocket-scientists who have shown outstanding promise in the field... why can't they do their own research?!".
Oh, and, none of those games you mention come even close to anything Valve has done... so I am not sure what you're trying to prove there.
Besides, do you really think it's economically viable for a team to sit around on their asses and take years to do anything? If Valve was the money-grasping, lazy developer you make them out to be, we'd be seeing 3 awful games per year, and would be up to Half-Life 7.