Chet Faliszek, writer for games like Half-Life and the lead writer for Portal/Portal 2 has since confirmed that this handbook was never given to employees. It was created and released as part of advertising them as an employer.
It's hard to believe that the principles outlined here weren't at least briefly followed when it's featured on their website too: https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/publications, but I'd be an open to a source which substantiates your claim.
However, non-hierarchical structures are often open to manipulation and land-grabbing (see Tyranny of Structurelessness, etc.) so I am also skeptical that a company may have continued with this practice.
>"they pretty much killed off our project.” That project was CastAR — augmented reality glasses which Jeri Ellsworth is now working on as a separate project, having been handed the legal rights to do so by Valve.
But how many billion-dollar companies would do that? Just give the rights to the ex-employees? I think most other companies would have not. So, in that sense, Valve is unusual, even if it's not the oranizational utopia that was promised.
After she left Valve, she and partners did get at least $15 million funding from outside investors to develop the AR technology, but after several years of trying, it didn't work out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CastAR
That's a pretty incomplete telling of the story. Tilt Five is in business and selling the product after the founders bought the tech back from CastAR (after the VC people ran it into the ground).
Well that's because AR and VR are strictly worse for most use cases as compared to traditional human computer interfaces.
The mouse, keyboard, and monitor is pretty much just right. Highly productive, you can go super fast, with extreme information density.
VR and AR are obviously much slower to navigate because physical worlds are slow to navigate and that's what they're mimicing. We might assume a 3D world has more information density than a 2D screen... But 90% of the time it doesn't. I don't have eyes on the back of my head. And, usually, I'm going to be staring at a 2D thing.
There's a "Mega Replay" store near where I live, it has second-hand electronics, games and DVDs. The biggest section in electronics is the VR goggles, a lot of people have given up on them.
I tried VR once, with a bunch of short 360° documentaries and video games like Beat Saber and Half Life Alyx. It was incredible, far beyond any immersion one could ever create on a conventional screen, even with the best ray tracing in the world.
I don't really understand why VR helmets they aren't more successful. My first guess is that any console needs exclusive high-profile games to be successful, and producing many exclusive high-profile Meta Quest games is probably too expensive for current market adoption. A chicken-egg problem.
Or maybe the hardware price isn't low enough currently. The original Game Boy was successful with its low price despite its terrible screen. The Game Boy Color chipset was very underpowered compared to the competition but again more affordable.
As some with a gaming PC, a few VR headsets, and a steam deck, I find myself reaching for the steam deck most often. It’s a good enough experience and easy to just turn on and play. The friction to getting the VR headset out is surprisingly high so it really only happens when I’m playing with a friend, which only three friends have headsets. So it just ends up not happening.
I don't quite understand this. The friction on ordinary desktop PC gaming is also fairly high. I can't imagine playing on Quest 2 or 3 is significantly more complicated. Also, if you are playing a large RPG (like Asgards Wrath 2), a few minutes of setup won't make much of a difference in playing time. I agree it's a different issue for more casual games.
I think the more relevant difference is that there are vastly more (and therefore: better) PC games than VR games.
It seems their hardware teams have a particular problem with this. I'm in the area, know many people in their orbit, and they have a really poor reputation, so I knew to be cautious, but when I interviewed with them a while back I was really surprised at how poorly it was organized. I don't want to say much more publicly, but they sure earned their reputation.
IMO it’s really hard to argue with the quality valve software is putting out. I can’t really name a game that isn’t considered a must play that they’ve made
how do you come up to this conclusion? Valve has by far the most revenue by employee from all the big players. They seem to be the most efficient at what they do.
This comment is literally the first search result of "Chet Faliszek Valve employee handbook" for me. I've waded through several pages and haven't found a credible source of him saying that.
It was not as obvious when it first came out as we were less familiar with stealth marketing.
When smart people say ads don’t work on them - this is a counterexample. It’s just that different groups respond to different branding. And this was highly tuned to Reddit interests.
It was given to employees, but it was created as a recruiting tool. That's why they posted it on their website after it 'leaked' (with some deliberate effort to cause that to happen).
Valve has hired a bunch of FAANG engineers that brought their own toxic hiring practices to Valve. It's only a matter of time before those people promote their culture in that organization if they haven't done so already.
Valve gets a lot of heat for slowing down on first party gaming content, but I think Steam has been a net positive for the gaming community. There are certainly some cases where the accessibility has created "noise" and other trouble, but overall I think this is a good thing. Their 30% cut is absolutely justified once you start looking into everything they do for you as a developer and the market that you have access to. It is a lot easier to pay that kind of fee when you don't feel like your technology partners actively hate the fact that you merely exist.
Steam is still like what Netflix used to be. You have pretty much everything you care about in one place. Even big monster AAA developers like EA have given up and put their content on the platform. If I had to pick between having HL3 and a coherent gaming ecosystem, I'd pick the latter.
I'm very scared about the future though. What happens when Gabe is gone? The entire PC Gaming industry is essentially locked in to a single platform. If Steam decided to charge $10/mo people have so much invested into their libraries they would likely do it. What about $20 or $30 per month?
I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
> I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
Because they have been consistently good citizens for more than 2 decades. They built a reputation. Something other companies are eager to piss away at the first opportunity to sell out or squeeze their customers.
It’s not surprising that Valve is successful and trusted with this approach. What is surprising is that it is apparently so incredibly hard for other companies to understand this very simple fact.
Still a for-profit company, wouldn't bet on this, even though I'd love it to be like this (that companies who have been doing good will continue to do good instead of increasing their profits). Been burnt too many times.
The dominant business school philosophy in the West is that 1. any reputation you have with your customers is a monetary asset and 2. therefore you should sell it for profit because it's greater than the long term expected monetary value according to a simple time-value of money calculation, especially because of the lag before your customers figure out you've sold them out.
#1 on its own isn't so bad, you should indeed treat reputation as a valuable asset, but the way their style of logic invariably jumps to "and therefore you should sell, sell, sell it!" is the source of the problems we see. Especially because they're likely to jump jobs before the consequences occur. We really ought to have a culture of looking askance at executives and decision makers who never spend more than 2 years at a job, rather than celebrating them. If they've never had to live with the effects of their decisions they're really just a fresh-out-of-college person with 10 instances of the same two years of experience.
I’d just quietly turn to GoG and download all of my games just in case. But anyway I’m no longer that interested in games now. Reality is more challenging and fun.
I’ve already received 95% of the value from the game library I have on Steam.
Worst case, if I lose access to all of them, whether by choice or by force (they go under), there are other options of obtaining (most of) the same games, and that’s even if I’m interested in playing them again.
Most of the games I really care about, I probably already have on other platforms anyway, in addition to or instead of Steam.
> I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
They're not, really, but they've given us little reason to distrust them.
I'm also fairly confident there would be some fun legal stuff going on if Steam tried that. People have thousands - tens of thousands - of dollars worth of stuff on Steam. That isn't really the same as, say, having to watch ads even after paying for a subscription.
That is debatable. For one thing, Steam is partly (mostly?) built off the backs of games marketing their games and providing a Steam link (marketing costs money for the devs). Steam kick started this chicken/egg problem by creating their own great games first.
Second, Steam does not provide your game any marketing (algorithmic visibility) unless it's already successfully marketed outside of Steam (marketing is not free), and again later once it hits a certain number of sales.
Third, per Tim Sweeney, games during the retail era had a bigger margin for the the studios than they do today [1]
edit: So I do feel a little upset that Steam gets free marketing for every game put on the site (important note you can (and should in most cases) place your game up on the site long before its ready to purchase, and steam will advertise other games on your page), doesnt provide any marketing in return (via the discovery queue) unless you bring in tens or hundreds of thousands of clicks, and then turns around and skims 30% of all my work which they are greatly benefiting from (e.g. what if the customer goes to my page, wish lists my game, then purchased a different game in the mean time? At least e.g. amazon has referral links)
I think there's a lot of weirdness if you try to answer "what is the PC gaming platform?" and how Valve or anyone else fits into it, and because it's PC a lot of answers can be true simultaneously, and many different users want/expect different things.
Is it processor architecture? Is it the OS? Is it the store and whatever facilities they provide? Is it the mode of physical interaction with the device (desk, couch+TV, etc)? Is it being able to assemble any random collection of hardware and expecting it to work? Does that discount set builds? Is it mandatory that the user is free to screw around with the software any way they please or can you lock stuff down?
At least on the commerce side, it's been the case since steam was opened up to third parties that they were the gatekeeper for success unless you were already huge (and now very few companies want to go it alone). Going back to Introversion's Darwinia they were just scraping by until they got on steam, developers have long been complaining that the varied methods Valve has used to get on the store (manual review, greenlight, etc) showed the vast majority of gamers only purchase through it or that you'll get a large wave of new business when you release on it. Now it seems like a 'tragedy of the commons' situation unless you've got your own marketing or it's a hobby project.
It seems like you've now got to do mental gymnastics to say Valve doesn't own the PC gaming platform
As consumer I very much agree with you, but as game developer 30% is abysmal amount of money. Imagine you're indie developer or owner of a small 3-10 people studio that finally released reasonably successful game:
1 - Let's say you invested $100,000 of your own money for vertical slice and managed to find a publisher to give you $200,000 to complete the game.
2 - Ignore that you had some failed games before, but this time you let's say sold 100,000 copies for $10 each average. 100k sold is a big success really.
But here is the math:
1 - Valve got $1,000,000 as gross revenue for 100,000 sales.
2 - Usually 16% is VAT and immenient refunds. So now $840,000 left.
3 - Now Valve took their 30% cut. $588,000 left.
4 - Now your publisher took $200,000 to recoup invested money. $388,000 left.
5 - Now publisher split remaining $388,000 by honest 50/50.
Now your company sold 100,000 copies of a game, but only get $194,000 gross income as royalties. And if you will make any profit you'll likely pay at least 20% corporate or divident taxes so yeah at best your profit gonna be $155,000.
So you did all the work, somehow managed to fund it, worked on game for a year and got $155,000 while Valve made $252,000 for payment processing and CDN. Steam do not provide marketing - it only boost already successful products.
PS: This is best case scenario. Usually your publisher will also recoup whatever expenses they had on their end for marketing and whatever.
I would note that they do provide quite an immense amount of value to developers. Achievements, transferable inventory system, multi-player (steam networking), among other things. The 30% cut still feels high, especially since most games can't or won't take advantage of every single service Steam provides, but I do think they provide quite a bit of developer value that needs to be factored in.
The multiplayer isn't actually used that much, since it doesn't support console players/cross-play which is expected these days. Many games will use Azure PlayFab or Epic Online Services. EOS is free and doesn't require the game be sold on the Epic Store or the Epic client.
You really missing my point here. Problem with platforms is that platform-holders are taking bigger cut from a small struggling companies than they take from likes of EA or Ubisoft. If you look at majority of small and mid-size game development studios Valve is basically taking half of their income unless your game earns more than $10,000,000.
It's totally okay to like Valve or Steam as gamer. As fellow gamers I totally agree with you.
Just next time when you wonder why you favorite studio went bankrupt or why you niche genre game never got a sequel this is why: because some monopoly took 50% of their profit.
On other hand how much developer time would have been spend on building own distribution, billing and related customer support. Time spend on doing it yourself would not be free either.
30% for this is high, but then there is also the discoverability. Which I think does beat google by long way. So they probably would not have sold as many copies without popular platform.
This is exactly what I was trying to point out. Steam's developer services can save a massive amount of time for developers, time which is especially valuable to indie studios. I still feel that the 30% is steep, I'd prefer if Steam took a cut based on how many of their underlying services you used, but its wrongheaded to deny that Steam provides many useful features for developers that can save a lot of time.
I think such model can lead to messy scenarios. Say you start without cloud saves and sell million copies. Then you add cloud saves. Now should your commission increase on past sales meaning that for while you make nothing? Or should it only apply moving forward and on future copies sold?
And I am absolutely certain that some developers would exploit this in someway.
This math is missing a step: $200k went to your publisher who already gave you the $200k, so really you got about $394k total (before your taxes).
And it's worth remembering that your publisher got $194k ... I'm not sure if this publishing arrangement makes sense for the publisher ($200k risk for not much more reward?) or for you (30% of your net income from the game, after valve's 30%) (I'm not in the industry so honestly I just don't know)
This step is certainly not missing. And yeah I somewhat simplified the agreement not to go into details. Usually publishers that invests money take 80-90% or even 100% before full recouperation of investments. This usually includes not only provided budget, but also whatever publisher spent on porting, QA, localization and LQA.
Then after recouperation is complete all income is split between 50/50 and 40/60 for either side. And yeah in gamedev ROI like x2.5 is a good deal for publishers even if 90% of games never recover development costs.
Everyone just hopes to make the next hit and earn.
PS: This is math for indie and AA games with budgets under $5,000,000.
Steam isn't the right place to sell a game that does 1M in total lifetime sales. Because like you said, it won't hit any recommendations and they'll take a huge cut.
This is like complaining that AMC won't screen your student film. You're playing in a very niche space and the key is to keep costs under control so you can actually make money.
If your game is not on Steam (or big consoles) it doesn't exist. Platforms like Itch are only useful for part-time solo developers who trying to earn their $100 or $10 for ramen. Can be good marketing for solo developers too, but you only make money when release on "real" platform.
Gamedev is a hit industry. Even of released games 90% never make back the investments. Then 1% hits make 90% of money.
And situation is as bad for $3,000,000 game studio as it's for one like mine that makes $300,000 games.
The other things is steam doesn't constrain competition (afaik? Open to being wrong but this is how I'd understood it). Devs can sell their own games, games can be on other platforms, etc.
Despite that gamers think it's worth the convenience and utilities steam provides to keep shopping there.
Steam isn't dominant because it's strangling competition like the app store and similar. People can trivially download alternatives, but they choose steam anyway.
Yet for some reason, people still use Steam as a “gotcha” to justify why Apple’s terms are fair.
But as you’ve hinted at, Steam is very different from the iOS App Store because it is competing organically with other app stores on Windows. Steam does not control Windows or the hardware, so it cannot “force” itself to be the only option to download games on Windows.
And even when it does have full control over the platform and HW (Steam Deck), it’s just a light wrapper around a standard Linux distro (Arch).
Steam is currently being sued by Wolfire for being anti-competitive by allegedly having a "platform most-favored-nations" clause. Preventing games on other platforms from being priced lower.
According to the developer:
> [Valve] would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.
> I believe that other developers who charged lower prices on other stores have been contacted by Valve, telling them that their games will be removed from Steam if they did not raise their prices on competing stores.
Its not true. You're allowed to sell for lower elsewhere, but you can't sell steam keys for a lower price than steam store. So if you create a version of your game that works without steam you can sell that for a lower price.
In the class action case[0], which was allowed to go forward by the court last year, it is claimed that Valve told someone:
"This includes communications from Valve that “‘the price on Steam [must be] competitive with where it’s being sold elsewhere’” and that Valve “‘wouldn’t be OK with selling games on Steam if they are available at better prices on other stores, even if they didn’t use Steam keys.’” Dkt. No. 343 ¶ 158, 160 (quoting emails produced at VALVE_ANT_0598921, 0605087). "
(This is a new case, not the 2021 suit, which was rejected by the court, then amended and refiled, later with an additional plaintiff added)
> I think Steam has been a net positive for the gaming community
This is probably true on balance, but needs to be tempered with the reality that they also pioneered or popularized many of the worst parts of modern gaming. Always-on DRM, paid DLC, loot boxes and exploitive monetization, esports gambling (indirectly, they were complicit until legal pressure forced them not to be), FOMO monetization, "early access" and launching incomplete games, etc. All exist in their modern forms at least in part due to Valve.
Disclaimer: I'm a valve fanboy who buys all their first party software and hardware. They still put out great products despite the ways they've changed gaming for the worse.
A HL3 team could essentially function as an independent studio using the Steam platform, with some funding thrown from Valve. Assuming the ROI is positive what exactly is holding them back?
Yep, and that applies to Valve at two levels because Steam dwarfs the ROI of their games, and their forever-games like Counter Strike dwarf the ROI of any singleplayer game they'd ever be able to make. It's a miracle they even got Alyx out of the door, that was a special case since it was part of their larger VR initiative.
And Alyx was probably a huge failure, ROI wise, because nobody buys VR headsets. I know, not "nobody", but by far and large it has remained a super niche market.
They want it to be good? Throwing it at a third party sounds like a good way to get a meh game and then have to release it since you've already spent X$ on it.
Do we also point out being the first to implement DRM and erode digital ownership, being the first to tie game installation to a platform client, creating micro transactions or being fine with child gambling (CS skins) in the net negatives, or are we not allowed to criticize Lord Gabel today?
The gambling is the only thing I think you can reasonably attack them for. They didn't create microtransactions, those had already been figured out in Korea. The DRM was necessary for Steam to be palatable to publishers (and it's always been more of a pro-forma thing than a real attempt at DRM like Denuvo), and a world without Steam would absolutely have seen per-publisher e-shops that would also have DRM. Tying game installation to a game client... again, that was a 'when' not an 'if', and they weren't even the first. If I recall, you had to install a client to install Wild Tangent games. The client was also, arguably, malware.
> spent the last decade going out of its way to recruit the most intelligent, innovative, talented people on Earth, telling them to sit at a desk and do what they’re told obliterates 99 percent of their value.
Well that hits close to home. I wonder why every other mega successful company thinks the opposite.
Your management is so effective you are not even aware of the structure around you! there is a place you come to ready with goals and tasks, and those tasks are prepared for you to apply your engineering skill (other departments will apply their skills separately and be added to yours). And there are ways to communicate if you need resources or support.
Think about how common it is for someone to be effective at work and totally confused and aimless in their personal life. They might have trouble sticking to projects, or not know what goals are worthwhile, or make bad decisions - all while performing great at work.
I am an IC at the lowest rung of any org chart with no aspirations to change that.
Mega successful companies dont think that way. They very often buy startups or just asquihire teams to kill competition before it become dangerous to them.
I can play any PC game I want and I don’t have a single windows install anywhere in my life. They made, beyond all the other contributions, Linux gaming a reality.
It would be interesting to see copies of this from subsequent years (this is the 2012 edition) to understand how Valve's process has evolved over time.
>Valve is flat. It’s our shorthand way of saying
that we don’t have any management
> Team leads
Often, someone will emerge as the “lead” for a project.
This person’s role is not a traditional managerial one.
Most often, they’re primarily a clearinghouse of information. They’re keeping the whole project in their head at
once so that people can use them as a resource to check
decisions against. The leads serve the team, while acting like
as centers for the teams
I appreciate the out-of-the-box-thinking+creativity foundation theyre trying to lay here, but... this is what management is. I understand management has other emergent properties and misaligned incentives, but those are literally the core (technical) value-adds of managers.
The main criticism of flat organizational structure is that management will develop as an emergent property anyway, but it will do so poorly. "The Tyranny of Structurelessness is the classic essay on the subject: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Gamedev is just very poor industry. Think of your usual FAANG salary and divide it by 5. Or just any random software engineer job and devide salary by 2. There are companies like Epic Games that pay competetive salaries, but they are few.
Gamedev is also very stressful industy because both constant crunches and job instability. So you not only paid worse, but you'll work 2-3 times more that average SWE. And often fired when project is complete regardless of success.
So working at Valve is somewhat like a pipe dream for many people in the game industry. Especially because whole Valve is under 500 people which is like 10-20 times less people than work for Epic, Ubisoft or EA.
Valve is not an ordinary company. They make a ton of money, have no outside investment, reinvest everything internally on R&D and keep very small. On top of that, they run completely flat management.
They're the idealized version of what a small company making a shitton of cash would be. They can afford plenty in terms of work-life balance.
Even at the start they were unusual as they were funded by Microsoft millionaires, and presumably had little pressure to release before "when it's done", and HL1 being a huge hit started the ball rolling allowing them to acquire the team fortress and counter-strike mod teams, picking up even more momentum.
Arguably by 2012, Valve was already transitioning out of the game development business and into the services business. Team Fortress 2 was already out, Left 4 Dead 2 was already out, Portal 2 was already out, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive came out in the same year, and Dota 2 came out the next year. Really the only things that have been made since that period are Half-Life: Alyx (2020), Counter-Strike 2 (2023) and Deadlock (TBA).
They didn't transition out of game development. Dota 2 was under heavy development all these years after it "came out". It was only when Deadlock started heavy development that Dota 2 was winding down.
"We are the priests who maintain the holy money printer called Steam for our lordship, first of his name Gabe Newell, so that he may purchase fleets of yachts. Don't rock the boat by hiring someone who doesn't get it." They could have said it like this with a lot less bullshit. And Silicon Valley could learn a lot from this company.
This is a common question from people interviewing at Valve. I was suspect how accurate it was before I joined given how long it's been since it was updated. However, it still 100% represents the culture within Valve. Desks are still on wheels, structure is still completely flat, etc...
It's been on my list of "eventual todos" to make a trivial update to help reinforce that it's still relevant.
Personally I'm interested in this proposed flatness. I understand that it's the aim, but at the end of the day someone approves vacations, manages budgets for projects and is the person that has to have hard conversations with an employee right? Someone will have higher mandate for hard decisions?
Valve hasn’t released anything of note since this has been published. So I guess we should take these as anti patterns. Valve is more of a hat generation company than a game company so it seems like no one should take any game related advice from them.
Half-Life Alyx, Dota 2, Steam Deck, Index, Proton, CS:GO (released same year as this handbook), and not to mention still dominating with Steam despite the competiton spending hundreds of millions of dollars to not even make a dip in their marketshare.
Well, I would categorize that more to major version update than actually new release. Say like new Linux LTS release. Lot of things changed even very deep, but it is basically largely same work.
It’s a complete reimplementation on a new engine with big changes to the tick system, new versions of all the maps, animations, etc. Not too different to CS:GO release vs CS:S with big expectations comparing it with the previous version.
In addition to the other products mentioned: Deadlock is maybe the best new big budget IP in recent memory, in terms of theme/setting and art style and character design. Particularly after the update a week ago, the game is stylish as hell now. Even the main menu music is a banger: https://youtu.be/WkGDC3idX1E
Now, the game isn't exactly out yet, but it is pretty widely accessible, and the core of the game is just fantastic. They really cooked with this one, especially the movement system.
I pretty much have the opposite feeling about Deadlock after putting 200+ hrs into it (not that much but enough to understand the game).
There was a recent streamer that said it best: the game design fundamentally punishes you for engaging with other players. Instead, it rewards you for running around the map breaking static entities (boxes, statues, static creeps, etc.). Which is, frankly, boring.
There's just no way imo that will ever be successful in an FPS/shooter. It might work for MOBAs, but I think the idea of a MOBA-first shooter is just never going to get much traction beyond a niche.
Maybe Valve will see the light and significantly change things. I'm not sure. The "open alpha" was also kind of a disaster in killing off the first wave of the player base.
Steam Deck and Proton are pretty major, IMO. Even if you exclude the Deck itself for being hardware, SteamOS and all the associated UI/UX is pretty nice.
I bet when current management leaves, as usual happens in these cases, those that worship Valve and Steam will see yet another big corporation, this if it doesn't eventually get acquired.
What management? Gabe doesn't have any direct involvement in the running of the company at this point, in spite of being the majority owner. It's an open question what happens if he leaves or dies but it doesn't seem likely that he'd do anything to intentionally sabotage the company, like sell it off. It's more likely that ownership will transfer to a trusted party or to the employees.
At this point I think Valve is more likely to be disrupted from an outside influence rather than within, I think a lot of their actions are about keeping the ship steady. If someone does come along as an upstart in a new market as valve did with digital distribution versus retail/physical, the old is unlikely to be instantly irrelevant and obsoleted, and even then you get new markets like mobile appearing over their lifespan where both are healthy side-by-side.
To disrupt Valve's business you'd need an offering as good if not better than Steam, something several companies already tried and failed, and on top of that you need to convince everyone with buy-in to switch to your business, another monumental task. While people are happy with Steam it'll be impossible to challenge Valve as a digital distributor.
Dota 2 is of note, but that was a pretty safe project being a straight remake of an already popular mod with the mods developer at the helm. Their major titles since 2012 were:
CS:GO (remake of a remake)
Dota 2 (remake)
Artifact (flopped)
Underlords (flopped)
Alyx (good)
Counter-Strike 2 (remake of a remake of a remake)
Deadlock (early beta, but promising)
They haven't completely lost the sauce, but it's rare to see the old Valve show up these days.
Chet Faliszek, writer for games like Half-Life and the lead writer for Portal/Portal 2 has since confirmed that this handbook was never given to employees. It was created and released as part of advertising them as an employer.
It's hard to believe that the principles outlined here weren't at least briefly followed when it's featured on their website too: https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/publications, but I'd be an open to a source which substantiates your claim.
However, non-hierarchical structures are often open to manipulation and land-grabbing (see Tyranny of Structurelessness, etc.) so I am also skeptical that a company may have continued with this practice.
At least one former employee has confirmed that exactly the problems you are describing were a problem at Valve.
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/
>"they pretty much killed off our project.” That project was CastAR — augmented reality glasses which Jeri Ellsworth is now working on as a separate project, having been handed the legal rights to do so by Valve.
But how many billion-dollar companies would do that? Just give the rights to the ex-employees? I think most other companies would have not. So, in that sense, Valve is unusual, even if it's not the oranizational utopia that was promised.
After she left Valve, she and partners did get at least $15 million funding from outside investors to develop the AR technology, but after several years of trying, it didn't work out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CastAR
That's a pretty incomplete telling of the story. Tilt Five is in business and selling the product after the founders bought the tech back from CastAR (after the VC people ran it into the ground).
I can't edit my comment now, but here's a good review of the Tilt Five
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbjjCn1zJq8
Unfortunately, no-one’s investment in AR or VR has worked out. Even the “winner” (Oculus/Meta) has found the market to be disappointingly small.
Well that's because AR and VR are strictly worse for most use cases as compared to traditional human computer interfaces.
The mouse, keyboard, and monitor is pretty much just right. Highly productive, you can go super fast, with extreme information density.
VR and AR are obviously much slower to navigate because physical worlds are slow to navigate and that's what they're mimicing. We might assume a 3D world has more information density than a 2D screen... But 90% of the time it doesn't. I don't have eyes on the back of my head. And, usually, I'm going to be staring at a 2D thing.
There's a "Mega Replay" store near where I live, it has second-hand electronics, games and DVDs. The biggest section in electronics is the VR goggles, a lot of people have given up on them.
I tried VR once, with a bunch of short 360° documentaries and video games like Beat Saber and Half Life Alyx. It was incredible, far beyond any immersion one could ever create on a conventional screen, even with the best ray tracing in the world.
I don't really understand why VR helmets they aren't more successful. My first guess is that any console needs exclusive high-profile games to be successful, and producing many exclusive high-profile Meta Quest games is probably too expensive for current market adoption. A chicken-egg problem.
Or maybe the hardware price isn't low enough currently. The original Game Boy was successful with its low price despite its terrible screen. The Game Boy Color chipset was very underpowered compared to the competition but again more affordable.
The terrible screen of the Gameboy didn't make you physically sick.
As some with a gaming PC, a few VR headsets, and a steam deck, I find myself reaching for the steam deck most often. It’s a good enough experience and easy to just turn on and play. The friction to getting the VR headset out is surprisingly high so it really only happens when I’m playing with a friend, which only three friends have headsets. So it just ends up not happening.
I don't quite understand this. The friction on ordinary desktop PC gaming is also fairly high. I can't imagine playing on Quest 2 or 3 is significantly more complicated. Also, if you are playing a large RPG (like Asgards Wrath 2), a few minutes of setup won't make much of a difference in playing time. I agree it's a different issue for more casual games.
I think the more relevant difference is that there are vastly more (and therefore: better) PC games than VR games.
it lives on as Tilt Five
It seems their hardware teams have a particular problem with this. I'm in the area, know many people in their orbit, and they have a really poor reputation, so I knew to be cautious, but when I interviewed with them a while back I was really surprised at how poorly it was organized. I don't want to say much more publicly, but they sure earned their reputation.
It is easy to imagine that Gabe is a talented tyrant like Steve Jobs used to be.
https://archive.ph/Od674
side note: Jeri Ellsworth is a rockstar engineer.
I know someone who’s worked with her and yes, “talented” is an understatement.
Also when you have a lot of money you can afford to be inefficient
Also, sometimes you need to first be a bit inefficient and lax in order to later come up with really good ideas and solutions.
IMO it’s really hard to argue with the quality valve software is putting out. I can’t really name a game that isn’t considered a must play that they’ve made
Artifact flopped really hard.
I too thought Ricochet was a blast and an underrated must play. There are dozens of us!
how do you come up to this conclusion? Valve has by far the most revenue by employee from all the big players. They seem to be the most efficient at what they do.
They hold a valuable resource developed from prior years of hard work. See also Google search.
Do you think Valve was operating this way when they were trying to make their first money on half-life?
Source?
This comment is literally the first search result of "Chet Faliszek Valve employee handbook" for me. I've waded through several pages and haven't found a credible source of him saying that.
I don't have the precise link to hand (sorry) but Chet posts frequently on TikTok, I recall seeing him say this.
It was not as obvious when it first came out as we were less familiar with stealth marketing.
When smart people say ads don’t work on them - this is a counterexample. It’s just that different groups respond to different branding. And this was highly tuned to Reddit interests.
It was given to employees, but it was created as a recruiting tool. That's why they posted it on their website after it 'leaked' (with some deliberate effort to cause that to happen).
Is it meaningfully different if it's not given to employees but given to everyone before they become an employee?
I'd agree it's a meaningful distinction if the company wasn't actually as written... but it sounds like everything in there is accurate?
Propaganda isn’t false - and wasn’t always pejorative. It’s a selection of true things arranged to tell an appealing story.
The connotation of propaganda as being false or misleading is itself the result of propaganda of the most subtle and sophisticated level.
It's a great pitch. Sounds like a utopia.
Valve has hired a bunch of FAANG engineers that brought their own toxic hiring practices to Valve. It's only a matter of time before those people promote their culture in that organization if they haven't done so already.
What culture?
Corporate bullshit culture. Hell on earth. If you have worked in one big tech organization then you know.
Valve gets a lot of heat for slowing down on first party gaming content, but I think Steam has been a net positive for the gaming community. There are certainly some cases where the accessibility has created "noise" and other trouble, but overall I think this is a good thing. Their 30% cut is absolutely justified once you start looking into everything they do for you as a developer and the market that you have access to. It is a lot easier to pay that kind of fee when you don't feel like your technology partners actively hate the fact that you merely exist.
Steam is still like what Netflix used to be. You have pretty much everything you care about in one place. Even big monster AAA developers like EA have given up and put their content on the platform. If I had to pick between having HL3 and a coherent gaming ecosystem, I'd pick the latter.
I'm very scared about the future though. What happens when Gabe is gone? The entire PC Gaming industry is essentially locked in to a single platform. If Steam decided to charge $10/mo people have so much invested into their libraries they would likely do it. What about $20 or $30 per month?
I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
> I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
Because they have been consistently good citizens for more than 2 decades. They built a reputation. Something other companies are eager to piss away at the first opportunity to sell out or squeeze their customers.
It’s not surprising that Valve is successful and trusted with this approach. What is surprising is that it is apparently so incredibly hard for other companies to understand this very simple fact.
1. Build a good product.
2. Consistently act in good faith.
3. Profit.
Still a for-profit company, wouldn't bet on this, even though I'd love it to be like this (that companies who have been doing good will continue to do good instead of increasing their profits). Been burnt too many times.
Which is a great way to run a business that you care about owning for a long time.
But as a consumer you have to think about what happens when leadership changes—PE buys them and starts reputation mining.
It takes a while to burn through the good will and for a few years you can make a lot more money off of that than you can continuing thing as usual.
I bet those are the same folks that believed on the "Do no evil" marketing, or Microsoft <3 FOSS.
The dominant business school philosophy in the West is that 1. any reputation you have with your customers is a monetary asset and 2. therefore you should sell it for profit because it's greater than the long term expected monetary value according to a simple time-value of money calculation, especially because of the lag before your customers figure out you've sold them out.
#1 on its own isn't so bad, you should indeed treat reputation as a valuable asset, but the way their style of logic invariably jumps to "and therefore you should sell, sell, sell it!" is the source of the problems we see. Especially because they're likely to jump jobs before the consequences occur. We really ought to have a culture of looking askance at executives and decision makers who never spend more than 2 years at a job, rather than celebrating them. If they've never had to live with the effects of their decisions they're really just a fresh-out-of-college person with 10 instances of the same two years of experience.
30% cut and the shit they do with CS ( fomo, gambling ect .. ) they're not a good citizen.
I’d just quietly turn to GoG and download all of my games just in case. But anyway I’m no longer that interested in games now. Reality is more challenging and fun.
I’ve already received 95% of the value from the game library I have on Steam.
Worst case, if I lose access to all of them, whether by choice or by force (they go under), there are other options of obtaining (most of) the same games, and that’s even if I’m interested in playing them again.
Most of the games I really care about, I probably already have on other platforms anyway, in addition to or instead of Steam.
At that point I'd feel entitled to keep the games I bought by pirating them.
This is the right approach. I only buy games if the money goes to the original creators, not some parasitic company who bought the "IP".
> I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
They're not, really, but they've given us little reason to distrust them.
I'm also fairly confident there would be some fun legal stuff going on if Steam tried that. People have thousands - tens of thousands - of dollars worth of stuff on Steam. That isn't really the same as, say, having to watch ads even after paying for a subscription.
Also, let's say we decided to not trust Steam because all corporations cash in on their goodwill eventually. What would be the alternative?
the same as always happens :)
Microsoft/xBox are waiting to buy Valve.
I wouldn't be surprised, especially after eventually there is a management change.
Most folks aren't keeping tabs on how many studios Microsoft nowadays owns as publisher, even moreso after the ABK deal.
> Their 30% cut is absolutely justified
That is debatable. For one thing, Steam is partly (mostly?) built off the backs of games marketing their games and providing a Steam link (marketing costs money for the devs). Steam kick started this chicken/egg problem by creating their own great games first.
Second, Steam does not provide your game any marketing (algorithmic visibility) unless it's already successfully marketed outside of Steam (marketing is not free), and again later once it hits a certain number of sales.
Third, per Tim Sweeney, games during the retail era had a bigger margin for the the studios than they do today [1]
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/19_NC1ZskeN47LHaYJziotbA0sqL...
edit: So I do feel a little upset that Steam gets free marketing for every game put on the site (important note you can (and should in most cases) place your game up on the site long before its ready to purchase, and steam will advertise other games on your page), doesnt provide any marketing in return (via the discovery queue) unless you bring in tens or hundreds of thousands of clicks, and then turns around and skims 30% of all my work which they are greatly benefiting from (e.g. what if the customer goes to my page, wish lists my game, then purchased a different game in the mean time? At least e.g. amazon has referral links)
I think there's a lot of weirdness if you try to answer "what is the PC gaming platform?" and how Valve or anyone else fits into it, and because it's PC a lot of answers can be true simultaneously, and many different users want/expect different things.
Is it processor architecture? Is it the OS? Is it the store and whatever facilities they provide? Is it the mode of physical interaction with the device (desk, couch+TV, etc)? Is it being able to assemble any random collection of hardware and expecting it to work? Does that discount set builds? Is it mandatory that the user is free to screw around with the software any way they please or can you lock stuff down?
At least on the commerce side, it's been the case since steam was opened up to third parties that they were the gatekeeper for success unless you were already huge (and now very few companies want to go it alone). Going back to Introversion's Darwinia they were just scraping by until they got on steam, developers have long been complaining that the varied methods Valve has used to get on the store (manual review, greenlight, etc) showed the vast majority of gamers only purchase through it or that you'll get a large wave of new business when you release on it. Now it seems like a 'tragedy of the commons' situation unless you've got your own marketing or it's a hobby project.
It seems like you've now got to do mental gymnastics to say Valve doesn't own the PC gaming platform
PC gaming is what has been since the MS-DOS days and lame beeps, versus the Amiga.
I always find interesting the mention of "rise of PC gaming".
Those of my generation have been playing PC games, and 8 bit home computers before that, since the 1980's.
Game consoles were almost inexistent in most European households for us.
The exception being the Game and Watch from Nintendo series, like Manhole.
As consumer I very much agree with you, but as game developer 30% is abysmal amount of money. Imagine you're indie developer or owner of a small 3-10 people studio that finally released reasonably successful game:
But here is the math: Now your company sold 100,000 copies of a game, but only get $194,000 gross income as royalties. And if you will make any profit you'll likely pay at least 20% corporate or divident taxes so yeah at best your profit gonna be $155,000.So you did all the work, somehow managed to fund it, worked on game for a year and got $155,000 while Valve made $252,000 for payment processing and CDN. Steam do not provide marketing - it only boost already successful products.
PS: This is best case scenario. Usually your publisher will also recoup whatever expenses they had on their end for marketing and whatever.
I would note that they do provide quite an immense amount of value to developers. Achievements, transferable inventory system, multi-player (steam networking), among other things. The 30% cut still feels high, especially since most games can't or won't take advantage of every single service Steam provides, but I do think they provide quite a bit of developer value that needs to be factored in.
The multiplayer isn't actually used that much, since it doesn't support console players/cross-play which is expected these days. Many games will use Azure PlayFab or Epic Online Services. EOS is free and doesn't require the game be sold on the Epic Store or the Epic client.
You really missing my point here. Problem with platforms is that platform-holders are taking bigger cut from a small struggling companies than they take from likes of EA or Ubisoft. If you look at majority of small and mid-size game development studios Valve is basically taking half of their income unless your game earns more than $10,000,000.
It's totally okay to like Valve or Steam as gamer. As fellow gamers I totally agree with you.
Just next time when you wonder why you favorite studio went bankrupt or why you niche genre game never got a sequel this is why: because some monopoly took 50% of their profit.
On other hand how much developer time would have been spend on building own distribution, billing and related customer support. Time spend on doing it yourself would not be free either.
30% for this is high, but then there is also the discoverability. Which I think does beat google by long way. So they probably would not have sold as many copies without popular platform.
This is exactly what I was trying to point out. Steam's developer services can save a massive amount of time for developers, time which is especially valuable to indie studios. I still feel that the 30% is steep, I'd prefer if Steam took a cut based on how many of their underlying services you used, but its wrongheaded to deny that Steam provides many useful features for developers that can save a lot of time.
https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/features
I think such model can lead to messy scenarios. Say you start without cloud saves and sell million copies. Then you add cloud saves. Now should your commission increase on past sales meaning that for while you make nothing? Or should it only apply moving forward and on future copies sold?
And I am absolutely certain that some developers would exploit this in someway.
This math is missing a step: $200k went to your publisher who already gave you the $200k, so really you got about $394k total (before your taxes).
And it's worth remembering that your publisher got $194k ... I'm not sure if this publishing arrangement makes sense for the publisher ($200k risk for not much more reward?) or for you (30% of your net income from the game, after valve's 30%) (I'm not in the industry so honestly I just don't know)
This step is certainly not missing. And yeah I somewhat simplified the agreement not to go into details. Usually publishers that invests money take 80-90% or even 100% before full recouperation of investments. This usually includes not only provided budget, but also whatever publisher spent on porting, QA, localization and LQA.
Then after recouperation is complete all income is split between 50/50 and 40/60 for either side. And yeah in gamedev ROI like x2.5 is a good deal for publishers even if 90% of games never recover development costs.
Everyone just hopes to make the next hit and earn.
PS: This is math for indie and AA games with budgets under $5,000,000.
Steam isn't the right place to sell a game that does 1M in total lifetime sales. Because like you said, it won't hit any recommendations and they'll take a huge cut.
This is like complaining that AMC won't screen your student film. You're playing in a very niche space and the key is to keep costs under control so you can actually make money.
If your game is not on Steam (or big consoles) it doesn't exist. Platforms like Itch are only useful for part-time solo developers who trying to earn their $100 or $10 for ramen. Can be good marketing for solo developers too, but you only make money when release on "real" platform.
Gamedev is a hit industry. Even of released games 90% never make back the investments. Then 1% hits make 90% of money.
And situation is as bad for $3,000,000 game studio as it's for one like mine that makes $300,000 games.
The other things is steam doesn't constrain competition (afaik? Open to being wrong but this is how I'd understood it). Devs can sell their own games, games can be on other platforms, etc.
Despite that gamers think it's worth the convenience and utilities steam provides to keep shopping there.
Steam isn't dominant because it's strangling competition like the app store and similar. People can trivially download alternatives, but they choose steam anyway.
Yet for some reason, people still use Steam as a “gotcha” to justify why Apple’s terms are fair.
But as you’ve hinted at, Steam is very different from the iOS App Store because it is competing organically with other app stores on Windows. Steam does not control Windows or the hardware, so it cannot “force” itself to be the only option to download games on Windows.
And even when it does have full control over the platform and HW (Steam Deck), it’s just a light wrapper around a standard Linux distro (Arch).
Steam is currently being sued by Wolfire for being anti-competitive by allegedly having a "platform most-favored-nations" clause. Preventing games on other platforms from being priced lower.
According to the developer:
> [Valve] would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.
> I believe that other developers who charged lower prices on other stores have been contacted by Valve, telling them that their games will be removed from Steam if they did not raise their prices on competing stores.
https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-cla...
Its not true. You're allowed to sell for lower elsewhere, but you can't sell steam keys for a lower price than steam store. So if you create a version of your game that works without steam you can sell that for a lower price.
In the class action case[0], which was allowed to go forward by the court last year, it is claimed that Valve told someone:
"This includes communications from Valve that “‘the price on Steam [must be] competitive with where it’s being sold elsewhere’” and that Valve “‘wouldn’t be OK with selling games on Steam if they are available at better prices on other stores, even if they didn’t use Steam keys.’” Dkt. No. 343 ¶ 158, 160 (quoting emails produced at VALVE_ANT_0598921, 0605087). "
(This is a new case, not the 2021 suit, which was rejected by the court, then amended and refiled, later with an additional plaintiff added)
[0]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wawd.29...
> I think Steam has been a net positive for the gaming community
This is probably true on balance, but needs to be tempered with the reality that they also pioneered or popularized many of the worst parts of modern gaming. Always-on DRM, paid DLC, loot boxes and exploitive monetization, esports gambling (indirectly, they were complicit until legal pressure forced them not to be), FOMO monetization, "early access" and launching incomplete games, etc. All exist in their modern forms at least in part due to Valve.
Disclaimer: I'm a valve fanboy who buys all their first party software and hardware. They still put out great products despite the ways they've changed gaming for the worse.
It interests me that it needs to be an "or".
A HL3 team could essentially function as an independent studio using the Steam platform, with some funding thrown from Valve. Assuming the ROI is positive what exactly is holding them back?
That’s what they did for CS:GO, developed by Hidden Path.
> Assuming the ROI is positive what exactly is holding them back?
Absurd expectations.
> Assuming the ROI is positive what exactly is holding them back?
The Google problem where every project that is not Search has a much worse ROI.
Yep, and that applies to Valve at two levels because Steam dwarfs the ROI of their games, and their forever-games like Counter Strike dwarf the ROI of any singleplayer game they'd ever be able to make. It's a miracle they even got Alyx out of the door, that was a special case since it was part of their larger VR initiative.
And Alyx was probably a huge failure, ROI wise, because nobody buys VR headsets. I know, not "nobody", but by far and large it has remained a super niche market.
They want it to be good? Throwing it at a third party sounds like a good way to get a meh game and then have to release it since you've already spent X$ on it.
Do we also point out being the first to implement DRM and erode digital ownership, being the first to tie game installation to a platform client, creating micro transactions or being fine with child gambling (CS skins) in the net negatives, or are we not allowed to criticize Lord Gabel today?
The gambling is the only thing I think you can reasonably attack them for. They didn't create microtransactions, those had already been figured out in Korea. The DRM was necessary for Steam to be palatable to publishers (and it's always been more of a pro-forma thing than a real attempt at DRM like Denuvo), and a world without Steam would absolutely have seen per-publisher e-shops that would also have DRM. Tying game installation to a game client... again, that was a 'when' not an 'if', and they weren't even the first. If I recall, you had to install a client to install Wild Tangent games. The client was also, arguably, malware.
Translated versions are available here: https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/publications
Previous discussion:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3871463 (21 April 2012 | 16 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8818893 (31 December 2014 | 17 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9250527 (23 March 2015 | 14 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12157993 (25 July 2016 | 197 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17935030 (7 September 2018 | 31 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33170988 (12 October 2022 | 165 comments)
Some more:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41329274 (23 August 2024 | 112 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26960473 (27 April 2021 | 7 comments)
> spent the last decade going out of its way to recruit the most intelligent, innovative, talented people on Earth, telling them to sit at a desk and do what they’re told obliterates 99 percent of their value.
Well that hits close to home. I wonder why every other mega successful company thinks the opposite.
Because being smart and talented is not the same skill as being self managing. Good structure helps people use the skills they are good at.
And because self managing people do not automatically organize to achieve the same goals.
> Good structure helps people use the skills they are good at.
That's extremely rare and even in overall success stories you will find plenty of unhappy folks.
But as a general excuse for some micro-management-obsessed middle manager with 0 trust into anybody else its good enough excuse I suppose.
Your management is so effective you are not even aware of the structure around you! there is a place you come to ready with goals and tasks, and those tasks are prepared for you to apply your engineering skill (other departments will apply their skills separately and be added to yours). And there are ways to communicate if you need resources or support.
Think about how common it is for someone to be effective at work and totally confused and aimless in their personal life. They might have trouble sticking to projects, or not know what goals are worthwhile, or make bad decisions - all while performing great at work.
I am an IC at the lowest rung of any org chart with no aspirations to change that.
Mega successful companies dont think that way. They very often buy startups or just asquihire teams to kill competition before it become dangerous to them.
I think it's funny that this is passed around as a great example of how to run a company, but I really don't think Valve are producing much.
I can play any PC game I want and I don’t have a single windows install anywhere in my life. They made, beyond all the other contributions, Linux gaming a reality.
It would be interesting to see copies of this from subsequent years (this is the 2012 edition) to understand how Valve's process has evolved over time.
This was PR prop
Not just PR prop, stale rehashed PR prop reposted time and time again over 13+ years.
I remember reading or hearing somewhere that this was a one-off thing, but I can't remember where.
EDIT: Another comment mentioned Chet Faliszek, he was probably the source.
>Valve is flat. It’s our shorthand way of saying that we don’t have any management
> Team leads Often, someone will emerge as the “lead” for a project. This person’s role is not a traditional managerial one. Most often, they’re primarily a clearinghouse of information. They’re keeping the whole project in their head at once so that people can use them as a resource to check decisions against. The leads serve the team, while acting like as centers for the teams
I appreciate the out-of-the-box-thinking+creativity foundation theyre trying to lay here, but... this is what management is. I understand management has other emergent properties and misaligned incentives, but those are literally the core (technical) value-adds of managers.
The main criticism of flat organizational structure is that management will develop as an emergent property anyway, but it will do so poorly. "The Tyranny of Structurelessness is the classic essay on the subject: https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Surprising amount of discussion on work/life balance and kids/family for a game dev. Is Valve known for this or is it just relative?
Gamedev is just very poor industry. Think of your usual FAANG salary and divide it by 5. Or just any random software engineer job and devide salary by 2. There are companies like Epic Games that pay competetive salaries, but they are few.
Gamedev is also very stressful industy because both constant crunches and job instability. So you not only paid worse, but you'll work 2-3 times more that average SWE. And often fired when project is complete regardless of success.
So working at Valve is somewhat like a pipe dream for many people in the game industry. Especially because whole Valve is under 500 people which is like 10-20 times less people than work for Epic, Ubisoft or EA.
Source: I work in indie game company.
Valve is not an ordinary company. They make a ton of money, have no outside investment, reinvest everything internally on R&D and keep very small. On top of that, they run completely flat management.
They're the idealized version of what a small company making a shitton of cash would be. They can afford plenty in terms of work-life balance.
Even at the start they were unusual as they were funded by Microsoft millionaires, and presumably had little pressure to release before "when it's done", and HL1 being a huge hit started the ball rolling allowing them to acquire the team fortress and counter-strike mod teams, picking up even more momentum.
Arguably by 2012, Valve was already transitioning out of the game development business and into the services business. Team Fortress 2 was already out, Left 4 Dead 2 was already out, Portal 2 was already out, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive came out in the same year, and Dota 2 came out the next year. Really the only things that have been made since that period are Half-Life: Alyx (2020), Counter-Strike 2 (2023) and Deadlock (TBA).
They didn't transition out of game development. Dota 2 was under heavy development all these years after it "came out". It was only when Deadlock started heavy development that Dota 2 was winding down.
Dota Underlords came out since then, which is a brilliant game that they effectively abandoned / moved on to Deadlock.
Everyone forgets about Artifact :).
Also Underlords.
I think even Valve would prefer you to forget about it.
"We are the priests who maintain the holy money printer called Steam for our lordship, first of his name Gabe Newell, so that he may purchase fleets of yachts. Don't rock the boat by hiring someone who doesn't get it." They could have said it like this with a lot less bullshit. And Silicon Valley could learn a lot from this company.
(2012)
Anybody working for Valve here? Can somebody confirm how many % percentage of this is BS?
This is a common question from people interviewing at Valve. I was suspect how accurate it was before I joined given how long it's been since it was updated. However, it still 100% represents the culture within Valve. Desks are still on wheels, structure is still completely flat, etc...
It's been on my list of "eventual todos" to make a trivial update to help reinforce that it's still relevant.
Personally I'm interested in this proposed flatness. I understand that it's the aim, but at the end of the day someone approves vacations, manages budgets for projects and is the person that has to have hard conversations with an employee right? Someone will have higher mandate for hard decisions?
Yeah, from 2012, we've seen this ages ago
Valve hasn’t released anything of note since this has been published. So I guess we should take these as anti patterns. Valve is more of a hat generation company than a game company so it seems like no one should take any game related advice from them.
Half-Life Alyx, Dota 2, Steam Deck, Index, Proton, CS:GO (released same year as this handbook), and not to mention still dominating with Steam despite the competiton spending hundreds of millions of dollars to not even make a dip in their marketshare.
Counter-strike 2 was also just recently released.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counter-Strike_2
Well, I would categorize that more to major version update than actually new release. Say like new Linux LTS release. Lot of things changed even very deep, but it is basically largely same work.
It’s a complete reimplementation on a new engine with big changes to the tick system, new versions of all the maps, animations, etc. Not too different to CS:GO release vs CS:S with big expectations comparing it with the previous version.
In addition to the other products mentioned: Deadlock is maybe the best new big budget IP in recent memory, in terms of theme/setting and art style and character design. Particularly after the update a week ago, the game is stylish as hell now. Even the main menu music is a banger: https://youtu.be/WkGDC3idX1E
Now, the game isn't exactly out yet, but it is pretty widely accessible, and the core of the game is just fantastic. They really cooked with this one, especially the movement system.
I pretty much have the opposite feeling about Deadlock after putting 200+ hrs into it (not that much but enough to understand the game).
There was a recent streamer that said it best: the game design fundamentally punishes you for engaging with other players. Instead, it rewards you for running around the map breaking static entities (boxes, statues, static creeps, etc.). Which is, frankly, boring.
There's just no way imo that will ever be successful in an FPS/shooter. It might work for MOBAs, but I think the idea of a MOBA-first shooter is just never going to get much traction beyond a niche.
Maybe Valve will see the light and significantly change things. I'm not sure. The "open alpha" was also kind of a disaster in killing off the first wave of the player base.
Deadlock is a MOBA, not a FPS.
Steam Deck and Proton are pretty major, IMO. Even if you exclude the Deck itself for being hardware, SteamOS and all the associated UI/UX is pretty nice.
I bet when current management leaves, as usual happens in these cases, those that worship Valve and Steam will see yet another big corporation, this if it doesn't eventually get acquired.
What management? Gabe doesn't have any direct involvement in the running of the company at this point, in spite of being the majority owner. It's an open question what happens if he leaves or dies but it doesn't seem likely that he'd do anything to intentionally sabotage the company, like sell it off. It's more likely that ownership will transfer to a trusted party or to the employees.
At this point I think Valve is more likely to be disrupted from an outside influence rather than within, I think a lot of their actions are about keeping the ship steady. If someone does come along as an upstart in a new market as valve did with digital distribution versus retail/physical, the old is unlikely to be instantly irrelevant and obsoleted, and even then you get new markets like mobile appearing over their lifespan where both are healthy side-by-side.
To disrupt Valve's business you'd need an offering as good if not better than Steam, something several companies already tried and failed, and on top of that you need to convince everyone with buy-in to switch to your business, another monumental task. While people are happy with Steam it'll be impossible to challenge Valve as a digital distributor.
Assuming everyone at current Valve's management stays there forever, as immortals.
People keep forgetting our time is limited and nothing lasts forever.
Whoever takes over, when who is at the wheel is no longer among us, or capable to keep doing their work.
Nothing lasts forever.
I would actually be intrigued to know how many companies have shown interest in acquiring Valve over the years that we'll never know about.
Why would Gabe give up his controlling stake if he steps down? Valve is a private company.
Because he is a mortal?
HL Alyx and Dota 2 aren't of note?
Dota 2 is of note, but that was a pretty safe project being a straight remake of an already popular mod with the mods developer at the helm. Their major titles since 2012 were:
They haven't completely lost the sauce, but it's rare to see the old Valve show up these days.Cs:Go was a 'remake' of cs 1.6, which was the original cs with a lot of changes and updates, but no remake
Making remakes old popular mods is not a safe project.