156 réponses à ce sujet

[Inquisitor Recon]

"I will rule Steam, or see it burnt to ashes around me."

[ObserverStatus]

Offender_Mullet wrote...

Who cares. The only thing I want to hear Gabe Newell say is: "Half-Life 3 is being released on */*/2013"

I'm thinking that */*/2*** is more likely.

[Allan Schumacher]

Filament wrote...

2***? So optimistic.

Hahaha I was thinking the same thing.

[hangmans tree]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Why do people go head over heels for Valve?

Gaben's just stated that he would let 100 (or is it 300 now? I forget) people lose their jobs before letting themselves be bought by EA.

That. Is. Not. What. He. Said.
"[...] employees would scatter and the company would disintegrate" does not implicate firing employees.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

EntropicAngel wrote...

NKKKK wrote...

Explain how EA is better than Steam. Enlighten us please.

To me, EA is better because they produce, and have produced, a ton of deep games that I like, not about one or two games (in length) in the last ten years for Valve--three freaking hours does not a game make, as far as I'm concerned. Portal is an absolutely, truly amazing series, but 9 hours for the last two games is not an acceptable path to follow

EA makes games? Nothing about them is better.

[Loerwyn]

hangmans tree wrote...
That. Is. Not. What. He. Said.
"[...] employees would scatter and the company would disintegrate" does not implicate firing employees.

Fine, he'd still let 100(+) people lose their jobs - voluntarily or otherwise - than be bought by EA. So rather than sticking together as a successful team, he thinks it'd be better if they fell apart. Hardly seems wise to me. EA might have hastily cut some studios before (e.g. Pandemic), but what's to say they'd do that with Valve? Did it happen with PopCap?

And, let's not forget this - EA and Valve have deals. EA are currently one of Valve's business partners. Gabe/Valve have basically just slated their business partner for little reason. Instead of saying "we will not let ourselves be bought out", he had to stick the elbow into EA. That's brilliant business sense, especially coming off last year's removal of a number of EA games from the Steam store.

Modifié par OnlyShallow89, 12 septembre 2012 - 07:55 .

[Fisto The Sexbot]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Why do people go head over heels for Valve?

Gaben's just stated that he would let 100 (or is it 300 now? I forget) people lose their jobs before letting themselves be bought by EA. So, aside from the worrying implication there, he's basically just stuck two fingers up at a company that Valve have distribution deals with. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, EA and Valve have a partnership. EA produce and distribute retail copies of Valve games and have done since The Orange Box at least (EA UK were responsible for the poor PS3 version of The Orange Box, though that begs the question of why Valve didn't do it in-house in the first place). Excellent business decision there, Gaben, especially with the controversy about EA and Valve in recent years (and, for the record, I do not agree with Valve's stance on the sale of DLC through Steam).

And let's go back and look at Valve's practices. Constant delays (at least EA tend to warn you of them, no?), mass merchandising deals (nope, not Valve selling out there), a consistent inability to stick to announced schedules and then the inability to talk about those delays, rehashing of the same few properties again and again, absorption of studios and then running with the IPs they create whilst either losing the studio or the creators (Left 4 Dead and Portal), EULAs and License Agreements that aren't consumer-friendly (as I believe this happened recently with regards to Steam), expensive cosmetic DLC (Portal 2, I'm looking at you), issues that have remained in their software for years (I believe CS:S might still have some problematic bugs, but I could be wrong on that one, but Steam has had a number of issues for years and still constantly grinds to a halt during big sales), lack of consumer-friendly features (hello inability to not download DLC packs or patches)...

So Valve are still the good guys? I disagree. Better than EA, perhaps, but hardly free from blame or guilt.

P.S. Michael Pachter? Still? That guy doesn't know anything.

You mentioned delays twice. I don't really see that as a 'bad practice', but a (most likely) necessary one.

'Merchandising'? You must really hate those headcrab plushies.

I don't know much about what happened to the original creators of those games, but weren't they basically offered jobs at Valve and credited/compensated for their work appropriately? If Valve 'lost' those people, they probably left out of their own volition to work on something else.

[Fisto The Sexbot]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...
That. Is. Not. What. He. Said.
"[...] employees would scatter and the company would disintegrate" does not implicate firing employees.

Fine, he'd still let 100(+) people lose their jobs - voluntarily or otherwise - than be bought by EA. So rather than sticking together as a successful team, he thinks it'd be better if they fell apart. Hardly seems wise to me. EA might have hastily cut some studios before (e.g. Pandemic), but what's to say they'd do that with Valve? Did it happen with PopCap?

And, let's not forget this - EA and Valve have deals. EA are currently one of Valve's business partners. Gabe/Valve have basically just slated their business partner for little reason. Instead of saying "we will not let ourselves be bought out", he had to stick the elbow into EA. That's brilliant business sense, especially coming off last year's removal of a number of EA games from the Steam store.

He thinks they'd probably fall apart with a big publisher in charge anyway. As if EA doesn't do lay-offs.

Why are you concerned so much about his business sense? Why should his business sense not make you want to have an honest answer from him?

[Allan Schumacher]

hangmans tree wrote...

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Why do people go head over heels for Valve?

Gaben's just stated that he would let 100 (or is it 300 now? I forget) people lose their jobs before letting themselves be bought by EA.

That. Is. Not. What. He. Said.
"[...] employees would scatter and the company would disintegrate" does not implicate firing employees.

The quote doesn't say anything about firing people either.  Just "losing their jobs" which if a company disintegrates, is probably a reasonable assumption.

[Dominus]

Why do people go head over heels for Valve?

I don't. I think they're a great company, but I'm not blind, either. No game developer is perfect, I just have a stronger preference for them than others.

"I will rule Steam, or see it burnt to ashes around me."

At the sound of the steam summer sales, you have my permission to buy.

[Maria Caliban]

It's easy to have artistic integrity when your company is worth several billion dollars.

Which is to say, that's nothing like what artistic integrity looks like.

Modifié par Maria Caliban, 12 septembre 2012 - 08:51 .

[Xewaka]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Fun fact #2: Valve and Activision screwed over Troika during development by giving them an incomplete Source Engine to work with, then releasing HL 2 on the same day as Bloodlines.

The reason why Half-Life 2 was released the same day as Bloodlines is because Troika was contractually obligated to not release before Half-Life 2 came out.
Since we are "fun facting" though, it's not at all uncommon for companies to license "incomplete engines" and take code drops from the engine designer as features come in (on top of creating their own engine modifications and improvements).
For the record I love Bloodlines.

Dark Messiah of Might and Magic (also known as the adventures of Sir Kicksalot Mightyboots in the land of contrivedly placed spiked walls) suffered the same problem as Bloodlines, regarding the release.

Maria Caliban wrote...
It's easy to have artistic integrity when your company is worth several billion dollars and is privately owned.
Which is to say, that's nothing like what artistic integrity looks like.

I added the italized part, because it is something that most people seem to skip. Why Valve has the reputation of being so "user-friendly"? Because as a privately owned company, repeating customers are nº 1 priority, therefore going out of their way to create customer loyalty IS a sound business plan for them. Conversely, EA is a publicly shared (is that the term?) company, thus it's nº 1 priority are the shareholders, not the customers.

Modifié par Xewaka, 12 septembre 2012 - 09:18 .

[Loerwyn]

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
You mentioned delays twice. I don't really see that as a 'bad practice', but a (most likely) necessary one.

'Merchandising'? You must really hate those headcrab plushies.

I don't know much about what happened to the original creators of those games, but weren't they basically offered jobs at Valve and credited/compensated for their work appropriately? If Valve 'lost' those people, they probably left out of their own volition to work on something else.

I never said delays are a bad practice, because they are necessary. How Valve handles them is a bad practice, though. They go months with no comment on the delay, and you just need to look at the Steam forums to see how much it winds some of their fans up. There's little communication from Valve, and whilst one could say they don't owe the fans anything (they don't), the fact it's become almost a meme and a running joke points to Valve having issues with time keeping/scheduling, not to mention talking to their fans. At the end of the day, they're a business. If they say they're delivering a product in April, and it doesn't arrive and there's no talk about it being delayed, then that isn't good.

With the merchandising; I have little problem with it, but I don't think some people realise just how much Valve merchandise is out there (particularly with Portal 2). It's more a pre-emptive strike against those who say Valve haven't sold out, when in fact the huge amount of Portal 2 merchandise points to the opposite.

With the creators and stuff. Valve acquired Turtle Rock Studios, co-developed Left 4 Dead with them, and then a year or so later Left 4 Dead 2 arrived with little-to-no involvement by Turtle Rock as they'd split ways. They still have a number of team members from Narbacular Drop (which turned into the cult-hit Portal), but the project lead Kim Swift wasn't involved in Portal 2 and moved on to develop Quantum Conundrum, itself a similar kind of game. And then we have DotA2, which... I think is a bit of a bad move by Valve. That's just dodgy, IMHO.

Fisto The Sexbot wrote...
Why are you concerned so much about
his business sense? Why should his business sense not make you want to
have an honest answer from him?

Well, like most PC gamers, I have a fair investment in Steam. I want honesty from him as much as I do any other developer, but I don't think effectively knocking your business partners is a clever move, especially as Valve have no retail distribution arm and as such rely on EA (through the EA Partner's programme) to distribute their games in the retail environment. Valve's success is partially due to EA doing this with them, and I don't think Gabe needed to make the EA vs Valve debate any worse.

[hangmans tree]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

hangmans tree wrote...

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

Why do people go head over heels for Valve?

Gaben's just stated that he would let 100 (or is it 300 now? I forget) people lose their jobs before letting themselves be bought by EA.

That. Is. Not. What. He. Said.
"[...] employees would scatter and the company would disintegrate" does not implicate firing employees.

The quote doesn't say anything about firing people either.  Just "losing their jobs" which if a company disintegrates, is probably a reasonable assumption.

I for one read it as my employees rather resign, scatter to the wind in search of better oportunities than work for the enormous conglomerate EA is...
But, THAT can be me and my opinion, I'd gree to that.

[NKKKK]

Maria Caliban wrote...

It's easy to have artistic integrity when your company is worth several billion dollars.

Which is to say, that's nothing like what artistic integrity looks like.

So they made good business decisions? That's hardly a handicap.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

The reason why Half-Life 2 was released the same day as Bloodlines is because Troika was contractually obligated to not release before Half-Life 2 came out.

Since we are "fun facting" though, it's not at all uncommon for companies to license "incomplete engines" and take code drops from the engine designer as features come in (on top of creating their own engine modifications and improvements).

For the record I love Bloodlines.

I was actually talking about sales more than development. Imagine if Alpha Protocol was released on the same day as Mass Effect 2. Or if The Witcher 1 was released on the same day as Dragon Age: Origins.

Also, considering how buggy Bloodlines was out of the box (boat CTD), you'd want them to have more time rather than less. Bloodlines probably needed another couple of months getting polished IMO.

I have zero doubt that if Bloodlines had a couple of extra months and could hype up the Source Engine without having to compete with HL 2, it would've been more successful financially.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 12 septembre 2012 - 12:15 .

[slimgrin]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

 Valve's success is partially due to EA doing this with them, and I don't think Gabe needed to make the EA vs Valve debate any worse.

EA's been sniping at Valve for some time now. Honestly, I'd rather have these industry vets say what they think, on both sides really. Every time an EA rep opens his mouth, I find it amusing how disconnected they are from their fanbase. At least when Gabe or Marcin Iwinski talk, its mostly free of spin. 

Modifié par slimgrin, 12 septembre 2012 - 12:55 .

[Cyberarmy]

slimgrin wrote...

EA's been sniping at Valve for some time now. Honestly, I'd rather have these industry vets say what they really think, on both sides really. Every time an EA rep opens his mouth, I find it amusing how disconnected they are from their fanbase. At least when Gabe or Marcin Iwinski talk, its mostly free of spin. 

I feel incomplete if they wont talk for a week, each article they are in makes my day.

Modifié par Cyberarmy, 12 septembre 2012 - 12:56 .

[MerinTB]

I was just going to cheerlead Steam a bit...

but then I saw some the arguments defending EA and attacking Valve, and instead decided I'd just deride those doing so.

So there. You anti-Steam, pro-EA people. Consider yourself derided.

But those of you doing so on the other side, the derision equally applies to you.

Because taking sides on which billion-dollar company (that you don't own/own stock in/at least work for) you support like it's your religion (or, worse, your sports team) is really an activity that benefits you.

Seriously. I like Steam, despite not really liking Valve games (Portal's cool enough, I guess), and I've thought of EA like Disney for the longest time (gobbling up and destroying the competition instead of just focusing on making good products for their customers) -

but to defend on and attack the other with such zeal?

Silliness.

Modifié par MerinTB, 12 septembre 2012 - 02:32 .

[NKKKK]

own stock in

I actually owned a a few in EA last year, sold them before things got bad. Best decision ever. So I can actually deride.

Modifié par NKKKK, 12 septembre 2012 - 03:40 .

[Mercannis]

As a PC gamer i can say without any hesitation that Gabe is right here as he is always right.

[Allan Schumacher]

CrustyBot wrote...

I was actually talking about sales more than development. Imagine if Alpha Protocol was released on the same day as Mass Effect 2. Or if The Witcher 1 was released on the same day as Dragon Age: Origins.

Also, considering how buggy Bloodlines was out of the box (boat CTD), you'd want them to have more time rather than less. Bloodlines probably needed another couple of months getting polished IMO.

I have zero doubt that if Bloodlines had a couple of extra months and could hype up the Source Engine without having to compete with HL 2, it would've been more successful financially.

This is much more on Activision though.  Ironically Bloodlines got more time than expected because of delays to Half-Life 2.

I followed Bloodlines development exceptionally close and it pretty much got to a point where they were just sitting on the game.  They were already in dire straits financially at this time and when Bloodlines wasn't a runaway success, it was their death knell.