[sametmax]

> If they aren't happy with the quality of something they produce it doesn't see the light of day, rather than release something that isn't great

This is very important. If HL would have been a EA game, you would have had it years ago. And it would have sucked, but everybody would have bought it and EA would have made bank.

Valve cares. Sometimes that means you will not have what you want, because they know they can't provide it.

[Ygg2]

> Valve cares.

I might get downvoted, but cares about what? Valve didn't manage to release HL2 Episode 3. That's a miniscule effort compared to pretty much anything.

Valve is just like EA, i.e. perfectly content milking the Steam and DotA cash cows.

[dejawu]

It makes me sad to say, but I agree with this. Valve has largely given up their legacy of incredibly polished games that were worth the wait. Not only are they now content to sit back and allow the merchant/gambling/loot crate money flow in, they are actually neglecting their games. I remember the addition of a new gun (the R8) to Counter-Strike: Global Offensive that was so broken and unbalanced that it was clear the devs had never once started up the game and playtested the weapon before pushing the update to players.

It really is a sad state. Valve used to be the bastion of the gaming world, because players and other developers alike looked up to them as a role model of what it meant to care about releasing a good game, no matter what it took. That they would give it all up simply by allowing their reputation to languish - not with a bang, but with a whimper - really breaks my heart. I hope other game devs do not forget Valve's story and remember that there are customers and fans who really do respect and value when time, care, and true effort is put into making a game fun and meaningful, not just profitable.

[lewisl9029]

I was a huge Valve fanboy at one point, so it really pains me to see what they've become. They are clearly still able to make great games, because at its core, Dota 2 is still a great game. But they've bundled it with a gambling platform targeted squarely at teenage children.

I suspect their next game, the Dota 2 themed collectible card game, is going to go down a similar route, since Hearthstone has already demonstrated how a gambling-based business model can be applied with overwhelming success to a collectible card game.

At this point, I doubt they have any interest in investing in any game that's not amenable to that ethically appalling, but probably overwhelmingly profitable business model.

[jamesrcole]

It's clear from the context that they're referring to quality.

[EDIT: to all the people responding to me, I'm answering the parent's question of what the GP's 'cares' was referring to, which is clearly indicated by the comment they are in turn responding to. I'm not making any point or argument about Valve's commitment to quality or lack thereof]

[b0b10101]

They obviously don't. Look at TF2, they refuse to say it's dead but it hasn't received a proper update in a year. Instead, they spread a gambling model across all their current games and now sit and collect profits. Heck, even those "steam boxes" which were supposed to make PC the "final gaming platform" fell way short. Valve is an e-commerce company with a game development side business now and frankly, their recent output hasn't been good...

[sametmax]

Not fair man. Just because they don't manage to do everything don't mean they don't do their best.

As a dota fan, I can tell you that they are doing a LOT of things in there.

They have limited number of devs and designers and so many projects. Just maintaining the steam infra is madness.

Look at blizzard, and see how often they release stuff.

Good things take a lot of resources.

[spondyl]

This isn't a defense but the TF2 team is only about like 7 dedicated people last I heard? There's artists and what not shared between teams who I'm not including in that tally though. Valve News Network talked about it once.

[Ygg2]

Apparently the quality manifests itself as a F2P MOBA and/or a F2P card game. What's next? F2P Pahcinko machine? Slot machine?

[lghh]

Yeah and that F2P MOBA is one of the most beloved, polished, and competitive games around. I don't understand the comparison to a slot machine.

I can't speak to the F2P card game because it does not exist yet.

[tapoxi]

The issue with DOTA is that its audience is self-limiting. You're locking 5 strangers together in an hour long game where failure is heavily, heavily punished and you're penalized for leaving early.

Where are the games for those of us who loved Half-Life and Portal? The last thing I want to do at the end of a long day is be yelled at by college kids and teenagers for an hour.

[Ygg2]

Sure, DotA 2 is a rare F2P MOBA that's fair. I mean, I find most of hero kinda meh, but I do appreciate their business model.

But a Card game based on DotA can only mean one thing:

- A F2P game. I can't imagine there being a different model

- A collectible card game. They won't innovate here.

- Buyable cosmetic, but not community made. It's not like they'll allow visual clutter on your cards.

[WorldMaker]

The trading cards/badges in Steam are basically an F2P Pachinko/slot machine already.

[JabavuAdams]

Designers' perceptions of quality can get out of synch with what users actually want. Sometimes we assume that people want things that are actually negotiable.

More concretely, would HL fans rather have a HL3 that is merely a game, flaws and all, or are they waiting for the second coming (third?)?

If HL3 gets made, is a game with warts and all, that's not necessary a bad thing. It may be that the dev team is holding themselves to an impossible standard rather than users holding them to an impossible standard.

[wyager]

About quality. I don't think anyone can reasonably accuse valve of releasing poor-quality games.

[tarboreus]

Or any games, really.

[sametmax]

I laugh.

But it's unfair. They have a limited set of resources like everybody and they are working they ass off on so many projects already.

E.G: The whole international event on dota is just such a huge piece of work.

[FussyZeus]

I keep seeing "But they're doing so well with DOTA! Well good for the f#$%ing Dota fans. The rest of us meanwhile are out here in the cold.

I can't stand multiplayer games-as-a-service. Any of them. Team Fortress, Overwatch, Dota, on and on it's all the same rehashed ideas with the same business model at it's core; continuing to make money well after release by releasing a trickle of low effort, easy to market in-game assets that are all worth exactly NOTHING when the next popular one comes out (or in the case of Destiny, even the sequel).

I've never touched any of these stupid things because it's all artificial; artificial scarcity of items by way of limiting the rate they come out and not allowing trades; artificial hype by employing the very best of marketing sleaze and artificial competition of various groups/clans/teams all pitted against each other in a dance of noise and anger signifying nothing.

And then the next one comes out and everyone goes to that, leaving all the achievements, collected items, won prizes and earned trophies to sit in the digital dust until the publisher gets tired of hosting it, pulls the plug, and then it's gone forever. Nothing was learned, nothing is retained, nothing is remembered, all packaged up and shipped off for the next set of customers.

It's the most cynical and hollow business model and hopefully will someday piss off so we can get more good story driven titles again.

[eropple]

I fully agree with you about the cynicism of the taking-your-cut-at-both-ends marketplace, but this business model is never, ever, ever going away so long as we have games. Single-player games are going to be relegated to what's functionally art-house stuff because of the revenue model implications. That's where what you want (and what I want!) is going to live.

[Strangework]

ooo zing!

[mustacheemperor]

>they know they can't provide it.

Valve cares so much that they provide us with all these hats, skins, trading cards, and microtransactions because they know they can deliver a great hat or trading card?

In this case Valve has been completely unable to deliver a new, good videogame since at least 2012, which is when many online say most of the good writers and developers left. In that case it'd be less hurtful for the community to hear the truth than "radio silence."

[m3rc]

Exactly. Not only will we never see HL3, we SHOULD never see HL3. It's so ubiquitous as some sort of second coming of Gaming Christ that no option existed except to have it be disappointing. It would have been Duke Nukem all over again.

[jamesrcole]

I don't believe that. From all reports Duke Nukem Forever was a pretty flawed game (I haven't played it). If they did HL3 and did a good job of it, then they've made a good game, and I think there'll be enough people who will appreciate that.

[m3rc]

Sure, but the effort would be better spent on another Valve project. HL3 just straight can't live up to expectations, it will be disappointing no matter how good it is because it's been drummed up for years and years as the best possible game, it just is an impossibility to be as good as everyone thinks it'll be.

[frahs]

I don't think so. I mean, read the story. It's written really well. Many years passed between Half Life 1 and Half Life 2, and yet #2 was very successful.

Another example is TF2.

[ZoFreX]

> If HL would have been a EA game

It was! I know EA are the go-to bad guy in these comparisons, but EA is the distributing publisher for physical copies of Valve games, and Valve are on record as loving working with EA.

[sametmax]

Maybe EA is a good distributor, not a good game maker.