[QUOTE=AaronM202;49501412]Saying that they're working on it would be nice, dont get me wrong, but i dont think an in-depth explanation would be wise in this scenario. Its not the same thing, its not the same situation.[/QUOTE]
Basically: A game developer's decisions can be highly unethical and seem super illogical to people who don't work in the industry - especially in the case of Valve. However they do know their shit and the results will be worth it. They don't need people who can't even code commenting on their practices. And especially they don't need to feed any trolls who take every piece of suitable information, spin a wild narrative about it, then spread it over the internet like explosive diarrhea of bullshit speculation that everyone takes for fact because it makes more sense in their narrow minds than the official statement.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49502238]Hmm, I see:
- DOTA 2
- Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
- Portal 2
- Alien Swarm[/quote]
Supply and demand. In the ten years on and off of playing Counter strike Source, I don't ever remember people wanting a new counter strike, nor do I recall anyone in any online game I've played expressing tons of interest in Dota 2 or Alien Swarm.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49502238]Out of the three, I like CS:GO, Portal 2, and Alien Swarm. I don't see the problem except the fact that [I]you[/I] don't like those games, in which the problem isn't Valve.[/quote]
You're right. the Problem isn't Valve, it's your inferiority complex and reliance on extending exaggerations that weakens your argument.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;49502238][I]Yeah, I can't believe all those fuckin' morons that play CS:GO. What idiots. They don't know good games like you do, adamsz. What sheeple.[/I]
[/quote]
Your strawman rhetoric and constant out of context quoting is insulting to the intelligence of everyone in this thread, (including you) and consequently this don't seem to be worth discussing things further in an intelligent manner.
I must admit this has been fun today, but I can't spend all day debating with just you.
[QUOTE=adamsz;49504409]nor do I recall anyone in any online game I've played expressing tons of interest in Dota 2 or Alien Swarm.[/QUOTE]
Not that I'm trying to argue semantics here, but it doesn't really surprise me that people not playing Dota 2 wouldn't be showing an interest in playing Dota 2. If they were showing interest in playing Dota 2, they're probably already playing Dota 2.
Valve is like Konami; everyone sees Konami as a game company, but in reality they make billions more on pachinko.
I don't get why everyone assumes that a hat designers main goal is to make a videogame.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49504566]Valve is like Konami; everyone sees Konami as a game company, but in reality they make billions more on pachinko.
I don't get why everyone assumes that a hat designers main goal is to make a videogame.[/QUOTE]
but they don't design hats. They have the community do that for them.
I wonder if we'll ever see Otis again.
[QUOTE=adamsz;49504409]Supply and demand. In the ten years on and off of playing Counter strike Source, I don't ever remember people wanting a new counter strike, nor do I recall anyone in any online game I've played expressing tons of interest in Dota 2 or Alien Swarm.
You're right. the Problem isn't Valve, it's your inferiority complex and reliance on extending exaggerations that weakens your argument.
Your strawman rhetoric and constant out of context quoting is insulting to the intelligence of everyone in this thread, (including you) and consequently this don't seem to be worth discussing things further in an intelligent manner.
I must admit this has been fun today, but I can't spend all day debating with just you.[/QUOTE]
I don't know man, his rebuttals made perfect sense to me. You haven't really said anything against his arguments... What does supply and demand have to do with them releasing games that are not Half-Life 3? Are you saying they can't release a single game unless it's Half-Life 3 because "Supply and demand"? What? And you still haven't really countered any of the points he's made- and while he does exaggerate what you're saying he's not far off by what you mean, unless you'd like to elaborate on what you mean and how his arguments are strawman arguments? Or, you can leave the thread and not even try...
[QUOTE=adamsz;49504409]Supply and demand. In the ten years on and off of playing Counter strike Source, I don't ever remember people wanting a new counter strike, nor do I recall anyone in any online game I've played expressing tons of interest in [B]Dota 2[/B] or Alien Swarm.[/QUOTE]
Bit of a specific way to say it, but there's been plenty of people who've said "I want a Dota 2". League of Legends and Heroes of Newerth were both basically born from the "I want a Dota 2" thing.
I have next to no attachment to the Half-Life series, but I genuinely think that Half-Life 3 is either barely in the conceptual stages, or on complete hiatus. As I've said before, Valve has their hands in so many other sources of cash, what do they have to gain from putting effort into a new game than throwing out new crates for CS:GO, or TF2 hats, or putting more time into Vive.
Edit:
I wouldn't expect to see anything about HL3 until those sources of income have started to teeter off.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49504566]Valve is like Konami; everyone sees Konami as a game company, but in reality they make billions more on pachinko.
I don't get why everyone assumes that a hat designers main goal is to make a videogame.[/QUOTE]
Valve is a storefront, a storefront for hats
[QUOTE]Hmm, I see:
- DOTA 2
- Counter-Strike: Global Offensive
- Portal 2
- Alien Swarm[/quote]
Man we started off with a single player experience that defined both valve and pc gaming in its golden age, and ended with a MOBA, a puzzle game, an adopted ut2k4 mod, and CS as always. What are we even defending or holding on to?
There's obviously been significant change that doesn't fit everybody's palate, certainly that of quite a few people who played valve games in the 2000s. I don't know why you're trying to fool yourself, trying to debunking claims of neglect with appeals to subjectivity since it goes both ways. I'm sure you can understand well enough that (at least subjectively) tf2 is old, Dota is forever niche, l4d2 is old in a competitive market, valve has a new focus and it has nothing to do with someone that likes a good single player experience. It's about a storefront, some hardware nobody asked for, micro transactions, and otherwise attempting to branch out and corner more of the PC market without doing what they originally did.
You can be optimistic about the future but there's no use denying the change and that, while you may subjectively find valve satisfying, others don't and I know you can see why. It's 2016 ffs, I graduated in 2011 and can hardly recall anything big valve has released from my perspective since that time. I'm still stuck in orange box mode.
[QUOTE=Conscript;49507355]valve has a new focus and it has nothing to do with someone that likes a good single player experience. [/QUOTE]
I'm not sure why we're having this big debate when what I quoted above is pretty much the long and short of it. Valve reached critical acclaim with immersive single-player story-driven experiences, and they basically abandoned that in favor of e-sport games, hardware, and Steam as a sales platform. They're making money hand over fist but it's not the same company I used to like.
You wouldn't see anyone defend Konami by saying 'well it's your problem if pachinko machines aren't to your taste'.
Dota's Monthly Active User and Concurrent User numbers are magnitude higher than HL's or Portal's ever were. Hell, we could include other SP-focused series/games like Uncharted, Tomb Raider, TLoU into this discussion. It even has events in stadiums with big prize pools. Those games might have more hype behind them and discussion in this AAA/console driven media, but the numbers don't make Dota any more niche than those games.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49507602]I'm not sure why we're having this big debate when what I quoted above is pretty much the long and short of it. Valve reached critical acclaim with immersive single-player story-driven experiences, and they basically abandoned that in favor of e-sport games, hardware, and Steam as a sales platform. They're making money hand over fist but it's not the same company I used to like.
You wouldn't see anyone defend Konami by saying 'well it's your problem if pachinko machines aren't to your taste'.[/QUOTE]
Valve has a huge legion of fanboys/devils advocates standing by to defend them no matter what they do, though
I just don't get how they can keep going
I think valve has hurt PC gaming. Sure they've made it more popular, but I think they've turned it into an eSports/indie game niche. Instead of bringing console gamers to PC like they wanted, and thus bringing more AAA titles to the PC, they've brought a stupid shitty twitch, cs:go, and Dota subculture that is really annoying to be around. Competitive gaming sucks. I remember an 11 year old asked me if I played csgo. I said yeah sometimes. He asked me like what rank I am or some shit and I said I have no clue I just play the game for fun. He said "wow I bet you're only silver" or something. I was like BITCH I'VE BEEN PLAYING CS FOR ALOST AS LONG AS YOU'VE EXISTED.
But I digress. It's like the only things you see successful on PC anymore are indie games and esports. Indie games are fine, but they don't have the budget to make a really great, awesome, epic game. Unfortunately, the console market has that cornered.
PC gaming is now about epic maymays, twitch, streaming, youtubers, microtransactions, and quirky indie games which people make fun of you for liking (undertale, fnaf) because theyre too mainstream or something.
I used to be an xbox 360 gamer. Then it got expensive so I stopped. Now. I might just want to go back to console gaming. If I can save up the money and had to choose between a killer new PC and a console, I'd probably buy a PS4
[QUOTE=Bazsil;49507614]Valve has a huge legion of fanboys/devils advocates standing by to defend them no matter what they do, though
I just don't get how they can keep going[/QUOTE]
As [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1266077&p=48201670&viewfull=1#post48201670]someone[/url] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1446236&p=49484722&highlight=#post49484722]who[/url] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1500643&p=49500643&highlight=#post49500643]often[/url] [url=https://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1456816&p=47367230&viewfull=1#post47367230]defends[/url] Valve on this forum, it's not a matter of blindly defending them or being able to "keep going".
I wouldn't defend them over something like their lack of communication, or all the ways in which they have broken their old games and released halfhearted fixes, or the way they mishandle their own modding community outside of CS:GO and TF2.
But the reaction on Facepunch (and a bunch of other places) when Valve does something new or different is usually the direct opposite of fanboy defense: it's reactionary criticism, fueled by a bunch of baseless assumptions that have entered mainstream consciousness in the last four or five years. People make the fallacious assumption that no news of new games is equal to no new games. It's difficult to describe how much I've come to loathe the phrase 'Valve doesn't make games', that paragon of low-effort comments. It's sentiment that I explained my problems with in one of the posts linked above.
Oftentimes these criticisms mentioned above are different things muddled together, individually mostly minor things, and in the end almost always traceable to the fact that there is still no news on HL3.
This was the inception of the idea that Valve aren't developing the game at all, which led to Valve only caring about e-sports games and not developing any games in general, which led to the idea of them being a bunch of money-hoarding bastards that only care about Steam.
This dissatisfaction taints all other discussions about Valve, like microtransactions for skins (ruining CS apparently), Steam machines and the Steam controller ("why are Valve wasting their time with this? nobody is going to buy them!"), paid mods (popular consensus: will ruin modding), the Mann Store when it was announced ("TF2 is going P2W"), or the new TF2 updates not being good enough (a game continually updated since 2007)
So if I spend an unusual amount of time defending Valve, I blame it on the fact that there is an unusual amount of criticism.
[QUOTE=proboardslol;49507825]I think valve has hurt PC gaming. Sure they've made it more popular, but I think they've turned it into an eSports/indie game niche. Instead of bringing console gamers to PC like they wanted, and thus bringing more AAA titles to the PC, they've brought a stupid shitty twitch, cs:go, and Dota subculture that is really annoying to be around. Competitive gaming sucks. I remember an 11 year old asked me if I played csgo. I said yeah sometimes. He asked me like what rank I am or some shit and I said I have no clue I just play the game for fun. He said "wow I bet you're only silver" or something. I was like BITCH I'VE BEEN PLAYING CS FOR ALOST AS LONG AS YOU'VE EXISTED.[/QUOTE]
I have wasted my life playing Valve games since 2002, I can attest to the fact that it was always like this. The CS community has nearly always been toxic. The console gaming community is no different. Do you not remember the reputation that Xbox Live's userbase had back in Halo 2's heyday? Is Valve to blame for large communities being awful in general?
Did people forget that eSports and microtransactions was around before 2013? It's like you're trying to pin CoD's failings on Valve.
[QUOTE=TurtleeyFP;49509254]Did people forget that eSports and microtransactions was around before 2013? It's like you're trying to pin CoD's failings on Valve.[/QUOTE]
Nobody blames Valve solely for eSports or microtransactions. Of course those have been around a long time.
What you can fairly blame Valve for, though, is catering to eSports and abandoning the product line that made Valve successful in the first place. They've made it quite clear that the story-driven single-player experiences that made them famous are no longer their intended market and they'd rather stick to safe revenue streams. Valve was historically known for designing good games that were inventive, innovative, quirky, and original. And what do we have now? Sequels, e-sports, and a virtual market. People aren't demanding HL3 out of some sense of entitlement, they're looking at Valve's track record and wondering 'Where are the games like the ones you used to make? Are you even the same company anymore?'.
It's not easy for a beloved gaming company to burn their community goodwill but Valve is steadily headed in that direction. Even EA had the wherewithal to bankroll some original games in addition to their cash-grab sequels.
I don't hate Valve, I'm not an anti-fanboy or whatever, it's just that from their actions it's clear that I'm not their market anymore. It is what it is.
[QUOTE=catbarf;49509597]Valve was historically known for designing good games that were inventive, innovative, quirky, and original. And what do we have now? Sequels, e-sports, and a virtual market.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to break it to you but Valve has been making sequels since 2004. This is neither new, nor bad for them or us. In fact, the very game that fans have been clamoring for years over, is a sequel. It isn't bad if Valve makes sequels, it's bad if Valve makes bad sequels.
And if it's quite clear that story-driven single-player experiences are no longer their intended market, then why is it that Valve's tech demo for the Vive is a single-player experience with a small contained story?
[QUOTE=Leintharien;49510047]And if it's quite clear that story-driven single-player experiences are no longer their intended market, then why is it that Valve's tech demo for the Vive is a single-player experience with a small contained story?[/QUOTE]
how many current-or-next-gen multiplayer VR games do you know of?
and why would valve design one (possibly the first one) just to demonstrate a piece of hardware that isn't even out yet?
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49510411]how many current-or-next-gen multiplayer VR games do you know of?
and why would valve design one (possibly the first one) just to demonstrate a piece of hardware that isn't even out yet?[/QUOTE]
Why would you invest heavily in a gaming peripheral and not plan to support it?
You're not being logical
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49510500]Why would you invest heavily in a gaming peripheral and not plan to support it?
You're not being logical[/QUOTE]
again, why would you develop a multiplayer game for an unreleased demo set?
doubt there's many vive owners out there to populate those servers, don't you think?
i'm not saying there'll never be a multiplayer vive game, i'm saying valve made a singleplayer demo for the vive because it's totally unfeasible for them to make a multiplayer one
[QUOTE=Leintharien;49510047]Sorry to break it to you but Valve has been making sequels since 2004. This is neither new, nor bad for them or us. In fact, the very game that fans have been clamoring for years over, is a sequel. It isn't bad if Valve makes sequels, it's bad if Valve makes bad sequels.[/QUOTE]
Left 4 Dead and Portal are both post-HL2 original titles. Both were pretty well-received despite not being HL3 because they were fresh. Sequels to these titles are less fresh. A new Counter-Strike is still less fresh. Yet another DOTA is downright stale.
And no, it's not intrinsically bad if Valve makes sequels, after all people are eagerly clamoring for HL[I]3[/I]. A quality sequel to a franchise that deserves a sequel (like one that ended on a cliffhanger) is totally legitimate. But when a company releases nothing but sequels to cash cows, it sure looks somewhere between 'cashing in' and 'lack of originality'.
[QUOTE=Leintharien;49510047]And if it's quite clear that story-driven single-player experiences are no longer their intended market, then why is it that Valve's tech demo for the Vive is a single-player experience with a small contained story?[/QUOTE]
Because that's cheap to make and easy to demo, and shows off the sort of thing other companies could do?
Are you seriously trying to say that the fact that a [I]tech demo[/I] is single-player shows that a company that hasn't released a single-player game since 2011 is actually still actively making single-player games? What kind of a stretch is that?
:snip:
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49510515]again, why would you develop a multiplayer game for an unreleased demo set?
doubt there's many vive owners out there to populate those servers, don't you think?[/QUOTE]
again, why wouldn't you develop something before it comes out?
Do console multiplayer titles only get made once a console has sold really well? Or are they made before it comes out in anticipation?
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49510525]again, why wouldn't you develop something before it comes out?
Do console multiplayer titles only get made once a console has sold really well? Or are they made before it comes out in anticipation?[/QUOTE]
you're completely missing my point holy shit
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49510530]you're completely missing my point holy shit[/QUOTE]
No i'm not, I get exactly what you're saying, that there's no one with a vive to populate servers with
so, in your mind, this means that there's absolutely no way, method, manner, or reason, for anyone to develop a game for a future market because, again, in your mind, there's no manner to player test or do anything with the game in terms of testing or playing.
I disagree.
Call me an idiot or whatever the fuck you want, I don't see how your argument is air tight.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;49510548]No i'm not, I get exactly what you're saying, that there's no one with a vive to populate servers with
[B]so, in your mind, this means that there's absolutely no way, method, manner, or reason, for anyone to develop a game for a future market[/B] because, again, in your mind, there's no manner to player test or do anything with the game in terms of testing or playing.
I disagree.
Call me an idiot or whatever the fuck you want, I don't see how your argument is air tight.[/QUOTE]
where did i say this
leintharien said that valve still makes single-player games because they released a single-player demo for the vive
i said that of course it's a single-player demo, nobody owns a vive for there to be a feasible multiplayer demo
jesus fucking christ
[editline]11th January 2016[/editline]
thx for putting words in my mouth to support your made-up argument though
[QUOTE=Lord of Ears;49510515]again, why would you develop a multiplayer game for an unreleased demo set?
doubt there's many vive owners out there to populate those servers, don't you think?
i'm not saying there'll never be a multiplayer vive game, i'm saying valve made a singleplayer demo for the vive because [B]it's totally unfeasible for them to make a multiplayer one[/B][/QUOTE]
How am I putting words in your mouth when you literally said this? Totally unfeasible = what to you? What does that fucking mean to you if not what I said it means which is what it literally means?
because it's a fUCKING DEMO
[editline]11th January 2016[/editline]
i'm not saying valve will never make a multiplayer vive game, or even that they're not developing one as we speak
i'm saying it comes as no surprise that their [B][I][U]demo[/U][/I][/B] was a singleplayer game
[editline]11th January 2016[/editline]
let me pull out this quote from literally like half a page up
[quote]And if it's quite clear that story-driven single-player experiences are no longer their intended market, then why is it that Valve's tech demo for the Vive is a single-player experience with a small contained story?[/quote]
pay special attention to the phrase 'tech demo'
what i'm saying is that it's my opinion that valve will try to only make multiplayer cashgrab games unless literally forced to make a single-player experience out of circumstance
this discussion between us is over
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
