Has Valve Forgotten What PC Gaming is About?

[The Brown Hornet]

I think we all can agree that Valve in it's early days seemed to have a good grasp on what PC gaming was all about...creating great PC games! Isn't that what Half Life, L4D, TF, DOTA, CS series were...great games? Yet for some reason it all stopped at 2. For years gamers have asked a question, a question that has now become a meme, can Valve count to 3? Can Valve, a company that has completely won over the PC gaming community give it's subscribers what they actually want, new and innovative in-house developed games and software?

Instead Valve has focused on the opposite of PC gaming and strayed away from the main method by which PC gamers interact with software, mouse and keyboard. Valve in it's ambitions has essentially become console oriented. In the last decade nearly every innovation from Valve has been geared towards drawing us away from our PC and into the living room. Though what we desire are innovative software titles what Valve introduces instead are Steam Machines, tiny PC's disguised as consoles designed to compete with the likes of Xbox and PlayStation for set top attention.

To go along with the console oriented steam machine Valve introduces the Steam Controller, a Frankenstein-like hybrid of ideas and control concepts that some gamers ultimately managed to utilize and comprehend. What Valve didn't stop to ask is does Steam subscribers really want to play PC games with their thumbs? Valve seems to think so because their most recent innovation is again, not any great gaming software but yet another attempt to "console-ify" PC gaming with the introduction of Steam Deck. This time it's eyes are set on Nintendo Switch whose games are actually designed to be played with thumbs!

Lastly Valve did create Half Life Alex but again that's aimed at competing with the console friendly VR market. So it's apparent the mouse and keyboard player, those who originally made Valve and Steam what it is are no longer the target audience. If they were there would be more Valve developed titles for mouse and keyboard rather than another thumb controlled hardware device.

[Paratech2008]

New IP is risky. AAA games can cost upwards of millions and if they flop they can devestate a company.

Gamers say they want innovative games but do they buy them?

[Thermal Lance]

The Brown Hornet eredeti hozzászólása:

Thermal Lance eredeti hozzászólása:

"I'll agree I'm off of it at this point, I'd rather get back to discussing games. But to summarize, you guys have rejected my console target theory and explained that the console approach Valve has taken in recent years does in fact expand PC gaming. Controllers, thumb pads, handheld devices, couch gaming, etc. are just as much a part of PC gaming as keyboard and mouse."

Every company does that. Not just Valve. Everybody are pushing for multi-platform release. Because... MORE CUSTOMERS. In the case of Steam which is a PC PLATFORM, it won't get more customers buying games by designing a gaming mouse. But, a handheld that could bring portable players to their platform? Now that's something we can work with. It's NOT a theory. What is crazy here is not that it happens but that you seem to frame it like some big revelation or something.

"In terms of streaming you guys don't feel the technology is advanced enough to replace the download and installation process. Also the manpower and infrastructure needed to develop and maintain streaming service centers wouldn't be cost effective for Valve."

Having a good streaming service that could handle the kind of load a Valve owned service would get is no small feat. And, no matter how you look at it, it's a risk. If the service is not good enough, it's going to fail and fail hard. Doing streaming is not just booting a 486 in a basement and have people play games. For a platform of the size of Steam, it would need a massive architecture of servers even if you just want 10% of the games on there. It can be done but is the risk even worth it?

"In terms of subscription service you guys have stated that Valve doesn't need to offer it but individual developers/publishers at Steam can. I don't think that's the same thing as a Steam Subscription but that's the agreed to concept."

You've been told multiple times in another thread that the big problem with this idea is not that you need to convince Steam. But, the publishers. Between the publishers wanting their cut and Steam doing the same, they would just be fighting over pennies at this point from a business perspective.

"Lastly, when it comes to trading, sharing, ability to play your Steam library on actual consoles and existing handhelds, or running a Steam game on more than one device at a time......well, in the words of the Riddler."

Trading? You can't trade what you don't own period. Sharing can be done within reasonable limits on Steam already. You can make yourself a Steam machine anytime bro if you want the console experience or get a deck. OH WAIT, you mean be able to play on your XBox with games bought on Steam? Again, go ask Microsoft. I'm sure Valve would do that ANYTIME if anybody was dumb enough to accept such a thing. As to running a game on more than one device... well. Get a second account with a second liscence? You bought a single use liscence, not one to open an internet cafe or whatever you want to do.

The revelation is that I'm not just talking about the Steam Deck being console oriented but also Steam Machines, Steam Controller, Steam Link, Index, which is a decade of Valve's internal development projects. All are console oriented while the software the Steam community has asked for (sequels, new IP's, spin off's, various software programs) have been largely ignored.

All of this is orientated toward bringing more customers. Even if they release Half-Life 3 and it's a smash hit. It's literally nothing compared to what they make from the 30% cut they get from every single console gamer that makes the jump. People that are on Steam are ALREADY buying games regardless of them releasing HL3 or not. They are focusing on bringing more people to their platform because the platform is their focus because that you like it or not it's more profitable than any single smash hit game they could ever release.

If I was in the same position as Steam. I wouldn't even hesitate to do the same. Because it makes sense to do that when it works out so good.

[Judgmental Amaterasu]

The Brown Hornet eredeti hozzászólása:

Thermal Lance eredeti hozzászólása:

"I'll agree I'm off of it at this point, I'd rather get back to discussing games. But to summarize, you guys have rejected my console target theory and explained that the console approach Valve has taken in recent years does in fact expand PC gaming. Controllers, thumb pads, handheld devices, couch gaming, etc. are just as much a part of PC gaming as keyboard and mouse."

Every company does that. Not just Valve. Everybody are pushing for multi-platform release. Because... MORE CUSTOMERS. In the case of Steam which is a PC PLATFORM, it won't get more customers buying games by designing a gaming mouse. But, a handheld that could bring portable players to their platform? Now that's something we can work with. It's NOT a theory. What is crazy here is not that it happens but that you seem to frame it like some big revelation or something.

"In terms of streaming you guys don't feel the technology is advanced enough to replace the download and installation process. Also the manpower and infrastructure needed to develop and maintain streaming service centers wouldn't be cost effective for Valve."

Having a good streaming service that could handle the kind of load a Valve owned service would get is no small feat. And, no matter how you look at it, it's a risk. If the service is not good enough, it's going to fail and fail hard. Doing streaming is not just booting a 486 in a basement and have people play games. For a platform of the size of Steam, it would need a massive architecture of servers even if you just want 10% of the games on there. It can be done but is the risk even worth it?

"In terms of subscription service you guys have stated that Valve doesn't need to offer it but individual developers/publishers at Steam can. I don't think that's the same thing as a Steam Subscription but that's the agreed to concept."

You've been told multiple times in another thread that the big problem with this idea is not that you need to convince Steam. But, the publishers. Between the publishers wanting their cut and Steam doing the same, they would just be fighting over pennies at this point from a business perspective.

"Lastly, when it comes to trading, sharing, ability to play your Steam library on actual consoles and existing handhelds, or running a Steam game on more than one device at a time......well, in the words of the Riddler."

Trading? You can't trade what you don't own period. Sharing can be done within reasonable limits on Steam already. You can make yourself a Steam machine anytime bro if you want the console experience or get a deck. OH WAIT, you mean be able to play on your XBox with games bought on Steam? Again, go ask Microsoft. I'm sure Valve would do that ANYTIME if anybody was dumb enough to accept such a thing. As to running a game on more than one device... well. Get a second account with a second liscence? You bought a single use liscence, not one to open an internet cafe or whatever you want to do.

The revelation is that I'm not just talking about the Steam Deck being console oriented but also Steam Machines, Steam Controller, Steam Link, Index, which is a decade of Valve's internal development projects. All are console oriented while the software the Steam community has asked for (sequels, new IP's, spin off's, various software programs) have been largely ignored.

You =\= The community, as has been said for however many pages this abomination has been going for.

[Start_Running]

Paratech2008 eredeti hozzászólása:

There have been more good EA games than junk, which is more than I can say of the anime boob games that are just different versions of the same game with different graphics.

They're the equivalent of american beer. Someone out there keeps buying so they gonna keep making.

Paratech2008 eredeti hozzászólása:

New IP is risky. AAA games can cost upwards of millions and if they flop they can devestate a company.

Gamers say they want innovative games but do they buy them?

DOn't even have to flop. If it doesn't quite make all the money that can lead to disappointment and reconsiderations.
New IP is easy, I mean indies do it all the time, I mean Bloodstaind is a Gem, Sesuna's sacrifice, Elden ring, these are all new IP's that had solid budgets.

The problem, with small to mid studios is that the successes have to absorb the losses of who knows how many failures and stalled projects.

Thermal Lance eredeti hozzászólása:

The Brown Hornet eredeti hozzászólása:

The revelation is that I'm not just talking about the Steam Deck being console oriented but also Steam Machines, Steam Controller, Steam Link, Index, which is a decade of Valve's internal development projects. All are console oriented while the software the Steam community has asked for (sequels, new IP's, spin off's, various software programs) have been largely ignored.

All of this is orientated toward bringing more customers. Even if they release Half-Life 3 and it's a smash hit. It's literally nothing compared to what they make from the 30% cut they get from every single console gamer that makes the jump. People that are on Steam are ALREADY buying games regardless of them releasing HL3 or not. They are focusing on bringing more people to their platform because the platform is their focus because that you like it or not it's more profitable than any single smash hit game they could ever release.

If I was in the same position as Steam. I wouldn't even hesitate to do the same. Because it makes sense to do that when it works out so good.

And what makes you think HL3 wouldn't be on consoles? Just about every other HL game has been, heck there's at least one console exclusive one that has yet to make it to PC.

Valve generally tackles the things that interest them, that provide something new or challenging to tackle. That's likely why ALyx was VR. Because designing a good VR game is actually a fairly challenging endeavour. There are more things to consider. That's why they did Artifact, again, something new.

[Thermal Lance]

Start_Running eredeti hozzászólása:

Paratech2008 eredeti hozzászólása:

There have been more good EA games than junk, which is more than I can say of the anime boob games that are just different versions of the same game with different graphics.

They're the equivalent of american beer. Someone out there keeps buying so they gonna keep making.

Paratech2008 eredeti hozzászólása:

New IP is risky. AAA games can cost upwards of millions and if they flop they can devestate a company.

Gamers say they want innovative games but do they buy them?

DOn't even have to flop. If it doesn't quite make all the money that can lead to disappointment and reconsiderations.
New IP is easy, I mean indies do it all the time, I mean Bloodstaind is a Gem, Sesuna's sacrifice, Elden ring, these are all new IP's that had solid budgets.

The problem, with small to mid studios is that the successes have to absorb the losses of who knows how many failures and stalled projects.

Thermal Lance eredeti hozzászólása:

All of this is orientated toward bringing more customers. Even if they release Half-Life 3 and it's a smash hit. It's literally nothing compared to what they make from the 30% cut they get from every single console gamer that makes the jump. People that are on Steam are ALREADY buying games regardless of them releasing HL3 or not. They are focusing on bringing more people to their platform because the platform is their focus because that you like it or not it's more profitable than any single smash hit game they could ever release.

If I was in the same position as Steam. I wouldn't even hesitate to do the same. Because it makes sense to do that when it works out so good.

And what makes you think HL3 wouldn't be on consoles? Just about every other HL game has been, heck there's at least one console exclusive one that has yet to make it to PC.

Valve generally tackles the things that interest them, that provide something new or challenging to tackle. That's likely why ALyx was VR. Because designing a good VR game is actually a fairly challenging endeavour. There are more things to consider. That's why they did Artifact, again, something new.

All I am saying is that videogames development have not been Valve's priority for years. Do I really need to bring some paper proving it or the overwhelming silence with sporadic drops for years speaks for itself?

I never said HL3 wouldnt be coming to console if it happened. Never said that. So, I'm not even sure what is the point you're trying to make here. Bringing customers to their platform and making god knows how much $$$ over the years beats a single massive release by a light-year. That's not even debatable.

[Paratech2008]

Why would they risk the money?

[C²C^Guyver |NZB|]

Priority?

HL Alyx took four years to make and has a 92% rating......

[Start_Running]

Thermal Lance eredeti hozzászólása:

All I am saying is that videogames development have not been Valve's priority for years. Do I really need to bring some paper proving it or the overwhelming silence with sporadic drops for years speaks for itself?

WHat that tells you is that Valve tend to release rather polished products and not surprisingly they don't leak anything about their products until they're good and ready. meaning until they're like 80% done.


When do we hear about their games? usyually no more than 3-6 months prior to release.

They have in the past aluded to multiple games in development but said no more than that.
Valve doesn't typically play to the media. Its why when they DO say something it tends to command a lot of attention.

Thermal Lance eredeti hozzászólása:

Bringing customers to their platform and making god knows how much $$$ over the years beats a single massive release by a light-year. That's not even debatable.

Yes but you make it sound like an either/or prospect. This is the advantage well organized businesses have, the ability to work on multiple things at the same time.

[MonkehMaster]

Paratech2008 eredeti hozzászólása:

I'm happy with an Android tablet.

Not just games, e-books, music, and more...

OP marked this ^ as the answer to the topic....

welp, its not the answer, but considering the OP says the topic is answered, pretty sure the thread is done, maybe it should be locked now?

[Mad Scientist]

MonkehMaster eredeti hozzászólása:

Paratech2008 eredeti hozzászólása:

I'm happy with an Android tablet.

Not just games, e-books, music, and more...

OP marked this ^ as the answer to the topic.... :lunar2019crylaughingpig:

welp, its not the answer, but considering the OP says the topic is answered, pretty sure the thread is done, maybe it should be locked now?

I completely agree with this assessment.