Support NeoGAF

[abasm]

For those unaware of how Valve runs internally, it works something like this:

Valve hires the most talented and self-motivated people in the business, gives them a desk with wheels, drops them in a room with similarly talented folks, and says "go". There are no bosses, only leaders that rise from consensus, and everybody proposes/aids projects they like. This creative "stew" makes every game a product of passion--Valve employees are invested in everything they create. On the downside, this is why Valve is famously coy about release dates and upcoming projects; everything is up in the air until a game garners enough momentum to merit completion.

Now, think about that for a moment. If you were given amazing game development skills then told to work with your best friends to make whatever you wanted (and had to playtest iterative builds of whatever you made)...what would you make? Would you make a single player game that is essentially "spoiled" from conception? You made it, after all, so the experience of playing the campaign will never be fresh.

I think you'd make a game that could never get stale, something with a strong multi-player component that would let you play with guys in the office. Look at Valve's marquee games since the Orange Box:

- Left 4 Dead
- Left 4 Dead 2
- (so much more Team Fortress 2)
- Portal 2 (with co-op)
- CS: GO
- Dota 2

Only Portal 2 stands out with a strong campaign, and even that featured multi-player heavily. How, then, would Valve graft multiplayer onto something like HL3? They won't, because they are under no obligation to do so.

The short version: Valve employees have enormous freedom, why would they want to make a single-player-only game?

 

[dimb]

Valve didn't even make all of those.

 

[StuBurns]

They are making Half-Life 3.

 

[krpiper]

Half-Life 2?

 

[JaseC]

Valve didn't even make all of those.

I'm glad we can address this already. Of the list, your comment applies to only Left 4 Dead, and, chiefly, CS:GO.

They are making Half-Life 3.

I also like to think that Doug Church is leading his own team. One of the industry's greatest designers + absolute financial and creative freedom = ???

 

[Zeouterlimits]

That strikes me as offensive to everyone passionate about developing single player campaigns.

 

[Kurita]

Half-Life 2 was single player.
And their only "original" creation in this list is Left 4 Dead.

 

[reptilescorpio]

They like profit so they like doing service-like games to have continual customers.

 

[pants]

Single player games wont really build a sense of steam community.

 

[Lasthope106]

 

[Stallion Free]

I'm glad we can address this already. Of the list, your comment applies to only Left 4 Dead, and, chiefly, CS:GO.

Except Valve had their hands all over both those products.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

The Portal 2 example is stretching it.

 

[Margalis]

Is "unique structure" a nice way of saying "charging for hats?"

 

[LiquidMetal14]

I almost look at them like Blizzard but a little less popular in terms of their games. They may not make them a lot but when they do, they're quality.

 

[SteveWinwood]

I don't even know what you're trying to say.

Half life 3 won't be multiplayer... just because? What.

 

[Jintor]

Valve didn't even make all of those.

I'm gonna tie you to a stake now

 

[JaseC]

Except Valve had their hands all over both those products.

I'm aware of that, but the popular issue of contention is, "If Valve didn't have fingers in its genesis, then it's not a Valve game." Left 4 Dead began as a Turtle Rock game and CS:GO began as a HPE-developed port of CS:S to the PS360.

 

[RoadDogg]

Half-Life 2 was single player.
And their only "original" creation in this list is Left 4 Dead.

Even that was made by Turtle Rock but Valve bought them before they finished it.

 

[Cartman86]

Well they have essentially said this in the past. When possible they want to incorporate "multiplayer" features. Is that a bi-product of their structure? I don't see how it can't be. The company philosophy and its employees decide what gets made and how.

 

[Prophet Steve]

People do not develop games so that they can play it themselves afterwards, it's not really a big reason why people do that. Sure, plenty of developers who play their games, but they did not develop them to play for themselves.

Also, I get your multiplayer argument, but the Portal 2 multiplayer aspect isn't really an argument since it does not have a large amount of replayability and every coop experience is not very different from each other.

 

[specialguy]

I kind of doubt everything is as unstructured at Valve as OP claims. It makes a nice story, but I'm not even sure I'd like to work in such an environment. I suspect a chain of command is pretty much a reality at Valve in reality, regardless of the theoretical.

 

[Sentenza]

The short version: Valve employees have enormous freedom, why would they want to make a single-player-only game?

Well, I can't speak for them, but that's what I would like to work to, if I was granted absolute freedom as a developer and Doug Church was one of my co-workers.

 

[Dennis]

wat wat wat

The game series that is validation of Valves existence are single-player games.......

 

[subversus]

they don't make SP-only games because it's a restriction in itself. So I think OP is right here.

 

[JaseC]

I kind of doubt everything is as unstructured at Valve as OP claims. It makes a nice story, but I'm not even sure I'd like to work in such an environment. I suspect a chain of command is pretty much a reality at Valve in reality, regardless of the theoretical.

I think the conceit may be overstated a bit, but I don't think the general notion of, "things happen because we want them to happen" is untrue. Even Kim Swift somewhat spoke out against the boss-free environment, only to say that, "Those guys at the top of the company definitely have opinions on how things should be run." This speaks to the "cabals" that form around ideas that are generally considered to be worthwhile ventures. I mean, in The Final Hours of Portal 2 it's mentioned the catalyst of the the PS3 version was that a group of programmers began porting Source to the PS3 as a pet project.

 

[Angry Fork]

I kind of doubt everything is as unstructured at Valve as OP claims. It makes a nice story, but I'm not even sure I'd like to work in such an environment. I suspect a chain of command is pretty much a reality at Valve in reality, regardless of the theoretical.

This is what socialism is, no hierarchy and decisions made democratically by the workers. It's a tremendously great idea and why it should be advocated. Valve isn't entirely there yet since profits aren't shared equally but it's still very successful and works for them. It wouldn't surprise me at all if there's no chain of command. Worker coops exist all over the world, it's very possible and the reason Valve is so strict when hiring because they need to make sure the people they hire are willing to play ball and can do the best work they can with others + on their own for a common vision.

 

[jcm]

Do you think valve's unique structure has caused uncharted, god of war, and assassin's creed to add MP? Almost nobody makes pure single games anymore.

 

[JaseC]

Do you think valve's unique structure has caused uncharted, god of war, and assassin's creed to add MP? Almost nobody makes pure single games anymore.

Well...

1) Valve is privately owned and is one of the few developers/publishers that could release an SP-only game at the possible expense of sales (i.e. at the expense of a bullet point)

2) The franchises you've listed are all first-party and the publicly-traded owners of which look as far forward as the end of the financial year

3) CS:GO and Dota 2 Oops. What a gross misreading. Curse you, tabbed browsing!

 

[Rlan]

I kind of doubt everything is as unstructured at Valve as OP claims. It makes a nice story, but I'm not even sure I'd like to work in such an environment. I suspect a chain of command is pretty much a reality at Valve in reality, regardless of the theoretical.

I get the feeling of this too, but then we had barely heard about this "Mann Vs Machine" mode, so who knows just what they're actually working on otherwise?

My main issue is that I feel if someone said "I have a great 2D puzzle platform game idea, but I need an artists and a programmer" and they can convince 2 other people to help, would that game get made?

 

[OmegaDragon]

Well, they have already said they likely won't make any more "isolated single player experiences". It's not known what they exactly mean with it, but is is likely that for example HL3 won't contain just a single player campaign like we are (were?) used to. I don't think that Valve stops focussing on pure SP games because the developers want to play multi games. I would say that they push for multiplayer or online integration due to the Steam platform.

 

[abasm]

My main issue is that I feel if someone said "I have a great 2D puzzle platform game idea, but I need an artists and a programmer" and they can convince 2 other people to help, would that game get made?

The issue here stems from two things:
- Democratic decisions made by a large group of people rather than a single director (or publisher)
- Replayability (for a large group of people)

If we saw Valve announce an original single-player title TODAY, I guarantee it would be closer to Spelunky than Uncharted in terms of structure.

 

[AdventureRacing]

The short version: Valve employees have enormous freedom, why would they want to make a single-player-only game?

I don't understand. Most game developers are being forced to add MP to their games just to make a profit. Valve are in a position where they don't necessarily have to do that.

I find it very hard to believe that most people prefer to work on MP games than SP games.

 

[SteveWinwood]

I get the feeling of this too, but then we had barely heard about this "Mann Vs Machine" mode, so who knows just what they're actually working on otherwise?

We knew about mvm, the robots and the horde mode, for months. Maybe even a year or so. They would add files slowly in updates that pertained to it.

Just saying.

 

[StuBurns]

The issue here stems from two things:
- Democratic decisions made by a large group of people rather than a single director (or publisher)
- Replayability (for a large group of people)

They may talk about having no formal structure, but that is completely untrue. We know for a fact they have a single director. Gabe decides what games are made, what's released, when they're ready to be shown, etc.

Valve is not a democracy, it's not even a republic.

 

[Graphics Horse]

I could have sworn Half Life 1 & 2 had multiplayer deathmatch... hell they even built a co-op game for a version of HL1.

I don't know if 'a single-player game' (HL3) would need to be any different from the Portal 2 situation.
As for 'pure' single player, Portal 1 might be the only game they've ever made which doesn't allow multiple players in some form, maybe someone else can verify.

Just because there is a game called Half-Life 2 Deathmatch doesn't mean HL2 has multiplayer. It wasn't even released at the same time.

Two weeks later, you're right. All I know is it came free when I bought HL2.

 

[StuBurns]

I could have sworn Half Life 2 had multiplayer... hell they even built a co-op game for a version of HL1.

Just because there is a game called Half-Life 2 Deathmatch doesn't mean HL2 has multiplayer. It wasn't even released at the same time.

 

[SteveWinwood]

I could have sworn Half Life 2 had multiplayer... hell they even built a co-op game for a version of HL1.

HL2 deathmatch was indeed a thing. No one played it, but it did exist. Still does.

 

[injurai]

I think steam being a social launch platform for games has encouraged valve to work on mp experiences. TF2 showed them just how strong that community.

In terms of creating new IP's internally you are left with Portal 1/2 which was mostly single player in experience. I don't think they are limited by their development model but things have more or less turned out this way due to the surrounding market tones.

 

[Javaman]

I hate the focus on mp games these days. Very few of the flood of them rise to be the cream of the crop and the rest pretty much become unplayable after the game has been out for years due to only a handful of servers surviving with those people having 10x the skill of new players. Single player games you can enjoy years after release without any of those problems. I think its just lazy game design. By skipping the single player mode they can save bookoo money on AI, cinema, scripting etc.

 

[Glass Rebel]

Or maybe *hammers crowbar three times* these things take time.

 

[epmode]

I want to see Valve go TOTALLY CRAZY and make an immersive sim like Deus Ex/System Shock. Or a massive RPG.

 

[Saty]

Why wouldn't you want them to add MP to their games? Contrary to most other studios, the work on MP won't affect the SP portion. Time and resources aren't really a factor in Valve games.

There's only few examples where MP just isn't desirable in a game from conceptual stage. I guess you can ask why aren't they pushing those kind of projects.

 

[AnathemicOne]

So stealth single player game bashing? OP, I'd like to direct you to something called The Witcher 2.

 

[TouchMyBox]

I think the desire to make money prevents devs in general from making more single-player-only games.

 

[Zia]

I hate the focus on mp games these days. Very few of the flood of them rise to be the cream of the crop and the rest pretty much become unplayable after the game has been out for years due to only a handful of servers surviving with those people having 10x the skill of new players. Single player games you can enjoy years after release without any of those problems. I think its just lazy game design. By skipping the single player mode they can save bookoo money on AI, cinema, scripting etc.

Is this in reference to Valve, specifically? Because there's definitely nothing lazy about their multiplayer efforts -- Dota 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Team Fortress 2 and CS: GO are the "cream of the crop," games as services that've been designed and supported to accommodate healthy communities for years.

Edit: I think HL3 is going to launch with a comprehensive deathmatch component. Writing this now so I can drag it out in two years.

 

[Mooreberg]

The cost to profit ratio on the microtransaction games is probably enormous. At least we got Portal 2.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

I think Half-Life 3 will have multiplayer simply because they will want to launch it on consoles, as well, and that's how you keep the used game market at bay on consoles.

 

[StuBurns]

I think Half-Life 3 will have multiplayer simply because they will want to launch it on consoles, as well, and that's how you keep the used game market at bay on consoles.

I could imagine something like a 'remastered' TF2 with it and get it launch year for the next systems.

 

[deadhorse32]

I kind of doubt everything is as unstructured at Valve as OP claims. It makes a nice story, but I'm not even sure I'd like to work in such an environment. I suspect a chain of command is pretty much a reality at Valve in reality, regardless of the theoretical.

You should read this http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/econ...nt-structure-fit-into-todays-corporate-world/ (it's the "political economy analysis" by Valve's economist)

 

[Deleted member 59090]

I think Half-Life 3 will have multiplayer simply because they will want to launch it on consoles, as well, and that's how you keep the used game market at bay on consoles.

I think Half-Life 3 will have multiplayer because 1 and 2 did too.