• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Jroc

Banned
Jun 9, 2018
6,145
I will never not shit on Valve for what they did to Half-life. I don't care if they've found new fans or whatever, the fact they can't even say the name of the game that put them on the map is pathetic. I remember thinking Portal 2 might have a trailer or something for Episode 3 lol.

I'm mentally preparing myself for CD Project to cancel Cyberpunk and spend 10 years making World of Gwent once GOG takes off.
 

TaterTots

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,963
Yeah but they took 5 years between games once (well twice if we count half life 1 to half life 2), which as we all know is completely unheard of in this industry, especially for a company that has one of the more popular MP games around (well actually a couple but what ever), and the biggest digital distribution platform for games around, so yeah clearly they don't make games anymore.

The dialogue regarding valve is so insanely irrational and somehow allowed, that I have seen seen people on this forum say they don't make games anymore literally in the following weeks after artifact lol.

People were saying this not long after CS:GO and DOTA 2 released. They'll continue to do so with Artifact because its not the type of game they want, but Valve hasn't stopped making games.

HL3 is far from the only big letdown. L4D and Portal were both absolutely incredible and dead as far as I know.

Back in 2014 the co-creator of Counter Strike said that Left 4 Dead 3 is in development and looks great. I don't know what came to be of it, but I'd imagine we would of seen it by now. Unless, they've been taking their sweet time and its one of "several games" they're working on.
 

strudelkuchen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
10,073
I know people like to mention the games they released 2 or even 3 gens ago but last gen was truly something else.

Half life 2: episode 1 (2006)
Half life 2: episode 2 (2007)
Portal (2007)
Team fortress 2 (2007)
Left 4 Dead (2008)
Left 4 Dead 2 (2009)
Portal 2 (2011)

All these groundbreaking (ep.1 less so) released in the span of 5 years. There's probably a lot more but I only played there console games and these were what released between the 360/ps3. I know the valve of today is basically a different company in how they operate but shit, last gen was bliss.
Dota 2 also released in 2011. Arguably their most successful game.
 

SteveWinwood

Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,676
USA USA USA
People were saying this not long after CS:GO and DOTA 2 released. They'll continue to do so with Artifact because its not the type of game they want, but Valve hasn't stopped making games.



Back in 2014 the co-creator of Counter Strike said that Left 4 Dead 3 is in development and looks great. I don't know what came to be of it, but I'd imagine we would of seen it by now. Unless, they've been taking their sweet time and its one of "several games" they're working on.
About once a year we get a new "leak" with some information about l4d3. It's still coming.
 

J2d

Member
Oct 26, 2017
1,140
I wasn't asking for sequels to those games. I'm pointing out how we went from 5-6 games to just 2 this gen from one of the biggest video game publishers in the world, and one of the two games is of questionable quality. It would be similar to Blizzard only focusing on one I.P., Overwatch, this entire gen and then giving you HoTS and that's all.
I haven't really played a lot of blizzard games these past two years so I cant compare the level of support those games get compared to valves. For me the only real surprise is that we haven't got a l4d game and that they bought campo sanyo or what they are called, I don't understand what they'll bring to the company.

With the stuff steam now offers and the update to games I don't really see their employees sitting on their ashes doing nothing. It's just different priorities.
 

ZeroX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,266
Speed Force
Artifact looks great but I will never try It with that monetization model. I hate to have anything I do in the game needs to be related to real money.
The idea that you have to pay to do anything in Artifact is complete misinformation that somehow spread. You can play every mode for free after the initial game purchase. You can play draft and preconstructed on the same playing field as everyone else for free as much as you want. You also get enough cards to play constructed from the start, the only thing you need to spend money on is cards for constructed if you want to play at a competitive level (and there's even a mode that doesn't allow rares and uncommons so you can't really spend anything there either).

They also started giving away packs, a limited amount each season, but it still helps alleviate issues. And if you do want to spend money, it's much cheaper than like Hearthstone and you aren't at the mercy of pack RNG.
 

Valdega

Banned
Sep 7, 2018
1,609
DOTA 2 and CS were released 5 and 7 years ago outside of updates right? I consider that part of the old Value years personally. My disappointment is not aligned with yours, mine is L4D online. Let me be very clear there.

I don't really see how you can exclude post-launch support, especially for games that remain very active today (CS:GO and DOTA2 are two of the most active games on Steam). In fact, CS:GO wasn't very popular at launch. It took years of updates before it really caught on. As for L4D, fair enough. However, I think most of Valve's critics are more interested in single-player games like Half-Life and Portal.
 

texhnolyze

Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,155
Indonesia
Era sure loves to hate on Valve.
Here's the reason:

1uSfJ4B.png


Valve doesn't make games for Era anymore.
 

Deleted member 11214

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
731
Hopefully measures like Valve closing the videos section on Steam means they're refocused going into 2019. They do make games, and I think Artifact is pretty fucking awesome honestly and will only get better, but they seem stretched way, way too thin. CS:GO until recently was not maintained frequently enough and it's taken them over a year to deliver the next promised TF2 update, which again is not acceptable for a game-as-service.

I agree with others that, games-wise, I'm happy with Valve as they are now. That said, culture-wise they've really slipped up. The Orange Box was a really generous, wonderful thing.
 

CommodoreKong

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,696
Hopefully measures like Valve closing the videos section on Steam means they're refocused going into 2019. They do make games, and I think Artifact is pretty fucking awesome honestly and will only get better, but they seem stretched way, way too thin. CS:GO until recently was not maintained frequently enough and it's taken them over a year to deliver the next promised TF2 update, which again is not acceptable for a game-as-service.

I agree with others that, games-wise, I'm happy with Valve as they are now. That said, culture-wise they've really slipped up. The Orange Box was a really generous, wonderful thing.

Most people seem to forget they only have around 350 employees which seems way to small for the number of things that they do. TF2, CSGO, Dota 2, Artifact, Source 2, VR software, VR hardware, Steam itself, plus they have 3 full VR games in development.
 

noyram23

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
9,372
I hope they make single player games again, I mean Gaben my man you have so much money already, can you gift us plebs with HL3 or Portal 3? Or a new sp IP?
 

Wrellie

Member
Oct 29, 2017
696
Valve has always been making games, and I'm sure they have to be extremely pleased with Dota 2's $$$. But, they should be really alarmed at Artifact's sales numbers. Peak players at 60k in the last 30 days (at launch), and currently sitting at 4k. Behind L4D2. That is not good at all.
 

ZeroX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,266
Speed Force
Valve has always been making games, and I'm sure they have to be extremely pleased with Dota 2's $$$. But, they should be really alarmed at Artifact's sales numbers. Peak players at 60k in the last 30 days (at launch), and currently sitting at 4k. Behind L4D2. That is not good at all.
Yeah it sucks, that's why they're actively updating it and making huge improvements. It's also why people need to be corrected with all the misinformation about the monetization. Because mechanically it's incredible.
 

Wrellie

Member
Oct 29, 2017
696
Yeah it sucks, that's why they're actively updating it and making huge improvements. It's also why people need to be corrected with all the misinformation about the monetization. Because mechanically it's incredible.

I wonder how many people are like myself and just look at it and think "well, that is going to go f2p soon enough, I'll just hold off for now since it looks much more complicated than Hearthstone and will just be another money pit"
 

Cirerus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
215
The idea that you have to pay to do anything in Artifact is complete misinformation that somehow spread. You can play every mode for free after the initial game purchase. You can play draft and preconstructed on the same playing field as everyone else for free as much as you want. You also get enough cards to play constructed from the start, the only thing you need to spend money on is cards for constructed if you want to play at a competitive level (and there's even a mode that doesn't allow rares and uncommons so you can't really spend anything there either).

They also started giving away packs, a limited amount each season, but it still helps alleviate issues. And if you do want to spend money, it's much cheaper than like Hearthstone and you aren't at the mercy of pack RNG.

When they announced that the game would not be free to play I initially thought that the initial fee would give access to all cards in the game, such as heroes in DOTA 2, and later micro transactions would be cosmetic and event related, as in CS: GO.

I played Hearthstone for a while, and I hated the business model that greatly discourages players from trying different things (netdeck saves you money for wins). I thought that because of this Artifact would be different but I was wrong. They have managed to implement the worst of both digital and paper card games.
 

Wrellie

Member
Oct 29, 2017
696
When they announced that the game would not be free to play I initially thought that the initial fee would give access to all cards in the game, such as heroes in DOTA 2, and later micro transactions would be cosmetic and event related, as in CS: GO.

I played Hearthstone for a while, and I hated the business model that greatly discourages players from trying different things (netdeck saves you money for wins). I thought that because of this Artifact would be different but I was wrong. They have managed to implement the worst of both digital and paper card games.

If it was pay $20 and get all the cards, I'd buy it instantly. Maybe even $40 - $60.
 

ZeroX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,266
Speed Force
I wonder how many people are like myself and just look at it and think "well, that is going to go f2p soon enough, I'll just hold off for now since it looks much more complicated than Hearthstone and will just be another money pit"
It might get a free trial/draft mode. But it probably wouldn't go Hearthstone style free to play because F2P bonus packs would fuck the economy. Plus the game doesn't have to be a money pit (and it's much cheaper to boot). I almost exclusively play draft which requires no money at all, and ocasionally dip into preconstructed where you don't need a deck. I played in a pauper tournament (cost $2 to build a deck). Very cheap, already at like 40 hours of playtime. It is definitely more complicated than Hearthstone, but also more satisfying.

The value you get for $20 is nuts. And the sooner you start the more of the (limited) progression packs you'll get. Plus if you only play draft/preconstructed, you could sell your cards and get your money back. It sounds weird, but it does work out lol.

When they announced that the game would not be free to play I initially thought that the initial fee would give access to all cards in the game, such as heroes in DOTA 2, and later micro transactions would be cosmetic and event related, as in CS: GO.

I played Hearthstone for a while, and I hated the business model that greatly discourages players from trying different things (netdeck saves you money for wins). I thought that because of this Artifact would be different but I was wrong. They have managed to implement the worst of both digital and paper card games.
How? It's objectively better than Hearthstone's monetization model.

And free drafting doesn't happen in Hearthstone or paper card games.
 

Micael

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,365
I wonder how many people are like myself and just look at it and think "well, that is going to go f2p soon enough, I'll just hold off for now since it looks much more complicated than Hearthstone and will just be another money pit"

I am one of those, well not so much the complicated and what not, but definitely waiting for it to change its monetization model to either f2p or some other form, since it seems inevitable that it will come given how hard the game tanked, so I figure there isn't much point in spending money now, which isn''t to say that I find the monetization model that crazy, I have tried the game for a bit, and it is a solid game and looking at card prices in comparison with other digital CCGs it is more than competitive price wise (As in it is better than what the competition is offering), especially given all one can do just with the base game, you are mostly only locked out of competitive stuff.

In the end feel like part of the reason why the model is so badly seen is 2 fold:
a) valve has quite poor public image these days so anything bad they do is going to get quite amplified.
b) they had some of the most user friendly models in the industry with dota 2 and cs:go where all micro transactions were for the most part purely cosmetically (there was tournament related stuff and what not but that is a different story), that anything that involves gameplay features being monetized is going to be seen as a huge step down, and well it is really.

It also doesn't help that Gabe and the team were talking about how the money that people would put in would basically stay in the system, that things would be stable and what not, and in the end there doesn't really seem to be any mechanics to enforce that, it is all just valve being a bit naive, because as we have seen card prices for artifact are anything but stable https://steamcommunity.com/market/listings/583950/110020

But yeah personally I am waiting to see what they do to revamp the model before I get into the game, not that I intend to play a lot either way, but yeah if they don't want the game to die they are going to revamp it in some form or another so might as well get into it then.
 

Wrellie

Member
Oct 29, 2017
696
I am one of those, well not so much the complicated and what not, but definitely waiting for it to change its monetization model to either f2p or some other form, since it seems inevitable that it will come given how hard the game tanked, so I figure there isn't much point in spending money now, which isn''t to say that I find the monetization model that crazy, I have tried the game for a bit, and it is a solid game and looking at card prices in comparison with other digital CCGs it is more than competitive price wise (As in it is better than what the competition is offering), especially given all one can do just with the base game, you are mostly only locked out of competitive stuff.

In the end feel like part of the reason why the model is so badly seen is 2 fold:
a) valve has quite poor public image these days so anything bad they do is going to get quite amplified.
b) they had some of the most user friendly models in the industry with dota 2 and cs:go where all micro transactions were for the most part purely cosmetically (there was tournament related stuff and what not but that is a different story), that anything that involves gameplay features being monetized is going to be seen as a huge step down, and well it is really.

It also doesn't help that Gabe and the team were talking about how the money that people would put in would basically stay in the system, that things would be stable and what not, and in the end there doesn't really seem to be any mechanics to enforce that, it is all just valve being a bit naive, because as we have seen card prices for artifact are anything but stable https://steamcommunity.com/market/listings/583950/110020

But yeah personally I am waiting to see what they do to revamp the model before I get into the game, not that I intend to play a lot either way, but yeah if they don't want the game to die they are going to revamp it in some form or another so might as well get into it then.

Thanks for writing that all out. That is a much better explanation than what I said, and is definitely pretty much how I feel.
 

Deleted member 18742

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,834
Still crazy to me we havent gotten Left 4 Dead 3 yet. I feel like that would be a game that would work the best for Valve considering CS GO and Dotas success with microtransactions
 

Cirerus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
215
It might get a free trial/draft mode. But it probably wouldn't go Hearthstone style free to play because F2P bonus packs would fuck the economy. Plus the game doesn't have to be a money pit (and it's much cheaper to boot). I almost exclusively play draft which requires no money at all, and ocasionally dip into preconstructed where you don't need a deck. I played in a pauper tournament (cost $2 to build a deck). Very cheap, already at like 40 hours of playtime. It is definitely more complicated than Hearthstone, but also more satisfying.

The value you get for $20 is nuts. And the sooner you start the more of the (limited) progression packs you'll get. Plus if you only play draft/preconstructed, you could sell your cards and get your money back. It sounds weird, but it does work out lol.

It doesn't have to be a money pit but can and that is exaclty the problem. Artifact is still cheap but, and after 7 expansions? How expensive good cards and decks can get in the future as the economy evolves? Pauper can be a fun side little mode but no one likes to play it because you don't have acess to all the cool cards.

I want to pay to have some hours of fun and support It's developers, not because I like gambling and expect recieve some "value" back.

How? It's objectively better than Hearthstone's monetization model.

And free drafting doesn't happen in Hearthstone or paper card games.

The cool thing about Hearthstone is having mechanics that would be a nightmare to implement in paper card games, such as "discover" and "recruit" for example. Another cool thing about the digital aspect is being able to change the cards after they have been printed for balance purposes and maintain the integrity of the game.

The monetization system of Artifact was the mainly reason the game almost didn't get balance changes, which is crazy in a digital card game and show how can hurt It.

In the end the big problem is: If Artifact succeeds, it has everything to suck big amounts of money from the players. As they fail, they will have to give way more and more to increase the number of players. It's a system designed to put developers against players.
 

SirFritz

Member
Jan 22, 2018
2,075
I will never not shit on Valve for what they did to Half-life. I don't care if they've found new fans or whatever, the fact they can't even say the name of the game that put them on the map is pathetic. I remember thinking Portal 2 might have a trailer or something for Episode 3 lol.

I'm mentally preparing myself for CD Project to cancel Cyberpunk and spend 10 years making World of Gwent once GOG takes off.
I still remember thinking that super 8 teaser thing in portal 2 was half life related as I was watching it because I'd never heard of the super 8 movie before.
 

ZeroX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,266
Speed Force
It doesn't have to be a money pit but can and that is exaclty the problem. Artifact is still cheap but, and after 7 expansions? How expensive good cards and decks can get in the future as the economy evolves? Pauper can be a fun side little mode but no one likes to play it because you don't have acess to all the cool cards.

I want to pay to have some hours of fun and support It's developers, not because I like gambling and expect recieve some "value" back.

The cool thing about Hearthstone is having mechanics that would be a nightmare to implement in paper card games, such as "discover" and "recruit" for example. Another cool thing about the digital aspect is being able to change the cards after they have been printed for balance purposes and maintain the integrity of the game.

The monetization system of Artifact was the mainly reason the game almost didn't get balance changes, which is crazy in a digital card game and show how can hurt It.

In the end the big problem is: If Artifact succeeds, it has everything to suck big amounts of money from the players. As they fail, they will have to give way more and more to increase the number of players. It's a system designed to put developers against players.
I don't really get either of your points here. The price to Artifact won't change drastically as they add expansions because things will rotate and because you're not required to keep cards over time. You can just sell stuff you don't like (at 15% fee vs. Hearthstone's 75%) to build what you like. Will you have to invest a little each set? Sure. But not substantial amounts. Also they just added progression packs which lowered the market value of cards. The game is trending towards low prices for card and presumably adding variants/cosmetics where the real money will be. If you want to be competitive it's super cheap and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Plus again, I've only been playing draft which is entirely for fun and only required the initial game purchase price. Also not sure why you mention gambling. The only RNG is packs which you can avoid by getting singles. You also don't have to play ticketed modes, and I don't see why you would unless you were already good and wanted to try grind out that way.

And to be fair, I was fine with Hearthstone as well, although I was a long time player and paid for adventures. I didn't like the daily grind and direction of the game. Discover may have been a good mechanic, but 80% of the stuff they added was a bust.
 

Cirerus

Member
Oct 30, 2017
215
I don't really get either of your points here. The price to Artifact won't change drastically as they add expansions because things will rotate and because you're not required to keep cards over time. You can just sell stuff you don't like (at 15% fee vs. Hearthstone's 75%) to build what you like. Will you have to invest a little each set? Sure. But not substantial amounts. Also they just added progression packs which lowered the market value of cards. The game is trending towards low prices for card and presumably adding variants/cosmetics where the real money will be. If you want to be competitive it's super cheap and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Plus again, I've only been playing draft which is entirely for fun and only required the initial game purchase price. Also not sure why you mention gambling. The only RNG is packs which you can avoid by getting singles. You also don't have to play ticketed modes, and I don't see why you would unless you were already good and wanted to try grind out that way.

And to be fair, I was fine with Hearthstone as well, although I was a long time player and paid for adventures. I didn't like the daily grind and direction of the game. Discover may have been a good mechanic, but 80% of the stuff they added was a bust.

What if I don't like draft? What if like to play mainly competitive pre-constructed decks?

What prevents Valve from creating a list of reserved cards and stop printing them at request of other players so that their cards do not devalue as the time goes by?
 

ZeroX

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
21,266
Speed Force
What if I don't like draft? What if like to play mainly competitive pre-constructed decks?

What prevents Valve from creating a list of reserved cards and stop printing them at request of other players so that their cards do not devalue as the time goes by?
Well if you like pre-constructed (Valve built decks), that's already a free mode. And again for constructed players who build their own decks, there's still an expense to it, but it's roughly $40 for the top decks (and you can be competitive for half that), and you can sell your decks for 85% of the value and buy something else. Now is that as good as just getting every card for free? No. Is it still very good value and easy to play without too much investment? Yeah, it is. The free packs each expansion will likely cover the 15% deficit too. It's not perfect, but it's cheaper than Magic and Hearthstone (without 6+ months of grinding).

I highly doubt Valve is going to stop printing cards without rotating them so I don't see why that's brought up. At least from Gabe's talk and how they've approached things so far, I don't think they want a market of expensive cards. They want things to be stable, with a steady flow of transactions and presumably cosmetics.
 

Fantastical

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,365
Yeah, I'm still salty about Valve's modern output. Absolutely nothing that interests me and they were one of my favorite developers last gen.
 

Mexen

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,927
Thoroughly enjoyed HL 2, Portal 1 and 2.
I have a love-hate relationship with DotA. I much prefer playing against bots than humans.
 

ToddBonzalez

The Pyramids? That's nothing compared to RDR2
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
15,530
How is that silly? The very nature of Portal was conceived before the students got hired by Valve. To give Valve the full and only credit for Portal is the one that's being silly.

Was Instagram fully a Facebook idea, then?
Students came up with the Portal game mechanic, but the narrative, level design, art style, etc. were all created at Valve. Check out the original portal student game and you'll see it changed significantly after Valve hired the team.
 

shuno

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
625
Yes. They were. Makes it even more incredible to see how they topped that this gen with DOTA2 and CSGO.

Valve has always been making games, and I'm sure they have to be extremely pleased with Dota 2's $$$. But, they should be really alarmed at Artifact's sales numbers. Peak players at 60k in the last 30 days (at launch), and currently sitting at 4k. Behind L4D2. That is not good at all.

It was the same with CSGO back then. There were still more people playing Source and even more people playing 1.6 when GO released. Look where it is now.
 
Except for Portal 2 the rest of the games on all other platforms were one and done =\. Left 4 Dead 2 I think maybe got an update or 2 on the 360 but thats it.

I've given up on the prospect of ever seeing another game from Valve and am completely okay with the idea. After seeing them turn CS: GO into another cash grab and then "artifact", Valve is now in the list of "devs I can stop expecting good games from". If anything, Artifact drove me right back into the arms of Hearthstone and I can't be happier.
 

shuno

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
625
People are still playing an earlier release of Artifact? Why havent they moved to the latest retail version?

The point I was trying to make was more for ongoing support and improvement instead of killing a game because you have more successful games running. And no, the players back then were mostly playing completely unrelated games/shooter from other developers - because the source/1.6 numbers where never as big as CSGO numbers.
 

pixelpatron

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,542
Seattle
Epic store isn't doing shit all lmfao
It just launched lol. These things take time and I don't know any developer who wouldn't want more of a cut of their products profits. Give it time....eventually they will start to pull in developers. Blockbuster laughed at Netflix and scoffed at a 50 million buy out. Told Netflix to take a hike.

The battle is only beginning.
 

RagdollRhino

Banned
Oct 10, 2018
950
I don't really see how you can exclude post-launch support, especially for games that remain very active today (CS:GO and DOTA2 are two of the most active games on Steam). In fact, CS:GO wasn't very popular at launch. It took years of updates before it really caught on. As for L4D, fair enough. However, I think most of Valve's critics are more interested in single-player games like Half-Life and Portal.

Not saying post launch support doesn't count, I applaud them for that, but come on. Compared to the old Valve? It was literally hit after hit and then reduced to post launch support for games that game out 5+ years ago. Either way, I've got more than enough good times out of Valve games, I feel pretty satisfied and I'm coming off like a bitch for wanting more maybe, but I miss it.
 

Deleted member 5545

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
942
Some of these posts, especially on the first page, are fucking delusional. Dota's bigger than all those games combined. Get over yourselves. There's plenty of other single-player and co-op fps for you to put a casual 8-10 hours into. There's only one Dota. For fuck's sake we don't need this exact thread every two weeks.
 

Valdega

Banned
Sep 7, 2018
1,609
Not saying post launch support doesn't count, I applaud them for that, but come on. Compared to the old Valve? It was literally hit after hit and then reduced to post launch support for games that game out 5+ years ago. Either way, I've got more than enough good times out of Valve games, I feel pretty satisfied and I'm coming off like a bitch for wanting more maybe, but I miss it.

I miss their old output as well but I completely understand why they've changed directions. GaaS is far more profitable than pumping out new games on an annual basis. Valve has likely made more money from CS:GO and DOTA2 than all of their other games combined.