-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Valve’s abandonment of all notable blockbuster franchises and their lack of forthcoming communication has ruined my perception of them(See Staff Post)
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
Why?
They're both live service games that are barely recognizable from their initial launches and still insanely popular and polished.
Underlords does what it does really well and the lab is one of the best VR showcases if that helps.
The point is the games aren't bad, BioWare is lambasted because Anthem is hugely disappointing, as was Mass Effect Andromeda. Same thing with Bethesda and whatever the mess F76 was. Why do you think people pick on them that Valve gets a free pass on?
I also read Valve have a penchant of not finishing anything because of structural company problem, so not communicating on those projects is probably for the best.
They are basically the equivalent of a platform holder for PC. Just look at the Epic games thread and it's not much different from the MS, Nintendo or Sony thread unfortunately.
As for the OP, I think the company simply changed focus. They don't care about single player games like Portal and Half-Life anymore. They are now 100% behind GAAS and VR games instead so they are clearly no longer interesting to you. It might not work for you but they are still working on games. Updating DOTA 2, Auto Chess, TF2 and CS:GO is still working on games. Artifact was a huge turd though as someone that bought it. They ran away from it quickly to work on Auto Chess it seems.
They're not going to make a Half-Life 3 or a Portal 3 if they have no reason to. Some people want Valve to make more games that are like the ones they have already released -- but Valve has never worked like that. They either make games that achieve something (for example releasing Source engine or now showcasing VR) or they scoop up talented people and teams making games that have wide mass-market appeal like CS or Dota (effectively funding development of what was previously grassroots). Unsurprisingly their recent releases have bucked this philosophy and the results have been mixed. Valve is at it's best when it's working on moving PC gaming forward technologically -- not releasing sequel after sequel. It is not their strength and there are plenty of other game studios doing that already.
say bgs decides to completely overhaul f76 and it turns out to be a great game in a few years, but to do that they decide they no longer have the resources to work on the new elder scrolls. i can't imagine people would actually be ok with that.
and iirc bioware and bethesda were getting heat as soon as those games were revealed, because they weren't games that people wanted from those studios. the fact that they turned out bad is kinda irrelevant imo
ffs In the Valley of the Gods really might be cancelled? I recall certain folks getting very salty when I suggested that Valve acquiring Campo Santo didn't bode well for story-driven single-player games from the latter
Not the greatest timing on this thread, was it? Hell even if it weren't for the new HL game, this implied notion that only high budget singleplayer 30 FPS console games pass for real gamez is quite bizarre. I played HL2 for possibly 15h, Dota 2 for like 5000h. A good game of Dota 2 is well beyond what singleplayer games can provide for me. Needless to say, most Dota 2 games make me want to nuke my Steam acc, but let's give that game some credit still.
I've been seeing this rumor repeatedly today but can't find any firm evidence other than a couple of the devs, like Jake Rodkin, have removed the name of the game from their Twitter bios. But Chris Remo still has it listed in his and the game still has a Steam store page (as well as being listed on Valve's company website). I highly doubt it has been cancelled but it would not surprise me if the devs have gotten sidetracked/delayed working on other things at the company.
Nothing's in a vacuum and your post lacks context of the companies, and what their fans want/play. Valve most popular games aren't their single player games. Every company receives shit from fans about everything.
Valve is great and it's extremely ignorant to say they don't make games just because they don't make the games you want anymore but they make ones they want to make and that millions of people enjoy.
Sure it sucks Half Life didn't finish up a trilogy normally like other franchises but at least Valve doesn't just keep pumping out sequels easily for money when they could've. Would people really be happier if Half Life was under other companies that would try to annualized it or some shit?
And that doesn't include the amazing work they've done on Steam, like to create SteamVR, and my favorite Steam Input with an amazing forward thinking controller. Screw the haters I hope Valve keeps on doing what they're doing. I think next gen they will blow people with VR and normal flat screen titles.
Sure it sucks Half Life didn't finish up a trilogy normally like other franchises but at least Valve doesn't just keep pumping out sequels easily for money when they could've. Would people really be happier if Half Life was under other companies that would try to annualized it or some shit?
And that doesn't include the amazing work they've done on Steam, like to create SteamVR, and my favorite Steam Input with an amazing forward thinking controller. Screw the haters I hope Valve keeps on doing what they're doing. I think next gen they will blow people with VR and normal flat screen titles.
This article doesn't explicitly talk about CS:GO, but it does make it easy to see why CS:GO died out on consoles:
Console patch certification (at least at the time) was such a time-consuming business that it fundamentally broke how Valve develop games. Their updates for CS:GO were at one time once or twice a day on PC, altering recoil, spread, jumping, crouching (and that's without bug fixes). Yes, their support for the console version died out, because they couldn't keep parity with the PC version, the PC version was their core product, and tailoring updates to an outdated version on consoles made no sense.
Same with TF2.
Also, Artifact isn't actually a service title in the traditional sense. Buy to play, and then you can just buy cards off the market (so, buy cards from fellow Artifact players) isn't really GaaS.
Last edited:
How is this whataboutism even relevant to the OP or thread discussion?
Because the OP entirely disregards some of the most-played games in the entire industry because they're not console games (and they're service based)?
You can't really say a comment that calls out the OP for disregarding non-console games isn't relevant. Especially when you consider a) console has always been second-place for Valve (due in no small part to the turnaround on patches I mention above), and b) the single-player campaign driven games started life on PC.
How that even a whataboutism? A whataboutism would be deflecting it to another company.
it's not that they don't "count", but slow upkeep for games that are over half a decade old isn't very exciting output
its more likely just put on the side for now as the team is working on HL:A which....is a story driven single-player game so....
Hopefully they do get back to it tho either after HL:A or after the other 2 VR games.
I felt it was pretty clear the games in question aren't the kind of games the OP is interested in Valve making.
Deflecting to the popular MP games Valve is active in, to defend against criticism of Valve not making other types of blockbuster games they no-longer make is pretty textbook whataboutism.
OP said Valve hasn't made a blockbuster since 2011, which is false. 2 of the biggest games out released after that year for starters. They just aren't on console or aren't popular there.
That's not a whataboutism btw.
Sure, but that's not really the OP's framing. Whilst they personally may be upset at Valve not making the kind of games they want to play, they explicitly phrase the post as "many people are upset":
And in fact, the only point at which OP talks personally about the kind of games they don't want to play is the very last line:
So if the OP is going to try and frame their post as "Valve has lost relevance to many of their players", it's entirely relevant to turn around and say "No, they are still relevant to many of their players, because of PC gaming and service games".
And that's without getting into the dismissive language used here:
Like, DOTA is getting constant updates, CS:GO got a major update last year, I believe, and Underlords has only recently released. I don't know how you can dismiss Underlords as "years-old".
The OP isn't ignorant of the games in question you refer to. He simply isn't interested in those types of games, especially given the games Valve has historically been famous and most beloved for making.
Valve developed their huge global following making games like Half-life. I'm sure the Op doesn't stand alone being unimpressed they don't make that type of game anymore.
For me, Valve is the only game company that have yet to disappoint me. I have enjoyed every one of their games for it's atmosphere and relatively bug free nature.
The Steam service to has been fantastic in streamlining PC gaming. I remember having to manually update my games, all saved in different file directories and having no unified features across them like a friend list.
I don't feel disappointed that Valve focused less on games either because I never felt entitled to more games from them. It was not like I paid for a game and it never arrived and my money was taken.
The Steam service to has been fantastic in streamlining PC gaming. I remember having to manually update my games, all saved in different file directories and having no unified features across them like a friend list.
I don't feel disappointed that Valve focused less on games either because I never felt entitled to more games from them. It was not like I paid for a game and it never arrived and my money was taken.
But that is not what is written in the OP. Op clearly states he liked left for dead which is not a SP blockbuster. Dota 2 and CSGO were much bigger launches and are exactly the blockbuster types of games you are saying OP likes.
He might know they exist, but he still said they haven't released a blockbuster since 2011 which is false.
Did they though? I mean, that totally comes down to the age of the person talking. HL2 is how old? HL1 is older than that, obviously. Portal 2 is years ago.
This isn't an attack on the OP personally feeling one way - I really want EA to make a true sequel to the original Need for Speed Most Wanted, and every year I'm disappointed, so I do understand the feeling. But speaking for "many players", when there's almost certainly a good percentage of PC players who have never touched an HL or Portal or L4D game is... I dunno. Frustrating, I guess.
Just checked the date on HL2:Ep2 release. There's (young) Fortnite players who weren't even born when it came out.
Last edited:
How is Artifact doing these days? I know there were some issues around launch and a lot of negativity surrounding it. Especially regarding the price (it competes with F2P hearthstone) Have things improved in that regard? I thought it was quite polished visually as far as card games go, which is a big deal for me.
(not as pretty as HS, of course, which remains the gold standard in digital card game presentation)
(not as pretty as HS, of course, which remains the gold standard in digital card game presentation)
Yes. That game that I have... 567 hours in? Do you mean that one? :p
(Still got a bit to go to catch-up to CS:S playtime).
no it's only you who remember that game ever existing, i think it's called the mandela effect.
Which you know, is exactly what I said. Valve as a company isn't interested. They were then, they ain't now, that's it. The whole episode 3 thing is a need of closure expressed by most of people who want it, hence my original post
No, they clearly aren't the games I'm saying (nor is the OP saying) he likes. You're getting hung up on semantic arguments.
Technically false, yes. But it's tangential, because it's blatantly obvious what kinds of games the OP is thinking about.
Of course they did. Ask any gamer in the west to name a game Valve is famous for and Half-life will be in the top three responses.
Sure DOTA and CSGO probably have larger player numbers and are more popular today, but that's in large part because of Asia and the fact that's gaming on the whole is much bigger today than it was back in Valve's Half-life day's.
Valve as a games developer is primarily known by it's many historical fans for the games said fans look back fondly on.
Everyone knows that. Its why they got shit tbh. You can't say a blockbuster hasn't been released since 2011 just because its not your jam.
But you just made my point for me, especially with the bolded? I'm sure a good number of Valve's current fans - the people who play DOTA and CS:GO (who aren't all in China), the people who were only born, let's say... in 2000, when they would've been 7 when HL2:Ep2 was released, the people who only recently came into PC gaming when Steam became synonymous with PC - probably don't think of Valve in the same way as you or I. So to say:
isn't entirely true. It's all down to how old someone is and what types of games they like to play.
Last edited:
Maybe, just maybe, Valve isn't Ubisoft or EA, maybe Valve isn't about pushing yearly editions of their famous games?.
Half Life 1 was a huge technical leap, Half life 2 introduced gaming to physics among many other advancements, HL2 Episodes is basically what you get when Valve tried making games just because people wanted them.
This company doesn't release sequels unless there's a good reason to is what I'm saying, and while you interpret that as neglect, every gamer knows that when Valve pushes out a new game, it's gonna be special (not looking at you, card game).
They said these things multiple times before, so why do they need to respond every year to questions about Half life 3 and such?.
Valve has made huge strides in making PC platforms, creating modern VR and advancing games in general, they did not do that by releasing yearly updates of games people like, they are about the big picture.
Half Life 1 was a huge technical leap, Half life 2 introduced gaming to physics among many other advancements, HL2 Episodes is basically what you get when Valve tried making games just because people wanted them.
This company doesn't release sequels unless there's a good reason to is what I'm saying, and while you interpret that as neglect, every gamer knows that when Valve pushes out a new game, it's gonna be special (not looking at you, card game).
They said these things multiple times before, so why do they need to respond every year to questions about Half life 3 and such?.
Valve has made huge strides in making PC platforms, creating modern VR and advancing games in general, they did not do that by releasing yearly updates of games people like, they are about the big picture.
Then you shouldn't be using specific logical fallacies as an argument?
Sure it's true. That Valve also developed an even larger global following after their most recent half-life games were released doesn't take anything away from the people who played and loved HL and have been Valve fans off the back of those games.
The point i'm Making is that there is a sizeable fan base for Valve's legacy games who aren't too happy with Valve for going in a completely different direction.
That there is an entirely new fan base for Valve's newer games is all well as good for Valve, but doesn't shield them from criticism from the old HL fan base who are upset that they no longer care about making those games anymore,
Or rather perhaps you should try and follow the actual arguments being made a little more closely.
That's fair. I just find the dsimissive attitude to games the OP doesn't like unnecessary.
I don't think it's being dismissive. I just think that the games he's not interested in aren't relevant to a post he's making, essentially complaining about a lack of Valve made HL-type games.
It's like Bethesda starts making mobile gacha games exclusively. Regardless of how popular those mobile gacha games are, no Elder Scrolls fan is going to see them a super relevant to the aggressive criticism they will fling at Bethesda (and it would be aggressive).
I bet In the Valley of the Gods has been put on hold because Valve needs all hands on deck to ship Half-Life: Alyx. Campo Santo will probably return to what they were working on before after March.
I dunno. The more I reread the OP, the more it just seems to be complaining for the sake of complaining. They like L4D, but don't talk about how hyped they'd be for a third entry,. They talk about "Valve's abandonment of AAA campaigns and console titles" whilst ignoring the fact that the Portal games were indie with a lot of polish, and that Valve's whole development style is based around iteration and speedy-response to feedback, which isn't possible on consoles. They talk about "losing goodwill of customers" and dismisses people who come into the thread to mention Artifact, when Artifact players are some of the people who have lost the most goodwill due to Valve's apparent dropping of the title, and we all mock Valve for "Long Haul!".
Valve aren't perfect, but at the same time, people who complain about the lack of narrative driven buy to play games from them often come across as unaware. Sorry if that offends anyone. :/
I don't think the platform Valve develops for was what the complaint was about but okay.
The thing is he mentions it, but he totally says negative stuff about it being a VR minor thing (totally not what the rumors are), yet he believes the negative rumors around Campo Santo (which some Campo Santo devs said were not true). Basically the definition of confirmation bias.
I mean, I dunno man, I don't really agree. He's saying that that being true doesn't really turn his opinion around. You acted like he ignored it.