Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

valvesoftware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 205 posts

Re: Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

#181

Post by frik »

AimHere wrote: post #128
izacus wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the "blank" games are Valve's IPs but acquisitions which kind of stopped in development or releases after Valve acquisition. Half-Life was their last original IP and even that ended in a complete cliff hanger with Episode 3 or sequel nowhere to be found. It seems that Valve has serious problems actually pushing their games to completion since they started printing money with Steam and pressure to actually rel…

> None of the "blank" games are Valve's IPs but acquisitions which kind of stopped in development or releases after Valve acquisition. TF2, CSGO and Dota 2 are regularly, and visibly updated constantly. In no way are these moribund or 'stopped in development'; the latter two are still among the most played and watched competitive games online. It's also stretching things to say that Valve 'acquired' Portal and it was…

Portal was a acquire hire, the originsl game was a free game from a students competition. It was a freeware but full game that takes about two hours to complete. Of course the graphic looked worse and there was little narrative, it was a students project after all. Portal 2 was based on additional aquirehire as well (colored water splash features), from followup competition, game is freeware as well.

Left 4 Dead, company was bought.

Team Fortress was a Mod for Quake. Through a aquire hire transfered the Mod to Half Life 1 (GolgSource engine based on Quake 1 engine). Team Fortress 2 was planned to be released in 1999/2000. Though it took additional 11 years and at least complete restart to release Team Fortress 2 based on Source engine.

CounterStrike was a free Mod from fans for Half Life 1. They aquirehired the team around CounterStrike 0.9. Some say it went downhill from there. CS 1.4 was the last classic CS.

CS Source was a port from GoldSource to Source engine. As Source engine is just an incremental evolution, it was just a matter of building the game again and later replacing textures and models with higher ones, etc.

CS Go is a rehash of CS Source simplified for console gamers and ported to consoles.

Dota was originally a fan-made Mod to WarCraft 3. Valve aquirehired them to create Dota2, a standalone version based on Source engine. Blizzard wasn't amused and announced a similar game a few days after Valve announced Dota2 back then.

Half Life 1 (GoldSource) is based on Quake 1 engine (with small parts from Quake 2 engine), and of cource evolved. Half Life 2 (Source engine) evolved from GoldSource engine. Videos from HL2 beta show clearly the old DX7 renderer and loading older HL1 map format. Valve worked on HL2 episode 3 and Warren Spector (Deus Ex, System Shock) and his former company worked on HL2 episode 4. But Valve decided to shut down both. The unclear situation for several years makes HL fans angry. HL2 episode 3 / HL3 is the new Duke Nukem Forever, at least that one got released after 11 years - we will see about HL2. We all remember also the shitshow around the HL2 release. The infamous HL2 demo at E3 2004 was faked and the game was nowhere to be ready. The leaked video footage a year later showed how far behind Valve was behind the announced release schedule. Half Life 2 was finally released another year later with heavily shortened gameplay and many previously features removed. Making it basically a different game that feels very differently to the original Half Life 1.

Re: Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

#182

Post by ajslater »

sciguy77 wrote: post #180
rdtsc wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have worked for a "flat" structure company and that is true. There is alaways a hidden power structure -- and it rewards those who know how to manipulate and scheme. I think some put more effort into that, than actually writting code. Heck, objectively I can't even blame them as it ended up rewarding them more than writting code. Now I work for a company with a traditional power structure. There is a manager, he ha…

Can you please elaborate as to what causes that hidden power structure (i.e. what goes wrong)? In your opinion, is the idea of flat management inherently flawed or is it just hard to execute? Curious to hear your thoughts as someone who's actually tried it.

"The Tyranny of Structurelessness"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...

Re: Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

#183

Post by lmitchell »

robryan wrote: post #169
lmitchell wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree at least on one point - I've also played Dota a fair bit in the last few years, and as for Dota, I think parent might be pretty on the money when they say games are moving away from traditional MOBAs. The format is great, but in its 'traditional' form (three lanes, jungle, etc), there's only so much you can do with it. I think the market is pretty ripe for innovation on that format, and Dota won't be able…

Isn't that what Heroes of the Storm is though? It doesn't seem to have been very successful at pulling players away from Dota.

True, but I still think it can be done better, and the time will only get more ripe for it as more longtime players quit (source: all my friends quit Dota and we've been playing since beta or soon after).

Re: Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

#184

Post by rdtsc »

sciguy77 wrote: post #180
rdtsc wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have worked for a "flat" structure company and that is true. There is alaways a hidden power structure -- and it rewards those who know how to manipulate and scheme. I think some put more effort into that, than actually writting code. Heck, objectively I can't even blame them as it ended up rewarding them more than writting code. Now I work for a company with a traditional power structure. There is a manager, he ha…

Can you please elaborate as to what causes that hidden power structure (i.e. what goes wrong)? In your opinion, is the idea of flat management inherently flawed or is it just hard to execute? Curious to hear your thoughts as someone who's actually tried it.

> Can you please elaborate as to what causes that hidden power structure (i.e. what goes wrong)?

I think it is human nature to certain extent. Take any number of people, put them in a room give them a task. After a while you'd observe some will start to tell others what to do and so on. Sometimes it is those with experience, sometimes it is just those who are loudest. By default the groups won't necessarily settle into a democratic, egalitarian sort of state.

I imagine flat probably works for smaller groups. A few owners + a team of 5. Everyone works directly for the owners, they settle into a set of roles and so on. Everyone sees and communicates with each other often (ideally). There is no need to call employee #2 assistant general manager or employee #4 programmer V and make him report to #2 and so on.

But as the company grows, it stops being flat really. Owners start listening to employees they play golf with. Older employees want to feel special so they'd tell new employees what to do and act as managers. Potential candidates will detect this type of environment and if they are good at manipulation and social engineering will gravitate and want to work in such a place, because they'll know they'll thrive in there (so it attracts certain personalities perhaps as well).

On a more practical level. This system is also used as an advertising tool "oh look we are flat, we don't have titles, we are better than BigCorp". That has worked rather well at recruiting from what I've seen.

It also works in another ways -- such as to supress wages. Because everything is flat, it is easy to justify not giving raises.

That might sound overly negative but I just listed all the bad things I could think of. There were many good things too. I think it can work, but it requires a significant effort on both owners and everyone to keep everything in check, to have more communication, more transparency, and so on. It is a harder balancing act so to speak. That is why in most cases I can see this failing after a while.

Re: Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

#185

Post by webmaven »

erikpukinskis wrote: post #144
cakebrewery wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not an American thing, it is even worse in Japan and Korea, where kids are forced to study from 6 am until late (8pm ish), and this goes on into the workplace as well. I attended an international high school in South Korea (I'm Latin American) and I felt utterly sorry for my Korean classmates. I've heard worse from the Japanese work ethics.

I'm an American, so my perspective is limited. But my understanding is that while Eastern parents push their kids to work hard, there is also more of an emphasis on collectivity. As a child, you're not just you, you are your family, your community. You are working together on a common goal, and you have a specific part to play. You may be pushed hard, but you are not the CEO. And neither is your Dad. Everyone has a s…

> Your bad grades are yours, it's not connected to your parents, or your class background, it's just you. [snip] And when you achieve something, it's your achievement. Not your family's.

That is a HUGE overgeneralization, as this is very subculture specific. You'll find families where "You got a D?! How could this happen? What terrible thing must I have done to you that you would stab me in the heart with such a grade?" and/or "My son, the doctor! Ah, he got his smarts from his grandfather.", and so on.

Note that while taking the credit and the blame do tend to go together, I've definitely come across families where parents take the blame but not credit, as well as families where parents take credit but not blame (and plenty where each parent & grandparent does their own thing entirely).

Re: Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

#186

Post by jhogger »

__abc wrote: post #120
trequartista wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

George Carlin summed this up pretty well - "When does a kid get to sit in a yard with a stick anymore? You know, just sit there with a fucking stick. Do today's kids even know what a stick is?" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0MKBdD2FGA

My wife and I were just texting about this. We try to make sure we carve out time for them to strategically be bored. Forced to explore, use their imaginations, build a fort, stomp on bugs, make shit up.

oh dear, u have to make sure to 'carve out time' for them to 'strategically be bored'?

Re: Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

#187

Post by touristtam »

Karunamon wrote: post #22
AimHere wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I suspect it might work differently in Valve's case. I'm led to believe that Microsoft had a fixed, conventional hierarchy, where every little group and person within the group was backstabbing everybody else to keep their jobs. If their handbook is to be believed, Valve has a much more flat management structure, where it's basically Gabe at the top, sortof, and everyone else doing whatever they think is best for the…

Part of me wonders if the Valve management structure isn't almost completely to blame for things like their infamously bad customer service. I could see why - dealing with support tickets from irate people is not a particularly interesting (or judging by Steam's runaway success: particularly value adding) activity. Not that I mean to hijack this to complain about Steam, but you have to admit it's a benefit of a tradi…

Or someone is making sure to look like their are doing some work. I have seen plenty of managers, that are nothing more than a human layer between the CEO/CTO and the engineers.

Re: Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

#188

Post by mschwaig »

debaserab2 wrote: post #165
aoeuasdf1 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dota 2 isn't going anywhere. The current tournament has an $18+ million prize pool (and rising) - meaning Valve was paid about $72 million in compendium sales. This is for a tournament that runs every year and is growing in popularity and size.

I think you're right but I also can't help but think how the very existence of Dota 2 underscores Valve's lack of innovation in the past half decade or so. They literally took a game built on the back of their biggest competitor and basically recoded it on their own gaming engine (Yes, I know there's plenty of quality of life upgrades they brought to the series, but it was nothing that wasn't too obvious or already i…

It was the common sense thing from a consumers perspective to make DotA 2 into a product. It's just funny that Blizzard didn't manage to be the ones to do it. I remember that at the time when DotA was a popular Warcraft Mod me and my friends were often talking about how Blizzard should do what Valve did with Counter Strike and hire the modders. In the end Valve made that obvious move themselves, but maybe it's their flat structure that makes it possible for them to absorb external talent that way more easily.

Re: Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

#189

Post by zump »

vvanders wrote: post #145
zump wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 400k Holy shit.

Not really surprising considering their bar to hire. I've worked with a couple of ex/current Valve people, they're effing sharp/creative.

But it seems to be more lucrative than a hedge fund.

Re: Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]

#190

Post by runeks »

cesarbs wrote: post #131
runeks wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At any company (Microsoft included) where performance-based > compensation exists, there is a budget for that line item. I'd like to point out that it's possible to pay bonuses out of profits, rather than a fixed, yearly pre-allocated pool. If employees are only paid a bonus when they add to company profits, there is no competition for bonus funds between employees. So for example, if you have a great idea that sav…

The problem is, how do you measure that? There are a bunch of good ideas that most people will agree provide a benefit, but it's really hard to come up with an objective measure of how much money that makes or saves.

If there is no measurable difference, then a bonus cannot be paid out according to this scheme. So we're talking about innovative ideas that release an extra reward (in addition to a regular salary), if they result in a measurable saving somewhere.

For example: you write an algorithm in your spare time that more efficiently packs together a good that your company produces, such that shipments take up 10% less volume thus saving ~10% on shipping.

Post reply on HN