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

Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 116 posts

Re: Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

#51

Post by throwup238 »

daemoens wrote: post #43
nerdjon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, many of the competitors do what is necessary just fine. There is a strong sentiment with many gamers of just not wanting to use an alternative and it is basically a non starter for many other stores. Many complain about the very idea of not all of their games being in the same place. This isn't necessarily anything monopolistic done on Valve's side. But it would be very hard for another store to make any…

Many of these alternatives failed because they were forced onto users who had already paid over $60 for a game, and they were incredibly slow and clunky. They might have improved over time, but people still remember how bad these stores were at launch.

Isn’t that exactly what Steam did with the Orange Box? They just did it in the 2000s, years before anyone else.

Re: Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

#52

Post by nerdjon »

Systemmanic wrote: post #48
nerdjon wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never really understood this mentality, especially when on the console side people seem just fine with the idea of buying multiple consoles for exclusives. (not that I am agreeing with that either). There isn't a cost to having multiple stores, you don't even need to keep them running at all time. I get the concerns over the Epic app, but Heroic exists. Personally I have games on Steam, Xbox (cross buy between xbox…

One reason I’ve heard is the stats and Achievements consolidation. Cross play solves this somewhat but it’s not consistent. PC is my main platform but I also have an Xbox (NHL games not available on PC), everything else is on Steam. I wouldn’t buy a PS5 for an exclusive. TBH exclusivity is annoying and I don’t want to reward it.

> One reason I’ve heard is the stats and Achievements consolidation.

I have not seen that referenced much so I am curious how many people that is the reason vs just some weird loyalty to Steam.

But, as someone who is mostly a couch gamer so my console of choice is Xbox. I can see that, I have a PS5 but all of my cross platform games is Xbox.

I have my PC for a lot of games that I would prefer that setup (for me its a game by game decision), but with game pass and cross buy it already didn't make sense for me to go all in on steam, but some games are only on steam.

So what was the harm in adding other stores when it made sense.

> I wouldn’t buy a PS5 for an exclusive. TBH exclusivity is annoying and I don’t want to reward it.

I don't want to reward it. But I also view myself as a gamer first before any platform loyalties. If I want to play something, that takes priority. So annoyingly I have both under my TV.

rant I am so annoyed at the people complaining about Xbox going Multiplatform as if it isn't a good thing for consumers to not have to buy nearly identical hardware. I don't care that it is how the industry has ran for so long, it's still anti-consumer. end rant

Re: Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

#53

Post by gigatexal »

Does it also say there will ever ever be an end to Gordan Freeman’s story, never a HL3 ever so stop asking? Seriously one of the most tragic things of my very privileged life was getting so into the game and the story and then waiting patiently for HL3 after the cliff hanger ending of HL2 EP 2. Now I have trust issues.

Re: Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

#54

Post by nerdjon »

daemoens wrote: post #43
nerdjon wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, many of the competitors do what is necessary just fine. There is a strong sentiment with many gamers of just not wanting to use an alternative and it is basically a non starter for many other stores. Many complain about the very idea of not all of their games being in the same place. This isn't necessarily anything monopolistic done on Valve's side. But it would be very hard for another store to make any…

Many of these alternatives failed because they were forced onto users who had already paid over $60 for a game, and they were incredibly slow and clunky. They might have improved over time, but people still remember how bad these stores were at launch.

That only explains a couple of the stores but not all of them.

Xbox and Epic don't fall in that category. I don't believe EA does either, but not 100% sure.

To be clear here. I am referring to the being forced after buying a game. None of these, to my knowledge, you were forced to use after buying the game on Steam. Unlike Ubisoft.

Re: Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

#55

Post by daemoens »

throwup238 wrote: post #51
daemoens wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many of these alternatives failed because they were forced onto users who had already paid over $60 for a game, and they were incredibly slow and clunky. They might have improved over time, but people still remember how bad these stores were at launch.

Isn’t that exactly what Steam did with the Orange Box? They just did it in the 2000s, years before anyone else.

They could get away with it because there was no competitor like Steam.

Re: Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

#56

Post by xnorswap »

boredtofears wrote: post #39
slumberlust wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends how you frame success. Game development seems to have slowed in the post-Steam boom world, but it's still there! DotA2, Artifact, Alyx, and currently Deadlock are all examples of relatively recent gaming products. From a purely financial perspective, they SHOULD continue to focus on marketplace dominance via STEAM. Whatever game is made for HL3/TF3 will ultimately fail to meet fan expectations (Duke Nukem…

Deadlock is awesome. I'm in the alpha and I've been totally hooked on it. It's the first multiplayer FPS game that my friend group and I have been excited about in probably a decade. If the reddit rumors are believed to be true, the former leads of DotA (Icefrog?) and TF2 (Robin Walker) are heavily involved in it's development.

Isn't deadlock just Valve's take on Valorant?

It will need to do something very fresh if it wants to compete.

Valorant felt extremely fresh and slick compared to both CSGO and Overwatch while fitting nicely inbetween. They brought innovation and UX improvements to the format that even CSGO ended up copying after it had been resting on it's laurels for too long.

Re: Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

#57

Post by philipov »

nerdjon wrote: post #44
Systemmanic wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I’ve met countless gamers who will simply not buy or play a game if it isn’t available on Steam. Myself included, and all of my gamer friends.

I never really understood this mentality, especially when on the console side people seem just fine with the idea of buying multiple consoles for exclusives. (not that I am agreeing with that either). There isn't a cost to having multiple stores, you don't even need to keep them running at all time. I get the concerns over the Epic app, but Heroic exists. Personally I have games on Steam, Xbox (cross buy between xbox…

When you say "people do this" and "people also do that contradictory thing" you're making the mistake assuming that the word refers to the same people.

Re: Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

#58

Post by lostmsu »

andrewmcwatters wrote: post #35
ric2b wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam isn't an unimpeachable monopoly, their competition is just so much worse.

In my opinion, GOG is phenomenal and hands down the best digital game storefront now, but it's not what consumers care most about. Many people already have extensive libraries on Steam, too.

Yeah, these days I check GOG first, and sometimes wait until the game is available there.

Re: Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

#59

Post by wongarsu »

nerdjon wrote: post #34
ric2b wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Steam isn't an unimpeachable monopoly, their competition is just so much worse.

I disagree, many of the competitors do what is necessary just fine. There is a strong sentiment with many gamers of just not wanting to use an alternative and it is basically a non starter for many other stores. Many complain about the very idea of not all of their games being in the same place. This isn't necessarily anything monopolistic done on Valve's side. But it would be very hard for another store to make any…

> the competitors do what is necessary just fine

But that's the issue. The competitors are fine. They aren't significantly better though. The only one with a compelling USP is GOG with their "no drm, download the installer, own the game even after we go under" pitch. Everyone else is just a steam clone with some exclusives and freebies. Without a compelling advantage network effect makes Steam the clear winner. It's where your other games are and it's where your friends are.

But that only holds true while Valve doesn't screw up. Their competitors can't be much better than Steam, but Steam could absolutely make horrible decisions that cause people to leave. But they don't. Their organizational inability to make decisive action without wider support has lead to an incredibly stable, predictable platform.

Re: Valve New Employee Handbook (2012) [pdf]

#60

Post by jorvi »

ARandumGuy wrote: post #46
Cyph0n wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is Steam a monopoly? The platform it runs on (Windows) is open, unlike the App Store. Competitors exist on said platform, including a store & game pass run by the platform owner. The fact that Steam still runs the show is a testament to their ability to just do things better than anyone else. Sure, there is a sort of network effect at play, but there is no other “moat” here - let alone a monopolistic one.

I'd describe Steam as a monolith, not a monopoly. There are several competing storefronts, and many games have been successful without releasing on Steam. That said, the PC gaming landscape has completely warped around Steam. Epic had to offer huge incentives to get EGS exclusivity deals. Smaller games struggle without a Steam release, and even big companies with their own storefronts have decided the sales boost fro…

Steam could “easily” be dethroned by a competitor that cares about the customers.

- Duplicate all the Steam shop features

- Integrate your social framework with Discord

- Add a proper overlay browser

- Make game ownership ephemeral until first play (meaning you can give away games in your library, or duplicate games in a bundle)

- Shim with Steam Input

- Better looking “Big Picture”-style mode

- Built-in game streaming, paid either with subscription or per-minute via wallet

There’s probably tonnes other that I’m forgetting. The above would take a ridiculous amount of dev hours though.

The big mistake Epic made (is making) is that their store is more beneficial for developers, mostly by taking a lower percentage. But those savings are barely passed on to the consumer, and even then, consumers don’t care about that. They’ll happily pay 10-20% more to have their game on the superior platform.

Post reply on HN