Chet Faliszek, writer for games like Half-Life and the lead writer for Portal/Portal 2 has since confirmed that this handbook was never given to employees. It was created and released as part of advertising them as an employer.
It's hard to believe that the principles outlined here weren't at least briefly followed when it's featured on their website too: https://www.valvesoftware.com/en/publications, but I'd be an open to a source which substantiates your claim.
However, non-hierarchical structures are often open to manipulation and land-grabbing (see Tyranny of Structurelessness, etc.) so I am also skeptical that a company may have continued with this practice.
> (see Tyranny of Structurelessness, etc.) so I am also skeptical that a company may have continued with this practice
I have always been disappointed with people making claims that explicitly imposed bad hierarchy is inevitable, because of a vague complaint about implicit hierarchy.
It feels like they are using this to justify imposing a bad hierarchy from the top down, for the benefit of the people at the top of said imposed hierarchy. Like when you have a well-functioning team with a very weak explicit hierarchy, and the people at the top introduce a bunch of bad managers. They will tell you it was inevitable. There's no way the thing you saw working well could continue to work well. Because that lack of bad managers was actually working just as poorly, you see. In fact it was much worse.
This comment is literally the first search result of "Chet Faliszek Valve employee handbook" for me. I've waded through several pages and haven't found a credible source of him saying that.
It was not as obvious when it first came out as we were less familiar with stealth marketing.
When smart people say ads don’t work on them - this is a counterexample. It’s just that different groups respond to different branding. And this was highly tuned to Reddit interests.
It was given to employees, but it was created as a recruiting tool. That's why they posted it on their website after it 'leaked' (with some deliberate effort to cause that to happen).
Valve has hired a bunch of FAANG engineers that brought their own toxic hiring practices to Valve. It's only a matter of time before those people promote their culture in that organization if they haven't done so already.
Valve gets a lot of heat for slowing down on first party gaming content, but I think Steam has been a net positive for the gaming community. There are certainly some cases where the accessibility has created "noise" and other trouble, but overall I think this is a good thing. Their 30% cut is absolutely justified once you start looking into everything they do for you as a developer and the market that you have access to. It is a lot easier to pay that kind of fee when you don't feel like your technology partners actively hate the fact that you merely exist.
Steam is still like what Netflix used to be. You have pretty much everything you care about in one place. Even big monster AAA developers like EA have given up and put their content on the platform. If I had to pick between having HL3 and a coherent gaming ecosystem, I'd pick the latter.
I'm very scared about the future though. What happens when Gabe is gone? The entire PC Gaming industry is essentially locked in to a single platform. If Steam decided to charge $10/mo people have so much invested into their libraries they would likely do it. What about $20 or $30 per month?
I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
> I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
Because they have been consistently good citizens for more than 2 decades. They built a reputation. Something other companies are eager to piss away at the first opportunity to sell out or squeeze their customers.
It’s not surprising that Valve is successful and trusted with this approach. What is surprising is that it is apparently so incredibly hard for other companies to understand this very simple fact.
I’d just quietly turn to GoG and download all of my games just in case. But anyway I’m no longer that interested in games now. Reality is more challenging and fun.
I’ve already received 95% of the value from the game library I have on Steam.
Worst case, if I lose access to all of them, whether by choice or by force (they go under), there are other options of obtaining (most of) the same games, and that’s even if I’m interested in playing them again.
Most of the games I really care about, I probably already have on other platforms anyway, in addition to or instead of Steam.
> I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
They're not, really, but they've given us little reason to distrust them.
I'm also fairly confident there would be some fun legal stuff going on if Steam tried that. People have thousands - tens of thousands - of dollars worth of stuff on Steam. That isn't really the same as, say, having to watch ads even after paying for a subscription.
It's not exempt. I don't trust Steam long term and so don't spend any significant money on it. I only ever buy cheap games for like $8 or less, where I know I'll get that much worth of gameplay in a short time frame and it won't bother me if the platform ever later enshittifies.
Gabe says that the platform will fail-open if ever necessary, that it would revert to offline DRMless functionality. I believe that he has that intention, but the realities of operating from receivership or assimilation by Microsoft would likely be very different.
The other things is steam doesn't constrain competition (afaik? Open to being wrong but this is how I'd understood it). Devs can sell their own games, games can be on other platforms, etc.
Despite that gamers think it's worth the convenience and utilities steam provides to keep shopping there.
Steam isn't dominant because it's strangling competition like the app store and similar. People can trivially download alternatives, but they choose steam anyway.
Yet for some reason, people still use Steam as a “gotcha” to justify why Apple’s terms are fair.
But as you’ve hinted at, Steam is very different from the iOS App Store because it is competing organically with other app stores on Windows. Steam does not control Windows or the hardware, so it cannot “force” itself to be the only option to download games on Windows.
And even when it does have full control over the platform and HW (Steam Deck), it’s just a light wrapper around a standard Linux distro (Arch).
Steam is currently being sued by Wolfire for being anti-competitive by allegedly having a "platform most-favored-nations" clause. Preventing games on other platforms from being priced lower.
According to the developer:
> [Valve] would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.
> I believe that other developers who charged lower prices on other stores have been contacted by Valve, telling them that their games will be removed from Steam if they did not raise their prices on competing stores.
As consumer I very much agree with you, but as game developer 30% is abysmal amount of money. Imagine you're indie developer or owner of a small 3-10 people studio that finally released reasonably successful game:
1 - Let's say you invested $100,000 of your own money for vertical slice and managed to find a publisher to give you $200,000 to complete the game.
2 - Ignore that you had some failed games before, but this time you let's say sold 100,000 copies for $10 each average. 100k sold is a big success really.
But here is the math:
1 - Valve got $1,000,000 as gross revenue for 100,000 sales.
2 - Usually 16% is VAT and immenient refunds. So now $840,000 left.
3 - Now Valve took their 30% cut. $588,000 left.
4 - Now your publisher took $200,000 to recoup invested money. $388,000 left.
5 - Now publisher split remaining $388,000 by honest 50/50.
Now your company sold 100,000 copies of a game, but only get $194,000 gross income as royalties. And if you will make any profit you'll likely pay at least 20% corporate or divident taxes so yeah at best your profit gonna be $155,000.
So you did all the work, somehow managed to fund it, worked on game for a year and got $155,000 while Valve made $252,000 for payment processing and CDN. Steam do not provide marketing - it only boost already successful products.
PS: This is best case scenario. Usually your publisher will also recoup whatever expenses they had on their end for marketing and whatever.
I would note that they do provide quite an immense amount of value to developers. Achievements, transferable inventory system, multi-player (steam networking), among other things. The 30% cut still feels high, especially since most games can't or won't take advantage of every single service Steam provides, but I do think they provide quite a bit of developer value that needs to be factored in.
Steam isn't the right place to sell a game that does 1M in total lifetime sales. Because like you said, it won't hit any recommendations and they'll take a huge cut.
This is like complaining that AMC won't screen your student film. You're playing in a very niche space and the key is to keep costs under control so you can actually make money.
This math is missing a step: $200k went to your publisher who already gave you the $200k, so really you got about $394k total (before your taxes).
And it's worth remembering that your publisher got $194k ... I'm not sure if this publishing arrangement makes sense for the publisher ($200k risk for not much more reward?) or for you (30% of your net income from the game, after valve's 30%) (I'm not in the industry so honestly I just don't know)
That is debatable. For one thing, Steam is partly (mostly?) built off the backs of games marketing their games and providing a Steam link (marketing costs money for the devs). Steam kick started this chicken/egg problem by creating their own great games first.
Second, Steam does not provide your game any marketing (algorithmic visibility) unless it's already successfully marketed outside of Steam (marketing is not free), and again later once it hits a certain number of sales.
Third, per Tim Sweeney, games during the retail era had a bigger margin for the the studios than they do today [1]
edit: So I do feel a little upset that Steam gets free marketing for every game put on the site (important note you can (and should in most cases) place your game up on the site long before its ready to purchase, and steam will advertise other games on your page), doesnt provide any marketing in return (via the discovery queue) unless you bring in tens or hundreds of thousands of clicks, and then turns around and skims 30% of all my work which they are greatly benefiting from (e.g. what if the customer goes to my page, wish lists my game, then purchased a different game in the mean time? At least e.g. amazon has referral links)
> Second, Steam does not provide your game any marketing (algorithmic visibility) unless it's already successfully marketed outside of Steam (marketing is not free), and again later once it hits a certain number of sales.
Oh, it's safe to say Steam acts as a big multiplier on whatever attention you manage to scrounge up. Not that this is ideal.
I think there's a lot of weirdness if you try to answer "what is the PC gaming platform?" and how Valve or anyone else fits into it, and because it's PC a lot of answers can be true simultaneously, and many different users want/expect different things.
Is it processor architecture? Is it the OS? Is it the store and whatever facilities they provide? Is it the mode of physical interaction with the device (desk, couch+TV, etc)? Is it being able to assemble any random collection of hardware and expecting it to work? Does that discount set builds? Is it mandatory that the user is free to screw around with the software any way they please or can you lock stuff down?
At least on the commerce side, it's been the case since steam was opened up to third parties that they were the gatekeeper for success unless you were already huge (and now very few companies want to go it alone). Going back to Introversion's Darwinia they were just scraping by until they got on steam, developers have long been complaining that the varied methods Valve has used to get on the store (manual review, greenlight, etc) showed the vast majority of gamers only purchase through it or that you'll get a large wave of new business when you release on it. Now it seems like a 'tragedy of the commons' situation unless you've got your own marketing or it's a hobby project.
It seems like you've now got to do mental gymnastics to say Valve doesn't own the PC gaming platform
A HL3 team could essentially function as an independent studio using the Steam platform, with some funding thrown from Valve. Assuming the ROI is positive what exactly is holding them back?
They want it to be good? Throwing it at a third party sounds like a good way to get a meh game and then have to release it since you've already spent X$ on it.
> I think Steam has been a net positive for the gaming community
This is probably true on balance, but needs to be tempered with the reality that they also pioneered or popularized many of the worst parts of modern gaming. Always-on DRM, paid DLC, loot boxes and exploitive monetization, esports gambling (indirectly, they were complicit until legal pressure forced them not to be), FOMO monetization, "early access" and launching incomplete games, etc. All exist in their modern forms at least in part due to Valve.
Disclaimer: I'm a valve fanboy who buys all their first party software and hardware. They still put out great products despite the ways they've changed gaming for the worse.
Do we also point out being the first to implement DRM and erode digital ownership, being the first to tie game installation to a platform client, creating micro transactions or being fine with child gambling (CS skins) in the net negatives, or are we not allowed to criticize Lord Gabel today?
The gambling is the only thing I think you can reasonably attack them for. They didn't create microtransactions, those had already been figured out in Korea. The DRM was necessary for Steam to be palatable to publishers (and it's always been more of a pro-forma thing than a real attempt at DRM like Denuvo), and a world without Steam would absolutely have seen per-publisher e-shops that would also have DRM. Tying game installation to a game client... again, that was a 'when' not an 'if', and they weren't even the first. If I recall, you had to install a client to install Wild Tangent games. The client was also, arguably, malware.
> spent the last decade going out of its way to recruit the most intelligent, innovative, talented people on Earth, telling them to sit at a desk and do what they’re told obliterates 99 percent of their value.
Well that hits close to home. I wonder why every other mega successful company thinks the opposite.
Mega successful companies dont think that way. They very often buy startups or just asquihire teams to kill competition before it become dangerous to them.
I can play any PC game I want and I don’t have a single windows install anywhere in my life. They made, beyond all the other contributions, Linux gaming a reality.
The only thing that matters is setting up a near monopoly where you have a chokehold. Valve did this with steam. Now it literally does not matter what asinine and silly business practices they do internally as long as they keep the money printer functioning. A lot of people do not understand this and think stupid things like, “if we copy Valve’s flat hierarchy, we’ll be as successful”.
It would be interesting to see copies of this from subsequent years (this is the 2012 edition) to understand how Valve's process has evolved over time.
I've been looking for good examples of handbooks and staff materials that do the job well, this one seems a little heavy on the philosophy - I can see why it's been discussed as more of a recruitment tool. Anyone who has favorite examples of handbooks to link, I'd love to check them out.
Gamedev is just very poor industry. Think of your usual FAANG salary and divide it by 5. Or just any random software engineer job and devide salary by 2. There are companies like Epic Games that pay competetive salaries, but they are few.
Gamedev is also very stressful industy because both constant crunches and job instability. So you not only paid worse, but you'll work 2-3 times more that average SWE. And often fired when project is complete regardless of success.
So working at Valve is somewhat like a pipe dream for many people in the game industry. Especially because whole Valve is under 500 people which is like 10-20 times less people than work for Epic, Ubisoft or EA.
Valve is not an ordinary company. They make a ton of money, have no outside investment, reinvest everything internally on R&D and keep very small. On top of that, they run completely flat management.
They're the idealized version of what a small company making a shitton of cash would be. They can afford plenty in terms of work-life balance.
Even at the start they were unusual as they were funded by Microsoft millionaires, and presumably had little pressure to release before "when it's done", and HL1 being a huge hit started the ball rolling allowing them to acquire the team fortress and counter-strike mod teams, picking up even more momentum.
Arguably by 2012, Valve was already transitioning out of the game development business and into the services business. Team Fortress 2 was already out, Left 4 Dead 2 was already out, Portal 2 was already out, Counter-Strike: Global Offensive came out in the same year, and Dota 2 came out the next year. Really the only things that have been made since that period are Half-Life: Alyx (2020), Counter-Strike 2 (2023) and Deadlock (TBA).
They didn't transition out of game development. Dota 2 was under heavy development all these years after it "came out". It was only when Deadlock started heavy development that Dota 2 was winding down.
Readit News
However, non-hierarchical structures are often open to manipulation and land-grabbing (see Tyranny of Structurelessness, etc.) so I am also skeptical that a company may have continued with this practice.
https://www.wired.com/2013/07/wireduk-valve-jeri-ellsworth/
I have always been disappointed with people making claims that explicitly imposed bad hierarchy is inevitable, because of a vague complaint about implicit hierarchy.
It feels like they are using this to justify imposing a bad hierarchy from the top down, for the benefit of the people at the top of said imposed hierarchy. Like when you have a well-functioning team with a very weak explicit hierarchy, and the people at the top introduce a bunch of bad managers. They will tell you it was inevitable. There's no way the thing you saw working well could continue to work well. Because that lack of bad managers was actually working just as poorly, you see. In fact it was much worse.
This comment is literally the first search result of "Chet Faliszek Valve employee handbook" for me. I've waded through several pages and haven't found a credible source of him saying that.
When smart people say ads don’t work on them - this is a counterexample. It’s just that different groups respond to different branding. And this was highly tuned to Reddit interests.
I'd agree it's a meaningful distinction if the company wasn't actually as written... but it sounds like everything in there is accurate?
Dead Comment
Steam is still like what Netflix used to be. You have pretty much everything you care about in one place. Even big monster AAA developers like EA have given up and put their content on the platform. If I had to pick between having HL3 and a coherent gaming ecosystem, I'd pick the latter.
I'm not sure why Steam always seems to be exempt from the "perils of digital ownership" arguments
Because they have been consistently good citizens for more than 2 decades. They built a reputation. Something other companies are eager to piss away at the first opportunity to sell out or squeeze their customers.
It’s not surprising that Valve is successful and trusted with this approach. What is surprising is that it is apparently so incredibly hard for other companies to understand this very simple fact.
1. Build a good product.
2. Consistently act in good faith.
3. Profit.
Worst case, if I lose access to all of them, whether by choice or by force (they go under), there are other options of obtaining (most of) the same games, and that’s even if I’m interested in playing them again.
Most of the games I really care about, I probably already have on other platforms anyway, in addition to or instead of Steam.
They're not, really, but they've given us little reason to distrust them.
I'm also fairly confident there would be some fun legal stuff going on if Steam tried that. People have thousands - tens of thousands - of dollars worth of stuff on Steam. That isn't really the same as, say, having to watch ads even after paying for a subscription.
Gabe says that the platform will fail-open if ever necessary, that it would revert to offline DRMless functionality. I believe that he has that intention, but the realities of operating from receivership or assimilation by Microsoft would likely be very different.
Despite that gamers think it's worth the convenience and utilities steam provides to keep shopping there.
Steam isn't dominant because it's strangling competition like the app store and similar. People can trivially download alternatives, but they choose steam anyway.
But as you’ve hinted at, Steam is very different from the iOS App Store because it is competing organically with other app stores on Windows. Steam does not control Windows or the hardware, so it cannot “force” itself to be the only option to download games on Windows.
And even when it does have full control over the platform and HW (Steam Deck), it’s just a light wrapper around a standard Linux distro (Arch).
According to the developer:
> [Valve] would remove Overgrowth from Steam if I allowed it to be sold at a lower price anywhere, even from my own website without Steam keys and without Steam’s DRM.
> I believe that other developers who charged lower prices on other stores have been contacted by Valve, telling them that their games will be removed from Steam if they did not raise their prices on competing stores.
https://www.wolfire.com/blog/2021/05/Regarding-the-Valve-cla...
So you did all the work, somehow managed to fund it, worked on game for a year and got $155,000 while Valve made $252,000 for payment processing and CDN. Steam do not provide marketing - it only boost already successful products.
PS: This is best case scenario. Usually your publisher will also recoup whatever expenses they had on their end for marketing and whatever.
This is like complaining that AMC won't screen your student film. You're playing in a very niche space and the key is to keep costs under control so you can actually make money.
And it's worth remembering that your publisher got $194k ... I'm not sure if this publishing arrangement makes sense for the publisher ($200k risk for not much more reward?) or for you (30% of your net income from the game, after valve's 30%) (I'm not in the industry so honestly I just don't know)
That is debatable. For one thing, Steam is partly (mostly?) built off the backs of games marketing their games and providing a Steam link (marketing costs money for the devs). Steam kick started this chicken/egg problem by creating their own great games first.
Second, Steam does not provide your game any marketing (algorithmic visibility) unless it's already successfully marketed outside of Steam (marketing is not free), and again later once it hits a certain number of sales.
Third, per Tim Sweeney, games during the retail era had a bigger margin for the the studios than they do today [1]
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/19_NC1ZskeN47LHaYJziotbA0sqL...
edit: So I do feel a little upset that Steam gets free marketing for every game put on the site (important note you can (and should in most cases) place your game up on the site long before its ready to purchase, and steam will advertise other games on your page), doesnt provide any marketing in return (via the discovery queue) unless you bring in tens or hundreds of thousands of clicks, and then turns around and skims 30% of all my work which they are greatly benefiting from (e.g. what if the customer goes to my page, wish lists my game, then purchased a different game in the mean time? At least e.g. amazon has referral links)
Oh, it's safe to say Steam acts as a big multiplier on whatever attention you manage to scrounge up. Not that this is ideal.
Is it processor architecture? Is it the OS? Is it the store and whatever facilities they provide? Is it the mode of physical interaction with the device (desk, couch+TV, etc)? Is it being able to assemble any random collection of hardware and expecting it to work? Does that discount set builds? Is it mandatory that the user is free to screw around with the software any way they please or can you lock stuff down?
At least on the commerce side, it's been the case since steam was opened up to third parties that they were the gatekeeper for success unless you were already huge (and now very few companies want to go it alone). Going back to Introversion's Darwinia they were just scraping by until they got on steam, developers have long been complaining that the varied methods Valve has used to get on the store (manual review, greenlight, etc) showed the vast majority of gamers only purchase through it or that you'll get a large wave of new business when you release on it. Now it seems like a 'tragedy of the commons' situation unless you've got your own marketing or it's a hobby project.
It seems like you've now got to do mental gymnastics to say Valve doesn't own the PC gaming platform
A HL3 team could essentially function as an independent studio using the Steam platform, with some funding thrown from Valve. Assuming the ROI is positive what exactly is holding them back?
Absurd expectations.
The Google problem where every project that is not Search has a much worse ROI.
This is probably true on balance, but needs to be tempered with the reality that they also pioneered or popularized many of the worst parts of modern gaming. Always-on DRM, paid DLC, loot boxes and exploitive monetization, esports gambling (indirectly, they were complicit until legal pressure forced them not to be), FOMO monetization, "early access" and launching incomplete games, etc. All exist in their modern forms at least in part due to Valve.
Disclaimer: I'm a valve fanboy who buys all their first party software and hardware. They still put out great products despite the ways they've changed gaming for the worse.
Previous discussion:
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3871463 (21 April 2012 | 16 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8818893 (31 December 2014 | 17 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9250527 (23 March 2015 | 14 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12157993 (25 July 2016 | 197 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17935030 (7 September 2018 | 31 comments)
- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33170988 (12 October 2022 | 165 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41329274 (23 August 2024 | 112 comments)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26960473 (27 April 2021 | 7 comments)
Well that hits close to home. I wonder why every other mega successful company thinks the opposite.
And because self managing people do not automatically organize to achieve the same goals.
That's extremely rare and even in overall success stories you will find plenty of unhappy folks.
But as a general excuse for some micro-management-obsessed middle manager with 0 trust into anybody else its good enough excuse I suppose.
EDIT: Another comment mentioned Chet Faliszek, he was probably the source.
Gamedev is also very stressful industy because both constant crunches and job instability. So you not only paid worse, but you'll work 2-3 times more that average SWE. And often fired when project is complete regardless of success.
So working at Valve is somewhat like a pipe dream for many people in the game industry. Especially because whole Valve is under 500 people which is like 10-20 times less people than work for Epic, Ubisoft or EA.
Source: I work in indie game company.
They're the idealized version of what a small company making a shitton of cash would be. They can afford plenty in terms of work-life balance.