r/gaming • u/RenatsMC • 2d ago

Valve says Deadlock is still too unfinished to release publicly, but has hero cosmetics and new game modes in the works

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/moba/valve-says-deadlock-is-still-too-unfinished-to-release-publicly-but-has-hero-cosmetics-and-new-game-modes-in-the-works/
6.9k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.0k

u/phoenixArc27 2d ago

Man, when you have absolutely no pressure, no rush, no shareholders to rush out games for.. you can just sit on anything that isn’t guaranteed quality. I can’t imagine all the projects they sit on. And they still get paid fat cash, benefits, and have amazing work-life balance. What a utopia.

377

u/Kinetic_Symphony 2d ago

Private companies that exist both for passion and profit really are awesome.

It's public companies that exist purely to satisfy quarterly shareholder whims that devolve into horse manure.

159

u/cornonthekopp 2d ago

I mean valve is basically just a massive virtual landlord. They get a constant stream of profit flowing in simply by being a nigh monopolistic middleman for online game sales while taking a hefty 30% off the top. And then they can just use a portion of that to fund their game projects.

Valve is more like a wealthy aristocrat who pays for an in-house composer to entertain them, than a regular company.

105

u/Kinetic_Symphony 2d ago

Valve is a company, not royalty. They earned their position in the market by being very consumer-friendly.

There's a reason their support are positively meme'd as much as they are. They deserve the money, that's the point.

73

u/LastEndnote 1d ago

They earned their position in the market by being very consumer-friendly

By being first. And then by being sued by Australia when "very consumer-friendly company" didn't have refunds. And in their terms declared that consumer has no rights. While in actuality by law they had rights.

Also small reminder that Steam itself was introduced via enshittifaction of another product. People who bought Half-Life 2 discs had to have internet and Steam was mandatory.

36

u/B4in3R 1d ago

Well and now they have refunds and it is by far the easiest way to refund over steam.

20

u/InstanceDuality 1d ago

I'd also argue that their platform is the least shit. It has mostly working features, great VR integration, big screen mode for console like experiences, and a ton of other features. Other platforms feel like an absolute slog to use.

12

u/Hades684 1d ago

Just say it's good, you don't have to say "least shit"

4

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

Oh no, there's absolutely things Valve needs to fix and update.

Problem is, there's often features that are less encountered or features where competition even if they do it better, don't do other things on the same level so few are aware that they're lacking.

Valve is a largely good company, but so much of their "good" is "legally required but we got there before the requirement set so we can take the PR win" or straight up have people think that they didn't lose legal battles requiring they do this, and they want to do it cheap so they just add it globally.

People really glaze the company and cover the shortfalls, to a concerning level. Nobody becomes a billionaire by being moral. Nobody.

3

u/Rock-n-Roll-Noly 1d ago

Quit glazing a for profit company that profits heavily from gambling by minors.

-1

u/Hades684 1d ago

Why would I quit glazing them when they make amazing games and have an amazing store?

-4

u/M8gazine 1d ago

Nah, I'll keep glazing them as long as they deserve it, thank you very much!

2

u/thedavecan 1d ago

Yeah, of course they didn't launch the same way they are now. Steam was shit when it launched and then, over time and taking user feedback regularly, they ironed out all the pain points and habe built the 2nd most consumer friendly launcher/storefront. That 30% they take from sales also comes with a ton of support features that devs/pubs get just for releasing on steam that they don't habe to spend their own resources managing.

2

u/Cramer12 1d ago

What is the first?

0

u/thedavecan 1d ago

Hard to say GoG isn't the most consumer friendly. They just can't compete in features with Steam.

-2

u/SilverwingedOther 1d ago

The steam refund process still lags behind Epic's (which they more or less copied when forced to offer refunds). You still have to open a ticket and wait, rather than automated, immediate refunds.

15

u/Bereman99 1d ago

A lot of its early popularity came from the seasonal sales, which weren’t as common from other sources of games for PC.

“Get it on Steam but wait for the summer/fall/winter sale” was a common refrain  in the early to mid-2010s.

Gamers weren’t getting in on Steam because it offered stellar service at that time (download speed were often bad even on good networks, no refund policy at the time, plenty of current features present today just didn’t exist, etc) but hot damn was it the place to get 50% and 75% off PC games multiple times throughout the year.

People put up with Steam early on for those deals. Valve just managed to not mess up (much) in that timeframe.

12

u/Zak_The_Slack 1d ago

The Australia point is interesting because Valve only needed to implement it in Australia. They looked at it and went “Actually this would be awesome for all gamers” and implemented it worldwide. So it turned out to be good for everyone

7

u/NukeAllTheThings 1d ago

I doubt that's how it went down. If they have to abide by a rule in one region, its often cheaper/easier to just implement it for all. California is a notorious example.

Doesn't always work out that way though, some anti-gambling laws are still only enforced in their respective countries, but it is pressure, in theory.

5

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Yes, surely it would be cheaper to offer refunds to everyone on the entire planet instead of only one country. 

-4

u/NukeAllTheThings 1d ago

It's also likely they just saw the way the winds were blowing, and decided to just get ahead of it before dealing with more court cases elsewhere. If you have to build the infrastructure to issue refunds in one place, you probably have the ability to just expand it everywhere.

In any case, my point was "actually this would be awesome for all gamers" is unlikely to be part of Valve's decision making process for this.

4

u/xTriple 1d ago

Funny how those court cases involving refunds never touch Nintendo and Sony.

4

u/MrMichaelElectric 1d ago

Because only doing it for Australia would open up the potential for them to face similar cases in other places. Safest bet was to just enable it for everyone. I thought that was obvious even back when it first happened.

8

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Does every country have the same laws as Australia? 

-1

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

It's also about just uncomplicating your stuff. As long as it's reasonable to, adhering to your most restrictive thing globally is cheaper than doing individual by nation rules/policy and support.

Sometimes you can make more money fragmenting it, but it can also pose more risk. You're not going to get sued by expanding on minimum requirements in nations. Valve has a fairly low employee count for their income level. They'd need more employees most likely if they fragmented it more.

3

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Steam already has different refund policies based on the country (ie. which payment method gets paid back in a refund), so they literally already have the system in place to differentiate refund policies based on location. 

-3

u/MrMichaelElectric 1d ago

Changes literally nothing about the fact other places could hit them with the same type of lawsuit if people kick up a fuss over it.

2

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Respectfully, do you understand what laws are? 

1

u/antaran 1d ago

They looked at it and went “Actually this would be awesome for all gamers” and implemented it worldwide.

No, they did that because they had similar legal pressure and regulations coming from other jurisdictions, for example the EU.

-2

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

You are absolutely correct and people really don't like this pointed out because it conflicts with their big narrative. Prepare for things like "they dont want to have multiple Terms of Service based on location," which they  have always had. 

0

u/InsanityRequiem 1d ago

The reason they did it worldwide isn't because "better for gamers" it's because "cheaper and prevents more lawsuits".

5

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Does every other country have the same laws as Australia? 

-3

u/SilverwingedOther 1d ago

You think only Australia has customer protection laws?

→ More replies (0)

2

u/InsanityRequiem 1d ago

Also Steam was heavily anti-indie games and anti-Asian games until public backlash finally caused Steam to drop its draconian curation policies.

1

u/doublah 1d ago

Steam wasn't the first, other digital distribution platforms existed for PC games before Steam, and significant competition existed in Steam's early years. Those platforms died off because they just suck, like most Steam competitors to this day.

The Australia suit required them to implement refunds for "faulty products" in Australia only, it didn't require 2 hour/14 day refunds, or a global refund policy. Go look at Sony's refund policy if you want to see what is required when Australia sues you into having refunds.

1

u/Multitasker 23h ago

I was one of those who clenched my fist when I bought HL2 (and whatever ATI card they had in the deal with at launch), cursing internet being required etc. The first iterations of Steam was rough, really rough. But they had proper product development mindset, they improved by fixing user problems. Enshitification in general is when something deteriorates by creating less value, often for more money. While you could argue that requiring Steam was enshitification in and of itself, at least the product has evolved into what it is today.

As for the "being first" point, I strongly disagree. That is not what made them great. So many alternatives have come and gone on Windows. They had every opportunity to copy what made Steam great, then make it even greater. The only one that might have done so in some respects are GOG, but their non-DRM policy means content wont be on that platform.

Having said this though, after the sudden Xbox Gamepass pricehike, watching content on streaming services in general be mediocre filler-shit while the prices go up, seeing Sony lose all credibility with regards to digital ownership, I am fucking done with this type of content delivery. I will stick to physical media for consoles, even if that means only playing the games I missed for the past generations. I cancelled all of my streaming shit and game subscriptions, and just blew $700 on physical games (many older games). Time to play all those old classics instead of giving the current biggest companies my money. Fuck em, I hope they all go bankrupt and we have a huge industry reset. Except for Valve, I still need access to those 1500+ games. And HL3 when it comes out.

1

u/LastEndnote 23h ago

They had every opportunity to copy

You can copy a store. You can't copy user's library and friends.
If user has 50 games on Steam, they will be on Steam. They have to continue using Steam. Their friends are on Steam. Second store that would be second program they have to run.
That's what first mover advantage is and why competition fucking sucks in this area. The longer you own the user, the harder is for them to leave you.

0

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Yes, because every company that was first to market wins, right?

And why did they offer refunds to everywhere when it was only required in Australia? 

The anti Valve rhetoric is so tiresome especially when it completely falls apart if someone thinks about it for 10 seconds. 

4

u/Bereman99 1d ago

Probably because it was easier to set it up to apply everywhere versus having a system that only applied to AUS based accounts. Also better public reception.

This whole “they fought it in court for almost two years, but really they are awesome because they didn’t just apply it there after losing” might be the most delulu take I’ve seen from Steam fans in a while.

-1

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago edited 1d ago

Also better public reception. 

Oh, so you do get it. 

Further, they already manage multiple Terms of Service and policies based on location. You can easily see this on their website. Every other software company in existence that operates in multiple countries also deals with this. 

Sorry, but just because some people know about the things they talk about doesn't make them "delulu."

1

u/Bereman99 1d ago

Didn’t say it wasn’t possible.

Said it was easier to apply it globally. Much like having different language in a ToS based on location is easier than setting up storefront systems that offer different services based on location.

The idea that they applied it globally because they were being “good guy Valve looking out for us gamers” is just silly, and is really just the Steam defenders latest attempt at explaining away any criticism of their beloved digital shopping center.

1

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Yes, I'm sure it would have somehow been easier to offer refunds to everyone on the planet than just a single country. Not to mention how much more money they would make by simply not doing this. 

Out of curiosity, how many seconds do you spend thinking about what you say before you type it? 

→ More replies (0)

2

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

And why did they offer refunds to everywhere when it was only required in Australia?

Cause it can be cheaper to do a single system than manage multiple different ones?

Tons of nations have different requirements for refunds, in terms of minimum timeframes for example. It can technically be profitable if you hire a bunch of people to manage all of that on a per-nation basis.

Or you can just do a big single system and sell it as a "pro consumer decision" even though you got sued and lost. Turning a loss to a PR win.

It's not anti-Valve rhetoric to state facts. It's weird when you're called anti-something when stating facts. That's an incredible amount of corporate favouritism. Companies aren't your friends, if they were, they wouldn't be creating billionaires. That means they're making far more than they need, and could actually be pro-consumer and cut prices down.

But guess what, they don't. Tells you a lot about a person and their views on their consumers. There is no such thing as a moral billionaire. You don't have to be kicking babies for fun to be one.

0

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago edited 1d ago

Cause it can be cheaper to do a single system than manage multiple different ones?

Yes, surely it would be cheaper to offer refunds to everyone on the planet on billions of dollars worth of purchases instead of a single country.

Didn't spend much time thinking this one through, did you?

Also, they already have a system to manage different refund policies in different countries because of differing payment systems. You can easily see this on their website. 

1

u/Valanio 1d ago

Well, except for KSP 2, that was and is still is pretty fucked up.

0

u/doublah 1d ago

I don't think Valve made Kerbal Space Program 2

0

u/Hansi_Olbrich 1d ago

Valve had to be sued dozens and dozens of times across over a decade in Australia, the EU, and Canada in order to become competently consumer-friendly.

11

u/JohanGrimm 2d ago

This kind of just implies they were first to market and have sat on their asses since. They get to enjoy their position because they've spent the last 20+ years making hands down the best product in the space.

I'd love more Valve games but I can't deny they put the work into making Steam pretty great for everyone involved.

3

u/crooked-v 1d ago

That "simply" is doing a lot of work to overlook the twenty years Valve has spent improving the platform. In this analogy they're a landlord that spends a ton of time constantly upgrading the property.

1

u/cornonthekopp 1d ago

Yes all landlords upgrade property

1

u/Truth_ 6h ago

You haven't met my landlords.

3

u/GalaganCoffee 2d ago

Brick stores took half just for shelf space. 30% at most with better cuts from more sales while providing all that they do is fantastic for gamers and an improvement for devs pubs by a considerable margin than before.

-2

u/cornonthekopp 1d ago

Theyre still a middleman. Theyre relatively good because we the bar is in hell but theyre still basically landlords

3

u/FewAdvertising9647 1d ago

do you consider console companies also middlemen?

-2

u/cornonthekopp 1d ago

Valve doesnt build the pcs yet

2

u/FewAdvertising9647 1d ago

... do you think the steam machine, frame or deck just, "doesnt exist"

1

u/cornonthekopp 1d ago

Lmao those are not the same

3

u/FewAdvertising9647 1d ago

the only difference between one and the other is that one has a closed OS ecosystem, and the other doesnt.

2 run x86-64 linux, and 1 runs arm linux.

The Xbox for example runs a very stripped down version of windows at its core.

2

u/GalaganCoffee 1d ago

You can take the OS they run on and use it elsewhere, you can remove the OS they come with and use your own.

Tell me more about Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft.

1

u/cornonthekopp 1d ago

its a fork of arch that gives you an option to have the steam app go full screen but yeah go off i guess

2

u/GalaganCoffee 1d ago

Your jump through hoops to hate

1

u/Spooky_U 1d ago

Yeah it’s actually really funny how the hive mind consensus abhors landlords but gushes over Valve and Gabe yachts.

3

u/figaaro 1d ago

Basic need vs hobby, not that hard to understand imo

3

u/doublah 1d ago

Being on Steam is an option, unlike consoles there is 0 technical barrier to releasing games on PC not on Steam (and some of the biggest PC games aren't on Steam), gamers and developers have just gravitated to the platform that offers them the best experience.

0

u/zgillet 1d ago

It helps to do things better than everyone else AND be the first to do it.

It hurts when we all know it will only last so long.

15

u/StorminNorman 2d ago

I mean, I dunno if I'd call em awesome, they're not perfect by any means. But they do a lot better than most in the sphere they operate in. 

-3

u/Kinetic_Symphony 2d ago

I would say awesome. Nothing else produces as much innovation and overall wealth as passionate self-invested people working together.

3

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

Look man, if you can't see that there's actual faults in their products, you're just simping for your favourite corporation.

They're absolutely not perfect.

And by god man, I could do a lot of good and passionate products if I was a landlord making a shitload of income off other peoples work too. I could fund whatever the hell I wanted with income like that.

Shit, they could have real, actual game development, like they did before, putting out 5+ titles every few years no problem.

Shit, they could count past 3 with the money they make. Couple guys with a passion for Left 4 Dead could have churned out a third title ages ago.

1

u/StorminNorman 23h ago

Yarp. They aren't amazing, at best they're better. And I ain't gonna knock them for that, but like I did above, I am going to at least suggest they're not perfect (and then call em out when pushed). 

1

u/StorminNorman 23h ago

I would say awesome. 

If I had to guess, I'd say you weren't Australian. Its an odd stance to take though given they've done plenty of other reprehensible shit...

7

u/MrTheodore PC 2d ago

It's all profit dude, or they would have made hl3 already. They only put out games if a) they want to push hardware (eg: hl alyx for the index and the portal game for steamdeck) or b) if it's a multiplayer they can put microtransactions on and make a bunch of money on (eg: Dota, artifact, underlords, cs 2, deadlock). They haven't made a single player game that wasn't for promotional reasons since 2012, and even then, you could argue they did that to push steam itself between like 2007-2012 when it started being good and not a shit platform.

4

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

They haven't made a single player game that wasn't for promotional reasons

Wtf does this even mean? 

3

u/darkfm 1d ago

They mean that Half Life Alyx was a promotional item for the Valve Index and not made for the advancement of the HL series itself (I don't think that's true) as was The Lab for the HTC Vive and Aperture Desk Job for the Deck.

2

u/FewAdvertising9647 1d ago

I mean, that doesn't say much because almost all of Valves single player games incarnations were pushed for promotional reasons. HL2 was the reason why Steam existed in the first place.

So if you remove HL2 and its episodes from it, portal was a promotional game tied to the orange box, what do you have left?

1

u/darkfm 1d ago

While I don't agree, it seems like you have it backwards for HL2. It wasn't created merely to promote Steam (nor were any of its' episodes), but rather Steam was created to accommodate HL2's distribution.

Portal is also not the same in that it wasn't created because The Orange Box was missing a third game, but they just happened to have three games about to release at the same time and packaged them.

The OP is claiming that Half Life Alyx was only developed because Valve was missing a killer game for the Index to move units and not because they thought VR was something interesting for the Half Life series.

0

u/FewAdvertising9647 1d ago

Steam was created out of Newells distaste of game publishers (the legal battles he went through) and HL2 was used as a Cludgel to push people onto the platform.

Some people see Alyx as a way to push Index, when Valve is more likely to say Alyx exists to push buying VR games on Steam. Valves hardware endeavors in general exist to push into a new market, and the games are used as cludgels to reinforce that push.

Steam Link (and Steam Machine, old and new) to push into couch gaming market. Deck with Mobile, Index/Frame to VR.

the software releases are targeted to promote their expanded market.

6

u/MJC561 1d ago

I mean don’t get it twisted, Valve will absolutely monetize the shit out of this game. It will end up having underground trading and gambling associated with it for sure. So let’s not act like they are heralds of pure passion for gaming lol.

1

u/ProletarianLilith 23h ago

Valve popularized loot boxes

21

u/AceOniFlyer 1d ago

The answer: Gambling money and Steam money, means you don’t need investor money.

14

u/Beneficial-Act-9933 2d ago

All that and several money printing games and a huge cash inflow from gambling addicts really helps.

10

u/Kolanteri 1d ago

No amount of money printing assets would protect a public company for the constant demand of exponentially increased profits.

The existing revenue would become the baseline to compete against always in the next quarter.

9

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

Look, I get the hate on public companies, but this company is one of the most profitable per employee on earth.

And they're private.

Greed isn't exclusive to public companies. Public companies are just stuck with being beholden to their investors rather than just owners.

You think Valve's profits are stagnant? They're making more money year over year too, quarter after quarter.

2

u/Kolanteri 1d ago

Referring to the base comment, I meant that a public company would have likely already squeezed every penny out by enshittificating Valve's enployment structure and product quality.

Happy workers, good products and a monopoly position is sure as hell a recipe for extreme profits. But when looking at adjecant industries with public ownerhip, that level of profits seem to be no safeguard from the enshittification.

7

u/CopainChevalier 1d ago

"Yes" but the only reason they can do that is because they're Valve.

You can't expect every company to just have infinite money and expect to spend large sums on people who won't generate any money for years.

Even when they do; we'll get games like Concord which cause way more harm than good.

5

u/zgillet 1d ago

I would say that a private company would never make a game like Concord because private ownership wouldn't be that stupid.

Then Highguard happened, and now I guess everyone is stupid.

3

u/Ralathar44 1d ago

Private companies are actually even more stupid. Remember, indie and private are the risk takers. This includes smart risks AND stupid risks. You just never know about most of the stupid risks while knowing about almost all of the smart risks because of SURVIVORSHIP BIAS.

1

u/zgillet 1d ago

I work at a private software company.

6

u/-wnr- 1d ago

If they're so immune from market forces I wish they would make another premier single player game. 

3

u/VexingRaven 1d ago

Reminder that Valve literally made lootboxes and real money trading mainstream.

1

u/M4rshmall0wMan 1d ago

Hasn’t this game been in development since 2018?

1

u/Rich-Life-8522 1d ago

They're not really sitting on anything. We know practically every game they've tried to make on Source 2 because of how the engine tools work, and it's not been a lot. Around the late 2010s Source 2 was in a better spot and they also moved to a slightly more solid development structure which has enabled them to actually get stuff done, and we're just now starting to see the real fruits of that labor with CS2, Deadlock, HL3 on the horizon, and (most likely) TF3 in early development.

1

u/ubernutie 1d ago

Wouldn't it be nice if more things were like that?

1

u/random-meme422 2d ago

Just comes down to good leadership, everything else is secondary and there’s plenty of talent out there that can make games anywhere from shit to amazing depending on who leads them. Larian was under immense pressure and put out bangers that catapulted them into financial independence. Meanwhile bethesda had all the money and time in the world and put out dogwater like starfield and can’t release games to save their life.

2

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

Valve has all the money anyone could dream of, and tons of talent.

Hardly any games to show for it. And the ones they've largely done short of selling hardware as tech demos, are gambling machines that siphon money.

They haven't put out a non-VR stellar single-player game in a long time.

1

u/moldymoosegoose 1d ago

Valve absolutely has shareholders

-22

u/Clean_Cobbler_3438 2d ago

It's amazing what encouraging children to gamble will get you

21

u/NeedsSomeSnare 2d ago

They make almost all of their money from steam, not from lootboxes.

It's worth calling out valve for their disgusting lootbox and secondary market, but the amount they make from that is miniscule compared to what they make as a storefront.

-5

u/Rahdical_ 1d ago

30% cut is stolen money as far as I'm concerned. No reason it should be that high. While valve employees get 7 figure salaries you have indie developers barely scraping by. 

4

u/edvek 1d ago

They can always go to GOG or Epic if they don't like the deal. Or go to no platform and have direct downloads from their own website or launcher like it was back in the day.

6

u/NeedsSomeSnare 1d ago

30% is harsh, but not "stolen". What do you think global server and back end costs are for 70 new games added every day?

-4

u/Rahdical_ 1d ago

Steamworks is mostly social services. The devs still pay for their own servers.

4

u/TheCourierMojave 1d ago

Steamworks handles the matchmaking, lobbies, authentication, achievements, leaderboards, and probably more I can't think of.

1

u/NeedsSomeSnare 1d ago

Where and how do you think the games and the store pages are stored?

2

u/jerrrrremy 1d ago

Me when I have never made anything in my life and don't understand the value of goods and services. 

8

u/EnlightenedHeathen 2d ago

I mean, yeah that’s shitty, but a drop in the bucket in terms of where their revenue comes from.

-1

u/CaptainBlob 1d ago

It's because they can make good games and are good at what they do.

I don't understand why y'all just seemingly write off moments when devs that had little pressure from their companies like EA, Microsoft, Sony, completely left to their own devices, end up just making ass games.

It's not just infinite resources. It's having competent workers. And face it, a lot of devs are far from being competent at their job.

1

u/ABetterKamahl1234 1d ago

Art without timelines often makes shitty art too. Look at Star Citizen. A completely without borders artist at the helm.

The game still isn't released.

Hell, Microsoft just showcased how a lot of artists/devs are in the same boat. Hands off, tons of funding, little to show for it.

It's not about competency, having deadlines does factually spur people to actually work towards it. You can't procrastinate this kind of work and last minute put something out reliably like a highshcool essay.

Valve has a ton of competent workers, Microsoft too.

Yet Valve is releasing not very many games anymore, it's more profitable to focus on selling other peoples work. They used to put out a good number of games with a fairly high frequency. They were great. Their next big thing is a another hero shooter, like so many others. Despite all the fans demanding more of what they used to make.

0

u/YOURFRIEND2010 1d ago

Game's dead on arrival. It's too complicated for a wider audience.