How many times has this been posted now? Genuine question: why is this such a big deal?
Genuine question: why is this such a big deal?
These are not all video game companies, but for reference:
AMD: 26,000 employees
EA: 14,000
Facebook: 84,000
Netflix: 11,000
Spotify: 9,000
Twitter: 7,500
Yep. But it also seems like people are so shocked by the data that maybe they’re missing the moral of this story, too? …sure it’s impressive that Valve has done so much with such a small workforce, but I think the reason they’ve been able to move so quickly is because they have such a small workforce. Companies get slow because they get big…I don’t care how much you tout your SAFe processes; you will always lose efficiency as you grow. It’s the difference between steering a canoe vs a cruise ship…the more you grow, the more you have to fight against momentum. So, my takeaway from this is that they figured out the secret to continued success as a maturing company, and good for them.
Now, I say all of this with sincere hopes that they don’t work their smaller number of employees to death and ask them to take on inappropriately burdensome workloads. Because if that’s the case, they should fuck right off with the rest of their peers.
From what I understand, they basically have a very open work structure. People are free to work on what they want, when they want. They actually are against high workloads and do everything they can to prevent employee burnout.
I can’t say if that extends beyond the development teams to other departments like server management, but everything I’ve ever seen about them says they’re all just in it to have fun, make cool shit now and then, and of course make tons of money. The fact that their sales platform basically just prints money helps support that culture, obviously.
This is such a simple idea that people seem incapable of understanding
Big companies can’t innovate. They’re pulled in too many directions and create bureaucracies that stifle the individuality needed to push beyond known techniques. At best, they can iterate and imitate - and even that is very hit or miss
There’s this idea companies must grow or die - but in reality, companies grow until they can only perpetuate themselves. They start to only make sense on paper
Individuals drive progress - they need time and autonomy
your explanation brought to mind the design ideals behind the RISC (reduced instruction set computer) CPU architecture. Less complexity means higher throughput.
Hope its not a shitty simile lol
Your point about agility is valid but Valve hasn’t veered and pivoted their way to success. Their core model and service have stayed pretty consistent for many years now. And while a cruise ship can’t steer quickly, it can move a hell of a lot more people much faster than a canoe. They are just getting a lot done with very few people and it’s 100% worth of remark. I’d love to hear more about how they do it.
Valve has done so much ?
Steam hasn’t been improved since 2012.
They’re clearly coasting.
They’re keeping their keeping the 30% cut and running away with it instead of hire people to fix stuff.
But it’s basically a store front and they contract almost everything out. Like how many people does it take to run some servers? They don’t make games, the steam deck and the VR are the few things they’ve done. And that could be done by a couple dozen engineers and contract everything else.
Like how many employees should they have?
Okay I shouldn’t have taken a shot at their game making ability, but it legit fucking sucks and they acknowledge it, people bash them for it sometimes, take it easy guys.
They don’t make games
DOTA and CS beg to differ. Spotify is a “storefront” that produces nothing but has about 25x more employees.
Wall Street would probably say 15-30,000+. I think the point of the surprise is that actually it’s possible to be massively profitable and have good products without needing massive teams of people. How many mediocre/bad AAA games have teams larger than Valve’s entire staff? More isn’t always better, sometimes it’s just more.
I haven’t read this article, because yeah, I’ve seen this same basic headline over a dozen times in the past week on Lemmy, but I think it’s a testament to what can happen when a private company doesn’t have a lot of shareholders and is run by people who just want the company to run well and be profitable. They don’t have to chase some unsustainable Wall Street expectation of x% growth every quarter.
All that says is that if you give people choice, they might chose not to make games in today’s market, that’s not bad imo. It’s possible that building new games isn’t what the world needs right now.
Like how many people does it take to run some servers?
That is exactly the point of post. You don’t need tenns of thousands of people to run some servers.
These stats don’t include subcontractors and as such they’re very misleading. For example, who do you think produces the GPUs inside the steam deck? Hint: it’s not Valve.
Been seeing a lot of anti-valve corporate propaganda lately I think they’re upset with the way they run their company because it shows that in comparison their own companies are being greedy and hoarding wealth. It also shows how vastly inefficient in comparison they are.
Weird take, in valve more money is saved for Gabe himself (hence his half a dozen yachts….), while on the other hand, the companies with more employees spend more on giving other people money.
So who’s hoarding using your logic? The company with 10 bil in revenue and 200 employees, or the company with the same revenue and 20000 employees…? Because to me it seems ones doing more for citizens at large than the other lining one persons pocket far More.
The company with more wageslaves of course. I’m sure valve employees are paid very well. Yeah Gabe Newell is a billionaire and I’m not defending that, he should definitely be paying more in taxes. As they all should. But the way valve runs things is their business as a private corporation and I’m tired of seeing the being tore down for no apparent reason lately. Lots of better targets. It seems motivated by something larger behind he curtain and I don’t like being manipulated.
Valve is an excellent example of a sustainable tech company. It’s not on the growth at any cost, boom and bust cycle
They just provide a service good enough for the more toxic gamers so they won’t get harassed, nothing more beyond that. They have almost nonexistent moderation, and no longer are developing games.
Steam is successful because they’re the only company in that market treating customers right.
I’d be very upset if the courts side with EA.
They’re also one of the few (possibly only) that has not gone public.
Just a coincidence, I’m sure.
There are plenty of private companies that are shitty too. It definitely helps being private (and maybe is a requirement?), but you also have to have the right owners for private companies to be good.
Steam could use better search. Ideally I’d like to be able to just use SQL, but I understand why not.
There’s been a few times where I wanted to find something in Steam, but spent most of the emotion on clicks and fucks before launching something, concluding that yeah, I wanted this, and stopping it because I don’t want this anymore.
Steam DB has a pretty decent search. It’s not SQL but the filters are a bit better.
I know how you feel tho - so few consumer orgs give us an advanced search worth it’s salt. I want to have (x AND y) OR z, or maybe x AND (y OR z)… Not whichever specific combination was preordained for me.
I think people often hate steam for their success, but fail to see it’s the result of customers’choice in a free market. (I see it enough I’m not sure if people get paid to hate on them… To ruin the thing they have most of customer respect)
Steam is not publicly traded and does not act like every other publicly traded company. It invests in its customers experience and custtomer come back for that. It does not nickel in dime or use its position to hold its customer captive and enshitfify its product. It’s not an ISP…
It invests in hardware and software development it believes the industry needs not to make a massive profit but to be a champion of what gaming should be (Linux, steam link, index, bug picture, steam controller, steam deck) These products are experimental and usually sold at or near cost not to make money but to prove to the market there is a need and a demand.
They are often a champion and voice of the gamer.
They could have tried to be like Bethesda and tried to monetize their workshop but they didn’t.
Sometimes they’re quiet and we don’t hear anything about what they’re working on, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t working on things.
I can’t imagine pc gaming would have survived and resurged without steam. And I hate to think what it would be like if there were just 5 epics, origin, Uplay, whatever other launcher. I think gaming would look like mobile games…,… which takes a 30% cut too and can only sell in apple or android markets… No one bitches there and they offer no services.
I agree with you, but justifying anything by saying they’re successful in a free market is really iffy. There are plenty of large evil companies that are incredibly successful. That said I agree with everything else you’ve said.
I personally think 30% cut is too much for any app/software store. But if anyone deserves it Steam does
My reference to free market is only a means of saying customers choose steam because of its offerings not that they have too.
I agree it would be nice if they charged less. However do we know their full PNL/balance sheet? People just keep taking revenue/employees as if employees are the only overhead.
They provide the servers, and do have an rde cost for development for services we discussed like cloud saves, control support etc. if people have this much energy over it attack pharmaceutical for there insane mark ups that would drive way more positive social change. But the people driving are mostly trying to make more money by cutting there publishing expenses through steam. I’m sure psn and Xbox also take 25 to 30percent cuts.
They also championed low publishing costs of only 100 dollars to list a game. I don’t know enough to speak to their update charges though. Hell psn been known to charge 25k for visibility in top of their 30% cut and there are no other market options Reference
Everyone focuses here cause developers and publishers want more of this cut and to me seem to try to push steam into regulator cross hairs as a way to force the changes they have failed to negotiate.
I would also point out brick and mortar sellers also take 15 to 20% cut and then also charge for storage, disposal, fulfillment, return on and on. Amazon does the same. It’s the nature of a market place. Reference
Overall it doesn’t make sense to me as a community that we attack our best example of what a game market place should be.
No harm meant. I do think Steam is the golden example of a big business done right. All I’m saying is that there’s room for improvement.
However do we know their full PNL/balance sheet?
We can make an educated guess. Amazon’s S3 charges roughly $0.025 per GB, so an 100GB game would cost $2.50 for Steam to upload to a user. For a $30 game, that’s around ~8.5% or just over 3 downloads before it’s unprofitable.
Obviously Valve isn’t paying consumer level S3 prices, and obviously users can download multiple times. But I would be extremely surprised if they didn’t make a rather large margin on each sale
justifying anything by saying they’re successful in a free market is really iffy
The important part is why they’re successful; unlike many companies which try to lock customers in and take advantage of them as much as possible, Steam/Valve try to build a good product at a reasonable price, and trust that it’ll bring them customers.
And look at that, it does.
In human societies culture matters. People who become managers often have intrigue and taking advantage of people as their main useful skills. So they just go on doing what they know. No reason to scold them even, this is life. After all, something should serve as the backdrop for companies doing it right.
Valve started differently.
But you surely already know all that, Revan. How’s Bastila doin?
These products are experimental and usually sold at or near cost not to make money but to prove to the market there is a need and a demand.
Well, no… I think it’s more akin to the concept of “loss-leaders”. Get people in the door and while they’re there, they’ll buy a game or two. Which is where their real profits come from.
In the end, it’s still just a business strategy intended to result in profits for Valve.
However, that being said, the fact that they don’t have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to maximize profits and keep that stock price up at (literally) all costs, allows them to operate the way they do.
But don’t get it twisted, they are a for-profit corporation, and their ultimate goal is making money. They’re just not as shitty about it.
The bar is REALLY fucking low these days.
Oh for sure they are there for a profit. But as the best example in the industry let’s not unnecessarily attack them. Imagine how much more money they make if they did go public and how awful it would be for all of us.
I think people often hate steam for their success
I hate them for forcing me to use a kind of DRM which will stop working once their servers stop.
Halflife was just fine without steam. Adding steam seemed to be a way to stop players from sharing CD keys.
That’s kind of why they are successful though, right? They were the ones that figured out how to supply games digitally for a profit, which required a way to prevent people from sharing the product for free. This was previously done with CD keys, but the advent of the internet rendered that mostly ineffective.
I think publishers value the fact that steam is essentially a form of DRM, so we got fairly lucky all things considered. Imagine if steam didn’t exist and we had to deal with software like Uplay and Origin.
You can play: Half-Life 1: Source Half-Life 2 Half-Life 2: Episode One Half-Life 2: Episode Two All with steam closed. Original half life expansions aside, your take is senile. I suppose alyx could’ve done without it.
Okay, but what about all the games that have come out since steam has launched and ONLY have online-only drm options?
Not talking about MMOs because those are their own beast. I’m talking about a huge amount of games though excluding mmos.
I don’t mind digital distribution DRM platforms, I just want a choice. I want licenses to be portable and I want to be able to re-sell licenses for games I do not wish to own any longer. I don’t want to be bound to just console games either.
Steam was apparently already cool when I was a kid. Though the reason I knew about it was that I had 2 games with Steam support bought in stores (one of them I gifted without installing\registering, another one I installed without registering).
Others are still at that point - you buy a game and you get something like GameSpy and such as an optional thing nobody thinks about. They are trying to make those services the entry point, and I guess for AAA players they have already succeeded.
Having an AS does not make you an ISP. It just means you have a public AS, which you can use to peer with providers on the Internet, if you have an agreement to peer.
Correct. In fact many, many companies have ASNs. Little companies all the way up to large ones. The key difference for an ISP is they allow you to route traffic through them. Almost every company that has an ASN blocks traffic from being routed through them, assuming they know how to configure that and that they have different peering points. Valve most certainly does not allow you to route through their network, they already have enough traffic just doing their own CDN stuff.
Quick! Let’s add about 800 useless Managers!
Who each will need a couple of consultants from McKinsey, PWC, you name it, to do their jobs!
Ok… let’s walk through that together! This is my comment if your guesses were correct:
“Who each will need a couple of consultants from a type of cheese, a firearms company, you name it, to do their jobs!”
See how that a) doesn’t make any sense b) is not funny and c) is grammatically dubious at least?
You could probably do better punch-up if you tried, right?
