How Bad Entrepreneurial Judgment Killed Half-Life 3

It seems like if you threw a compelling script into a development studio it would be hard NOT to make it happen... there's such a desire for it (but maybe that's also scary now).

On the other hand... I guess a huge part of Valve isn't a development studio these days and a lot of their development projects involve short-term profitability vs long-term investments (DOTA kind of is/isn't an exception to that).

I also wonder if the flat "do something good for the company" structure cramps the creative process a bit — if someone tools around with an idea for a year without anything beyond concept work to show for it... is that welcome at Valve? or would it be perceived as a burden by others who are working on short-term projects?

I do recall there being a previous falling-out there with an employee doing R&D hardware work (was it VR related? I can't remember)

Releasing Half-Life 3 or episode 3 in 2008-2010 could have been good for Valve, in the sense that it would tie up lose ends in the story for players and would have sold well enough to be profitable. At this point Half-Life 3 is the most hyped game that has never existed and it'd be very hard for them to live up to most people's expectations. Valve is a pretty data driven company, and they have a lot of data about what sells and what players are playing. I don't think it's coincidence that most of the top played and top grossing games on Steam are Valve games and that Valve has moved away from single player games in favor of multiplayer games as a service.

There haven't been many commercially successful single player only, or primarily single player AAA campaign based first person shooters in recent history. Half-Life 3 could probably follow the model of last year's Doom and be successful, but it wouldn't live up to a lot of people's expectations. Doing something weirder, niche, outside of the box or supporting Valve's new business models (making HL3 VR only or a online competitive multiplayer or sandbox game) would alienate people, even if the game is amazing and innovative, because its once again not what they want from a Half-Life game. I don't believe Valve can make a Half-Life game without angering a large segment of fan base and ending up in a No Man Sky type situation. The cost of AAA single player games has skyrocketed as well, so I'm not sure if Valve wants to hire and spend the money on Half-Life 3 in terms of production values and content. Maybe eventually there will be an HL3 once Valve creates a game making AI that can read your mind and perfectly tailor a game to your expectations :). Valve could also make "Half-Life 3" without calling it Half-Life 3, I guess.

That Valve has not released HL3 and probably never will shows a strength in their business and business model, not an inability to execute or a flaw. Current day Valve is not the same company that made Half-Life and Half-Life 2, but I think they foster innovation and high quality games in a more impactful way (Steam, hardware, VR, etc.)

So, I wonder if there is any connection between Valve's unconventional organisational structure, and the fact that they attracted this influential left-wing thinker. What I heard about Valve reminds me of some left-wing cooperatives I know in Europe (factories, shops, farms, ...), where the employees share ownership and decision making. Unfortunately, many of those struggle with similar problems - but not all, some are also fairly successful.

I don't think there is neccessarily a left-wing or liberal political idea going on at Valve, but probably there was a kind of co-evolution of this hierarchy-less idea in tech and in leftist circles? A quick google search suggests that Varoufakis (who blogged about his time at Valve) was aware of this similarity.

Which is a shame because even an inferior hl3 would have been guaranteed to make money. Hell they couldn't even finish hl2 episode3.

Note: I have never worked at valve!! Though I visit friends there from time to time.

I'm really interested in understanding/criticising Valve flat management but this article doesn't seem to make a good argument

Many economists don't have a clue...

Anyway, Valve can always do another sequel, I don't think age will make that any worse an opportunity.