Valve developers discuss why Half Life 2: Episode 3 was abandoned | Hacker News Reader

Valve developers discuss why Half Life 2: Episode 3 was abandoned

arstechnica.com

82 pointsspeckx107 comments

The cynical take is that they've given up on singleplayer games as a whole because their multiplayer titles are far more lucrative. In the 13.5 years since Portal 2 they've only released one full SP title, HL:Alyx, and that was arguably motivated by their VR initiatives need for a flagship showcase more than the desire to make a new SP game. It just had to be an SP game because VR was too niche to sustain an MP population.

Everything else they've made in that time has been live-service forever-games which have relatively minimal development costs but generate hundreds of millions of dollars in profits, largely through predatory gambling mechanics. Putting a fresh coat of paint on Counter Strike made them upwards of a billion dollars in the first few months alone, and it'll keep printing money for much longer than Half Life 3 ever could:

https://esports.gg/news/counter-strike-2/valve-cs2-money-202...

The sad thing is that being a private company they don't need to pursue Scrooge McDuck billions at any cost like a publicly held company would, they have the freedom to make whatever they want, but apparently what they want to do above all else now is to peddle lootboxes.

That take would only make sense if Gabe Newell was running Valve like Bobby Kotick ran Activision, cancelling project left and right if they weren't lucractive. That's not how Valve appears to work: They do quite a few moonshots that don't have to pan out, and bonuses aren't about the revenue of your game.

See Half Life Alyx, or the hardware teams that did VR, or the steam deck: Not exactly people optimizing for revenue. Still, in Valve a new project needs to get people to choose to do it over alternatives, and it might be that in the current internal culture, they really lack a large enough group of people wanting to actually spend their day on a single player game. The fact that Valve is still such a small company probably makes all but the most popular ideas die pretty quickly, as one might need a pretty big percentage of the company to make a reasonable prototype.

> That take would only make sense if Gabe Newell was running Valve like Bobby Kotick ran Activision, cancelling project left and right if they weren't lucractive. That's not how Valve appears to work

If anything Valve is a big outlier in that regard. They've invested in many not-so-slamdunk products from Steam Link to Steam Controller, Steam Machine, Index/VR, Steam Deck (this panned out) and so on, and they kept maintaining, improving and building up good-will for each of those. You could've gotten their controller for cheaper than no-name Amazon crap, and it still works and supported by Steam.

In an alternative universe Valve is headed by literally anyone else, and one of their revenue streams is just releasing a new mtx-ridden, battle pass infested Half Life every other year and milk the IP forever.

Considering the steam deck uses essentially the same inputs as a.syeam controller did and it's running steamOS, which was developed for the steam machine... I'd argue these were very successful beta products

And wasn't the index the best VR headset for something like 2 years? It just hasn't been refreshed in ages because the market continues to be a gimmick, essentially. Even though I've spend multiple thousands at this point on VR in total, I consider it to be a significantly worse entertainment experience then regular gaming. Pretty much the only post it's better at is fitness games, and the Nintendo switch does these better still

The Steam Deck also capitalizes on the heavy investment Valve has done in the WINE ecosystem over the years (e.g. Proton). As someone who has been using the fruits of this for years before the Steam Deck came about, I was in awe when I realized just how long they had to be willing to continue on this path without obvious external benefits before they got to this point. In my opinion, it's an amazing example of how a company investing in an open ecosystem can benefit both compared to the usual zero-sum exploitation that I'm so used to seeing.

From my perspective HL:Alyx basically made E3 moot. I mean, it's not E3, that's obvious from a number of perspectives including abandoned content and so forth, but it serves the same function as E3, which is to continue the HL universe in another game.

I guess you could say there's still an unmet desire for non-VR HL games, so maybe in that sense it doesn't occupy the niche E3 would have. But HL and HL2 themselves were seen as moving game dynamics forward so use of VR is in keeping with that.

> From my perspective HL:Alyx basically made E3 moot. I mean, it's not E3, that's obvious from a number of perspectives including abandoned content and so forth, but it serves the same function as E3, which is to continue the HL universe in another game.

Unfortunately it's in a medium that is extremely niche, and as a result will almost certainly be played by a much smaller number of people than Half-Life 2 and have a much smaller cultural impact.

You can play it without VR.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/04/half-life-alyx-is-now...

Not to gatekeep it, but having played all HL games on PC and Alyx on VR, I don't see this PC conversion being a meaningful experience.

It's mainly because of the restrictions of different mediums, for example Alyx has much less enemy density, very narrow corridor-based levels made for limited movement of real human bodies and environments, a lot more emphasis on interactivity with the world and objects that would lose their meaning if replaced with "press F to $WHATEVER" buttons. It might be pretty mediocre as a flat-screen game.

I guess it may still be worth it if you desperately need something Half Life and want to see the story, though for that I'd rather watch it on YouTube, or just rent a VR headset for a month.

It does still let you experience the story, and enjoy the stunning environments. But I agree the experience was tailored too much to VR for it to be an excellent gameplay experience in flatsceen. Some mechanics are pretty mundane and the combat sequences preferred less walking movement and less enemies.

I played in VR and it was an all encompassing experience, still the best VR game I have played. I had even been playing VR games for a few years before trying Alyx, and it still blew me away, in a way that other VR games had not yet. That level of graphical fidelity and immersion is simply not in any other game. Which means it's a skill issue for VR studios, not a hardware issue (in my humble opinion)

At that point you might as well just watch someone stream the game from start to finish, at least you get the "experience" the game the way it was meant to be played.

Being jump scared by head-crabs scary on 27" monitor, and entire another thing in VR glued to your face.

That’s good to know! I might try that out one day.

That or the flat organizational structure is dysfunctional and leads to constant restarts / vision changes. I don't know if they are too capitalist or too communist. Or both.

> I don't know if they are too capitalist or too communist. Or both.

Or neither, Valve seems to do just fine as-is. Maybe they should just continue doing exactly what they're doing so far.

They are doing very well if you measure them by income, revenue, running successful platforms or trying new innovations.

They are not doing well as a non-live-service game company. Which is a very limited metric, but the one many people think of since that is where they got started.

Definitely is where they got started, but Steam is where they made the money to be the industry magnate they are today. They almost ran out of money making HL2. Without steam they would probably have been bought up and eaten years ago.

It's interesting to think of an alternative outcome, where they needed to keep making games to make money. I think there is something special about the small team and structure at Valve that would have let them stay nimble and release great games, but as above the industry loves to consolidate good studios and turn them inside out.

>>They almost ran out of money making HL2.

To hear them talk about that, it seemed like that was due to their legal issues with Vivendi Universal. I wonder if the same would've been true if those events didn't happen

> They are doing very well if you measure them by income

I was more measuring it based on "Producing enjoyable games" which at least is subjectively true for how I see Valve. I enjoyed Half-Life: Alyx a lot, and it was a jump in quality compared to other VR titles, and the new Counter-Strike 2 is pretty OK too, at least compared to CSGO.

They may have a flat org structure but their payments are not similarly "flat" across the org. The economic structure is still pure capitalist.

> Putting a fresh coat of paint on Counter Strike

That's not true. There's a new engine now.

The move to f2p games with micro transactions was done with the help of Yanis Varoufakis, a libertarian-marxist (his own words) Greek economist and politician who once served as Greece's Minister of Finance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yanis_Varoufakis

https://web.archive.org/web/20140328192036/http://blogs.valv...

https://web.archive.org/web/20140219161902/http://blogs.valv...

This is, at least to me, a very strange leap of a conclusion from the sources posted (and general awareness of Valve and TF2 and Varoufakis etc otherwise)

You don’t need an economist to know that micro transactions are lucrative.

But an economist would know how to keep the money flowing.

I don't know why comments here are so negative. I respect the fact that they realized they were not on their A game and were not going to be able to deliver a great, innovative game to the fans. Having been disappointed many times in the last decade or so with many half-finished disasters of a sequel (and not just in gaming!) I'm incredibly happy Valve did not cynically crank out a garbage Episode 3 to cash in, when they easily could have.

Of course, my #1 preference would be to have a mind-blowing, innovative, and narratively satisfying Episode 3, but my #2 preference is to not have a garbage sequel tacked on that would make me resent even HL2 and E1/E2

It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to understand. Everyone shares your #1 preference (obviously), but for many people their #2 preference would've been to get any ending at all even if it wasn't perfect. I didn't play the Half-Life series but I tend to agree with those people. A story not having an ending taints the entire affair such that I would rather have never started it at all. A mediocre, or even bad, ending is far better than nothing.

> It doesn't seem like it should be that difficult to understand.

You've explained it, and I expect OP already knew what you explained.

It's still pretty incomprehensible. It's very, very strange that folks would rather have a shitty, low-quality, godawful ending to a high-quality multi installment story, rather than having the storywriters just walk away from a proven-to-be-high-quality, multi-installment project they know they can't make a good final installment for.

I don't think "I disagree with these values" is the same as something being incomprehensible. I personally think it's bizarre that people want to have nothing versus having something flawed. It is imo a great example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. To me, that is tantamount to saying "I would rather that this series be retroactively ruined than have a flawed ending".

But even with all that, I understand your position. I disagree with your values (strongly!), but that doesn't mean I can't comprehend them.

For me it‘s completely the other way around, and I’m glad they held off from releasing just anything.

> A story not having an ending taints the entire affair such that I would rather have never started it at all.

That has never stopped me from replaying both Half-Life’s 3 or 4 times and I never felt that I’d rather not have played it.

> A mediocre, or even bad, ending is far better than nothing.

On the opposite, I will never re-watch Game of Thrones just because I now know it was all leading up to an incredible disappointment.

> On the opposite, I will never re-watch Game of Thrones just because I now know it was all leading up to an incredible disappointment.

Sure. That ending (and the last 2-3 seasons for that matter) was truly awful. But at the same time, that's at least better than what we're getting with the books, which is a whole lot of nothing. I don't see myself rereading ASOIAF because of the same reason: it's leading up to an incredible disappointment. Between the two disappointments, I would rather have the GoT style than the ASOIAF style.

I personally like when stories finish on a small cliffhanger, I like to imagine the end myself.

I think it's fine to not have every detail spelled out. For example, the ending to the Wheel of Time books gives some hints at things that the characters will be doing in the future, as well as showing some tantalizing mysteries which Jordan was wise enough to not explain to us. But the main story of the series needs to be resolved. For example I can't recommend anyone read ASOIAF, despite the books we have being truly excellent, because we're never going to get that resolution and it just sours the experience.

So they had no idea where to go next and were tired. That's reasonable. Seems to be what happens to most long running pop culture entertainment products, but creators usually have mortgages to pay and can't alternatively devote their energies to building out something more lucrative like Steam.

They also built up the myth both internally and externally that nothing they developed for the game was good enough, when people were already satisfied with the current mechanics. They wore themselves out saying it could be anything and accepting nothing. A monster of their own creation that is easily killed with a little humility. It is their desire to be unreasonable that led them there.

Not reasonable at all IMO.

It seems like the real problem was burnout among the rank-and-file, not Gabe Newell's perfectionism. The staff seems to have had more fun with a goofy new IP like Left 4 Dead, versus a serious plot like HL2 where any perceived narrative misstep would be severely criticized.

If they shoved the episode through and lost a lot of staff, then that would be a Phyrric victory. Contrary to some opinions here, Valve did not owe a single thing to HL fans, and they had no obligation to finish the story.

They don’t have that obligation to finish the story, but Half-Life 2 Episode 2 immediately retcons the ending of Half-Life 2 to give you more play in the world. Half-Life: Alyx, the entire game is a retcon of the ending of Episode 2. So to sit and claim there was nothing narratively interesting to work with and not a good direction to go in, is ridiculous because they always had a an escape hatch with the retcon.

A company that has failed with sales of Portal 2 but has plenty of operating capital to continue on, Half-Life 2 Episode 3/Half-Life 3 at the very least was a promise they made and walked back. Yes they did owe something to the fans over the last 20 years.

They were the ones who set out to outdo the previous episode and let the idea blossom into never good enough, not the fans.

Depends how you look at it. Admitting you are in over your head, that you cannot do justice to an ideal and choosing to step aside (despite market demand being secured), could be seen as an act of humility, as an act of respect and reverence.

An ideal they had full control of shrinking and growing, they grew it then said “it’s impossible” without trimming their own expectations.

Yeah, the ice gun and blob baddie would have blown my mind even if they were 5 years late or whatever. I'd still love to play with them.

I think Half Life: Alyx really is their "Half Life 3" - there's no game I've played that comes close to anything like it. It's fairly clear in hindsight they opted for a prequel to disassociate with the baggage HL3 carries, in all aspects.

I don't think it's reasonable. When you release part of an episodic story, you are making an implicit promise to your audience that you will finish the story! Even more so if you end on a cliffhanger.

This applies just as much to George R. R. Martin, btw.

I think a lot of video game companies get into this trap. I can't speak for others but for me, I don’t care about technical innovation, just give me more Skyrim, Witcher, Fallout, Half Life, Baldur’s Gate, Elden Ring story. It’s not rocket science. Put all the money you wanted to give to tech guys that want to revamp the engine every year into hiring amazing writers and art direction people.

Video-games fundamentally don't work like that. Stories are told through gameplay, which is an interactive medium expressed through engine, assets and direction. The best video-game storytellers are the tech guys. Most of the franchises you've listed have fairly rudimentary writing by the standards of any other medium, but it's elevated because it is so fun to play. Even something as story-centric as Baldur's Gate, Disco Elysium or Pathologic rests on a ton of technical innovation.

That is one perspective, but not the only one, and it certainly isn't true that video games fundamentally work in the way you claim. Many people are perfectly happy to enjoy a story in a video game which isn't driven by the technical, interactive bits. The entire JRPG genre is like this, for example, as are visual novels. By your logic those genres shouldn't exist, and yet they not only exist but are very popular.

> Many people are perfectly happy to enjoy a story in a video game which isn't driven by the technical, interactive bits. The entire JRPG genre is like this, for example, as are visual novels.

This wasn’t always the case for JRPGs[0]. There was quite a long period where JRPGs were pushing technical limits. Especially around the time of Final Fantasy VII.

[0]: https://youtu.be/EhQamvbfDxc?si=rWRJmHeo_69OI99e&t=5145

There was a JRPG "tech winter" in the PS3-PS4 era because Japanese developers seemed to have a lot of difficulty developing for HD consoles, but I think there was a lot of innovation in handheld games that hasn't been acknowledged. (Though, uh, I can't think of an example.)

Even on consoles there was NieR, which has all the kinds of gameplay you could want.

Square-Enix is trying to bring this back, each Final Fantasy game has had a different combat system and largely been an action game for some time now. I think they largely failed at this, except for FFXIV and FF7 Remake/Rebirth which are great, but they definitely try.

Visual novels are the genre where the writers reign supreme, yes, but that's very explicitly not the games that GP was listing. Skyrim, Fallout, Witcher and Elden Ring are very much not writing-driven experiences.

A lot of game criticism gets confused about visual novels, like how people call them "dating sims" when an actual dating sim (Tokimeki Memorial) is a difficult game with tons of gameplay.

I think everything would be clearer if we all agreed a visual novel is a kind of ebook and not a video game.

I didn't say that every video game was a writing driven experience. GP, on the other hand, did say that video games are inherently driven by tech/gameplay which is provably not true (because VNs and JRPGs are counterexamples).

Circling back to the original topic, I would say that if the only way to finish HL2 was to release episode 3 as a visual novel, do it. Just finish the story!!!

The point is that there doesn't need to be more, or novel tech to tell a good story. If you copy paste the mechanics of baldurs gate but with a new location/story/characters, it would do great.

This. I mean, Skyrim wasn't perfect. But another 2 or 3 games with those mechanics but interesting new content would have done quite well.

Bethesda's weakness has always been writing and content, though. Lots of it, but the main plots are consistently terrible.

> Bethesda's weakness has always been writing and content,

And any decent form of in-game inventory management! Why is it sooooooo bad in bethesda games :(

As far as I can tell their weakness is QA because their games have so many bugs it replaces the actual game design, but at the same time it seems to be their strength because people think it's funny, which must make it hard to change.

Idk, I didn't play the HL games until years after they came out. What was the new tech? I just remember it being a pretty meh shooter on rails type game. The gravity gun was cool I guess.

The HL physics demo was mind blowing to the entire gaming community when it was first shown and caused some insane hype.

There was absolutely nothing like it before it. It's like claiming no one cared when Halo 2 and 3 was released.

I'm not saying no one cared, I just didn't play it when it was new so I don't have a frame of reference.

Source engine, physics puzzles, NPC facial animations, companion AI, overall sound design, lots of UI primitives. Modern video games owe a lot to HL.

I took a game design course in college and the professor was very stuck on HL2, to the point he told us it was perfect because it was so interactive, and that any game with a cutscene in it was a failure because those aren't interactive.

Since then, it doesn't seem to me that the industry has taken this advice.

I kind of agree with the professor though.

I wouldn't go quite as far as he did—I think there are many different ways for video games to tell stories. But the way that Half Life and especially Portal does it is extremely effective—and I haven't seen any other games pull it off or even really attempt it!

I would argue even Half Life: Alyx doesn't really follow the Half Life storytelling formula, because the main character isn't mute. When the character can speak of his/her own accord, they aren't really you, they're a different person.

I don't know: then you just end up with the videogame equivalent of the MCU which, at my most charitable, I would describe as uneven reaching mid at best. However, if we look at the median of how I feel about MCU, I'm just bored to tears with it. It's utter bilge. You just end up with this meaningless churning out of endless content for content's sake that goes nowhere and signifies nothing. Destiny 2 is actually a great example of this in the world of videogames.

> then you just end up with the videogame equivalent of the MCU

We've been there for a long time - just off the top of my head: Call of Duty, Halo, Assassin's Creed, World of Warcraft (doubly so now with Classic), Fortnite

Some people really just want to go back to the old and comfortable.

True. But is that market really that big? Once you've fallen behind a few releases you just don't care for the latest, and the not-latest lack any of that novelty appeal that video games tend to rely on quite a bit.

Bro it's just a video game, and at the end of the day you need inspired people to make a art. I would prefer they just stop and refocus instead of forcing out some corporate slop.

I mean, no product is better than a shitty product in this case.

I actually don't agree! They need to resolve the cliffhanger. Leaving it unresolved retroactively makes the whole package worse.

That's not to say I'd be happy with a Mass Effect 3 style ending, but it doesn't need to be some earth shattering gameplay experience.

Nope, nope, nope.

Think about the Matrix series. The first Matrix film was iconic, the second was decent but sort of mid, the third was absolute drek and it taints the entire franchise as a result. I can't watch The Matrix any more without knowing how they fucked up the third film and without that slightly ruining the experience. The fourth I watched but I must admit that it hasn't really left any kind of impression on me.

Resolving at any cost is way worse than leaving something hanging.

I think it's why Firefly is so well regarded: it didn't last long enough to fall to enshittification. And when they did resolve it they only had a feature film's length to do it, so they had to focus and we got Serenity, which is excellent and how they resolved the origin of the Reavers is still a great piece of storytelling.

I agree. Matrix 3 introduces logic-breaking solutions that contradict the entire premise of that universe, and so the whole is lesser for it.

> Resolving at any cost is way worse than leaving something hanging.

Also agree. Matrix, Lost, Game of Thrones (TV), How I Met Your Mother, they all lost "replayability" because you might care about the characters and the beginning of their journey, but if you know it's all moot or unsatisfactory there's not so many incentives to revisit it. I think GoT really made TV aware of how important it is to a series to have a good, consistent ending.

Game of Thrones' (the book series) fans have a theory about the "Mereenese Knot", a plot that became so convoluted that GRR Martin possibly just don't know how to advance the story in a consistent way, and it's stuck.

What a weird example to choose. I (and many others) continue to enjoy rewatching The Matrix even though the third one has some boring elements.

I actually enjoyed the third movie a lot. I don’t know why it is hated so much. Fourth movie was an unapologetic cash grab.

> Fourth movie was an unapologetic cash grab.

The only part I thoroughly enjoyed was when they meta-explained why they've made the cash grab.

For those who haven't watched: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10838180/quotes/?item=qt6078617...

Chefs kiss

Just because they are honestly able to tell me they are phoning it in for money, doesn’t do anything for me. I’m glad that I won’t be watching Keanu anymore. He was so bad, especially in cyberpunk. Ugh.

What fourth movie?

Yeah, first movie was sort of "unique", the second one was a cliffhanger for the third one that finally explained what The One was all about. Spoiler for you: Smith is The Zero.

I mean, the third matrix movie was by far the best in my book. But taste is subjective and all that.

I simply don't believe you.

You realize calling someone a liar is extremely rude, right? Especially given that this is a purely personal opinion which you cannot possibly have evidence to disprove.

I disagree personally. Even a shitty ending to the story is better than nothing at all.

> So they had no idea where to go next and were tired.

In my experience, a creative team realizing this and choosing to move on is both important and all-too rare. The only alternative I've seen is to find new project leadership who gets what made the original work, has a vision for extending it in new directions and the energy+talent to execute it.

Obviously, finding that with high confidence is hard to do.

L4D was a real hit though. I don't think they let anyone or them self (the artistic spirit, not Valve) down.

L4D was a genuinely good, groundbreaking game for its time. I didn't think it was possible to have so much fun with a multi-player FPS (CounterStrike and its ilk did nothing for me).

I'm sure there are more impressive MP games nowadays, but back then it felt revolutionary.

Ye it was revolutionary. Both as multiplayer coop and as a zombie game.

Another point to remember in all this, is that in the early to mid 2000s game companies were obsessed with the idea of "episodic content".

There were many other games in this time period ended in the same trap, that promised a number of episodes following the main release but gave up after the first couple - Alan Wake, Deus Ex HR etc. No one really even discusses the term "episodic content" in the industry anymore.

I suspect the vast majority of Episode 1/2 players did so because it came bundled in Valve's famous Orange Box release, not because they bought the expansions separately.

A quick google turns up this article discussing the same thing:

> https://www.howtogeek.com/whatever-happened-to-episodic-game....

At the time, each episode brought out amazing new gameplay mechanics and we were all buying them as soon as we saved up enough money. I don't think the episode format changed anything other then making it okay to send out a shorter game then a full flagship.

> we were all buying them as soon as we saved up enough money

Except most of us didn't. Valve actually gave some decent numbers in 2008. In just one year, Orange Box had sold over twice as many copies as Episode 1 did on its own. The pre-orange box sales suggest ~20% of Half Life 2 players bought the expansion stand alone.

Fast forward to today, vastly more people will have played Orange Box, especially as it was the only way to play Episode 1/2 on the PS3 and Xbox 360.

The lesson here was full games (Orange Box) typically sell better than episodes, which was the lesson almost everyone learned about "Episodic Content" in the 2000s. I note some folks argue we just got DLC - but we had DLC in the PS3/360 era too. "Episodic Content" was distinct from this as a business strategy, even if it strongly overlaps. Microsoft were constantly pushing the idea back then especially for the 360, there are a ton of talks/interviews still online from around 2005/6 from guys like Peter Moore on it.

> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2008/12/valve-divulges-life-t...

Huh, TIL. I guess we weren't representative of the whole then.

Ehhh, only sort of. “Episodic Content” mostly turned into “DLC” and “Seasons” rather than disappearing entirely.

AFAIK this is a way to keep your production pipeline busy by releasing parts of the game more often. If you do one large project, then your developers are tools down months or years before the game ships - so you need something for them to do next. If it's nothing, you may have to lay them off.

As a former game developer, I can completely empathize. Some teams want to push the medium forward. Look at Doom, Mario 64. Half Life 2 is one of those titles.

The problem is that the Episode 2 ending did tease the story going somewhere. It's not like the game was a mindless shooter consisting only of groundbreaking mechanics. It spent three games building these characters. People were invested in the story, and they were let down.

However. People remember Half Life 2 for its physics. For the way it pushed graphics. For how it did environment based storytelling. For its AI entities you could control. For the amazing architecture. Very little of what made HL2 is the story.

I think they made the right decision not to ship something they couldn't be proud of. That takes a lot of bravery, in my opinion. I wish they had been more open about it. In the recent years, I was impressed with how Nintendo came out publicly and said they were somewhat stuck and unhappy with Metroid Prime 4's development, apologized, and decided to start over. Metroid fans know about waiting for great games. It'll be worth it.

Father Gregori? Barney's "about that beer I owe ya"? Even the architecture and scenery I'd count as story. The AI squad I never really took that much advantage of, but the antlions were cool.

Yep that’s what I meant by storytelling through environment. The antlions were AI squad too :)

I've said this before and it might be a minority opinion, but frankly I really couldn't care less if Valve made another half life game. There are tons of companies churning out fantastic games from both the AAA and indie space, that there's really no lack of games to choose from.

Meanwhile, between their contributions to linux, proton, the steam deck, the index (just waiting on a new revision... any day now valve...) they are doing work that no-one else wants to, or can afford to, achieve. I'm glad they're focusing their efforts on these niche places with their infinite money printer, rather than being just another video games company.

Maybe it's nostalgia but I would absolutely pay for a new Half Life. I would like to see the story completed.

I don't understand why they are so cagey about releasing any of the work that was done even just as media content. At this point its been so long they cannot ruin the market and there is zero chance of it seeing production as is. They already print money with Steam, not like they would lose revenue.

What a tragedy. I hope the community projects go better.

So they burnt out on it. That's fair. Then the managerial "owner" of the franchise should step back and let someone else run with it. It's a company, with $$$$$, not a single team. They could honestly do it right now - but by now it'd have to be a good story.

Story is key. Hire someone to get a good story going and then motivate from that. There's a billion things you can do in that universe.

I was hoping they were going to reinvigorate HL3 when they got the Portal people on. I don't need more and different engine mechanics, I just want a good story.

Give me a level where I'm dual wielding gravity gun and portal gun while floating in a space suit and directing bouncy goop where I need it.

Play with scale, let me push a planet through a portal or by opening a big portal on each of two planets let their gravity mean they smash together oh so slowly. Hell, make that the background motivation that means I have to get my shit done fast.

But tell a good story please.

Also, the rent-seeking middleman business for PC games is easier and more profitable.

From the timeline, the decision to not pursue Episode 3 anymore was made well before Steam was a money printer, since this was back in 2008, and I don't think digital distribution became the dominant distribution medium until like 2010 or 2011 (note that Steam Greenlight only came into existence in 2012).

Steam made $1 billion in revenue in 2010. It may not have been the dominant distribution medium, but it was definitely a moneymaker by the end of the '00s.

Via sourcing from Wikipedia, https://web.archive.org/web/20110213025041/http://www.forbes... notes that digital downloads surpassed physical media in 2010, and ancillary comments also indicate that it's on a pretty steep growth path at that time (Valve was rocking 200% growth rates at that time).

Also, FWIW, Valve was regularly making ~one game a year, and only stopped that with the release of Dota 2 in 2013.

Hold on, just need to validate this comment by phoning home. In the mean time enjoy DOOM for $1 this holiday season.

I'll happily fork over 30% of the money from my game sales in exchange for Valve providing shelf space, search indexing, and distribution for my video games for the rest of eternity.

That deal absolutely beats the protons out of brick and mortar distribution deals.

Yeah Steam is terrible—I wish I still had to purchase my PC games from the other rent-seeking middleman at the Gamestop in the half-defunct mall in town, instead of clicking a few buttons and having a video game appear on my computer, ready to play.

Though now that you mention it, it's weird, I never remember there being any indie PC games in my local Gamestop... strange...

I would think they learned from L4D3 that they should stick to their normal pattern of stopping at 2.

Huh? But there was no L4D3?

(am I having a whoosh moment here)

Oh dude you’re right, for some reason I thought this was a sequel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_4_Blood

Reply on news.ycombinator.com