Gabe & Erik Appear on Episode 1 of Geoff Keighley Podcast, Gameslice

[Hectic Glenn]

​

As Valve fans we've come accustomed to these kind of interviews where much is said but you never really get solid cast answers you might hope from the questions posited. Nonetheless, an hour with Gabe Newell & Erik Johnson is worth listening to, just to get into the mindset of what is happening at Valve.

In episode 1 of Gameslice, Geoff Keighley asks about VR, Hardware, Source 2, Valve VR games & general game development and more.

Listen to episode one here. (Thanks to P.Stone)

 

[Hardy_P]

A nice podcast if you have an hour to spare.

 

[Aizawa]

was surprisingly fun to listen to. I usually find podcasts boring as hell. I especially like Geoff´s way of asking questions.

 

[MFL]

Well that Terry Pratchett callout was depressing in a lot of ways.

 

[mooki]

Gabe says

"When we are thinking of the next challenges, then we tend to pick the franchises that are most useful in going forward. And if we don’t have one, then obviously we have to create a new one. But you know, I get it, I’m a fan of TV shows, I’m a fan of writers, I’m a fan of movies, I’m a fan of games and I certainly understand why people are like, you know, hey I remember this awesome experience and I’m starting to get worried that I’m never going to have it again. I am a fan of Terry Pratchett and he has Alzheimer’s, it’s like, Oh my god, I may never get another great Discworld novel.

So we understand it and we feel that, and we think at the end of the day, customers are going to be really happy with where we spent our time and how we have turned that into entertainment for them.

But we are also going to build on what we learned, and we have learned a lot. We aren’t going to go all retro because there are too many interesting things that have been learned. The only reason we would go back and do a ‘super classic’ kind of product is if a whole bunch of people internally at Valve said they wanted to do it, and had a reasonable explanation for why it was. But, you know, if you wanted to do another Half Life game and you want to ignore everything we have learned in shipping Portal 2, and in shipping all the updates on the multiplayer side, that seems like a bad choice. So we will keep moving forward but that doesn’t necessarily always mean what people are worried that it mean. "



We just want a single player campaign. We don't need hats or an online market place for Half-life 3, or free to play.
Half-life 1 and 2 were famous because they were groundbreaking titles AND because of the modding support behind them with games like Counter-Strike and Team Fortress.
Sounds like at this point they're trying to capitalize on how to make the most profitable titles and ignoring the stories and experiences they can create.

 

[TheWiktor]

Um... That sounds worryingly similar to "we're not working on Half-Life 3".
idk what to think anymore

 

[Mauferr]

I simply don't understand why make another single player campaign would be "go back" and forget what have been learned. I think that Valve is capable of make a good "classic" with a single player campaign (like they have done before) without need to "go back"....

 

[Mr. Sir Shpee]

This makes it sound like they haven't even started on HL3...

That worries me.

 

[rikt]

This makes it sound like they haven't even started on HL3...

That worries me.

I think I don't care anymore to be honest....funny how a couple of weeks ago I was hyped up. Guess it's getting tiresome.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

Gabe says

"When we are thinking of the next challenges, then we tend to pick the franchises that are most useful in going forward. And if we don’t have one, then obviously we have to create a new one. But you know, I get it, I’m a fan of TV shows, I’m a fan of writers, I’m a fan of movies, I’m a fan of games and I certainly understand why people are like, you know, hey I remember this awesome experience and I’m starting to get worried that I’m never going to have it again. I am a fan of Terry Pratchett and he has Alzheimer’s, it’s like, Oh my god, I may never get another great Discworld novel.

So we understand it and we feel that, and we think at the end of the day, customers are going to be really happy with where we spent our time and how we have turned that into entertainment for them.

But we are also going to build on what we learned, and we have learned a lot. We aren’t going to go all retro because there are too many interesting things that have been learned. The only reason we would go back and do a ‘super classic’ kind of product is if a whole bunch of people internally at Valve said they wanted to do it, and had a reasonable explanation for why it was. But, you know, if you wanted to do another Half Life game and you want to ignore everything we have learned in shipping Portal 2, and in shipping all the updates on the multiplayer side, that seems like a bad choice. So we will keep moving forward but that doesn’t necessarily always mean what people are worried that it mean. "



We just want a single player campaign. We don't need hats or an online market place for Half-life 3, or free to play.
Half-life 1 and 2 were famous because they were groundbreaking titles AND because of the modding support behind them with games like Counter-Strike and Team Fortress.
Sounds like at this point they're trying to capitalize on how to make the most profitable titles and ignoring the stories and experiences they can create.

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

I think they've started on HL3 a couple times then it fell apart or didn't work with their current projects / inhouse experiments at the time. Just as when Gabe talks about the Stars of Blood situation with Birdwell not working out before it was scrapped.

That's what people need to realise, Valve could release a version of Half-life 2, picking up from Episode 2, same engine, same storytelling, just more content and call it Half-life 3. But it wouldn't be as good as you think it would, it would essentially be a 'retro game' as he described. There is no value in them doing that given the amount of things they've learned in the games / software / tech / hardware they've worked on since. They are a sum of their experiences and they want that to come across in whatever the produce.

If you look at TF2 it's evident it was a testbed or 'tool' as Gabe says for building those economy tools and a F2P model. The TF2 tool was refined hundreds of times, making the perfect mould into which they injected all the Dota 2 goodness we see today. That IP worked with that tool at that time, hence why Valve did it.

The problem with Half-life 3 is that it's a tool they've not found a use for yet. The retro game you think you want, believe me, you don't want. Half-life 3 can be so much more if it's done at the right time, as the right tool for the right job. Gabe's analogy with Pratchet shows he understands the frustration but equally I believe they've looked for the right fit for Half-life 3, it's just still not presented itself quite yet. Given the success of the Aperture VR demo, Chet said to me at EGX Rezzed that Aperture works really well in that world, that IP might be the right tool for this time, if it gathers enough desks in one corner in Bellevue. Equally Gabe's fascination with 'little people' on VR might inspire new IP or a different approach to an existing IP. Again, it's whatever tool fits.

It's frustrating as Half-life fans, I understand that. But I and I'm sure many others are Valve fans. From that perspective, the admirable and possibly insane task of constantly asking questions of "where the next problem is in PC gaming" and trying to fix it is something exclusive to Valve. It's quite amazing I think. I'm personally not sitting on the edge of my seat hoping Half-life 3 is at E3 this year, but for you that are, realise everything Valve does, they do so in the pursuit of trying to improve the PC gaming experience. The result of what they learn now and every year until Half-life 3, will make it the game it deserves to be, not just the one you want right now.

 

[Edeslash]

It kinda does sound like they have no plans to start seriously developing another Half-Life game. But after all these years it just doesn't feel disappointing to me to be honest. As long as Valve is doing whatever feels right to them, I'm happy. If they don't feel like doing a Half-Life, we can't expect that to happen. It would be an unintuitive waste of time for a creative, revolutionary company like them.

I love the way Valve works. Portal 2 is a phenomenal game and IIRC it too started from an experimental prototype made by a bunch of people. And there are probably dozens of these prototypes simmering around the office right now. It's just a matter of time.

Edit: It also feels funny to me that people are blaming them for trying to maximize their profits. What they're doing is definitely not selfish. Gabe explained it in the podcast, they're a company who happened to become an essential cornerstone for PC gaming and now they understand their responsibility in trying to move the platform forward. They get a cut from most PC game copies sold these days. Wouldn't it be selfish to focus that money on their own titles only?

 

[Hectic Glenn]

Or he could just bank it. It's not free for him to push this much R&D into hardware & VR. It's involved recruiting new types of people, taking onboard hardware partners. He says near the start about reinvesting how well they've done back into the system.

Also Valve are exceptionally good game developers, one of the reasons people pull their hair out when they don't make more. But take that as further reaffirmation they care about their IPs and they're not in the business of innumerable sequels or rehashes. I'm sure the books are balanced at Valve, Steam does exceptionally well, but I'm sure they've lost a lot of money since they've moved into hardware (as a whole). "Lost that money" is probably an unfair term though, Gabe would say reinvestment, and it's with a view to some financial reward later down the line.

 

[MFL]

Glenn, that was a good post.

Only thing I really disagree with is this position.

The retro game you think you want, believe me, you don't want.

And it's not even that I completely disagree with it, it has value, but I think it's a little intellectually dishonest. Last year one of the most successful FPS's was the new Wolfenstein. That game is the closest experience I've had to HL in years. There is definitely still a market for the genre. All too often I hear the argument that people don't want it.

Please don't tell me what I want. Sure, I don't have the data that Valve does when it comes to trends on what everyone wants, but I am more than capable of knowing my own interests.

 

[mooki]

I understand what you're saying Hectic.

I just think Half-Life 3 doesn't even need some other function...
I just want a new campaign with great graphics, story, guns, enemies, etc. Preferably something on the same level of how the physics were Half-Life 2's 'thing'.

I'd pay $60 for Half-Life 3 and HL3 deathmatch and the mods that come out for it.

MFL is right; Wolfenstein doesn't even have multiplayer and I haven't seen a single mod for it. But it was incredible and reminded me a lot of Half-Life in terms of quality. But apparently to Valve just making Half-Life 3 itself isn't smart.


Now i'm really starting to realize that Valve is just what it is. A business.

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

Shovelknight was easily the best game and it was just a 2d sidescrolling platformer in 8-bit. there is nothing bad about retro. I've been playing nothing but "retro" games lately: Quake 3, Unreal 2015, classic Doom, etc.

So I disagree with you Glenn, I much prefer "retro" over the AAA cinematic garbage within the last couple of years. Give me great weapon variety, great level design, enemy variety, fast paced action and with great music. That's what I want in a FPS.

 

[mooki]

Shovelknight was easily the best game and it was just a 2d sidescrolling platformer in 8-bit. there is nothing bad about retro. I've been playing nothing but "retro" games lately: Quake 3, Unreal 2015, classic Doom, etc.

So I disagree with you Glenn, I much prefer "retro" over the AAA cinematic garbage within the last couple of years. Give me great weapon variety, great level design, enemy variety, fast paced action and with great music. That's what I want in a FPS.

Me too.
I mean shit, I'm buying Doom 4 later this year. It sounds like it's exactly what I want. A good old fashioned shooter. I don't want Doom 4 to introduce some new bullshit. PC gaming is not broken, so don't fix it!

Same with Half-Life.
What I think, though, is that Valve says "Look, Half-Life 2 made us $100 million dollars in 5 years. TF2 and Dota 2 have made us $100 million in 6 months."
So now that whole "stupid, unprofitable singleplayer experience" is out the window. If we ever DO get Half-Life 3, it'll have some stupid gimmick tied to it like how TF2 has hats or how Dota 2 has everything purchasable because Valve doesn't have faith in it just being a game and not a money maker.

 

[SpotEnemyBoats]

Doom 4 from what we've heard of Quakecon, it actually sounds what i want from a modern Doom. Lots of big guns, gore, player moving at 100 mph and with the latest tech.

As for what Gabe said it sound more like "If employees at Valve ignore the lesson of hats and My Little Pony skins, working on a retro HL sequel would be a bad decision because that wont feed me money fast enough!"

 

[Aizawa]

I love Portal 2, I really do, but if they had done HL3 instead of Portal 2, then I would be much happier. The graphics woudlnt be a big leap forward, but first of all graphics dont matter as long as you have a nice design (why Half-Life 2 still looks good today), and second the only reason for them to make HL3 on Source 2 would be if they had gameplay mechanics in mind which are not possible with Source 1. But: Make HL3 instead of Portal 2, the gap between Episode 2 and HL3 woudlnt be that big, expecatitions wouldnt be this high, as long as introduced some really good new weapons, enemies, levels and finishes the story in a satisfying way, everyone would be happy. After that they could make Portal 2 and THEN we could have this phase, only that they dont think about making HL3, but HL4 or a brand new IP (which Id love even more).
I know Valve devs can do what they want, and maybe they were really tired of making Half-Life, but the thing is the way episode 2 ended. But nowadays I dont even care for the story of Half-Life, I just want Half-Life 3 because I want the FPS genre to go BACK to where it was (or beyond), because FPS have developed backwards, with some exceptions like Metro 2033, Bioshock Infinite and Wolfenstein the New Order, and every time I play one of those games I always am like "This is close to the experience I miss from Half-Life, but its not quite there yet".
Actually because I still dont have that experience the game I started working on (small 2D top down shooter) will be designed with the same design philosophies behind Half-Life 1 and 2 (I´ll try at least), but thats another story

 

[rjthrog]

I understand what you're saying Hectic.

I just think Half-Life 3 doesn't even need some other function...
I just want a new campaign with great graphics, story, guns, enemies, etc. Preferably something on the same level of how the physics were Half-Life 2's 'thing'.

I'd pay $60 for Half-Life 3 and HL3 deathmatch and the mods that come out for it.

MFL is right; Wolfenstein doesn't even have multiplayer and I haven't seen a single mod for it. But it was incredible and reminded me a lot of Half-Life in terms of quality. But apparently to Valve just making Half-Life 3 itself isn't smart.


Now i'm really starting to realize that Valve is just what it is. A business.

I'd pay $60 for a new HL game with same graphics and design as HL 2. I also dont understand why some developers recently have downplayed single player. If the single player model wasnt a money maker then someone tell that to the creaters of Mass Effect, Dragon Age, GTA, and numerous other titles. Sure those games have a multiplayer component, but the meat and potatoes are single player. I'm not saying valve should turn Half Life into COD, but at least one game in half a decade. I don't blame them for doing whatever they want to do, but for them to compare making another HL game a retro thing, thats absurd to me. As much as people have complained about how long its taken, there's no doubt in my mind they would sell more than enough to make their money back plus some. Even if it was a game with old graphics. There's alot of people out there like myself who still love that classic "retro style" game. I play the original HL everyonce in a while. I still pull out my 64 and play goldeneye and perfect dark sometimes. And I cant be the only one who would like to find out what happens after the cliffhanger in EP 2.

 

[mooki]

Exactly. I mean, GTA 5 made a billion dollars in three days before the online even came out.

 

[rikt]

Valve has definitely suceeded in transmiting several things to the community over the years.

1. Valve does what it wants, how it wants, when and if it wants.
2. Valve is mainly interested in multiplayer experiences and not singleplayer.
3. No communications will be made about IP's that are not close to a finished product.

Fair enough, it's their company after all. Made me feel frustrated at times, but got over it....got over it well enough, maybe too well. I still get hyped about any hint on HL3, but honestly the truth is that I won't even buy it above 5-10$ anymore. Whenever it comes out, if it still happens in my lifetime, I feel that I have waited so long that I can wait a bit more for it to get to the 5$ bin. No rush, there are plenty of great games out there and I have plenty IRL to keep me busy anyway.

On my part I just wanted to see an end to the HL story and they could have released HL2:Ep3 to develop the story a bit more and not leave it in a cliffhanger, as we all know, and then HL3 could come later with the new engine etc. I agree with has already been said, I don't want some cinematic multiplayer experience where you go through most of the action with "Push A" NOW to kill all the bad guys, jump off the train and save the world....I was hoping to get a singleplayer shooter. Better overall graphics, physics, sure but I don't care about multiplayer there are tons of games for that already.

I am ready to not buy the game and wait for someone to post the story on Wikipedia if it's anything like what I have just described above. I've done it with other titles before.

 

[DopeZebra]

guys i think half life 3 is really being worked on and valve just might be trolling us or maybe they scrapped half life 3 a couple of times. there have been alot of references of half life 3 deep in the code of games. i know it is being worked on.

 

[rikt]

guys i think half life 3 is really being worked on and valve just might be trolling us or maybe they scrapped half life 3 a couple of times. there have been alot of references of half life 3 deep in the code of games. i know it is being worked on.

I think we all agree that it is being worked on wether it's at a slower or faster pace.

 

[Doofcake]

All too often I hear the argument that people don't want it.

It really is frustrating how everyone keeps saying this or that type of game is dead and has no place in the modern video game landscape. It's really not "players don't want it", but more "developers don't want it". Players LOVE these games. Wolfenstein: The New Order is a perfect example.
But the developers want to milk the game dry, which is why recent FPS games are all multiplayer-focused with endless amounts of DLC. And players HATE that. So don't come telling me how gamers don't want the classic FPS when that is exactly what they want.

 

[Omnomnick]

Doom 4 from what we've heard of Quakecon, it actually sounds what i want from a modern Doom. Lots of big guns, gore, player moving at 100 mph and with the latest tech.

Latest tech = id Tech 6, the follow-up to id Tech 5, aka pop-in simulator 2011?

Hahahahaha.

 

[mooki]

Latest tech = id Tech 6, the follow-up to id Tech 5, aka pop-in simulator 2011?

Hahahahaha.

Bad memories of Rage, friend.

 

[-smash-]

On Gabe talking about using franchises as tools... Why did they skip the opportunity to use a small HL demo for Vive? Why did they go with Portal? I can think up of a number of scenarios within the HL world that would serve as great VR demos. A "Lost Coast" for VR, if you will. I think HL is a great tool for creating VR experiences as far as utilizing compelling and immersive stories goes.

It just seems like they go out of their way to NOT do anything HL-related these days...

 

[mooki]

On Ga
be talking about using franchises as tools... Why did they skip the opportunity to use a small HL demo for Vive? Why did they go with Portal? I can think up of a number of scenarios within the HL world that would serve as great VR demos. A "Lost Coast" for VR, if you will. I think HL is a great tool for creating VR experiences as far as utilizing compelling and immersive stories goes.

It just seems like they go out of there way to NOT do anything HL-related these days...

Exactly. Half-Life doesn't even exist to Valve anymore.

I'm just really pissed at Valve. They don't know what the fans want. Or they just don't care.

I mean, remember that announcement back in 2013 for the '3 mysterious announcements?' SteamOS, Steam Controller, Steam Machines. Yay. No one expected that or wanted it.
Then an ARG for Portal 2. Woo, thx valve. When I played the Orange Box, the sequel I definitely wanted was for Portal, not Half-Life 2: Episode 2. Great game, but still.

I just don't understand why they don't just talk about it. They promised Episode 3; Episode 2 left on a huge cliffhanger and there's so many unanswered questions. Now they can't even talk about it. If they just said "Yeah we're making Half-Life 3. We don't have anything to show now, but it's being made." People would be pleased.

I mean, Gabe can't even talk about a Half-Life sequel.


I can talk about this crap forever. I need to stop posting here. It's just sad and disappointing. Can't wait for Left 4 Dead 3 though, woohoooo!!

 

[rikt]

On Gabe talking about using franchises as tools... Why did they skip the opportunity to use a small HL demo for Vive? Why did they go with Portal? I can think up of a number of scenarios within the HL world that would serve as great VR demos. A "Lost Coast" for VR, if you will. I think HL is a great tool for creating VR experiences as far as utilizing compelling and immersive stories goes.

It just seems like they go out of their way to NOT do anything HL-related these days...

Much as I would have liked that to happen we all know what would follow. A massive hype of "That's HL3" and "It's happening!!!", etc. Even if they would say it's just a demo they made for the presentation.

 

[-smash-]

That's no reason not to make it, but more reason they need to fix their communication strategies reagarding the future of the series.

You're saying any potential new HL content is held hostage to the unknown status of HL3. If Valve feels the same way you do, then they need to wake the **** up and properly address their communication.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

Valve's investment in VR and hardware has been astronomical. Half-life is one of the most sought after and loved IPs in gaming history. If Valve had an innovative way to express the capabilities of VR by combining those two things, I think we would have seen it. We learn unexpected results by trialing things and finding they don't work. I'm certain Valve tried something Half-life related internally but Aperture lends itself better to express what part of VR they think is important - mainly the two controllers giving your hands a place in the VR world.

It's impossible to say "there is no reason not to make it" without knowing all strengths and limitations of VR from a development perspective. I would love to see something Half-life related, but equally I want it to actually express the technology.

A very interesting anecdote from the developers at EGX Rezzed, when talking about VR, is that overly emotive suspension of disbelief actually undermines the VR immersion. Weird right? If you install true fear in someone, like actual vertigo you'd think, wow VR has really tricked my brain. But from their experimentation they found people adopted the "don't be scared, it's just VR" mentality, instantly snapping them out the emersion. I would never have thought that. Take a further 100 experiments in various applications to a story-driven, engaging FPS and I'm certain you will find the game breaks for so many reasons that you could never anticipate.

 

[-smash-]

They created a new narrative with Portal 2 to wrap around the VR controllers mechanic. Portal was all about portals, but they invented a new situation for the VR demo. They could have done the same with HL.

 

[Lolcomputer]

Holy shit, the amount of dissapointed people on this thread is aboslutely astounding. We all know that Valve is affraid of making promises early on, because then they might not live up to their expectiations later on; hence Gabe Newell saying that whatever their working on, it won't be dissapointing in the end.

They created a new narrative with Portal 2 to wrap around the VR controllers mechanic. Portal was all about portals, but they invented a new situation for the VR demo. They could have done the same with HL.

The reason they didn't do that, is because people would freak the **** out, just because Valve created something similar to Half-Life. They don't want to excite their audience in a bad timing, rather be patient and strategic in their marketing.

And we're talking about a podcast taking place behind a GDC booth, not E3 or something similar to that. Wouldn't it be dumb if they announced, or at least confirmed it's relevant existence, in a smaller podcast?

I understand you guys being pissed off in the end, but we're talking about Valve. They usually don't sit around with their thumb up their asses, their rather productive when it comes to it. So all I can say is, be patient; one day your dream of a new Half-Life game will eventually become true, if it comes out this year or another one, we'll just have to wait and see. Because Valve is not oblivious to it's community, you guys know that. They can clearly see the amount of people who want Half-Life 3, so it's just a matter of mutual patience, even if all this slightly implies that Half-Life is a forgotten dead horse to Valve. But we can still use our common sense to avoid that conclusion, since it is clearly still a relevant IP.

 

[Hectic Glenn]

They created a new narrative with Portal 2 to wrap around the VR controllers mechanic. Portal was all about portals, but they invented a new situation for the VR demo. They could have done the same with HL.

Probably, but Portal / Aperture did a better job of it, hence it got shop window status. There isn't a requirement that Half-life should get front of queue when Aperture did it better. Again it's back to the correct tool for the job analogy.

I mean, I don't intend to come across as a staunch blinded fan boy, I'd rather work along the lines of logic on the back of what Gabe said. To imply they intentionally and vindictively avoid Half-life is bizarre to me!

 

[Omnomnick]

It just seems like they go out of their way to NOT do anything HL-related these days...

Valve have admitted they are using most of their existing IPs as test beds for their VR tech, it doesn't have much to do with the games themselves or their mechanics. The VR demo for the Vive is almost exclusively about getting people excited to experience a world, and a world within a 15ft by 15ft space at that.

An interesting universe within small, occasionally tight or claustrophobic environments basically describes Portal's narrative, making it THE perfect fit.

 

[Midnitte]

Too bad Valve doesn't do interviews such as this with their #1 fan site...

 

[-smash-]

To imply they intentionally and vindictively avoid Half-life is bizarre to me!

Vindictive is a pretty strong word that I certainly wasn't throwing in there.

But let's look at the facts here. We're getting close to 10 years without any new HL content. All the testing with the comics, videos, DLC, Workshop, VR, etc, could be applied to new HL content for public consumption, but they've deliberately chosen not to so far.

Too bad Valve doesn't do interviews such as this with their #1 fan site...

Seriously.

 

[Omnomnick]

But let's look at the facts here. We're getting close to 10 years without any new HL content. All the testing with the comics, videos, DLC, Workshop, VR, etc, could be applied to new HL content for public consumption, but they've deliberately chosen not to so far.

They could apply it to Half-Life, but just imagine how pissed off fans would be if they got comics and short films instead of full games? Personally I love content of all kind as long as its of good quality, but I know exactly how a vocal section of the community would react, and it wouldn't be pretty.

Unless Valve covered other topics from the Half-Life universe (Seven Hour War, etc, which IMO do not need to be shown or explained as it would ruin their appeal), a lot of fans would go ape shit and see it as a cop-out.

People get frustrated whenever TF2 updates focus mainly on comics and content outside the game itself, so just imagine how bad it would get for Half-Life. Staying silent is the best safe bet they have as it can only back fire by having people become way too overzealous or crazy of their own accord (which is basically what has happened lately).

 

[MFL]

Imagine a reworked Black Mesa test chamber for VR.

 

[-smash-]

Imagine a reworked Black Mesa test chamber for VR.

Could be cool. Or even a situation involving Kleiner's Lab.

comics and short films instead of full games

Why does it have to be instead of, and not in combination with, a full game? They could fit some of those pieces together in one package. Package not meaning one release, but a generation like Dota 2 or TF2.