Slashdot Mirror


Gabe Newell Understands Half-Life Fans, Not Promising Any Sequels

jones_supa writes Half-Life 3 is undoubtedly one of the most anticipated games in history. While Valve transitioned from the revolutionary series that brought the company most of its original success, to online games like Team Fortress, Dota and Left 4 Dead, people still desperately want to believe that there is more coming for Half-Life.

In a recent podcast interview he had with Geoff Keighley, Valve CEO Gabe Newell opens up the current situation a bit more: "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. [...] 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."

11 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Internal by Kkloe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    seems they ended it with a cliffhanger and now they dont know how to end it

  2. Re:Hes talking shit, as usual by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    At this point, those gamertards are probably in their late 30's. Seriously, it's starting to be a long time now.

    It very much reads like they have no intention of doing another one. Which is actually fine, but why play coy? It's not like they ended the series in any sort of final way. People like the series and wanted to play again.

    Something makes me wonder if Gabe developed a personal issue with the series and just doesn't want to do another one. That or they have something big up their sleeve and want HL3 to be the flagship title for that thing, whatever it is.

  3. Retro?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, Gabe, Half-Life 3 wouldn't be "Retro" if you hadn't WAITED SO FREEKIN LONG!

  4. Re:Barney by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree they shouldn't rush HL3 (or Episode 3 or whatever), but that's no reason to leave the Half-Life universe hanging.

    Opposing Force and Blue Shift were basically keeping HL alive until HL2 came along, and they did a pretty good job.

    I'd rather have some spin-off that CAN crash and burn and wait for the big "movie" that we CAN'T have crash and burn get perfected.

    I was quite hopeful for things like Lost Coast etc. to provide some kind of in-betweeny bits but I'm still waiting with my character on the brink of death (at least three times now, I've gone through the whole series of games just to play them again) to find out what happens next.

    Distract me, or tell me. Don't just ignore me.

  5. Re:Hes talking shit, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think they got conscious of their success and realized that they could not live up to the hype.

    Look at Duke Nukem: the sequel took forever and... sucked. Well, not exactly sucked, but it was just mediocre, which was worse than sucking. It was supposed to be the Messiah of Games and ended up being a Wal-Mart bargain bin special.

    Half Life, as a series, still has the same kind of aura that Doom and Duke Nukem had gathered about themselves. It hasn't been ruined yet: in fact, it's been augmented by the Portal series, which wasn't a sequel but rather a symbiotic addition. The words "Half Life" raise an expectation in the audience, and Gabe knows that HL3 would have trouble living up to that expectation. He doesn't want to be responsible for the next Duke Nukem Forever.

  6. Re: Internal by BlueTrin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One problem with this kind of series is that it was so successful that an average sequel will not cut it.

    Whatever comes out better be excellent or it will trashed by the gaming community. They cannot afford to have the kind of game which would be labelled as 'quite good' if it was made by an indie developer.

    Another issue is caused by the time that went past after the second instalment: times change and what was ok as a FPS may be not appeal to the new gamers or may be considered as archaic when comparing to the new games. Now people expect better AI, destructible environments, the focus of FPS is shifting more towards multiplayer including coop mode. Since changing the game concepts is likely to attract the ire of the hardcore fans, the more you wait the more you are stuck between a rock and a hard place: it becomes increasingly difficult to please fans of the previous game and newer players since the first category wants probably the same game with minor improvements and the latter just want an AAA game which could best titles such as BF or CoD.

    --
    Don't you know it is now both immoral and criminal to think beyond the next quarterly report?
  7. Desperately Want to Believe? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 5, Insightful

    HL2 ended with a fucking cliff hanger FFS! We were left thinking that it's time to take it to where the baddies live. What's so desperate to believe they intended to make a third installment? I always assumed that we'd see HL3 when they came out with their Source 2 gaming engine. Now Gabe's talking like HL is "retro" and the article makes it sound as if Valve has no intention to make new games that are single player. Personally, after reading that article, I hope they don't release a new HL. Gabe comes off as a major asshole who forgot that they set up the whole ending of HL2 as a segue to a sequel and is now acting like anyone who wants them to finish their story is a sorry ass loser. So fuck them. I don't buy many games, and haven't bought a Valve game since Portal2 and will make damn sure that's my last Valve purchase ever unless HL3 is released and they stop talking about their customers like they are worthless trash who are idiots for wanting a finished story when left with a cliff hanger.

  8. Re:Hes talking shit, as usual by jandrese · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Duke Nukem release did do at least one bit of good for the community: It got everyone to stop talking about Duke Nukem Forever. Apparently some people just need closure.

    --

    I read the internet for the articles.
  9. Not in Valve's commercial interest by RogueyWon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Valve has no commercial interest in making Half-Life 3. It's not that the game wouldn't be profitable. It almost certainly would be - lots of people would buy it. But it would risk the wider strategy they've been pursuing for a decade now.

    Valve's income these days isn't from making and selling games; it's from charging other people to sell games via Steam. Seriously - you buy a game on Steam and a big slug of the price you pay goes straight to Valve. Sure, they have hosting costs, but there is a lot of pure profit in there.

    Ever since Steam started to be a big thing, Valve has focussed on more niche games rather than big-budget fpses. It does not want to be seen as threatening or a rival to its biggest business partners. EA have already taken their toys and gone home to Origin; Valve's dominance of the PC gaming market relies on keeping Activision, Ubisoft and others on board.

    And a big part of that is not being seen as a competitor. If Activision wants to pay Valve a lot of money to plaster the Steam front-page with a huge Call of Duty advert, then that's good for Valve. But Activision might get nervous if they worried that the platform they were using was run by a company that was actively pushing a game in competition with theirs.

    Over in console-land, Sony and Microsoft's first party exclusives are generally put out there to sell consoles (not always a profitable activity in itself). They build up the installed base to get the third parties interested. The only platform-owner to really emphasise first-party games development is Nintendo, who, surprise surprise, have terrible third-party relationships.

    Far easier for Valve to allow other people to put the effort in to making money for them, rather than take the risk of investing in games development to make direct income from sales. Particularly now that Steam is so ubiquitous as a platform that it doesn't need first-party games to grow the installed base.

  10. Re:Need a reason? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Ya there's plenty of reason to do it, it is just clear Valve has lost interest. They seem to suffer from "Oooo shiny!" syndrome pretty bad, which they can afford to do since Steam makes them more money than they know what to do with. They'll play with a project for awhile, get bored, and move on to something else.

    I mean I can respect not making a sequel just for a sequel's sake. If the series has run its course, it sucks to tell the creative people "You have to make another one, no I don't give a shit how much it doesn't fit!" Clearly not the case here, they had more story to tell so the creative types should be happy to continue it.

    Likewise I can understand not making a sequel if it is going to be a commercial failure. No matter how much you'd like to continue something, if the market isn't interested it is a bad idea to do. Again, not the case here, the game could be crap and it would still make money because so many people want it bad (not that it matters because of Steam).

    So there's no reason not to do it here, only that Valve is flighty and isn't interested in it anymore for whatever reason. I mean all the crap about innovation is bullshit. Valve is happy to do things that are just more of the same. See Left 4 Dead 2, DOTA 2, and CS:GO. Left 4 Dead 2 was really just an expansion pack sold as a new game, DOTA 2 is just a MOBA, one of a shit ton of them and one that borrows heavily from others, and CS:GO is, well, Counterstrike. No problem, I'm not hating, but trying to claim that they somehow have to be really innovative with their games is crap. They have been happy to release games lately that are just rehashes of existing stuff.

    I guarantee if the Steam money pit dried up they'd be looking to make HL3 really fast. However they don't have to care right now, they can just play around since they make shit tons of money for doing nothing but being a middleman.

    It also shows lack of commitment to their projects, specifically the Steam Machine. Valve really is half-assing it (as is obvious from the timeline, that there is on QA on the various platforms, and so on) if they really wanted to try and drive it, HL3 would be there and be used. Make that a Steam Machine/SteamOS exclusive people would give a shit. Even if it was just short term, and then it comes to Windows, it would massively push sales having an exclusive title that people really, really want. Existing console makers know this, and always try to have a killer franchise. Were Valve really committed to their new toy, they'd have HL3 ready to go for it.

  11. Re:I don't get it... by Vokkyt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No idea why this is modded as Informative -- people wanting to buy HL3 sight-unseen isn't an indicator to make it, that's an indicator for a cash-in which they're not acting on. This is a sobering but good reason as to why there's no HL3. If they aren't feeling it, they shouldn't be doing it, because it's just going to end up with unhappy Valve and unhappy gamers. No one really wins except for Valve's bank account.

    Demanding they put out HL3 without a creative impetus is like a kid demanding to eat ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Seriously, not everything needs to be on a scheduled release cycle; it's okay for stuff to be done when it's done instead of just forcing out a new product 'cause it's about new product time. This mentality is what leads to so much awfulness from the tech sector.