This is an interesting take, especially coming from a non-gaming focused tech website like Ars Technica. I feel like it’s been too long since people were truly hyped about half life 3 though, and this wouldn’t be enough, even if Valve did go through with it.
People are increasingly unhappy with windows though, and the EoL of windows 10 may push people to Linux anyways.
There is no chance Valve will make HL3 SteamOS or Linux exclusive.
This is not only dumb, but also manages to ignore Gabe’s past declarations on the matter. It even ignores the fact they even released CounterStrike (of all things) on consoles.
Exclusivity is bad for gamers. We should reject it at all times.
Inclusivity then again means that even nazis should be allowed to game if they behave.
We already got half life 3. It was called half life alyx specifically to get away from the massive pressure that came with the meme.
Its also important to know valves strength is that they don’t need to pump out games, they make profit enough though steam. This makes sure they can put time in exploring new concepts and innovation and only release games that maintain the perception of excellence, which they could lose fast if they released a “mid” tier game.
There are grown ass adults born after the last main story Half-life game.
While I have no doubt there would be some hype for a Half-life 3, I don’t think it would be the firestarter this author is thinking.
I think Valve knows better than to make an exclusive. Now will they optimise it for SD? I don’t think there’s any doubt about that.
The same could be argued about HL:Alyx for VR, yet here we are…
Ewww exclusives.
It’s always funny to see periodicals talk about Valve like they’re a normal puplicly traded tech company.
Valve is private. That fact alone is neither inherently good, nor bad. What it means though, is that Valve will very likely behave very differently than other companies in the same market. Heck, I very much doubt half life Alyx would exist if they were public. If we get HL3, it will likely be a similar case.
Valve is private. That fact alone is neither inherently good, nor bad.
I’m leaning towards being a public company is inherently bad, so being a private company is preferable as the primary “not bad” option.
My main experiences with public companies lately is that they prioritize quarterly and yearly profits over long term health of the company and a good relationship with their customers. I don’t think that approach will be healthy for the company long term, and hurts consumers short term.
Privately owned companies can be just as shitty as publicly owned companies, but they’re not required to put short term shareholder profits first. The well run ones (especially family run ones) are more likely to prioritize building a good reputation and consumer loyalty, which is how you get companies that don’t suck to interact with.
You make good points, but I doubt you’d continue to feel that way if you were a shareholder
