Google is Not Looking to Buy Valve

September 18, 2008September 18, 2008| schommerschommer| 0 Comment| 9:05 am
Categories:

Yesterday a rumor started which said Google was looking to purchase Valve Software, the makers of Half-Life, Team Fortress and, of course, Portal. While Valve Software boasts a 20-million unit sales on their archive of awesome games, what interest would google have in gaming?

From google’s own corporate mission statement: “Google’s mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” How would gaming fit into the dynamic of organizing the worlds information?

Some have said they’d be interested in Valve’s Steam system for distributing games and products. That seems far fetched considering all the CDN solutions on the Net, especially those focused towards media related projects like Liberated Syndication (Wizzard Media), which we use to host our gaming podcast, or other video solutions which would fit more into the Google playing field (considering the large purchase of youtube.com)

Today, Doug Lombardi of Valve, pubically said that Valve Software is willing to be purchased but stated the Google rumor was “a bit of fiction.” (kotaku) While Valve Software has shown they can make awesome titles with stability and dedication, knowing their open to being purchased is slightly disturbing.

I’m always happy for those “little guys” that make it in the big world of cut throat game development, there is some satisfaction knowing the smaller developers are making big waves against publishers like EA and Activision. Valve has changed the way we download games electronically and continues to expand their dominion; if Valve Software was purchased by a bigger company, would we still get the same quality and innovation from the developers?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

Mass Effect 3: What REALLY Went Wrong, And How To Fix ItMass Effect 3: What REALLY Went Wrong, And How To Fix It

NOTE: THIS ARTICLE DISCUSSES THE ENDING AND EVENTS OF MASS EFFECT 3. DO NOT READ IF YOU DO NOT WISH THE GAME TO BE SPOILED FOR YOU.

In this day and age, one learns to take internet outrage with a heavy dollop of salt. The videogame community tends to be reactionary in the worst way, for a few reasons: they tend to be young, they tend to express their immediate feelings almost as a stream of consciousness, and let’s face it, the Greater Internet Dickwad Theory comes into play as well.

When it comes to game endings, when I hear that the community is upset about a game’s ending, I almost always take that as a good sign that the ending is daring and provocative. For example, there was an outcry over the abruptness of the ending of Halo 2, which had the nerve to conclude with a cliffhanger. The 2009 Prince of Persia reboot ended with the player undoing all of the work to free an ancient evil god they’d just imprisoned.

So when I heard that there was a growing outcry about the endings of Mass Effect 3, my interest peaked, because invariably, that meant the story was provocative and daring, instead of predictable and boring.

(more…)

Read MoreRead More

Gaming Podcast 219: ColecoVision RulesGaming Podcast 219: ColecoVision Rules

Paul crows about Nintendo’s dominance over the ColecoVision and Dreamcast, while Jonah and Jordan reminisce about this week’s Gaming Flashback, Electronic Arts’ Barnstorming for the Atari 2600.

The news also includes the following topics:

  • Duke Nukem Forever review fiasco
  • Harrison: Apple will be the games industry in 10 years
  • Tretton: No need for PS4, PS3 now hitting its stride
  • Slimmer PS3 coming?

This week’s Gaming History looks at the husband-and-wife developing team Freefall Associates, while the Question of the Week is: How much weight do you give the score of a review? Let us know what you think.

Read MoreRead More

Bethesda’s Hines: Don’t Shoehorn MultiplayerBethesda’s Hines: Don’t Shoehorn Multiplayer

Bethesda Softworks vice president of marketing Pete Hines is critzing publishers and developers who shoehorn multiplayer into their games that doing such a thing is “a waste of time” and advises, “Just drop it, don’t bother…it’ll make for a worse game.”

In an interview with Next Gen BIZ, Hines states that using online multiplayer as a tool to prevent used game trade-ins and rental simply doesn’t work, and robs developers of valuable man-hours.

Hines stated:

“(People ask us) for a game like Skyrim or Prey 2, why doesn’t it have multiplayer? Well, our question is always the opposite when we talk to a developer. If you’re doing multiplayer, why are you doing multiplayer? What are you trying to accomplish?

“If you’re doing it just to check a box or because every other publisher says you’ve got to have multiplayer, then just drop it, don’t bother, it’s a waste of time, a giant distraction and it’ll make for a worse overall game.

“We want the best game possible. If that’s a singleplayer game that’s 15 to 20 hours, then make that! Don’t waste your time on features that don’t make the game better.”

The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim and Prey 2 are two Bethesda properties that will lack multiplayer, but one of the tools to encourage games to keep both games will be downlodable content and, even more important, good communications with the game communities and nurturing the fandom for both games.

Read MoreRead More