Talk:Valve Corporation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial text

If 'Axel G.' has been 'tried and convicted in the US', as the HL2 page currently says, then why does nobody know his full name? Surely if there was a trial, the name would become public. I guess this information isn't correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.76.97.247 (talk) 03:19, 7 July 2005 (UTC)

How was the information about valves revenue aquired? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.214.59.178 (talk) 00:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Mention of PowerPlay (technology) should probably go in here somewhere, im just not sure where. - 202.7.176.133 05:27, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Move to Valve Corporation?

Does anyone object to this page moving to Valve Corporation? That's now the group's name, and all legal documentation refers to it. --Tom Edwards 18:24, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

VALVE Criticisms?

Does someone want to mention all VALVe's delays, PR blunders, and vapourware in a VALVe criticism section? 149.99.169.64 10:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess no one knows the back story behind Valve. There's two reasons for this. Valve fanboys do not want to reveal their flaws? 2. No Valv employee has said anything against Valve or one of its games.

Droideka88 01:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Valve is completely open to their mistakes. They have an entire page dedicated to it on their site: https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Valve_Time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baez007 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Baez007 22:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Pretty Logo

I added the interesting 'valve in the eye' picture to the page. Just out of curiosity, to pretty up the pages, you know. VJ Emsi 22:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for adding it VJ, I got a question about it, who's the guy in the picture? Jackpot Den 22:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No idea. I'd like to know; I'm looking into it. VJ Emsi 23:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I added a link to an interview gamespy did (and recently updated) to the bottom of the logo window - its worth the click and read --Amckern 04:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Valve LLC vs Valve Corporation

Now, ever since they left previous publisher Vivendi SA, they've been known as "Valve Corporation." I mean, if they were still a LLC, their disclaimers would state that, but they don't. For instance, their official site states as " © 1995-2005 Valve Corporation, all rights reserved."

Prior to that, It was "Valve, LLC". I doubt they're still a Limited Liability. Am I correct on this?--TonicBH 13:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. What are they, then? --Tom Edwards 14:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it's one of those things we should ask Valve themselves. ;) --TonicBH 15:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Gabe says Valve Corp is the right option. --Tom Edwards 06:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Who owns the shares?--84.152.211.164 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Mods

There should be an article for H-L and H-L2 mods thats a huge part of Valve's history.

There is. Look in the orange subject box at the bottom. --Tom Edwards 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

VALVe Vs Valve

i was just wondering if it was VALVe or Valve we should use throughout the pages _~username/skk\ 58.160.188.225 12:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

VALVe is just the logo(Its not even, the "e" is higher up. Valve even use "Valve" on their own website. http://www.valvesoftware.com/ --Greg Moroney 14:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Revenue

The article states "Revenue $70 million USD (2005)" however this info still requires citation. Does anyone have any info in regards to this? --Greg Moroney 16:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Someone removed it after Forbes sent their site to buggery. This was the URL. --Tom Edwards 08:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Try http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2005/1212/064.html. --Joshtek 21:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I clicked on Gabe Newell's name and it redirected to fat. 81.179.106.149 11:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

That's vandalism of Gabe's page, not this one. It's been fixed now anyway. --Tom Edwards 11:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Turtle Rock

Valve Corporation today announced the acquisition of Turtle Rock Studios. LINK

Anyony going to update this?--193.1.96.36 (talk) 19:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Valve has snapped up the devs of TF, DOD, CS, Portal and now they've bought out Turtle Rock. Maybe a whole section should be devoted to the different teams that they've borged. -- 216.221.37.23 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

They've got a headquarters in California. 124.179.162.159 (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Supporting their games

The statement that Valve are extremely supportive of their games is clearly falsifiable, and if I didn't think it would be removed, I would add the qualifier that while TF2 gets achievement updates CSS and HL2DM are left to die with crippling bugs. HL2DM hasn't had a proper update in over 2 years, and CSS hasn't been updated in over 1 year, and HL2DM is unplayable, while CSS has bugs which can severely affect competitive play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.183.136 (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

HL2DM is not unplayable. And the reason CSS hasn't been updated for ages is because it's a five year old game now. The two years of support it got was extensive when compared to other games. Smurfy 23:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hacker Maddoxx

I can't find any good information on the Valve hacker on wikipedia. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough? Can someone add it please? Thanks Staid03 (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Valve "firing"

The statements on firings originated from the Team Fortress 2 team's blog. Reading carefully it nothing but humor in it. Anyways there's no official announcement from Valve Corporation. How does one team member from a specific team from Valve have full authority to fire people? -loompyloompy313 —Preceding undated comment added 01:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC).

Might as well remove the "firing" on Marc Laidlaw's page too, as well as on any other Valve member pages that are on Wikipedia. --Firestarter PRG (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

---This might take awhile to clean up. User:Loompyloompy313 --Loompyloompy313 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Valve Jokes

Please, people. Stop putting these uncitated Valve jokes in the article as if they were encyclopedic content. Valve is NOT merging with EA. Valve DID NOT ACTUALLY fire everyone over the "Meet the Spy" leak. Please stop. If you want to mention these, put them in a joke section. Theusernameiwantedisalreadyinuse (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

L4d2 boycott ==== L4d2 boycott

It seems rather inappropriate to this page and should moved to the l4d2 page if it isn't already. 68.39.99.22 (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Hurf

You protected the article and removed the links that sent from "Gabe Newell" to "Fat", but you left "Santa Claus" on the 'key people' category. Also the "invasive DRM" bit. good job wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.132.221.1 (talk) 22:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

More things

I Live in redmons, and to help expand this lonely stub of an article, I can take a picture of Valve. Like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.99.199.82 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Meaning behind the name

I've gotten bored at work and decided to find out why Valve chose that for a name. Some reason there doesn't seem to be any talk online about it. Does anyone here know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.81.253 (talk) 17:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Gabe had this to say a while back:

We had other names for Valve. One was “Fruitfly Ensemble”, speaking of terrible names. Another was “Rhino Scar”, which was fun because of the visual. [Gabe draws a vague cartoon outline of a man with a circular hole through the middle of his torso] We’d have had this guy running around… But no, it was Valve.

No idea why I remember that. :-p --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Valve is the British English term for vacuum tube. Maybe the name is a long forgotten play on this, though it would be particularly obscure given that this is a US company. I can't find any evidence for this though. --Ef80 (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Valve's original concept was, "Open your mind. Open your eyes." thus the "valve in head" and "valve in eye" logos and the name of the company. Here's the article. Good read. Cesue (talk) 21:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Valve Task Force Re-vitalization

Attention, all contributors to the Valve Task Force and the articles it constitutes!
I am here to announce that I will be re-vitalizing the Valve Task Force, aimed at universally improving articles constituting Valve Corporation, their employees, associates and products. This specific task force has been dormant for quite some time and with two very notable releases coming out this year, I feel like this is the appropriate time to re-stimulate the general aim of this group. For those who are not already members of the Valve Task Force, feel free to add your name to our members list and contribute to whatever articles you feel your contributions may prove beneficial for. Valve, its products and notable employees have proven to be essential to the progression of the video game industry, so I'd like to make a call of arms for this cause. DarthBotto _talk•cont 21:56, 08 February 2011 (UTC)

Mac support

Portal and several of the other games listed also run on the Mac via Steam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.237.11.239 (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Valve Corporation → Valve (company) – Calling it Valve Corporation seems highly inappropriate per the current naming conventions used in articles such as Microsoft, IBM, Electronic Arts etc. Not one of these article names end with Inc, Corporation, Incorporated etc. warrior4321 11:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. There is already an article on that name, and it must obviously be the original and most frequent use of the word. If somebody starts a company, and calls it Piston, will we have tomove that article too? Btw, "Apple" above indeed links to the fruit, while "Apple Inc." links to the company. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I have changed the proposal the change to be Valve (company). Just because there is already an article with that name, does not mean it is the most frequent use of the word. That is the reason for this entire process. I assumed User:HandsomeFella meant this in a generic way - after rereading this, I see he meant it specifically to the word, Valve. The only results that match Valve Corporation are three books, and a magazine, on the first and second page respectively. Even Valve Software is a better name for this article. warrior4321 13:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Since the requestor now has done his homework better, and removed the reference to "Apple", I too will change my input, however in a more visible way (by strike-through). HandsomeFella (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Note: this RM was originally targeted at simply Valve, which is why HandsomeFella's oppose may seem out of context. Jenks24 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. One of the key principles of the article titles policy is naturalness and Valve Corporation is much more natural than adding a disambiguation in parentheses. It is for much the same reason that Apple is at Apple Inc. and not Apple (company) (a redirect). If you can show that Valve Software is more common than the current title, then that would probably be a proposal I could support. Jenks24 (talk) 13:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

One of the key principles of the article titles policy is naturalness and Valve Corporation is much more natural than adding a disambiguation in parentheses.

It's most natural name is Valve but since that is not the primary use, it cannot be used.

It is for much the same reason that Apple is at Apple Inc. and not Apple (company) (a redirect).

One can also argue about Illumina Inc. having the title Illumina (company).

If you can show that Valve Software is more common than the current title, then that would probably be a proposal I could support*

The Google Books results I posted above in response to User:HandsomeFella prove just that. warrior4321 18:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I do agree that simply "Valve" is the most natural title (but unavailable for obvious reasons). Therefore we should choose the next most natural title. As long as reliable sources use the longer version regularly, I will nearly always consider that to be a more natural form than adding a disambiguation in parentheses. However, you claim from your google results that "Valve Corporation" is practically never used, so I decided to do my own research. I found 3,660 results for "Valve Corporation" -Llc on gbooks (which makes me feel that the full name is used regularly enough to be natural), compared to only 686 for "Valve Software" -Llc. With these results in mind, I'm going to stand by my oppose. Jenks24 (talk) 03:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Did you even take a look at the Google Books result? Plan old numbers don't mean anything, its the numbers about the subject of the article. The first page of your Google Books result for Valve corporation, does not even have one book about the company. Then, the Google Books result's first page for Valve Software has 7 out of 10 about the actual company. From the first page of both searches, we see that Valve Corporation has 0%, while Valve Software has 70%. 3000 searches about Valves means nothing. warrior4321 03:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, fair point. I should have checked my results more thoroughly, so apologies for that. If you go further than the first page, there are a few results that pertain to this particular company. That said, I think a gnews search (as the company is fairly recent) would have been the best google search to use, so here goes: 4,520 results for "Valve Software" vs 1,030 results for "Valve Corporation", so it appears your are correct and Valve Software is more common than Valve Corporation. However, the results do show that Valve Software is in common use and, to me, that feels more natural than adding a disambiguation. I no longer believe the article should remain at the present title, but feel that Valve Software would be a more suitable alternative. Jenks24 (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment WP:NCCORP is indifferent between disambiguating using the company's full name (e.g. Crown Limited) and using (company). The company's site is at Valvesoftware.com (so maybe consider moving it to Valve Software) but at the bottom of the page, it calls itself Valve Corporation, and Valvecorporation.com is the same site. "Valve Corporation" fails the naturalness test (does anyone call it that?), so on balance if I had to choose between "Valve Corporation" and "Valve (company)" I'd probably choose the latter (the closing admin can interpret that as a Support). For example, at their about page, they just call themselves "Valve". Miracle Pen (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support per WP:How2title. (1) Start, (3) One obvious natural name for this topic: "Valve", (4) One obvious name is ambiguous, (6) this use is not primary - best title is still "Valve", (7) choose a disambiguating form... (Company) is the obvious disambiguator. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I don't know all the relevant policies and essays at work here, but if the true name is "Valve Corporation", I don't know why it would change. Other references may have higher public visibility, such as "Valve Software", but shouldn't the article rest at as close to it's legal/true name as possible? I would think the other titles would redirect to the true name. I see some mentions that we "Don't include Inc, etc" in titles, but the company's name to my knowledge would be "Valve Corporation, LLC", so we're not really at foul with that if the word Corporation is part of the name, versus part of a designation. Just my two cents. ferret (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose wp:PRECISION says "however in certain cases it may be done by choosing a different form of the title in order to achieve uniqueness. If there is a natural mode of disambiguation in standard English, as with Cato the Elder and Cato the Younger, use that instead." ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Distributor: Valve Corporation (Steam)

Does every single game on Steam need this in the info box? It seems quite redundant. You may as well add Wal-Mart, Play, and other retailers to the list of distributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.244.120 (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

This is probably something you should post to the Video Game task force, as this talk page is purely for the article related to the Valve Corporation. It has no bearing on policy regarding VG infobox's. ferret (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ATI/Valve vs. Nvidia

I noticed nothing about the time when Half-Life 2 was near to release and Valve and ATI called Nvidia out on the DX9 support of their FX series of cards. Supposedly this was connected with how Microsoft changed the spec of DX9 at the last minute to get back at Nvidia for a disagreement on royalties for the Xbox, IIRC. Basically, MS changed the DX9 spec as Nvidia was about to release the FX line, Valve sabotaged their game so it wouldn't work correctly on GeForce FX cards, then patted ATI on the back for a nice sales boost at Nvidia's expense, since benchmarks made ATI cards look faster, but then later on the deceit was discovered and it was shown that Nvidia cards could indeed run competitively with ATI cards, but Valve had programmed HL2 to favor ATI cards. Am I the only one who remembers this stuff? 72.241.171.5 (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

FX cards were pretty much panned in a lot of games, so, yeah. Find a source and maybe it can be added, but I'm pretty sure that's conspiracy theory. ferret (talk) 03:20, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, how about these:

http://www.geek.com/articles/featured/whats-going-on-with-ati-nvidia-and-valve-software-20030919/

http://techreport.com/articles.x/5636/1

Here's an outline of the research someone from Guru3D apparently did to uncover the problem with HL2 on FX cards:

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1026929557&postcount=9

this post was repeated in several forums.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/archive/index.php/t-57839.html

another with more detailed instructions:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=456

It's interesting too how much ATI paid Valve to be able to ship Half-Life 2 vouchers with their new cards that year:

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1030706/how-ati-paid-half-life-deal

Is that enough to get the ball rolling, or should I try to dig up more? 72.241.171.5 (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

The first article on geek.com states that there's been a lot of debate about the issue, but then makes the following statement: Did Valve engineer Half-Life 2 specifically to make ATI look good? Or to make nVidia look bad? It's highly doubtful. Later, they state that nVidia claimed the results were due to bad drivers and Valve not using the latest beta drivers, with Gabe Newell saying they'd spent significant time trying to tweak nVidia performance for improvements. The article references that there's debate, but debunks the idea that Valve or ATI did anything maliciously to hurt nVidia performance. This article supports the idea that the FX series simply was bad. The second article is roughly the same. It acknowledges rumors that Valve had coded to benefit ATI, but also states the ongoing controversy at the time that nVidia was playing games with benchmark numbers in their drivers and that the FX series simply wasn't prepared to handle a new DirectX 9 game like HL2. The forum posts are considered unreliable for the purposes of the article so I'm skipping over them. I did glance at the nvidia forum one, and it involved forcing nVidia cards to go along with the full DirectX 9 codepath, and then using external programs to then override the codepath and force lower quality configurations. In short, it was a performance hack to lower the DirectX 9 features to a lower quality level so FX cards could perform better, which is basically what nVidia was being accused of the time in cooking their own benchmark numbers. The final article from Inquirer is interesting and irrelevant. Of course ATI spent money to market their cards, it's a given. None of the article support anything about Microsoft changing DirectX to 'get back at' nVidia. One of the primary things stated in the reliable sources is that nVidia's design choice of 16-bit vs 32-bit was a major contributing factor to the performance issues. ferret (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Codename Gordon

Can anyone tell me why Codename Gordon (2004) not listed in the videogames? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.3.84 (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Because Valve didn't develop it. They only published it. -- ferret (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Mistake

Half-Life 2: Lost Coast is incorrectly listed as being available on Mac OS X, when in fact it remains Windows-exclusive. As I don't have enough edits to change this myself, I'd like to just mention it here so someone else can fix it. Canama139 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrected -- ferret (talk) 02:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Wording at the top

It currently says "...developing the Source engine, which has been used in every product since its introduction in 2004." Would it not be more accurate to say that Source has been used in every Valve game since 2004? Steam doesn't run on Source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acer589 (talk • contribs) 19:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

That makes sense to me, so I've changed the lead. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Organizational structure

Who thinks its a good ideia to write a section on this? I've read that they are quite orizzontal in their team management. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs) 07:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See the section above this one. -- ferret (talk) 11:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Considering their oddly unwavering commitment to the customer base, I'd say it's worth mentioning. Developers/publishers such as Blizzard and Electronics Arts have infamously opted for profit through DRM and pre-determined DLC packages that constantly infuriate gamers. This is a simple and sad fact known by every gamer. Valve's support has always been beyond anything provided by other developers. This is not fan praise, by the way, I hated and absolutely believed Steam was a joke when it was released and still believe excluding dial-up customers in its early days was just a joke, but the actual development team? Their dedication to the gaming community is about as strong as any customer could expect a developer to deliver. The Cake is a Lie ^{T / C} 19:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We don't include things simply because they are "known by every gamer". Find reliable sources, please. As for the bigger question, a section on their organizational structure is probably appropriate. However, it cannot be sourced only to their famously leaked employee manual, because pretty much any comment we made on that would be original research. Instead, we need reliable secondary sources that discuss the structure. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Strategic Linux-oriented Changes

John Dvorak twitted about the following report: http://noagendashow.visibli.com/share/feDwEj

Since Dvorak himself rates it as a 180-degree turn for the company, I wonder if someone could shed some light on this.

Mischaracterization. Valve never claimed they would not or were not ever working on Linux, in fact, they have supported Linux in various areas such as dedicate servers for over 10 years. To call it a "180" is quite a stretch. -- ferret (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Net worth estimate

According to this article Valve is worth around $2.5 billion. I think it's worth mentioning. If not then scrap this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krych (talk • contribs) 19:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done. I put it in the field that is tagged as "Equity (finance)" and tagged the value as "2012, estimated", as that sounds like what the cited ref sounds like it's describing. If there is a better field or way of doing it based on the choices listed at Template:Infobox company/doc#Parameters explained, please let us know. DMacks (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

False information

"Valve has branched out with this tradition to continue developing Dota 2 as the stand-alone sequel to the Warcraft III mod."

Dota 2 is a remake of Dota. Dota was a Warcraft III map, not a mod. --Remscar (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Under the products section on the main page, Dota 2 needs to be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.41.219 (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dota 2 was produced using Valve's own engine, and is a Valve game. The original Dota was a custom map that originated with warcraft 3. Dota needs to be added to the product list, as well as updated in thier list of games/platforms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chronolegionaire (talk • contribs) 12:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Dota 2 is already listed in the product table. -- ferret (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

TF2 is now in linux

Source: http://store.steampowered.com/browse/linux/118.136.5.235 (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is the section called "Steam console"?

And why isn't it clarified? –017Bluefield (talk) 20:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably a simple case of being out of date. -- ferret (talk) 17:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

There is no official name for the platform. Xi3's version is "Piston" and the media have latched onto "Steam Box" but that's not official yet. --MASEM (t) 17:09, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ultimately, I don't think there will be a name, per say. But more of a branding/certification. "Steam Ready" or something. Because ultimately it's PC specification tailored to the living room. -- ferret (talk) 17:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, this section seems to be written in an advertising way, 'to your front room'. It might be wise to remove this section altogether.95.96.105.159 (talk) 17:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Pipeline

If you guys saw the YouTube video, you'd probably know what I'm typing about. Where would something like this go in the article? —017Bluefield (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

[1] has details too, I would likely either put it under "Other Projects" or possibly make a section on Valve's educational efforts with Steam for Schools and that. --MASEM (t) 14:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 September 2013

Please change "url = Valve Continues Its War on Game Consoles With Steam Operating System" to "title = Valve Continues Its War on Game Consoles With Steam Operating System" to fix a citation error introduced earlier today. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC) – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Done I did that - and also edded the missing URL. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but it looks like you found and fixed a similar error (which is good), leaving the above error still unresolved. Can you please take another look? Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Found it and fixed. --MASEM (t) 21:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Protection?

Why is this page still admin-only protected? It seems it was blocked for a month after a minor edit war which seems excessive and I'd like to add some details on Steam OS. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

The edit war is a repeat user that has tried to force calling DOTA2 a different genre repeatedly. The problem is that the user keeps making new user accounts to do this, so it needs full protection on the article. However, I will go ahead and add info on Steam OS (and other announcements this week) appropriately, though. --MASEM (t) 14:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't normal autoconfirmed protection suffice though? The last sock didn't have any other edits. Or baring that, pending revisions? -- ferret (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It probably could; I'd ask the blocking admin to see about reducing the protection level (But not time). --MASEM (t) 14:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I left a message on his talk page, but he went offline shortly after doing this one-month protection. His away notice says "until September 22" but he hasn't updated anything since. I agree with User:Samwalton9 that it seems excessive (naturally I have no issue with autoconfirmed-only :-), especially since right now quite a bit is happening in the Valve universe. --Nczempin (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and reduced to semi-prot. --MASEM (t) 15:09, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Nczempin (talk) 20:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

The disruption is getting quite ridiculous. This article has one of the longest protection logs I've ever seen so I've semi'ed it for six months, without prejudice to any admin upgrading to full protection again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Change request

"Valve is also well known for its software distribution platform Steam (released in 2002), and the Source engine (released in 2004)."

change into

"Valve is known for its software distribution platform Steam (released in 2002), and the Source engine (released in 2004).

These are weasel words.

Off-Topic: Got a "This page is currently semi-protected and can be edited only by established registered users.", please implement a software feature, which allows me to edit this article, to get it reviewed by an administrator/experienced user or other specified person, since a hard-block of this page discourage people more than it helps writing Wikipedia. 78.35.212.198 (talk) 11:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That feature already exists, it's called an edit request. See it in action a few sections above this one. It is not on a "hard block"; your message states as much ("semi-protected"). So register a username if you want to "help writing Wikipedia"; there are plenty of articles that you can edit to fulfill the requirement to be able to edit semi-protected articles such as this one (or use the mentioned edit request feature). --Nczempin (talk) 12:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. May I point you to this essay. So no thanks, I am not going to register a Username. Judge the edit, not the person who do it. 78.35.212.198 (talk) 12:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately this article has a particularly high level of vandalism from IP editors and SPAs, and it resulted in an extended protection. The edit request setup is sufficient for the needs of this article. -- ferret (talk) 12:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The "Submit an edit request"-button is not user-friendly/good UI, the best way would be, when editing an "semi-protected" it should feel the same like editing a "normal" article with the exception that I get informed that the article edit by me gets reviewed. Where is the correct site to discuss that in general? 78.35.212.198 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That would be the case if the article had pending changes on it. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW, how is "also" a weasel word? Perhaps "well known" isn't all that much better than "known", but if "is well known" is weasel language, how is "is known" not weasel language? So your change suggestion wouldn't fix the problem you are mentioning. I'll either tag the phrase or find a better one myself, though. --Nczempin (talk) 12:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I changed the wording to make it stick to the facts, rather than unnecessarily claim what Valve is known for. --Nczempin (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Management/Culture?

Should we say anything about their management, or, rather, lack of it? I was just reading their Employee Handbook, and their management hierarchy is incredibly flat. They have no managers and everyone is essentially a peer of everyone else. Employees work on whatever they want to work on, they are never "assigned" to work on anything. They just find out about an interesting project, move their desk over and just start working on it.

I mean, it sounds like just an incredible place to work. Should we mention this innovative company structure and culture in the article? — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 15:26, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, but I think we should get more opinions before creating a whole new section. 174.51.241.246 (talk) 14:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That's what I'm waiting for! :) — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 18:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)e

Find the appropriate sources and have fun. As long as it's covered by a couple of reliable sources, you should be good to go. -- ferret (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a section with a few references. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 08:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this structure, so I agree with this addition! — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonFreeman1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Dead Link

Hello! Source 28 is a dead link, the one following the statement regarding the cancelling of "Return to Ravenholm." I cannot edit this page, so I was hoping someone would remove it and replace it with another source if necessary. Thanks!GordonFreeman1 (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Found a suitable replacement link as well as a link for the Crossing. Does that work? --MASEM (t) 20:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Works great. Thanks! GordonFreeman1 (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014

Reference # 28

Savage, Phil (15 January 2013). "Half-Life 2: Episode 4 was being developed by Arkane; now cancelled". PC Gamer. Retrieved 11 June 2016.

Please correct date.

170.138.104.250 (talk) 21:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. What is the correct date? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 21:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed this either way. Invalid access date and year on the citation. -- ferret (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Making the "Games" table into simplified prose?

Would anyone object to this idea? I think the table looks ugly and doesn't really do much. The prose wouldn't be very long, just a few sentences (max) for each game in order of release. Maybe a timeline like the ones in Half-Life (series) and Counter-Strike (series) as well. --Nicereddy (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose that. Sorry, but the timeline idea has two strikes against it:

1. It's ugly and fuzzy
2. It doesn't allow any type of sorting

The table may not be fine art, but it does allow sorting, so readers can look at the games in a variety of ways. The platforms column is a mess, though, and could use some work. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:09, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

@Frecklefoot: Sorry it took me a while to respond. There's an entire article dedicated to the list and it's much more in-depth than our current table, so what's the point of keeping it in the main article? It's an eyesore and we don't even need the timeline with the separate list article. It really messes with the flow of the article and has no real purpose, as it's completely repetitive. --Nicereddy (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, all other articles about game developers have lists of their releases, for good reason. A list is easy to digest: prose—even simplified—isn't. But I am just one editor, you don't have to take my word for it. You can ask at the video games WikiProject for further input. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 00:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I personally agree with Frecklefoot for the organizational value. However, I'd consult WikiProject Video games about this. If keeping it to sentences can fix things, then we could make it so. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 02:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Half agree with Nicereddy, should be converted into a paragraph or two with shortcut to List of games developed by Valve. Don't need timeline, we have templates and categories which serve this purpose.--Vaypertrail (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted, we just need a paragraph summarising their major/key releases.--Vaypertrail (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm still partial to the simplified table, but I guess this is moot since you went ahead a deleted it. I'm not in the mood to fight about it, but I think getting rid of it was wrong. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think removing the simplified table was a mistake as well, Valve are a game developer, and removing the list of games they've made, is removing what a large portion of users are coming to see. One of those users was me, I came here to figure out if they released a game this year, instead, I had to manually check a bunch of dates on the other page, since it's in multiple tables, so I can't sort by date. The other table also does not allow you to see and compare release dates in chronological order, meaning that you need to manually compare dates if you want to figure out if game A was released before or after game B. Additionally, as was said before, all other articles about game developers have a short list, removing this one but not the other ones is inconsistent, and makes the page less useful. 31.209.246.139 (talk) 17:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2014

At "maintains the Source engine for which most of it games run on", in the first paragraph, I noticed that "it" should be "its". You left out the "s". 2601:E:100:BD7:51EF:552C:E3E7:8D50 (talk) 05:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Done —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 09:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Valve Corporation vs ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission

Valve has had legal action taken against them by the ACCC on account of its "no refunds" policy: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/full-steam-ahead-accc-institutes-proceedings-against-valve-for-making-alleged-misleading-consumer-guarantee-representations

Won't be much more info about the proceedings until around October 7 according to the link above. I just want to leave this here as a reminder to any interested in monitoring/updating this page for when a more conclusive wiki article segment can be written. 124.148.251.189 (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Details would be better at the Steam article , since this is about Valve's storefront aspects and not so much the company themselves. We already have criticism there about lack of refunds from prior user complaints. --MASEM (t) 14:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ref for lead

There's not a single reference in the lead. Here's a first ref, for "Its European-based office opened in 2012 in Luxembourg." --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Leads summarize the article and aren't required strictly required to have references. The article body generally contains the references for all the details the lead contains. -- ferret (talk) 11:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

All right; didn't know about WP:LEADCITE. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 11:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: Addition of Controversy Section

Please consider adding a section under the heading "Controversy" because of ongoing issues with their customer support or lack thereof. In support, please see this: http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/business-reviews/computer-software-publishers-and-developers/valve-corporation-in-bellevue-wa-27030704/complaints. Specifically, please read the following quote from that page:

On June 25, 2013, BBB recognized a pattern of complaints from consumers regarding product, service and customer service issues. Consumers allege the games they purchase from Valve Corporation or Steam malfunction, do not work or have an invalid CD key. Consumers also claim the company blocks users from accessing their library of games. Consumers further allege they attempt to contact the company for assistance, but Valve Corporation fails to correct the gaming issues, does not correct credit card charges or issue a refund, or does not respond at all.

BBB encourages consumers to carefully review the terms and conditions of the products or services offered by any company prior to purchase.

- See more at: http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/business-reviews/computer-software-publishers-and-developers/valve-corporation-in-bellevue-wa-27030704/complaints#sthash.qWGzZKCj.dpuf

Furthermore, the Better Business Bureau has assigned Valve an 'F' rating for their inadequate response over 730 complaints from customers. In contrast, EA Games, with around 2400 complaints, is receiving an 'A+'. Home Depot Headquarters in Atlanta is receiving an 'A+' with 3999 complaints. The difference is that EA Games and Home Depot have chosen to at least address customer concerns, while Valve administrators apparently do not care to even try. It boggles my mind that this is not already posted in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinityseed (talk • contribs) 10:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

The BBB is not a reliable source in this situation, and besides, Valve is not a member of the BBB. This has been discussed before, please check the talk articles here and at the Steam article. This currently amounts to original research since no reliable sources have covered the issue. -- ferret (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2014

Reference 43 needs to be changed to 'http://media.steampowered.com/apps/valve/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf' due to the current reference being outdated and inaccessible. I have not provided code due to the fact this reference is missing in the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gorea235 (talk • contribs)

Done Stickee (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Better Business Bureau Rating - Edit Request

Valve Corporation has an F rating with the Better Business Bureau in its home district (Alaska, Oregon, and Western Washington).

"On June 25, 2013, BBB recognized a pattern of complaints from consumers regarding product, service and customer service issues. Consumers allege the games they purchase from Valve Corporation or Steam malfunction, do not work or have an invalid CD key. Consumers also claim the company blocks users from accessing their library of games. Consumers further allege they attempt to contact the company for assistance, but Valve Corporation fails to correct the gaming issues, does not correct credit card charges or issue a refund, or does not respond at all. - See more at: http://www.bbb.org/western-washington/business-reviews/computer-software-publishers-and-developers/valve-corporation-in-bellevue-wa-27030704#sthash.6ZIs4Fhf.dpuf"

HomerSees (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Please see the talk page archives, this has been discussed multiple times in the past. The BBB is not viewed as a reliable source on it's own, and no reliable sources have ran any stories related to the BBB rating, which Valve is not a member of to begin with. -- ferret (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed - since anyone can file complaints with the BBB and Valve is an easy "target" due to their visibility, the rating can easily be skewed by that, ala user reviews on metacritic. We'd need a third-party to comment on the BBB aspect before considering adding it. --MASEM (t) 17:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2015

Under "Other Ongoing Projects" in the first part entitled "Steam", the last sentence treats Jan 1, 2015 as a future date:

"Valve S.A.R.L is used to sell games to United Kingdom–based users to avoid paying the full 20% VAT.[34] The tax loophole is expected to be closed on January 1, 2015.[35]"

Sorry, I don't know what happened with the tax loophole. Just trying to help. Finny388 (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Headquarters image.

Gamingforfun365 (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Merge Proposal

I am opening discussion for merging PowerPlay (technology) with Valve Corporation. From what I've looked up on the topic, PowerPlay seems to fail WP:GNG. The initiative never launched, and has no notable effect on the industry. There are very few sources covering it, nearly all coming from one press release from January 2000. The1337gamer (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Per nom. -- ferret (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Support Powerplay was created by Valve so I see no reason why they were separated in the first place.. -- Doctor Twoo (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have BOLDly completed this merger. -- ferret (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Edit Request

I'm not sure how to make an edit request, but where it says "All current Valve games are built on its Source engine" should change "All" to most as Valve's lastest game was released on Unity — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kdybens (talk • contribs) 08:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

The Lab was built on both, Unity and Source 2, therefore it is correct to say that all Valve games use the Valve engines. Lordtobi (✉) 09:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

How many ways do we want to say "Valve"?

"Valve Corporation (formerly Valve Software, commonly referred to as Valve and sometimes stylized as VALV^ᴇ)". Should we also mention that people call it Volvo? Seriously, it's getting ridiculous how many names we're listing in that first sentence; it's going to confuse people. Could we remove all the mentions other than "commonly referred to as 'Valve'"- the article tells us that they were originally called "Valve Software" and trying to replicate the logo in-line is just silly. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 20:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"Valve Corp" and "Valve" on the first sentence is fine. "Valve Software" should be mentioned in the lede as a former name but doesn't need to be first sentence. Replicating the logo is nonsense and unneeded since no one ever types it like that. (Contrast to the film "Seven" where "Se7en" as that text string was also used.) --MASEM (t) 21:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Taking up what you said, I had a shot at the lead. Tell me what you think. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reasonable enough. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason we don't just call them Valve? That's their common name and how they list themselves on Steam and their website. We don't call Sega "Sega Games Co., Ltd." and Nintendo "Nintendo Co., Ltd." unless we are specially referring to a corporate policy or something. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We should properly introduce them by their full name once and then switch to common name. Also, "Valve" is a naming clash with many titles, and far and away valves the type of plumbing device is far more common than their name. Constrast that Sega nor Nintendo have conflicts. --MASEM (t) 05:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Even on their game articles? What I should have asked is why does it have to be "Valve Corporation" on Counter Strike and Half Life articles? Nobody is going to confuse a tool for a game's developer. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It can't be renamed to Valve, so it would end up Valve (company) (Existing redirect). So then we'll have to pipe in dozens of articles.... No one calls Blizzard "Blizzard Entertainment" either, but it sits at a similar cross road of using a common term as it's name. In both cases the current name is preferable to disamb'ing, in my view. -- ferret (talk) 11:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Let me put it this why. Why can't we just list "Valve" in the infobox and articles of their game articles? Nobody is going to confuse it with anything else, and we normally go with WP:COMMONNAME. The article name can remain Valve Corporation. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In the infobox, we should be exacting because readers won't necessarily have immediate context, so spelling out "Valve Corporation" is required. In prose, I personally make sure to introduce a proper name one, and then allow all subsequent uses of that name use the simplified name for brevity, if that is common elsewhere. In prose, this gives the reader sufficient context to figure out what is going on. It is a courtesy to help the reader once and that's it. It is similar to where we use abbreviations and/or initialisms defining them once at the start after which they can be used without worrying about it. --MASEM (t) 22:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Lordtobi, would you mind talking with us in this discussion before basically reverting everything we talked about? Could you at least try to engage in our discourse? DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 11:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I did not see that I "basically reverted everything". It did only say "Valve" in the brackets, yes, but it said that it was founded as "Valve Software", which is false. In 1996, they were just "Valve L.L.C." until mid-2003 when they renamed themselves to "Valve Corporation". "Valve Software" was merely the informal title they were commonly known by, which is also where the web URL comes from. Thus, "Valve Software" was removed from the lead body but had to gome somwhere, this is why I just put it into the brackets as well. If I shall put my opinion on this, I'd say that it is ok to have an alternate title, the abbreviation and a stylization, so we had "Valve Software" for #1 and "Valve" for #2. #3 may just be left out, and the stylization is not used frequently as well (as of my knowledge), but if you feel like implementing it, do so. Lordtobi (✉) 14:13, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Was pointed to this discussion from the Half-Life talk page. I don't care what the article is named, and it's OK to introduce it in full as Valve Corporation, but we should absolutely be referring to Valve as Valve in the prose in this article and others, as per Dissident93's points from last year. That's the common name. Popcornduff (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Continuing this from the old discussion, Popcornduff, oppositely to what you meantioned there prior, you now reflect the current state of the corporate introduction within articles, which is also the way to go in my opinion. If this, first mention "Valve Corporation" and every other "Valve", is what you think is good, we would not need to discuss on it. Lordtobi (✉) 14:29, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

But by extension it means there is no need to refer to the company as anything other than Valve in other articles, including the Half-Life 1 page. We would simply follow the same pattern as, for example, referring to Microsoft. Popcornduff (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

The thing is that there is no other "Microsoft" than Microsoft Corporation, people who don't know the company might be confused that there is a valve that develops games. That's hwere the disambiguation comes from as discussed above to follow a similar patter like Blizzard Entertainment (see e.g. Overwatch). Lordtobi (✉) 14:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand it, but I don't buy it. "Half-Life is a game developed by Valve." The context and capitalisation makes it pretty clear that it was not a valve that developed the game. I don't feel too strongly about that, but I am set against the ugly road it leads us down: the Half-Life 1 page says the game was developed by "Valve L.L.C.", a name which no one ever used, even at the time of HL1's release. It seems brainlessly pedantic and reader-unfriendly to use "Valve L.L.C." over "Valve", especially if the goal is to avoid confusion. Popcornduff (talk) 14:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If you are only aiming for a common name, then one might consider "Valve Software", as it was also known by among the people, which left valvesoftware.com as their web address. It is also an existing redirect to here. I would in theory be okay with that, although consensus should still be reach prior for that. Lordtobi (✉) 14:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Valve is my preferred common name and the common name actually used by real human beings. I don't believe any confusion with valves will arise. If others don't accept that, then Valve Software is my #2 option based on common usage and clarity. Popcornduff (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No other thoughts? If no one objects then I'm going to replace every instance of Valve LLC with Valve, except when introducing them in full as Valve Corporation in this article. I don't accept that this will cause much confusion - and what's more if the legal name of the company had always been Valve (not Valve LLC or Valve Software or Valve Corporation or whatever) then no one would be arguing the confusion point. Popcornduff (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

LLC and Corporation are merely company extensions. Use "Valve" in articles when it is not ambiguous. It is the common name. --The1337gamer (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2016

Could somebody add "(as Valve L.L.C.)" next to the Start date and age template, so that it says "{Start date and age|1996|08|24} (as Valve L.L.C.)" to show its original founding name?

108.45.29.72 (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No. That doesn't seem necessary. The company is named Valve and that has never changed. The change from L.L.C to Corporation is not a name change, since they are company extensions that just describe what type of company it is.

Gabe's title

I've always seen "managing director" in most sources. However, his linkedin simply says "President". Valve's own site is no help here. -- ferret (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

For what I have found on the case on their website is only the direct mention of "managing director" in this press release, and of "president" in this press release, however, nothing that gives Newell as "CEO" or "chief operating officer", so I'd consider that to be the least correct version. Also the first of the linked pages gives Scott Lynch as COO, so does his LinkedIn; will add him shortly. Lordtobi (✉) 13:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The first PDF that states his title as managing director looks to be pretty old, so it's more likely that his current title is simple president, as given by his LinkedIn and the press release. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Protection upgrade for this article?

Though out the history of revisions on this article for Valve Corporation, disruptive and vandalizing edits are common and happen every so often. All of those edits are probably from those who relay on "hearsay" from the internet, by those who are angry the company hasn't released another title for the "Half-Life" series for a long time. But all of these edits is just unconfirmed rumors and statements not from officially sourced materials.

I think a protection upgrade for this page is needed so such disruptive and vandalizing edits won't happen again on this article for a while. Gabeluna27 (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Only 2 reverts in the last 20 days. Page has plenty of watchers, disruption is not high enough to warrant higher, longer term protection. -- ferret (talk) 10:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Valve Corporation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120717084400/http://www.planetfortress.com/schtick/powerplay.shtml to http://www.planetfortress.com/schtick/powerplay.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130831062321/http://pipeline.valvesoftware.com/about_us.php to http://pipeline.valvesoftware.com/about_us.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2018

84.54.173.132 (talk) 08:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 09:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Steam release and it's relation to HL2

Article says "In 2004, Valve launched Steam alongside Half-Life 2.", but Steam was released in September 2003 and Half-Life 2 in November 2004. That's over a year later. As far as I know, it was initially created to push updates etc for Counter-Strike, which is a Half-Life 1 mod. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.167.35.17 (talk) 13:07, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Steam was released in beta in 2003, and only came out of that when HL2 was released in 2004. --Masem (t) 14:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

If that's so, the timeline on Steam's article would be incorrect. Lordtobi (✉) 15:09, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

OP appears to be right, this source states that it launched out of beta in September 2003. The Wiki article claims it was released as a beta in January 2003, but doesn't directly cite any sources. Are there any sources that state otherwise? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:54, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of when it came out of beta, it's vague to say "In 2004, Valve launched Steam...", since it was really--even as a beta--launched in 2003. In my opinion, what the article should instead say is "In 2004, Valve officially launched Steam alongside Half-Life 2", assuming Masem is right about it coming out of beta in 2004. -- ChamithN (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Beta versions were also official releases, so that's no clearer. Popcornduff (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

True that. And also, according to other sources, it appears that Steam actually became generally available in 2003, as OP and Dissident93 said above. So maybe we should just go along with Kotaku's version; that On September 12, 2003, after a successful beta, Valve launched Steam to deliver patches to its Counter-Strike and to mitigate cheating. -- ChamithN (talk) 09:08, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I think that's overkill for the lead. I've rewritten the first part of the Steam section (since it was uncited before) and simplified the lead to summarise: "Valve launched Steam in 2003; by 2011, over half of digital PC game sales were through Steam". Popcornduff (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Recolored logo

Just a heads up on Valve having a new, red logo per their website redesign. Depending if that use it in more places, we may have to change it here, as we did with Nintendo a year ago. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

• And looks like somebody just changed it. The question is, is it worth moving back, or was the Nintendo case different due to them using it on social media months before they started using it on official press releases/packaging? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:49, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
• I too have jumped onto the train rather quickly. But yes, their only and primary online presence is their website and such reflects their primary logo. It also now has a fileld style rather than the outline we had previously, so I'd considered (a little) more than just recoloring. The change I made to the file can be reverted on Commons if necessary. Lordtobi (✉) 21:57, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Citation Needed

I noticed in the section talking about Gearbox Software's involvement in Half-Life Ports/Expansions, it says citation is needed. This is a link to the Games section of Gearbox Software's Website, where at the bottom, all mentioned products are listed, with the exception of the unreleased Dreamcast port. I would do it myself, but just made my Wikipedia Account Yesterday, and have one edit total. Thanks! -Jali Peño — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jali Peno (talk • contribs) 19:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey @Jali Peno, thanks for getting touch. You have actually pointed out a factual error in the article: The cancelled Dreamcast port was not developed by Gearbox at all, but by Captive Digital Laboratories (it was their only game, they defunct after the cancellation). I have inserted two new reliable sources to the paragraph to fix the statement.

Note that I'm saying "reliable source", this depicts a source from a publication indepndent from the topic that we (the Video games WikiProject) consider as "anti-fake news". Technically, primary sources (the link to Gearbox' website) is not bad, but secondaries are generally preferred.

If you have any further questions, let me know on my user talk page. P.S.: Remember to sign your posts using four tildes ~~~~, which creates a link to your user page and a timestamp. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 20:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Valve Index

In § Virtual reality it says: "Main article: HTC Vive" Maybe add links to Valve Index, both as another main article, and in the paragraph where we mention/discuss the Valve Index. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 19:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. --77.173.90.33 (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2019

change

However, as Valve became its own publisher via Steam, it transitions to the looser flat structure, which was formally in place by 2012.

to

However, as Valve became its own publisher via Steam, it transitioned to a looser, flat structure, which was formally in place by 2012. The pudding (talk) 03:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

The pudding,  Done. Lordtobi (✉) 09:48, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I just uploaded a bunch of photos to Commons

SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 07:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request July 10 2019

Court Listener link

A. M. lost her case in November 2017; add to appropriate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.168.10 (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• This person isn't even currently listed in the article, nor does it seem like this case was ever notable (I can't really find sources on it). Nevermind, this case was the discrimination one from 2015, so I updated it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:10, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2019

change "Maddalena v. Valve Corporation" to "A.M. v. Valve Corporation" due to privacy concerns and respect of private life. Registeredusername (talk) 00:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I wholly changed the name of that section to not have any name. I'm tempted to ask if we even need it as while it was documented in 2ndary sources, it went nowhere (jury found against plaintiff). --Masem (t) 00:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Given the privacy concern, wouldn't we need a revdel for both article and talk? Lordtobi (✉) 00:49, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm checking on BLP/N on that. --Masem (t) 01:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Source for more recent internal stuff

With the news of Half-Life : Alyx, Geoff Keighley released a new "Final Hours" video here [2] which is about 22 min long. I will try to review it but there are details of the state of Valve from the last few years, which can help in history here, but dropping this in case anyone wants to get the jump on this. --Masem (t) 19:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2019

In the "transition to services" section, at the bottom, a line eroniously reads "Valve had been working with HTC and other partners to develop their own virtual reality headset, the HTC Vive, which had been released in June 2019 along with Steam VR", this should be the Valve Index, not the HTC Vive. The Vive was released in 2016. TimesChu (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

 Done ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2019

The overview currently says "Valve Corporation is an American video game developer, publisher, and digital distribution company", it leaves out Valve also making hardware. I feel it should be changed to something like "Valve Corporation is an American video game software and hardware developer, publisher, and digital distribution company", but the exact wording can be left to the discretion of the editor. From checking the articles of other hardware developers such as Oculus VR and Nvidia, they're usually stated as being 'technology companies'. 78.152.253.113 (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Valve are known for the games first, making them different from both Oculus VR and Nvidia. Thus, I don't think this should be changed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

True, but that still doesn't negate the fact they create hardware. I wanted the change to reflect that rather than recategorize them as a technology company entirely, I find it odd it's not mentioned. I respect your decision regardless. 78.152.253.113 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think we can say Valve is a manufacturer. From what they've shown of their processes, they may design hardware, but they outside mass production to other companies. And given at this point, the only piece of hardware they are now actively supporting is the Vive, I really think this gives far too much attention to this small area of their company. --Masem (t) 21:04, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I never said they were a manufacturer, and only the Vive? I believe you're forgetting about the Valve Index, the Steam controller, the Knuckles controller and one or two pieces of miscellaneous VR hardware. I would hardly request a change for a years old VR headset they co-devolved. Anyway, as I said I respect Dissident93's decision and I don't see much of a reason for this conversation to continue if it's going to be upheld. 78.152.253.113 (talk) 08:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the Index and Knuckles controllers count them as being a hardware developer. Steam controller has been discontinued I believe. Index has been at or near the top selling product on Steam according to the in-software chart since it came out. —DIYeditor (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to hardware producer I guess (seems more accurate than developer, since they aren't really a hardware manufacture themselves), but "video game developer, publisher" should definitely be the first thing listed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the exact wording can be left up to the editor themselves. I only want to see it mentioned in some capacity. 78.152.253.113 (talk) 13:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is consensus against this requested move. (non-admin closure) qedk (t 桜 c) 15:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

---

Valve Corporation → Valve (company) – "Valve" is the official and common name of the company. Valve Corporation is only used for legal reasons, while Valve Software seems to just be used sparingly on their social media and website (for their own apparent disambiguation reasons), thus making neither of them the common name. The recent Twitch.tv to Twitch (service) move shows that sometimes a piped link using the common name "Twitch (service)|Twitch" is better than forcing a link to a legal/alternative name to avoid WP:NOPIPE,"Twitch.tv". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Amazon (company) is another good example for this. Lordtobi (✉) 21:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NATURAL and WP:NCCORP. "Valve" is unavailable, so Valve Corporation is the next most common and natural. The Amazon move away from its longstanding natural name was controversial, and piping will be unaffected by whatever title is used. Station1 (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:AINTBROKE._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:24, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The problem here is us linking to something that is not the common name. Amazon and Twitch both got moved for the same exact reasons, so yes, it is broken. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Station1. Amazon is not the same situation, as it lacked a natural disambiguation, which is a clear argument here. Moving the page doesn't fix anything regarding the need to pipe, and switches from a natural disambiguation that works to parenthetical disambiguation, which is harder on users, especially anyone on mobile. -- ferret (talk) 14:07, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
• Opppse The Amazon and Twitch situation was moving from their website names to a name that was more common but still required disambiguation; it was the common name w/ disambiguation that made more sense than the website name. Here, while "Valve" is certainly more common, "Valve Corporation" is used reasonably enough, is the company's official name (contrast to amazon.com or twitch.tv) and provides natural disambiguation. --Masem (t) 14:36, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

  "Amazon.com" is the official company name as well. It was still moved because the common name was judged much more valuable than a very uncommon natural disambiguation, the same as here. Lordtobi (✉) 14:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Certainly one of the harder requested moves to decide upon. Leaning oppose since with articles on companies it is common to see the article name reflect what they are known as legally (or what they are commonly traded as). For Example: Apple Inc. not Apple (company).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Weak oppose: While the company is commonly used by the short handle of "Valve", its full name of "Valve Corporation" is used to the extent that I don't believe we need to disambiguate it as a company. I'd apply the same standard while dealing with other companies with short handles, such as Blizzard and Obsidian. DÅRTHBØTTØ _(T•C) 02:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit request

Please add a hatnote for other companies

{{about|the software company|other companies|Valve (disambiguation)}}

This article is about the software company. For other companies, see Valve (disambiguation).

-- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done as this is not necessary per WP:NAMB. Regards, Lordtobi (✉) 10:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

"Valve Corporation" looks like "Valve (company)" so is clearly confusable with all other companies "Valve", so clearly should have a hatnote. Further Valve Co / Valve L.L.C. and other variants all redirect here. This company can't be all the variants (Inc. Corp. Co. LLC) but they redirect here. -- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Marked the other request as answered.  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Majavah ^(t/c) 13:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

How to reference Valve in other articles

So I noticed that in pretty much every page dealing with a Valve product, they are listed as "Valve" instead of "Valve Corporation" in the lede and infoboxes. I'm wondering if it would make sense to change those references to "Valve Corporation" to be more in line with other tech articles and avoid confusion for readers who aren't familiar with Valve. Techies/gamers/whathaveyou will instantly associate Valve with the company, but many outside that space won't. It's the same reason that Apple is listed as "Apple Inc." and Oracle is written as "Oracle Corporation" in every referenced product article. Companies like Microsoft or Electronic Arts don't necessarily need the "Inc." or "Corp" because they are unique words, whereas Valve, Apple, and Oracle are common terms outside of their respective industries. Curious about others' thoughts on this. — seadoubleyoujay ^{[talk] [contrib] [海倍君ジェイ]} 20:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I would agree that if the scope of the article is not wholly within the video game area, Valve should be expanded to Valve Corporation, otherwise, the short form works. --Masem (t) 20:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

The reason why many company articles (Valve, Apple, Oracle, ...) have their legal form in the title is that their names derive from everyday things (that each have their own articles) and thus need to be disambiguated. Some articles use parentheticals (e.g. "Generic Item (company)"), while others use a natural disambiguator per WP:NATDIS. In our case, the legal suffix is considered a natural disambiguator. However, "Valve" remains the common name of this company, and the common name is what we generally use in external mentions. This includes but is not limited to video game articles; it should not make a difference in what context the name is used. People who are not familiar with "Valve" will not have an immediately better understanding if it says "Valve Corporation" instead, and not everyone reading an article about a Half-Life game will know what "Valve". Checking the linked article usually enlightens such readers. What should be clear to a reader of median English understanding is that video games and software are not developed by fluid-directing devices. Lordtobi (✉) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand we should be making text as clear as possible, but we need to apply some common sense to it too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

HTC Vive

Dissident93 Reverted my edit, where I was removing the claim that Valve produces the HTC Vive. As should be abundantly clear, the HTC Vive is produced by HTC, not by Valve. The claim that Valve produces it is both unsourced and untrue, and thus should be removed from the article. Sakkura (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Sakkura, they collaborated on the production of it. You are confusing that for manufacturing. The wording could be more clear yes, but it should definitely be mentioned in the lead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Produce and manufacture are synonyms. The lead currently contains unsourced and untrue information that you inserted not too long ago. Sakkura (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

The quickest and simplest fix has been performed: Manufacture replaced with develop. -- ferret (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2020

Change the 'Founded' field on the right from "August 24, 1996; 23 years ago in Kirkland, Washington, US" to "August 24, 1996; 24 years ago in Kirkland, Washington, US". 2020-23 = 1997, not 1996. Aspect121 (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: That number counts the number of full years in existence. It updates on the anniversary date, not on January 1st, so it will be automatically updated to 24 years on August 24th. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

Update "Total equity", the current listed valuation is nearly a decade out of date. Sources like Bloomberg and Forbes have the company valued at around $10 billion.: "Valve was valued at $10 billion as of March 14, 2019, based on discussions with Michael Pachter, a Los Angeles-based analyst at Wedbush Securities." 51.37.62.75 (talk)

 Done. Volteer1 (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, truly! This has bothered me for years but I never sought to fix it. 51.37.62.75 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2021

Update "Artifact" under history, Valve scrapped Artifact in March: "In today's announcement, however, Artifact Foundry's team admitted that interest in this beta version wasn't fruitful enough: 'We haven't managed to get the active player numbers to a level that justifies further development at this time.'" Thanks in advance! GunWithDots (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Seemplez 10:58, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Update employee head count

When looking at the LinkedIn page for Valve Software it says they have just under 1000 employees Image on Imgur — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavecommander (talk • contribs) 15:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

LinkedIn data is rarely accurate. IceWelder [✉] 15:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Reference

"and the puzzle game Portal, developed from a concept by students.[citation needed]" This is described on the Narbacular Drop page so the references there could be reused, or reworded to "and the puzzle game Portal, developed from a student project Narbacular Drop" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.187.108 (talk) 00:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done — LauritzT (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2022

Change "Valve released fewer games in 2010s," to "Valve released fewer games in the 2010s,". 107.15.40.79 (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for catching that. Station1 (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Porting sources from List of video games considered the best

Several Valve games are regularly included in lists of the best games, and I think this should be covered in the article. All the sources we need are in the List of video games considered the best article, but I can't figure out a way to port them over that isn't fiddly and time-consuming. Is there a good way to do this? Popcornfud (talk) 13:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed on profit per employee

Citation needed on the Most profitable company by employee statement at the end of the first paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.121.173.154 (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Removed. -- ferret (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2022

All I want to do is add a bit more info on valves vr ambitions plz TheNoodleCan (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Dota intellectual property ownership - Wrong info, source

At the end of this section, in the last paragraph - the article describes a trademark dispute between valve and mobile developers Lilith and Ucool. The paragraph ends that this case was later heard by a jury - however the source [currently 126] - describes no such thing. It instead says that this case may be later heard by a jury - dating in 2017. In my research I have been unable to find any evidence of a jury reviewing the case nor any outcome. This is a problem because it is implied this dispute could nullify any trademark claims valve have on dota 2. 2A01:4B00:E059:F200:CDF0:CCA2:41AB:FFF7 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)