I didn't care when gamers on sites I read took this at face-value and nodded along, but on HN I'm shocked nobody has yet pointed out that he's talking PR spin.<p>They've started a big push marketing the game, they obviously want people to stay excited for what it is, rather than thinking about any downsides. His answer doesn't mean they haven't thought about it, it means one of two things: either they are yet to come to a decision, or it won't actually be free-to-play. Either way, answering that in this interview would have been a moronic step to take, so he changed the subject away from it, and onto "we care more about games than money".<p>I love Valve, they're a wonderful company, but they definitely think about monetisation right from the start of a project - they're not idiots. And making money from a game doesn't have to mean the game isn't good.
> "I think not sucking is way more of an important thing to pay attention to first,"<p>Like "build something people want".<p>One way to looks at it is in terms of dependencies. Complicated problems have a ton of dependencies, so that when you change one thing, it ripples through, changing other things. Therefore you'd best get the most important things right first, leaving everything else loose, flexible and uncommitted, so that as you fiddle with the important things, you aren't tied down by other issues. I find I can easily become overly fond of some secondary aspect that prevents me backing out of that local minima and seeing the true (or truer) truth.
Once you've got the key things right, you can start worrying about secondary things (secondary in that they are still important, just not as important).
So it's similar to the knuth quote alluded to (<a href="http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PrematureOptimization" rel="nofollow">http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?PrematureOptimization</a>). (though I'd say that the most important thing is <i>understanding</i> the problem and solution, rather than having correct code).<p>It's really good to just completely forget about making money, and set out purely to make the world a better place (or realize a vision). It's freeing.
For a company in Valves position this is a very nice approach, and i like their overall vision on product quality and user experience alot.
Still, if you are a smaller studio, possibly backed by investors and not making hundreds of millions in revenue it wont sound very good to say "we dont know and dont worry how to make money yet".
If your company ever reaches a point where you can say that before a new major product release, you probably made it ;)
The original interview (<a href="http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6471/the_valve_way_gabe_newell_and_.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6471/the_valve_way_gab...</a>) contains more information about how Valve is approaching Dota2, and some background around development of the game.
I heard Gabe talk at Games For Change in NYC this year, the dude is really really smart.<p>I don't look at it as money vs quality. I see it more as, more quality more money. So start with quality.<p>The only way to make money is if people play your games. The perceived value of your games is higher, and the amount of interest is higher when you make good games.<p>One thing Valve has, probably more than any other game company (besides possibly Zynga) is a ton of data on gamer behavior across all their titles.<p>They've looked really hard at how players interact on some of their AAA titles like Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, and more recently on Portal 2. They know how people play, and what they're willing to spend on.<p>Seriously, they are running EEG brainwave scans and pupil dilation tests on gamers during play testing to understand how their games are effecting their players. That level of customer understanding makes it pretty easy to know where and how to turn the money machine on.
I think it was difficult for HoN to keep providing the level of service and updates on a one-time fee of $30 to play the game. A subscription model would fit the cost model more appropriately, for a game with continual upkeep like HoN / DotA.
Nobody falls for the monetization, its the products. Gabe's approach without trying duplicity messages is great design.<p>The product is the only selling point in Valve design.
That's all well and good, but that's kind of easy to say when there are several established business models for your type of product. And you're a profitable company.