Gabe Newell: Reflections of a Video Game Maker

One of my favourite anecdotes about open offices is 22m in to this video[1], where Gabe Newell of Valve talks about his desire to have one office per person and how it didn't work out in practice. Bonus: he mentions Peopleware. [1] ▶ this video

in “Ending the open office epidemic” · View on HN

If you like this type of content, check out the Reddit subforum [link] , which covers behind the scenes footage and 'making of' material for video games. There's an alphabetical listing of all submissions that you can use to search for a particular title. [link] Press CTRL-F on that page and try searching for your favorite game. Searching for 'Valve' will lead you to the numerous developer commentaries that Valve has included in their games, similar to cast commentaries on DVDs. Valve founder Gabe Newell gave a talk about productivity, economics and corporations that you might find of interest: ▶ this video A good article during the final hours of Half-Life 2 development is this one written by Geoff Keighley: [link]

in “Valve’s Design Process For Creating Half-Life (1999)” · View on HN

According to Newell[1], Valve aggressively fires as it hires. It's not based on stack-ranking bullshit - more of a cultural and disciplinary fit. If you have the right personality you could thrive there, but if you need a manager to help you shine it's best to look elsewhere. [1]: ▶ this video

in “Ask HN: What current companies have the best software engineering culture?” · View on HN

> As another aside I do not think there is causal evidence that Valve became successful because of these ideals. On the contrary they seem like the result of success. In the following link, Gabe Newell explains some of ideas behind how Valve works. He argues that the way Valve works has been a conscious decision based on his experiences while working at Microsoft and interacting with other companies at that time. ▶ this video

in “Valve – Handbook for New Employees (2012) [pdf]” · View on HN

There's a subtle theme in this essay which describes the thought process of how YC (well pg specifically) selects teams for YC. Perhaps in a way, bringing clarity to what is generally seen as a non-scientific and highly complex line of reasoning for hiring and selecting talent with very little limited context. However, I still don't feel like I've still fully grokked it. > Within Y Combinator, when an idea is described as crazy, it's a compliment—in fact, on average probably a higher compliment than when an idea is described as good. Yet, outside the walls of YC, sounding crazy means you don't get in. > But we could tell the founders were earnest, energetic, and independent-minded. (Indeed, almost pathologically so.) How is it possible to discern this in a YC application? This is all reminiscent of the talk Gabe Newell, CEO and founder of Valve, gave on the hiring practices at Valve. ▶ this video Here he mentions the following: (paraphrased) "One of the first programmers of the company was the manager of a waffle house. He was one of the most and still one of the most creative people in the industry" So what made them take the risk? What makes Valve turn away every waffle house manager that applies today? What made YC take the risk on Chesky, Gebbia, and Blecharczyk?

in “How to Be an Expert in a Changing World” · View on HN

> This is corporate bullshit I spent 4 years at the largest business software company in the world and have spent 3 years on and off in very small (3 employee) startups. I would presume my bullshit meter is fairly well tuned. > you've fallen for it. I haven't. I tried finding a technical co-founder that didn't cost me an arm and leg, and it's taken me 6 years to do so. (YMMV) > This is an architect. And this position should be paid significantly more than an engineer. This is laughable. I've seen more architects in my day than most people have seen sales people. Just type in "SAP Architect" on any job search and compare it to the number you get for "Rails Architect". Architects are the bullshit powerpoint pushers I used to see day in and day out in Enterprise IT, who, after 5 years of never coding or implementing, fell short of guiding their dev teams because they couldn't keep up with the ever-changing technology stack. You know who should be paid more than anyone else? The person that can build a small team, make crazy revenue in a very short (relative) amount of time. It doesn't matter what you call those people, but they do exist, are in short supply and should be compensated equal to their productive output. > What I see here is that the bar for the definition of "competent engineer" keeps going higher and higher, without a commensurate increase in salary. Actually this has more to do with time than anything. The Next Big Startup™, can't afford to spend 6 months on softw

in “The value of an engineering degree” · View on HN