7 ms·

It fits a pattern. I was a hardware engineer at Valve during the early VR days, working mostly on Lighthouse and the internal dev headset. There were a few e

by bkraz 10y ago

It fits a pattern. I was a hardware engineer at Valve during the early VR days, working mostly on Lighthouse and the internal dev headset. There were a few employees who insisted that the Valve VR group give away both hardware and software to Oculus with the hope that they would work together with Valve on VR. The tech was literally given away -- no contract, no license. After the facebook acquisition, these folks presumably received large financial incentives to join facebook, which they did. It was the most questionable thing I've seen in my whole career, and was partially caused by Valve's flat management structure and general lack of oversight. I left shortly after.

blazespin 10y ago
You left because Valve made a good faith gamble in hopes of accelerating the development of VR with no guarantee of return? Was Valve not growing fast enough for you? That being said, yes, I agree that FB has been a tad arrogant with oculus. And, if you look at sales, karma is catching up to them.
- funkyy 10y ago
  Sounds like he left because of flat management and lack of oversight.
  - blazespin 10y ago
    Valve has always had flat management. Why'd he join in the first place? Valve is a great game company. They've done great, hugely important things. Their work on Vive has been extremely innovative and it seems to be paying off in terms of sales versus Oculus.
    - funkyy 10y ago
      You need to ask him for that. But about flat management - I heard many people saying flat management system have turned Valve to the highschool-style community with "Cool Kids" running things and some people being pushed into the "corner". I have read stories where people comment on how a lot of things are immature in the company. Sorry, I am busy coding now so cannot send citations your way, but they are not hard to find with Google.
    - bkraz 10y ago
      I joined Valve because "flat management" sounds a lot better than it actually is. I don't think Valve's implementation is especially bad -- I would never join another company that has "flat management".
      - jayjay71 10y ago
        Is there a reason you didn't want to join Oculus and continue working on the same (or similar) technology with your colleagues?
        bkraz 10y ago
        The work on VR at Valve was the most stressful point of my career, and I wanted a change (ie not to work on VR anymore). When I left, it was unclear if Valve was going to ditch the whole VR thing. They probably would have done so if HTC hadn't gotten a demo of our amazing tech. My new job at Verily (Google Life Sciences) offered better pay, lower stress, and far more job satisfaction, so it ended up being a good move.
      - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
        Care to talk about the pros and cons of flat management structures from your perspective?
        bkraz 10y ago
        The biggest problem with flat management is that it isn't really flat. It only means that there is no formal organizational structure. Think of it like the Wild West: It's flat in the sense that you can get away with any behavior if you have enough influence or force. Those who are powerful end up ruling everyone else, making the system anything but flat. I'm not at all convinced this is better than a structured system that tries to ensure fairness (even if flawed). A lot of folks at Valve had very bad experiences with unfit managers (mostly at Microsoft), and I can understand why they developed a system to avoid the nastiness they experienced in the past. It sometimes works well: The unstructured teams appear to be very effective at product maintenance. The products that are already successful and have an established fan base do well with a small group of folks with an informal leader, who doesn't have to make difficult decisions to keep the fan base happy. For new products, there are lots of difficult decisions that affect the future of employees and customers, and it doesn't appear possible for a group to make these decisions together. I spent many, many hours in meetings discussing the same issues repeatedly because there was no leader to make a final decision and allow everyone to get back to work. Instead we just debated without end, causing everyone to become unfocused and demoralized. It's analysis paralysis in the worst way I've ever seen. I now understand why many social groups from primitive tribes to 1st-world nations have leaders and chiefs. It's fine to vote them out when necessary, but having visionary leadership is really critical to development and I don't see how this can be distributed among a group unless each person shares exactly the same vision, which I suppose is possible, but unlikely. I think the best solution is to build structures that greatly reward effective management. Having a good manager is a tremendous benefit to both the company and the manager's reports. Of course, this is easier said than done, but the return on investment spent in this area is really quite high.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  I don't know, I would have also personally felt pretty unhappy if I was one of the Xerox PARC researchers whose hard work was essentially given away for free to Steve Jobs.
  - twblalock 10y ago
    Xerox did not give its technology away for free. Xerox got a lot of pre-IPO Apple stock options in exchange.
    - Hydraulix989 10y ago
      Imagine the upside of actually being Apple though. It really felt like a missed opportunity to everyone there, gauging from employees' actual testimonies.
  - tinus_hn 10y ago
    Yeah, better not have it be used by anyone!
    - Hydraulix989 10y ago
      Let me know all of your great ideas that you haven't gotten around to following through with yet.
- bkraz 10y ago
  Overall, I think Valve is a good place to work, and I learned a lot from all of the incredibly smart people there. The main reason that I left was the difficulty in merging hardware development with the company's exceptionally successful business model. The hardware team was pressured to give away lots of IP that could have been licensed, with the explanation that hardware is just so worthless anyway compared to online software sales, there was no other choice. It's possible that this was a good faith gamble, however it still doesn't preclude the use of business contracts that would have protected our investment. It also isn't so great for morale to hear everyday that your years of work are going to be given away to another company, and then watch that company get acquired for $2B. This is especially the case since many employees strongly voiced concerns about just such a scenario. Growth at Valve is a little funny. It's like an oil-rich nation. Gaining more citizens is not really desirable since the wealth will just get spread more thinly, and there is no way that new employees will be able to make more money than Steam already does with a very limited number of employees. I know the company is trying new things, and making honest investments in new areas, but it's hard to shake the bottom line.
  - shostack 10y ago
    Personally I think there is a ton of growth potential for Steam that has yet to be realized. I wonder if the revenue is making Valve soft since it tends to hide many problems that scrappier companies are forced to confront and solve or perish.
  - shostack 10y ago
    Personally I think there is a ton of growth potential for Steam that has yet to be realized. I wonder if all the revenue is making Valve soft since it tends to hide many problems that scrappier companies are forced to confront and solve or perish.
  - dleslie 10y ago
    Sounds like Valve lacks direction.
    - devwastaken 10y ago
maxander 10y ago
So people at Valve gave away tech, and then got hired by other companies to work on that tech, presumably for stacks of money? Leaving others who happened to be working on less lucrative subjects their a prestigious but lower-paid positions with little hope of meaningful advancement? Huh. Valve is just like academia.
- modeless 10y ago
  ... except Valve ultimately came out with the better product and is selling twice as many (according to Tim Sweeney). Plus, the VR market is not zero sum right now. The extra investment and attention that Oculus has brought to the industry has almost certainly resulted in Vive selling more units, not fewer. And Steam is winning over Oculus Home, too. The people advocating technology sharing were right, in my view.
  - headshock1111 10y ago
    >the VR market is not zero sum right now. this is only true if anyone who buys either a Vive or a Rift has sufficient funds to afford getting both
    - benjaminjackman 10y ago
      I think not zero sum in the sense that currently a good battle between two rivals could stir up more attention for both VR companies and lead to increased sales for either than they would have if they weren't competing. People don't have to buy both they just have to be more likely to buy either due to the presence of competition.
  - rogeressig 10y ago
    oculus home vs VR sales on Steam. My guess it's oculus home by a huge margin because GearVR.
    - AlphaSite 10y ago
      None of the games which work for the gearvr are really useable nor worthwhile on the rift.
DEADBEEF 10y ago
If push came to shove, would you be willing to go on the stand and testify as much if compelled to?

by bkraz 10y ago

blazespin 10y ago

You left because Valve made a good faith gamble in hopes of accelerating the development of VR with no guarantee of return? Was Valve not growing fast enough for you? That being said, yes, I agree that FB has been a tad arrogant with oculus. And, if you look at sales, karma is catching up to them.

funkyy 10y ago
Sounds like he left because of flat management and lack of oversight.
- blazespin 10y ago
  Valve has always had flat management. Why'd he join in the first place? Valve is a great game company. They've done great, hugely important things. Their work on Vive has been extremely innovative and it seems to be paying off in terms of sales versus Oculus.
  - funkyy 10y ago
    You need to ask him for that. But about flat management - I heard many people saying flat management system have turned Valve to the highschool-style community with "Cool Kids" running things and some people being pushed into the "corner". I have read stories where people comment on how a lot of things are immature in the company. Sorry, I am busy coding now so cannot send citations your way, but they are not hard to find with Google.
  - bkraz 10y ago
    I joined Valve because "flat management" sounds a lot better than it actually is. I don't think Valve's implementation is especially bad -- I would never join another company that has "flat management".
    - jayjay71 10y ago
      Is there a reason you didn't want to join Oculus and continue working on the same (or similar) technology with your colleagues?
      - bkraz 10y ago
        The work on VR at Valve was the most stressful point of my career, and I wanted a change (ie not to work on VR anymore). When I left, it was unclear if Valve was going to ditch the whole VR thing. They probably would have done so if HTC hadn't gotten a demo of our amazing tech. My new job at Verily (Google Life Sciences) offered better pay, lower stress, and far more job satisfaction, so it ended up being a good move.
    - drzaiusapelord 10y ago
      Care to talk about the pros and cons of flat management structures from your perspective?
      - bkraz 10y ago
        The biggest problem with flat management is that it isn't really flat. It only means that there is no formal organizational structure. Think of it like the Wild West: It's flat in the sense that you can get away with any behavior if you have enough influence or force. Those who are powerful end up ruling everyone else, making the system anything but flat. I'm not at all convinced this is better than a structured system that tries to ensure fairness (even if flawed). A lot of folks at Valve had very bad experiences with unfit managers (mostly at Microsoft), and I can understand why they developed a system to avoid the nastiness they experienced in the past. It sometimes works well: The unstructured teams appear to be very effective at product maintenance. The products that are already successful and have an established fan base do well with a small group of folks with an informal leader, who doesn't have to make difficult decisions to keep the fan base happy. For new products, there are lots of difficult decisions that affect the future of employees and customers, and it doesn't appear possible for a group to make these decisions together. I spent many, many hours in meetings discussing the same issues repeatedly because there was no leader to make a final decision and allow everyone to get back to work. Instead we just debated without end, causing everyone to become unfocused and demoralized. It's analysis paralysis in the worst way I've ever seen. I now understand why many social groups from primitive tribes to 1st-world nations have leaders and chiefs. It's fine to vote them out when necessary, but having visionary leadership is really critical to development and I don't see how this can be distributed among a group unless each person shares exactly the same vision, which I suppose is possible, but unlikely. I think the best solution is to build structures that greatly reward effective management. Having a good manager is a tremendous benefit to both the company and the manager's reports. Of course, this is easier said than done, but the return on investment spent in this area is really quite high.
Hydraulix989 10y ago
I don't know, I would have also personally felt pretty unhappy if I was one of the Xerox PARC researchers whose hard work was essentially given away for free to Steve Jobs.
- twblalock 10y ago
  Xerox did not give its technology away for free. Xerox got a lot of pre-IPO Apple stock options in exchange.
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    Imagine the upside of actually being Apple though. It really felt like a missed opportunity to everyone there, gauging from employees' actual testimonies.
- tinus_hn 10y ago
  Yeah, better not have it be used by anyone!
  - Hydraulix989 10y ago
    Let me know all of your great ideas that you haven't gotten around to following through with yet.
bkraz 10y ago
Overall, I think Valve is a good place to work, and I learned a lot from all of the incredibly smart people there. The main reason that I left was the difficulty in merging hardware development with the company's exceptionally successful business model. The hardware team was pressured to give away lots of IP that could have been licensed, with the explanation that hardware is just so worthless anyway compared to online software sales, there was no other choice. It's possible that this was a good faith gamble, however it still doesn't preclude the use of business contracts that would have protected our investment. It also isn't so great for morale to hear everyday that your years of work are going to be given away to another company, and then watch that company get acquired for $2B. This is especially the case since many employees strongly voiced concerns about just such a scenario. Growth at Valve is a little funny. It's like an oil-rich nation. Gaining more citizens is not really desirable since the wealth will just get spread more thinly, and there is no way that new employees will be able to make more money than Steam already does with a very limited number of employees. I know the company is trying new things, and making honest investments in new areas, but it's hard to shake the bottom line.
- shostack 10y ago
  Personally I think there is a ton of growth potential for Steam that has yet to be realized. I wonder if the revenue is making Valve soft since it tends to hide many problems that scrappier companies are forced to confront and solve or perish.
- shostack 10y ago
  Personally I think there is a ton of growth potential for Steam that has yet to be realized. I wonder if all the revenue is making Valve soft since it tends to hide many problems that scrappier companies are forced to confront and solve or perish.
- dleslie 10y ago
  Sounds like Valve lacks direction.
  - devwastaken 10y ago

maxander 10y ago

So people at Valve gave away tech, and then got hired by other companies to work on that tech, presumably for stacks of money? Leaving others who happened to be working on less lucrative subjects their a prestigious but lower-paid positions with little hope of meaningful advancement? Huh. Valve is just like academia.

modeless 10y ago
... except Valve ultimately came out with the better product and is selling twice as many (according to Tim Sweeney). Plus, the VR market is not zero sum right now. The extra investment and attention that Oculus has brought to the industry has almost certainly resulted in Vive selling more units, not fewer. And Steam is winning over Oculus Home, too. The people advocating technology sharing were right, in my view.
- headshock1111 10y ago
  >the VR market is not zero sum right now. this is only true if anyone who buys either a Vive or a Rift has sufficient funds to afford getting both
  - benjaminjackman 10y ago
    I think not zero sum in the sense that currently a good battle between two rivals could stir up more attention for both VR companies and lead to increased sales for either than they would have if they weren't competing. People don't have to buy both they just have to be more likely to buy either due to the presence of competition.
- rogeressig 10y ago
  oculus home vs VR sales on Steam. My guess it's oculus home by a huge margin because GearVR.
  - AlphaSite 10y ago
    None of the games which work for the gearvr are really useable nor worthwhile on the rift.

DEADBEEF 10y ago

If push came to shove, would you be willing to go on the stand and testify as much if compelled to?