Comment by mikkupikku
1 day ago
> SCX-LAVD has been worked on by Linux consulting firm Igalia under contract for Valve
It seems like every time I read about this kind of stuff, it's being done by contractors. I think Proton is similar. Of course that makes it no less awesome, but it makes me wonder about the contractor to employee ratio at Valve. Do they pretty much stick to Steam/game development and contract out most of the rest?
Igalia is a bit unique as it serves as a single corporate entity for organizing a lot of sponsored work on the Linux kernel and open source projects. You'll notice in their blog posts they have collaborations with a number of other large companies seeking to sponsor very specific development work. For example, Google works with them a lot. I think it really just simplifies a lot of logistics for paying folks to do this kind of work, plus the Igalia employees can get shared efficiency's and savings for things like benefits etc.
Oh ok, so Igalia owns the developer sweatshops now. Got it.
I don't know much about Igalia but they are worker owned and I always see them work on high skill requirement tasks. Makes me wish I was good enough to work for them.
This seems to be a win-win where developers benefit from more work in niche areas, companies benefit by getting better developers for the things they want done, and Igalia gets paid (effectively) for matching the two together, sourcing sufficient work/developers, etc.
Just because work is 'out-sourced' to contractors does not mean it is a sweatshop....
It's a cooperative sweatshop in that sense.
And the developers own Igalia.
This isn’t explicitly called out in any of the other comments in my opinion so I’ll state this. Valve as a company is incredibly focused internally on its business. Its business is games, game hardware, and game delivery. For anything outside of that purview instead of trying to build a huge internal team they contract out. I’m genuinely curious why other companies don’t do this style more often because it seems incredibly cost effective. They hire top level contractors to do top tier work on hyper specific areas and everyone benefits. I think this kind of work is why Valve gets a free pass to do some real heinous shit (all the gambling stuff) and maintain incredible good will. They’re a true “take the good with the bad” kind of company. I certainly don’t condone all the bad they’ve put out, and I also have to recognize all the good they’ve done at the same time.
Back to the root point. Small company focused on core business competencies, extremely effective at contracting non-core business functions. I wish more businesses functioned this way.
Yeah, I suppose this workflow is not for everyone. I can only imagine Valve has very specific issue or requirements in mind when they hire contractors like this. When you hire like this, i suspect what one really pay for is a well known name that will be able to push something important to you to upstream linux. Its the right way to do it if you want it resolved quickly. If you come in as a fresh contributor, landing features upstream could take years.
Whats the bad practices valve is doing in gambling?
Their games and systems tie into huge gambling operations on 3rd party sites
If you have 30mins for a video I recommend People Make Games' documentary on it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMmNy11Mn7g
11 replies →
Loot box style underage gambling in their live service games - TF2 hats, counterstrike skins, "trading cards", etc etc
Lootboxes comes to mind.
Small company doesn't have the capital to contract out library work like that. Same story as it's always been
I feel like I rarely see contacting out work go well. This seems like an exception
The .308 footgun with software contracting stems from a misunderstanding of what we pay software developers for. The model under which contracting seems like the right move is "we pay software developers because we want a unit of software", like how you pay a carpenter to build you some custom cabinets. If the union of "things you have a very particular opinion about, and can specify coherently" and "things you don't care about" completely cover a project, contracting works great for that purpose.
But most of the time you don't want "a unit of software", you want some amorphous blob of product and business wants and needs, continuously changing at the whims of business, businessmen, and customers. In this context, sure, you're paying your developers to solve problems, but moreover you're paying them to store the institutional knowledge of how your particular system is built. Code is much easier to write than to read, because writing code involves applying a mental model that fits your understanding of the world onto the application, whereas reading code requires you to try and recreate someone else's alien mental model. In the situation of in-house products and business automation, at some point your senior developers become more valuable for their understanding of your codebase than their code output productivity.
The context of "I want this particular thing fixed in a popular open source codebase that there are existing people with expertise in", contracting makes a ton of sense, because you aren't the sole buyer of that expertise.
If you have competent people on both sides who care, I don't see why it wouldn't work.
The problem seems, at least from a distance, to be that bosses treat it as a fire-and-forget solution.
We haven't had any software done by oursiders yet, but we have hired consultants to help us on specifics, like changing our infra and help move local servers to the cloud. They've been very effective and helped us a lot.
We had talks though so we found someone who we could trust had the knowledge, and we were knowledgeable enough ourselves that we could determine that. We then followed up closely.
2 replies →
This is mostly because the title of contracter has come to mean many things. In the original form, of outsourcing temporary work to experts in the field it still works very very well. Where it fails is when a business contracts out business critical work, or contracts to a general company rather than experts.
Valve contracts out to actually competent people and companies rather than giant bodycount consulting firms.
1 reply →
I've seen both good and bad contractors in multiple industries.
When I worked in the HFC/Fiber plant design industry, the simple act of "Don't use the same boilerplate MSA for every type of vendor" and being more specific about project requirements in the RFP makes it very clear what is expected, and suddenly we'd get better bids, and would carefully review the bids to make sure that the response indicated they understood the work.
We also had our own 'internal' cost estimates (i.e. if we had the in house capacity, how long would it take to do and how much would it cost) which made it clear when a vendor was in over their head under-bidding just to get the work, which was never a good thing.
And, I've seen that done in the software industry as well, and it worked.
That said, the main 'extra' challenge in IT is that key is that many of the good players aren't going to be the ones beating down your door like the big 4 or a WITCH consultancy will.
But really at the end of the day, the problem is what often happens is that business-people who don't really know (or necessarily -care-) about specifics enough unfortunately are the people picking things like vendors.
And worse, sometimes they're the ones writing the spec and not letting engineers review it. [0]
[0] - This once led to an off-shore body shop getting a requirement along the lines of 'the stored procedures and SQL called should be configurable' and sure enough the web.config had ALL the SQL and stored procedures as XML elements, loaded from config just before the DB call, thing was a bitch to debug and their testing alone wreaked havoc on our dev DB.
Igalia isn’t your typical contractor. It’s made up of competent developers that actually want to be there and care to see open source succeed. Completely different ball game.
Nope. Plenty of top-tier contractors work quietly with their clientele and let the companies take the credit (so long as they reference the contractor to others, keeping the gravy train going.)
If you don't see it happening, the game is being played as intended.
Valve is actually extremely small, I've heard estimates at around 350-400 people.
They're also a flat organization, with all the good and bad that brings, so scaling with contractors is easier than bringing on employees that might want to work on something else instead.
300 people isn’t “extremely small” for a company. I don’t work with/for companies over 100 people, for example, and those are already quite big.
300 is extremely small for a company of their size in terms of revenue and impact. Linus media group and their other companies for instance is over 100 people, and is much smaller in impact and revenue than a company like valve, despite not being far off the number of employers (within an order of magnitude)...
300 people running Steam, creating games and maintaining Steam Deck / Linux and stuff?
Yes, 300 is quite small.
I think a better way to think of it is in terms of revenue per employee. Valve is WAY up there.
the implied observation is that valve is extremely small relative to what it does and how big most people would expect it to be
Of course smaller companies exist — there are 1 person companies! But in a world where many tech companies have 50,000+ employees, 300 is much closer to 100 or 10 and they can all be considered small.
And then you consider it in context: a company with huge impact, brand recognition, and revenue (about $50M/employee in 2025). They’ve remained extremely small compared to how big they could grow.
3 replies →
Proton is mainly a co-effort between in-house developers at Valve (with support on specific parts from contractors like Igalia), developers at CodeWeavers and the wider community.
For contextual, super specific, super specialized work (e.g. SCX-LAVD, the DirectX-to-Vulkan and OpenGL-to-Vulkan translation layers in Proton, and most of the graphics driver work required to make games run on the upcoming ARM based Steam Frame) they like to subcontract work to orgs like Igalia but that's about it.
Valve is known to keep their employee count as low as possible. I would guess anything that can reasonably be contracted out is.
That said, something like this which is a fixed project, highly technical and requires a lot of domain expertise would make sense for _anybody_ to contract out.
They seem to be doing it through Igalia, which is a company based on specialized consulting for the Linux ecosystem, as opposed to hiring individual contractors. Your point still stands, but from my perspective this arrangement makes a lot of sense while the Igalia employees have better job security than they would as individual contractors.
This is how "Company funding OSS" looks like in real life.
There have been demands to do that more on HN lately. This is how it looks like when it happens - a company paying for OSS development.
It would be a large effort to stand up a department that solely focuses on Linux development just like it would be to shift game developers to writing Linux code. Much easier to just pay a company to do the hard stuff for you. I'm sure the steam deck hardware was the same, Valve did the overall design and requirements but another company did the actual hardware development.
Speaking for myself, Valve has been great to work with - chill, and they bring real technical focus. It's still engineers running the show there, and they're good at what they do. A real breath of fresh air from much of the tech world.
What sort of stuff did you work on with them, if you don't mind me asking?
They probably needed some point expertise on this one, as they build out their teams.
I don't know what you're trying to suggest or question. If there is a question here, what is it exactly, and why is that question interesting? Do they employ contractors? Yes. Why was that a question?
Wut.
Valve has a weird obsession with maximizing their profit-per-employee ratio. There are stories from ex-employees out on the web about how this creates a hostile environment, and perverse incentives to sabotage those below you to protect your own job.
I don't remember all the details, but it doesn't seem like a great place to work, at least based on the horror stories I've read.
Valve does a lot of awesome things, but they also do a lot of shitty things, and I think their productivity is abysmal based on what you'd expect from a company with their market share. They have very successful products, but it's obvious that basically all of their income comes from rent-seeking from developers who want to (well, need to) publish on Steam.
There are numerous other ways to publish games. Is it really rent-seeking to own and maintain the most popular game publishing platform?