• An Open Letter To Valve (On VR)
    79 replies, posted
[video=youtube;Du-UM6DQuZA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du-UM6DQuZA[/video]
I'm hearing a lot of the usual Valve issues here. Mainly that there is no communication and very little curation regarding the Steam store. Really doesn't surprise me.
I highly doubt that anything of actual substance will be released on a VR platform [U]exclusively[/U] until it is a lot more commonplace. But at the same time, I am actually really hopeful that maybe some day the VR display will overtake the need of an actual monitor.
[QUOTE=Naota1248;51170804]I highly doubt that anything of actual substance will be released on a VR platform [U]exclusively[/U] until it is a lot more commonplace. But at the same time, I am actually really hopeful that maybe some day the VR display will overtake the need of an actual monitor.[/QUOTE] If Chronos and Edge of Nowhere are not "substance", I don't know what more you need unless substance means only Twilight Princess or Dishonored kind of budgets to you. Still, that's only two games so far in the first year of consumer VR gaming. VR will indeed need to be more commonplace to draw in high-development games, but I don't think it can become commonplace [I]without[/i] such games, hence the video complaining that Valve isn't investing enough in VR developers. [editline]8th October 2016[/editline] I don't think VR will replace monitors. AR, [I]maybe[/I], and only because it can still take the form of a screen inside your office/bedroom on a desk with a keyboard. Some things are better in VR, and others are not.
[QUOTE=bitches;51171613] I don't think VR will replace monitors. AR, [I]maybe[/I], and only because it can still take the form of a screen inside your office/bedroom on a desk with a keyboard. Some things are better in VR, and others are not.[/QUOTE] I think monitors' benefits outweigh what AR could bring for another 5-15 years. Especially because we're getting higher and higher res monitors every few years anyway. AR would have to play the catchup game fast if AR were to replace monitors.
Why does that hand logo have 5 fingers and a thumb? It's really bothering me.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;51172251]Why does that hand logo have 5 fingers and a thumb? It's really bothering me.[/QUOTE] [t]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e5/bd/3e/e5bd3ea08a44b77d7a5a6e7bdb46bea5.jpg[/t][t]http://www.puppstheories.com/forum/images/6fingers2.jpg[/t] ok???? Whats not normal about it? you mean you only have 4?
vr slowly becoming the next 3D
[QUOTE=redBadger;51172570]vr slowly becoming the next 3D[/QUOTE] there's a big difference to 3d and that is its actually 3d for real and not just bullshit smoke being puffed up consumers ass's
Metal Gear VR. Imagine all the possibilities.
games like Onward need more attention, everything i have heard about it has been exactly what a lot of people are looking for in VR
games by people who know how to make games are important with new technology if valve used all that creative muscle they (used to) have and shat out hl3 for vr vive sales would be through the fucking roof, and more people would develop for it as a result easier said than done of course
[QUOTE=Mobon1;51173044]games by people who know how to make games are important with new technology [B]if valve used all that creative muscle they (used to) have and shat out hl3 for vr[/B] vive sales would be through the fucking roof, and more people would develop for it as a result easier said than done of course[/QUOTE] Except if they did do that people would just complain that they'd have to spend hundreds of dollars for the "real" experience.
[QUOTE=REMBER;51172708]Metal Gear VR. Imagine all the possibilities.[/QUOTE] so a vr pachinko game with unicorn zombies
All the Halo 2 music in this is delicious.
[QUOTE=Mobon1;51173044]if valve used all that creative muscle they (used to) have and shat out hl3 for vr vive sales would be through the fucking roof, and more people would develop for it as a result[/QUOTE] Who ever asked for Half Life 3 to be a VR game ? Classic gameplay doesn't work in VR, they would have to change it so significantly, it wouldn't be a Half Life game. It would make as much sense as turning it into moba that is played on mobile phones, people would be very disappointed. I do agree they should have made something themselves, but it should have been a new IP. But the problem is, I guess, that there was no existing VR mod this time which they could buy off. Don't forget Half Life is their only truly original property.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;51173230]Who ever asked for Half Life 3 to be a VR game ? Classic gameplay doesn't work in VR, they would have to change it so significantly, it wouldn't be a Half Life game. It would make as much sense as turning it into moba that is played on mobile phones, people would be very disappointed. I do agree they should have made something themselves, but it should have been a new IP. But the problem is, I guess, that there was no existing VR mod this time which they could buy off. Don't forget Half Life is their only truly original property.[/QUOTE] Portal is very original. They hired on the team of the tech demo Narbacular Drop for the first game, but that doesn't make the execution of it and the story elements unoriginal. Most notably, the sequel. [editline]8th October 2016[/editline] TF2 was also a very original title for its time, but it just isn't meant for sequels, making it a one-game IP.
[QUOTE=bitches;51173305]Portal is very original. They hired on the team of the tech demo Narbacular Drop for the first game, but that doesn't make the execution of it and the story elements unoriginal. Most notably, the sequel. [editline]8th October 2016[/editline] TF2 was also a very original title for its time, but it just isn't meant for sequels, making it a one-game IP.[/QUOTE] I think he's using "original" to refer to IP's that they created themselves without hiring/buying other indie developers and their projects. Since almost all of their games, aside from the Half Life series, were projects that they acquired from mod-makers who they hired, not IP's that Valve themselves built from the ground up.
As much as I want Steam VR to succeed over Oculus, Woodsie is hitting the point right on the head. The key to increasing adoption of VR is to entice more renown developers to make games for VR platforms, not to let just anyone with an installation of the free edition of Unity put their half baked ideas onto the marketplace. I know Valve's stance is that smaller indie teams seem to be making the most creative ideas (which is true to some extent), and they want to give them an environment to flourish in, but when you have the floodgates constantly open with services like Greenlight and Early Access, all you're going to end up doing is tarnishing the name of Steam VR and/or the HTC Vive. If this continues, part of me fears that Steam VR will be viewed as "that VR platform with the shitty games" instead of "a quality VR platform." Outside of DOOM VR and Fallout VR, I think the only hope that Valve has of getting more people to buy a Vive is to make a Steam VR exclusive game for it themselves. Something big and interesting.
[QUOTE=Rahu X;51173569]As much as I want Steam VR to succeed over Oculus, Woodsie is hitting the point right on the head. The key to increasing adoption of VR is to entice more renown developers to make games for VR platforms, not to let just anyone with an installation of the free edition of Unity put their half baked ideas onto the marketplace. I know Valve's stance is that smaller indie teams seem to be making the most creative ideas (which is true to some extent), and they want to give them an environment to flourish in, but when you have the floodgates constantly open with services like Greenlight and Early Access, all you're going to end up doing is tarnishing the name of Steam VR and/or the HTC Vive. If this continues, part of me fears that Steam VR will be viewed as "that VR platform with the shitty games" instead of "a quality VR platform." [B]Outside of DOOM VR and Fallout VR, I think the only hope that Valve has of getting more people to buy a Vive is to make a Steam VR exclusive game for it themselves. Something big and interesting.[/B][/QUOTE] Richochet [I]VR[/I]
[QUOTE=Rahu X;51173569]As much as I want Steam VR to succeed over Oculus, Woodsie is hitting the point right on the head. The key to increasing adoption of VR is to entice more renown developers to make games for VR platforms, not to let just anyone with an installation of the free edition of Unity put their half baked ideas onto the marketplace. I know Valve's stance is that smaller indie teams seem to be making the most creative ideas (which is true to some extent), and they want to give them an environment to flourish in, but when you have the floodgates constantly open with services like Greenlight and Early Access, all you're going to end up doing is tarnishing the name of Steam VR and/or the HTC Vive. If this continues, part of me fears that Steam VR will be viewed as "that VR platform with the shitty games" instead of "a quality VR platform." Outside of DOOM VR and Fallout VR, I think the only hope that Valve has of getting more people to buy a Vive is to make a Steam VR exclusive game for it themselves. Something big and interesting.[/QUOTE] See, I think Valve and Oculus are after completely different goals, Oculus is banking that the current gen tech, and existing gameplay design with a good library. Valve on the other hand is still trying to find gameplay design that can help all of VR, such as the chaperone area, locomotion method, etc. This is why the model for giving funds is the way it is, it allows a maximum number of people to play with potential gameplay mechanics.
[QUOTE=Rahu X;51173569]As much as I want Steam VR to succeed over Oculus, Woodsie is hitting the point right on the head. The key to increasing adoption of VR is to entice more renown developers to make games for VR platforms, not to let just anyone with an installation of the free edition of Unity put their half baked ideas onto the marketplace. I know Valve's stance is that smaller indie teams seem to be making the most creative ideas (which is true to some extent), and they want to give them an environment to flourish in, but when you have the floodgates constantly open with services like Greenlight and Early Access, all you're going to end up doing is tarnishing the name of Steam VR and/or the HTC Vive. If this continues, part of me fears that Steam VR will be viewed as "that VR platform with the shitty games" instead of "a quality VR platform." Outside of DOOM VR and Fallout VR, I think the only hope that Valve has of getting more people to buy a Vive is to make a Steam VR exclusive game for it themselves. [B]Something big and interesting.[/B][/QUOTE] Something big and interesting called ass portal. We're gonna delve into the colon.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51174611]See, I think Valve and Oculus are after completely different goals, Oculus is banking that the current gen tech, and existing gameplay design with a good library. Valve on the other hand is still trying to find gameplay design that can help all of VR, such as the chaperone area, locomotion method, etc. This is why the model for giving funds is the way it is, it allows a maximum number of people to play with potential gameplay mechanics.[/QUOTE] Valve didn't invent motion tracking peripherals. The idea has been around for 20 years in various forms, and both companies were working on them at the same time. Valve only released theirs first. These things take years to go from idea to product; one publicly showing off a few weeks before the other is no indication of your claim. Chaperone was a braindead obvious feature that both companies would have developed independently if the other didn't exist. I don't know what you mean about R&D either. Both companies are prototyping like crazy. If we're talking funds, Oculus has been shelling out way more cash to developers big and small than Valve has, and only Oculus is doing so without withholding game sales until their investment is repaid; Oculus is better for developers, even if you're upset about their exclusivity dealings. For what it's worth, Kingspray got Oculus funding to take their early access prototype and make it a full multiplayer polished experience, without any financial risk that usually comes with indie development. Kingspray is releasing on both platforms [I]at the same time[/I].
[QUOTE=bitches;51174873]Valve didn't invent motion tracking peripherals. The idea has been around for 20 years in various forms, and both companies were working on them at the same time. Valve only released theirs first. These things take years to go from idea to product; one publicly showing off a few weeks before the other is no indication of your claim. Chaperone was a braindead obvious feature that both companies would have developed independently if the other didn't exist. I don't know what you mean about R&D either. Both companies are prototyping like crazy. If we're talking funds, Oculus has been shelling out way more cash to developers big and small than Valve has, and only Oculus is doing so without withholding game sales until their investment is repaid; Oculus is better for developers, even if you're upset about their exclusivity dealings. For what it's worth, Kingspray got Oculus funding to take their early access prototype and make it a full multiplayer polished experience, without any financial risk that usually comes with indie development. Kingspray is releasing on both platforms [I]at the same time[/I].[/QUOTE] What I mean is, VR is still a wild west with almost no rules, we're still in the equivalent days when FPS just got mouse look and strafe. Valve knows they can't come up with everything, and they know that the best way to spur new ideas and designs in VR, is to get as many people as possible working on it, preferably from as many walks of lives and professions. They're banking on the innovation of tens of thousands of independent developers. Whereas Oculus is trying to make a platform, like Consoles when they first came out. [editline]later[/editline] [QUOTE=bitches;51174873] Chaperone was a braindead obvious feature that both companies would have developed independently if the other didn't exist. [/QUOTE] Mouselook is a 'breaindead' idea, but it took time before it was the norm in shooters. There are a ton of 'braindead' technology we've yet to discover for VR.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175036]What I mean is, VR is still a wild west with almost no rules, we're still in the equivalent days when FPS just got mouse look and strafe. Valve knows they can't come up with everything, and they know that the best way to spur new ideas and designs in VR, is to get as many people as possible working on it, preferably from as many walks of lives and professions. They're banking on the innovation of tens of thousands of independent developers. Whereas Oculus is trying to make a platform, like Consoles when they first came out.[/QUOTE] Oculus was leading the indie developer path for years with their devkits, before the Vive got into anyone's hands. How exactly is Valve doing more than Oculus in that regard, even in the current day, if Oculus is the one funding more indie developers, with full grants, and without even requiring exclusivity?
[QUOTE=bitches;51175045]Oculus was leading the indie developer path for years with their devkits, before the Vive got into anyone's hands. How exactly is Valve doing more than Oculus in that regard, even in the current day, if Oculus is the one funding more indie developers, with full grants, and without even requiring exclusivity?[/QUOTE] That's only because the Rift devkits were first to market, and you still needed to purchase them. You only saw this ramp-up of dev funding once Facebook purchased Oculus, and that's because Zuckerberg realized market potential to become a console like platform. Valve came along with very polished devkits, shipped them out to a number of trusted developers (for free), and then gave them a platform (Steam developer group) to share their ideas, code, and games. Valve is wholly interested in VR innovation, Oculus is interested in a platform (Like the Xbox, with Xbox Live)
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175057]That's only because the Rift devkits were first to market, and you still needed to purchase them. You only saw this ramp-up of dev funding once Facebook purchased Oculus, and that's because Zuckerberg realized market potential to become a console like platform. Valve came along with very polished devkits, shipped them out to a number of trusted developers (for free), and then gave them a platform (Steam developer group) to share their ideas, code, and games. Valve is wholly interested in VR innovation, Oculus is interested in a platform (Like the Xbox, with Xbox Live)[/QUOTE] Oculus started funding developers once it became something they could afford to do, through Facebook. Just like Valve did, Oculus has been sending out tons of free Touch development hardware for developers big and small. For Valve, VR is a special interest. For Oculus, VR is critical for their company's existence. I'm just saying that you're not being fair to Oculus's support of indies at all. They've always wanted to push the indie scene, and currently are doing more than Valve is about it on that front. Supplying huge sums of money to big developer studios doesn't mean they're not also supporting indies.
[QUOTE=bitches;51175073]Oculus started funding developers once it became something they could afford to do, through Facebook. Just like Valve did, Oculus has been sending out tons of free Touch development hardware for developers big and small. For Valve, VR is a special interest. For Oculus, VR is critical for their company's existence. I'm just saying that you're not being fair to Oculus's support of indies at all. They've always wanted to push the indie scene, and currently are doing more than Valve is about it on that front. Supplying huge sums of money to big developer studios doesn't mean they're not also supporting indies.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to push that narrative, I think Oculus's work is going to [I]create a better library of VR games[/I], Oculus is already ahead in the sheer quality of their titles as compared to Vive which is mostly experimental games. But that's my whole point, Valve is interested in straight up innovation, they arguably made touch controllers and room-scale a necessity, and in the future we'll be sure to see more and innovative designs come from the experimental nature of Vive and the Steam-VR community in general. These improvements to design will benefit the whole industry, which is nothing but good.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175090]I'm not trying to push that narrative, I think Oculus's work is going to [I]create a better library of VR games[/I], Oculus is already ahead in the sheer quality of their titles as compared to Vive which is mostly experimental games. But that's my whole point, Valve is interested in straight up innovation, they arguably made touch controllers and room-scale a necessity, and in the future we'll be sure to see more and innovative designs come from the experimental nature of Vive and the Steam-VR community in general. These improvements to design will benefit the whole industry, which is nothing but good.[/QUOTE] I agree that Valve's actions probably made tracked controllers a bigger priority to Oculus than they were before. However, I don't know how you conclude that more innovative gameplay experiments will result from the SteamVR community. For what reason? If anything, Oculus made the more experimental VR controller, considering all the gesture recognition sensors in it. The Vive's controller is just a big stick with a touchpad.
[QUOTE=bitches;51175098]I agree that Valve's actions probably made tracked controllers a bigger priority to Oculus than they were before. However, I don't know how you conclude that more innovative gameplay experiments will result from the SteamVR community. For what reason? If anything, Oculus made the more experimental VR controller, considering all the gesture recognition sensors in it. The Vive's controller is just a big stick with a touchpad.[/QUOTE] Because Valve tries to support as many small indies as possible, it's stated in this video exactly, that Valve doesn't prop up larger "experienced" developers. Experienced and AAA developers are going to use tried and true methods and gameplay design, whereas a bunch of small indie studios have a larger potential to shake up core concepts and experiment with ideas no one has though of before. Simply because of this, and the sharing community SteamVR has: When you were given a Vive devkit, you got access to the VR group on Steam, and could regularly talk with Valve employees, and other vive developers. This also generally included the games of every other Vive developer, it's why when we first started seeing devkit videos, everyone was playing the same games. That's why Vive is going to be more about innovation, whereas the Oculus is going to be more about polished "products". And it's why I use the analogy that Oculus is going to be a "console-like platform" as opposed to the free-range ecosystem of the Vive. the touch controllers are basically just Gen 2 hardware, so it's expected they'd have more features. And since Valve has released the low-level hardware for the Vive, and the code is open and available on Git-Hub, you can be assured we're going to see some crazy shit in the future on the Vive in regards to tracked tech. [editline]8th October 2016[/editline] I think both have [I]value[/I] in the market, I'm going to use my console analogy since that's where and how I think the VR market is headed. PC gaming has had great impact on videogames in general, and it's where concepts usually got their first start. But it's always the polished products on Console that are the 'big hit'. Think of Xbox and the PS2, think about the games that each platform had, and think of the PC at the time. We got absolutely fantastic games like Halo on the console, and I'd argue Halo is so good because of the ecosystem it was built in.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.