Really old news, but according to Tom Leonard's LinkedIn profile it says he was working on Source 2 since 2010 to February 2013 (2 years and 4 months).
[url]http://www.linkedin.com/pub/tom-leonard/0/86b/493[/url]
[QUOTE=psikobare;42349379] and they need to win back the heart of the modders (haven't they all run away to unreal?)[/QUOTE]
Not all of the modders, there are still people who develops mods for the Source Engine
I think valve will incorporate the newest technologies from ATi (or also knows a AMD) and NVIDIA!
I'm talking about AMD's Mantle and NVIDIA's NVAPI! These two are really exciting stuff and I think Valve should add them to Source 2!
Chill with the fucking exclamation marks.
Also I doubt they'd do that, because it would mean compromising their recent stance of "our games must be able to run on fucking everything"
[QUOTE=xalener;42467243]Chill with the fucking exclamation marks.
Also I doubt they'd do that, because it would mean compromising their recent stance of "our games must be able to run on fucking everything"[/QUOTE]
Nah, neither are tied to a specific OS, and that's what VALVe is pushing for right now, I could see them going with Mantle & NV's thing Support (Also fuck you Nvidia AND Amd, you assholes should go opensource).
Yeah, that's the thing. They're not tied to an OS, but hardware, which I'd argue is even worse.
[QUOTE=xalener;42467755]Yeah, that's the thing. They're not tied to an OS, but hardware, which I'd argue is even worse.[/QUOTE]
That makes no sense.
Oh no, better not get tied with X86.
There are fundamental compatibility issues that hardware simply cannot breach, Steam as we know it is probably going to be tied to X86 for the rest of it's life (Maybe extended to ARM). It's just the way hardware works.
What? I'm talking about NVAPI and Mantle. It feels like they're results of both companies doing one more thing to one up each other. I'd rather valve not waste their time on this kind of petty bullshit. I got the impression that Source 2 was gonna be OpenGL. Why would they need to play catch with these assholes?
[QUOTE=xalener;42469695]What? I'm talking about NVAPI and Mantle. It feels like they're results of both companies doing one more thing to one up each other. I'd rather valve not waste their time on this kind of petty bullshit. I got the impression that Source 2 was gonna be OpenGL. Why would they need to play catch with these assholes?[/QUOTE]
OpenGL has it's issues, and Mantle / NVAPI are much lower-level, and cross platform (ya know, except to their competitors)
also, you can use openGL/whatever and use mantle (probably the nvidia thing i've never heard of too) on specific issues
the problematic now is about the devkit, each GC manufacturer has its own, would be better to have one devkit that let you optimize using both API, and i don't think it's valve's job (or maybe restricted for source 2 game dev, which i guess is super good for valve's new engine promotion if they're able to do that)
I think they will announce "Source 2" with the next generation of games, I don't think they'll do an individual announcement for it, I think it's just going to be there.
[QUOTE=onebit;42145593]Source 2 coming 2020.[/QUOTE]
Everything about this describes this whole "Source 2" situation. Even your avatar.
people making conspiracies about source 2
funny fact is the behind close doors which took place with the demo of hl*****************
*censored*
What if Source 2 uses AI Director 3.0? Valve themselves said that they want to use the director more of their games and what better opportunity to do that then having the director as standard from Day 1? I think they will include it!
I think people are getting way over hyped about valve adding specific features to Source 2 "just cause". Valve has never worked that way and they never will (probably). I'd be super surprised if they added features just to extend the current flexbility of source 2 beyond what the project dictates.
Valve has always developed features when they absolutely needed it, which has been the number one reason why Source is held together by paperclips and bubble gum. When it comes to future planning in terms of the tool set, Valve isn't very good at that. I seriously doubt they've gotten any better at it either through the transition of working on Source 1 to developing Source 2. They don't have a big engineering team behind the engine and I am pretty confident in saying that Source 2 will probably not even compete with a lot of "last gen" toolsets.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Source 2 didn't come out for another two or three years. I think people underestimate the time it really takes to develop a new engine, especially something that isn't just a brief extension on your older tech. UE4 has been in development since 2004-2005. Realistically the main dev process probably started around 2007, but even then Epic has a large team of engineers. Same could be said with Crytek and DICE. They have some pretty big teams just on the tools. They also have another department that valve has never heard of, Quality assurance!
[QUOTE=Horse Strangler;42749442]I think people are getting way over hyped about valve adding specific features to Source 2 "just cause". Valve has never worked that way and they never will (probably). I'd be super surprised if they added features just to extend the current flexbility of source 2 beyond what the project dictates.
[/QUOTE]
If you really want to take a peak at what they are probably going to add, look into their whitepapers and see the "We'd love to..."; like their flowmap paper talks how they'd love to make it in-engine, have the water flow actually move props, and make it flow around things inside the water.
[QUOTE=Horse Strangler;42749442]I think people are getting way over hyped about valve adding specific features to Source 2 "just cause". Valve has never worked that way and they never will (probably). I'd be super surprised if they added features just to extend the current flexbility of source 2 beyond what the project dictates.
Valve has always developed features when they absolutely needed it, which has been the number one reason why Source is held together by paperclips and bubble gum. When it comes to future planning in terms of the tool set, Valve isn't very good at that. I seriously doubt they've gotten any better at it either through the transition of working on Source 1 to developing Source 2. They don't have a big engineering team behind the engine and I am pretty confident in saying that Source 2 will probably not even compete with a lot of "last gen" toolsets.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Source 2 didn't come out for another two or three years. I think people underestimate the time it really takes to develop a new engine, especially something that isn't just a brief extension on your older tech. UE4 has been in development since 2004-2005. Realistically the main dev process probably started around 2007, but even then Epic has a large team of engineers. Same could be said with Crytek and DICE. They have some pretty big teams just on the tools. They also have another department that valve has never heard of, Quality assurance![/QUOTE]
I think Valve knows how pieced-together Source 1 was, and I would argue that this would be a strong impetus to have done some planning this time around. As you said, engines are a big project. You don't go into a big engineering project like that with no planning.
As well, there's not really a "core group" at Valve anymore, AFAIK. Engineers come and go. More than likely, there's some people with experience on big projects like this who weren't there for most of Source development who have central roles in the design process.
That being said, I agree that [I]some[/I] specific features will come during the development of specific games - AI director would be a good example. But others, like level streaming, would be pretty core to the design of the engine, and would probably be integrated early on.
[QUOTE=Horse Strangler;42749442]I think people are getting way over hyped about valve adding specific features to Source 2 "just cause". Valve has never worked that way and they never will (probably). I'd be super surprised if they added features just to extend the current flexbility of source 2 beyond what the project dictates.
Valve has always developed features when they absolutely needed it, which has been the number one reason why Source is held together by paperclips and bubble gum. When it comes to future planning in terms of the tool set, Valve isn't very good at that. I seriously doubt they've gotten any better at it either through the transition of working on Source 1 to developing Source 2. They don't have a big engineering team behind the engine and I am pretty confident in saying that Source 2 will probably not even compete with a lot of "last gen" toolsets.
I also wouldn't be surprised if Source 2 didn't come out for another two or three years. I think people underestimate the time it really takes to develop a new engine, especially something that isn't just a brief extension on your older tech. UE4 has been in development since 2004-2005. Realistically the main dev process probably started around 2007, but even then Epic has a large team of engineers. Same could be said with Crytek and DICE. They have some pretty big teams just on the tools. They also have another department that valve has never heard of, Quality assurance![/QUOTE]
I don't think this will be the case with Source 2. Valve had experience with GoldSrc, but Source was the first engine they could really call their own and it was made for Half-Life 2. They made it "modular", but it still is very much based on GoldSrc and as such has some of the limitations dictated by those older technologies.
Valve has always been very open to licensing their engine to serious third party developers. The problem, I think, with that is most developers prefer working with an engine that is structured in a more modern way than Source currently is. This is why there is a small number of commercial games based on Source. I think Source 2 would be Valve's chance to make a truly robust next-gen game engine and finally get around to re-engineering all the things that were wrong with Source.
[QUOTE=kidwithsword;42750762]Valve has always been very open to licensing their engine to serious third party developers. [/QUOTE]
My 40 e-mails over the past 6 years to them say no to that. My mod will just have to stay a mod... And I'm not using Greenlight and ruining the surprise off seeing a new game.
I wouldn't be surprised if Source 2 is just Source with some added bloat. We'll see if it has enough bloat as Respawn Source.
[QUOTE=Armageddon104;42751231]My 40 e-mails over the past 6 years to them say no to that. My mod will just have to stay a mod... And I'm not using Greenlight and ruining the surprise off seeing a new game.[/QUOTE]
It's a mod, if you're a serious 3rd part developer (Which I don't think you are) they're perfectly ok licensing it out. Look at: Dear Esther, Titanfall, Vampire: The Masquerade, E.Y.E.: Divine Cybermancy,Bloody Good Time,The Ship, SiN Episodes, and a ton more.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;42751651]It's a mod, if you're a serious 3rd part developer (Which I don't think you are) they're perfectly ok licensing it out. Look at: Dear Esther, Titanfall, Vampire: The Masquerade, E.Y.E.: Divine Cybermancy,Bloody Good Time,The Ship, SiN Episodes, and a ton more.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't really count Ubisoft. Half of those games had a super hard time getting the license. Valve is just absolutely terrible when it comes to licensing their engine. On a quick tangent about that: Valves flat structure really lets them down in terms of having a dedicated team on top of licensing the engine and communicating with licensees. I am pretty sure that will carry over with source 2.
I'd totally do a back flip on Whoopi Goldberg's face if valve somehow managed to beat Epic at the licensing game. I mean, I really hope valve gets on their game about that but I somewhat doubt it.
[QUOTE=p0rtalplayer;42750604]Words[/QUOTE]
I agree. As a company they would plan whatever they wanted to do with source 2 and I'm pretty sure they've been thinking about that constantly.
I should probably iterate on my initial post though. I think the bigger problem I have as mentioned earlier is how valve handles licensing and not so much how the actual engine will turn out. I've had a few opportunities to work on Source licensed games in the modding scene and pretty much each experience was more or less the same. It's an area that I feel valve REALLY needs to improve on.
Basically the full licensed version is the same thing as the public version. There aren't any magical improved tools or tools that don't crash as much. What you see in the public SDK is pretty much what you get with the full source. Except the full source gives you: command-line tools that crash just as much as the public versions, have next to zero documentation or straight up don't work at all. The official licensee wiki has pretty much nothing on it either. The VDC is the main source for engine documentation, which so far is 94% community written.
There aren't any plugins for anything either, which I find extremely strange given the fact the workshop has become a thing now. I'd assume valve would package and ship some kind of vtf exporter for photoshop or something, or some native smd exporter/importer for 3ds or maya. NOPE.
They'll probably take all of this seriously with source 2, but I don't get why they aren't taking it seriously with current licensees, or licensees that are working on projects before valve stopped supporting Source, they are rejecting license requests now entirely. Especially now that the workshops are as big as they are. It just tells me they aren't really on-top of their game still and source 2 will kind of fumble in that department
[QUOTE=SpotEnemyBoat;42751309]I wouldn't be surprised if Source 2 is just Source with some added bloat. We'll see if it has enough bloat as Respawn Source.[/QUOTE]
gabe specifically said it was a brand new engine
When did he say that? I thought Valve was still being really quiet about Source 2.
It's not going to be brand new since it'll still have a lot of previous Source Engine code in it.
[QUOTE=Coffee;42755622]It's not going to be brand new since it'll still have a lot of previous Source Engine code in it.[/QUOTE]
So does every engine. Goldsource had huge chunks of Quakeengine code.
Quakecode can be found in every engine. Every Cry Engine, Unreal Engine and so on versions always have code from the previous version. Creating everything from the ground up just isn't worth it.
[QUOTE=Uberslug;42755607]When did he say that? I thought Valve was still being really quiet about Source 2.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.techspot.com/news/50778-gabe-newell-confirms-source-2-engine-says-it-will-be-entirely-new.html[/url]
[url]http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-11-12-gabe-newell-confirms-valve-working-on-source-2[/url]
He's more or less said it was "Is it an entirely new engine?" " Yeah!"
RIP CS:S, DOD:S, TF2, L4D2, and CS:GO.
[QUOTE=Uberslug;42755607]When did he say that? I thought Valve was still being really quiet about Source 2.[/QUOTE]
Someone during the 4chan visit directly asked him whether or not Source 2 will be a new engine rather than an extension to Source.
Gabe replied with "yeah". Gabe probably knew perfectly well what was actually meant, but I very much doubt that it's a new engine built up from the base. That's not how Valve has operated in the past. They like to reuse things.
[QUOTE=Marlamin;42756965]Gabe replied with "yeah". Gabe probably knew perfectly well what was actually meant, but I very much doubt that it's a new engine built up from the base. That's not how Valve has operated in the past. They like to reuse things.[/QUOTE]
Src->Src2 will probably be like GoldSrc->Src
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
