[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175128]
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.
[/QUOTE]
based on what I've seen the opposite is true
doesn't he make this point in the video? Smaller indie teams have to devote more of their resources to getting things working in the first place, so they don't have as much to experiment with, which is why there's been an explosion in wave shooters for the vive.
Contrast that with some of the titles being developed for touch, like the movement mechanics of lone echo or the... well, anything about robo recall. That's not to say there aren't innovative games from indies for the vive; budget cuts and onward are both great examples of innovative indie games, but statistically they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175128]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.[/QUOTE]
You're acting like Vive hardware is somehow more versatile to indie experimenters. It isn't.
Oculus is spending more money on indie developers than Valve is. It's just a fact. Valve having a developer forum isn't very special.
You've not explained what makes the Vive hardware more prone to innovative indie development, or explained how funding less indie games makes them the better indie supporter.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;51175171]based on what I've seen the opposite is true
doesn't he make this point in the video? Smaller indie teams have to devote more of their resources to getting things working in the first place, so they don't have as much to experiment with, which is why there's been an explosion in wave shooters for the vive.[/QUOTE]
Which is why Valve does up-front financing, and is trying to provide their tools to VR developers (Such as making a VR-ready Unity plugin).
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;51175171]
Contrast that with some of the titles being developed for touch, like the movement mechanics of lone echo or the... well, anything about robo recall. That's not to say there aren't innovative games from indies for the vive; budget cuts and onwards are both great examples of innovative indie games, but statistically they seem to be the exception rather than the rule.[/QUOTE]
IIRC the 'climbing' mechanic was prototyped on the Vive, there's also the 'running' and 'walking' mechanic used in some Vive games by making a walking or running motion with them, I don't think I've seen that used in any Rift games yet. For Robo Recall what mechanic are you referring to? I'm not terribly up to date with the VR games on either platform, but Rift especially, last thing I was was it used the same teleport that's fairly standard now.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175196]Which is why Valve does up-front financing, and is trying to provide their tools to VR developers (Such as making a VR-ready Unity plugin).
IIRC the 'climbing' mechanic was prototyped on the Vive, there's also the 'running' and 'walking' mechanic used in some Vive games by making a walking or running motion with them, I don't think I've seen that used in any Rift games yet. For Robo Recall what mechanic are you referring to? I'm not terribly up to date with the VR games on either platform, but Rift especially, last thing I was was it used the same teleport that's fairly standard now.[/QUOTE]
It's not fair to call the Vive a more innovative indie environment purely because of innovations concerning tracked controllers that you can't buy for the Rift yet.
[QUOTE=bitches;51175180]You're acting like Vive hardware is somehow more versatile to indie experimenters. It isn't.
[/QUOTE]
For one, Oculus hasn't released an open source VR implementation. They also haven't released hardware development kits and opened the platform up for independent manufacturing of peripherals.
[QUOTE]
Oculus is spending more money on indie developers than Valve is. It's just a fact. Valve having a
developer forum isn't very special.[/quote]
They pour more money into larger studios, but for up-front support (Not "Oh, I bought a DK2") Valve supports [I]more[/I] indie teams. The proportions are different
[QUOTE]
You've not explained what makes the Vive hardware more prone to innovative indie development, or explained how funding less indie games makes them the better indie supporter.[/QUOTE]
Open-source API, open hardware, open development with Valve itself, free devkits, more mature technology (If you can put IR sensors on it, you can track it inside the VR playspace, not the same with Oculus).
As for indie support, as I said. Oculus is trying to make [I]games[/I], so of course they're going to pour tons of money into a limited number of vetted studios. Valve on the other hand came out to a very large number of developers and gave them devkits and pre-funding. The proportions are different because as I said earlier, Oculus and Valve are targeting different strategies.
[editline]8th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=bitches;51175201]It's not fair to call the Vive a more innovative indie environment purely because of innovations concerning tracked controllers that you can't buy for the Rift yet.[/QUOTE]
The Vive's more feature complete technology gave Indie developers more options. More options to do something generally means more innovation.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175196]Which is why Valve does up-front financing, and is trying to provide their tools to VR developers (Such as making a VR-ready Unity plugin).
[/quote]
and apparently it changed nothing
[quote]IIRC the 'climbing' mechanic was prototyped on the Vive[/quote]
not that I know of, but regardless lone echo seems to also be about flinging yourself around; I'd suggest looking into it
[quote]For Robo Recall what mechanic are you referring to? I'm not terribly up to date with the VR games on either platform, but Rift especially, last thing I was was it used the same teleport that's fairly standard now.[/QUOTE]
It has it's own version of teleportation, but it's also got stuff like letting you grab enemies and rip them apart, grab bullets out of the air and throw them back, and other over the top combat mechanics enabled by touch's gesture and motion control.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175210]For one, Oculus hasn't released an open source VR implementation. They also haven't released hardware development kits and opened the platform up for independent manufacturing of peripherals.
They pour more money into larger studios, but for up-front support (Not "Oh, I bought a DK2") Valve supports [I]more[/I] indie teams. The proportions are different
Open-source API, open hardware, open development with Valve itself, free devkits, more mature technology (If you can put IR sensors on it, you can track it inside the VR playspace, not the same with Oculus).
As for indie support, as I said. Oculus is trying to make [I]games[/I], so of course they're going to pour tons of money into a limited number of vetted studios. Valve on the other hand came out to a very large number of developers and gave them devkits and pre-funding. The proportions are different because as I said earlier, Oculus and Valve are targeting different strategies.
[editline]8th October 2016[/editline]
The Vive's more feature complete technology gave Indie developers more options. More options to do something generally means more innovation.[/QUOTE]
I'm asking what makes Valve more innovative for indie developers in this hardware generation as a whole, not the few months where one has controllers and one doesn't.
I'll believe you if someone comes along with third party VR controllers that are worth a damn.
What's your source on Valve supporting [I]more[/I] indies? Did you miss the commotion a few months ago where the Vive community was outraged by Oculus "stealing" indie devs by offering them better funding than Valve did, in exchange for them releasing their games alongside Touch instead of on Early Access?
[QUOTE=bitches;51175245]I'm asking what makes Valve more innovative for indie developers in this hardware generation as a whole, not the few months where one has controllers and one doesn't.
I'll believe you if someone comes along with third party VR controllers that are worth a damn.
[/QUOTE]
Vive has had motion controllers out for developers for a year before Oculus, they led the trend of room-space VR. That's not just "a few months of where one has controllers" that's a philosophy change.
Oculus was very happy with seated experienced until Valve started prototyping its room-tracked VR.
The HDK [I]just became available[/I] (as in within the last month), don't expecting anything before people can get their hands on it.
[QUOTE=bitches;51175245]
What's your source on Valve supporting [I]more[/I] indies? Did you miss the commotion a few months ago where the Vive community was outraged by Oculus "stealing" indie devs by offering them better funding than Valve did, in exchange for them releasing their games alongside Touch instead of on Early Access?[/QUOTE]
Look at the burst of full motion-supported Vive games when the Vive was first announced, each developer had a fully working Vive-devkit provided by Valve; this was still when Oculus was charging for DK2, and DK2 implementation is much easier than room-scale Vive was at the time. If you look at the sheer titles that support their platform fully, it's clear Vive had reached out to a lot more developers with support.
That hubbub about Oculus stealing developers is because they have a vested interested in keeping them Rift exclusive, which while I can admit is economically fair (We give you money, you make game for us) it's exactly the platform-splitting shit that pisses me off about consoles, exclusivity is cancer.
[editline]9th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;51175226]and apparently it changed nothing[/QUOTE]
Valve's loss.
Who's to say whos strategies will pay off. Time will tell.
[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]
You also need to make the technology incredibly accessible and [B]cheap.[/B] Cars did not start taking off until Rockefeller forced production to make the cars as cheap as possible so even his own workers could afford it.
Right now, you have to put boonies on both a VR capable card, and then the headset. In total it'll set you back at least 500 to 700 dollars.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175280]Vive has had motion controllers out for developers for a year before Oculus, they led the trend of room-space VR. That's not just "a few months of where one has controllers" that's a philosophy change.
Oculus was very happy with seated experienced until Valve started prototyping its room-tracked VR.
The HDK [I]just became available[/I] (as in within the last month), don't expecting anything before people can get their hands on it.
[I]More funding[/I], not funding to [I]more devs[/I]. Look at the burst of full motion-supported Vive games when the Vive was first announced, each developer had a fully working Vive-devkit provided by Valve; this was still when Oculus was charging for DK2, and DK2 implementation is much easier than room-scale Vive was at the time. If you look at the sheer titles that support their platform fully, it's clear Vive had reached out to a lot more developers with support.
That hubbub about Oculus stealing developers is because they have a vested interested in keeping them Rift exclusive, which while I can admit is economically fair (We give you money, you make game for us) it's exactly the platform-splitting shit that pisses me off about consoles, exclusivity is cancer.
[editline]9th October 2016[/editline]
Valve's loss.
Who's to say whos strategies will pay off. Time will tell.[/QUOTE]
To repeat myself on a few things:
These VR controllers took years to produce from idea to product. Valve's controllers didn't change Oculus's plans in the dramatic way you suggest, as though Valve were the innovator and Oculus was just playing copycat.
The Vive has lots and lots of titles, but the vast majority are very low quality titles with no funding from any company. "Supporting their platform fully" just means making a wave shooting game in Unity, to most of those developers. You've done nothing to prove that Valve itself has [I]funded[/I] more developers. Yes, I know the difference between funding more devs and funding more money to devs; you can stop repeating that.
Oculus hasn't "stolen" any developers in exchange for exclusivity. It never happened. The only exclusive games are ones funded [I]100%[/I] by Oculus under Oculus Studios branding. Maybe if Valve [I]allowed[/I] Oculus to make the Oculus API support the Vive, they wouldn't be so exclusive, but until then you can't seriously complain that Oculus develops games in-house with their own more advanced and more optimized API.
The "stolen" indie devs we're talking about are ones who received grant money to develop games to release on both systems, only delaying their launches to the Touch launch as opposed to being yet another early access steam game.
And no one say, "It'll get cheaper", not if the investment is not worth it. The reason why Apple and Android phones can be sold as such outragous prices for the minor advancements is because people need phones and want to buy them.
If the install base is not attracting enough buyers, there will not be investor incentive nor will there be a profit margin to take a hit to make the technology cheaper.
[QUOTE=bitches;51175313]To repeat myself on a few things:
These VR controllers took years to produce from idea to product. Valve's controllers didn't change Oculus's plans in the dramatic way you suggest, as though Valve were the innovator and Oculus was just playing copycat.
[/quote]
Valve has had rapid-prototype ability and was experimenting with tracked spaces and motion controls way before it was even on the roadmap at Oculus.
For all intents and purposes, Valve paved the way for room-scale, and Oculus has rode the coat-tails of that technology, even a core Vive devloper (Alan Yates) [URL="http://www.roadtovr.com/alan-yates-rift-is-direct-copy-of-valves-vr-research/"]confirms this[/URL].
[QUOTE=bitches;51175313]
The Vive has lots and lots of titles, but the vast majority are very low quality titles with no funding from any company. "Supporting their platform fully" just means making a wave shooting game in Unity, to most of those developers. You've done nothing to prove that Valve itself has [I]funded[/I] more developers. Yes, I know the difference between funding more devs and funding more money to devs; you can stop repeating that.
[/quote]
Supporting the platform fully means they received a Vive devkit, for free, from valve. They were also provided support and access to other developers work, etc, all that I've said before.
This all goes back to what I'm saying, they're different strategies. Oculus wants to make good polished experiences, and Valve wants to put tools in as many peoples hands as possible, in an attempt that one of them will discover the new mouselook, strafe, autosaves, or recharging health.
[QUOTE=bitches;51175313]
Oculus hasn't "stolen" any developers in exchange for exclusivity. It never happened. The only exclusive games are ones funded [I]100%[/I] by Oculus under Oculus Studios branding. Maybe if Valve [I]allowed[/I] Oculus to make the Oculus API support the Vive, they wouldn't be so exclusive, but until then you can't seriously complain that Oculus develops games in-house with their own more advanced and more optimized API.[/QUOTE]
Just using the words you used, I'm upset about fragmentation, not that Oculus wants their money going into their platform; that's their right.
Also, if Oculus wants to support the Vive, or if they want Vives to use Rift games, all they have to do is suport the [URL="https://github.com/ValveSoftware/openvr"]Open source 'OpenVR' platform.[/URL] Which they don't want to, because it gives up control of their platform. This should sound a lot like console-developer strategy.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175351]Valve has had rapid-prototype ability and was experimenting with tracked spaces and motion controls way before it was even on the roadmap at Oculus.
For all intents and purposes, Valve paved the way for room-scale, and Oculus has rode the coat-tails of that technology, even a core Vive devloper (Alan Yates) [URL="http://www.roadtovr.com/alan-yates-rift-is-direct-copy-of-valves-vr-research/"]confirms this[/URL].
Supporting the platform fully means they received a Vive devkit, for free, from valve. They were also provided support and access to other developer kits.
This all goes back to what I'm saying, they're different strategies for innovation. Oculus wants to make good polished experiences, and Valve wants to put tools in as many peoples hands as possible, in an attempt that one of them will discover the new mouselook, strafe, autosaves, or recharging health.
Just using the words you used, I'm upset about fragmentation, not that Oculus wants their money going into their platform; that's their right.
Also, if Oculus wants to support the Vive, or if they want Vives to use Rift games, all they have to do is suport the [URL="https://github.com/ValveSoftware/openvr"]Open source 'OpenVR' platform.[/URL] Which they don't want to, because it gives up control of their platform. This should sound a lot like console-developer strategy.[/QUOTE]
A Valve employee claims that Oculus stole all their technology, despite the headsets having massive differences and Oculus having way more engineers on their project and a massively different tracking hardware solution. It must be true!
Oculus is [I]also[/I] giving out tons of free Rift/Touch hardware.
OpenVR is [I]a completely different API[/I]. OpenVR and the Rift API are two very different pieces of work that accomplish the same fundamental goal: being an API to interact with VR hardware. Oculus can't just "support" OpenVR. What that means is Oculus not getting to make their own groundbreaking VR rendering optimizations.
Valve requires Oculus to do the impossible and just [I]not[/I] use their own research. Valve knows that Oculus can't bend on that and use inferior software just because Valve says they should. Why can't Valve instead allow Oculus to support their hardware? It's Oculus, not Valve, who are actually supporting an open environment. Valve is just making big demands and withholding their peripheral, while Oculus isn't.
[QUOTE=bitches;51175381]A Valve employee claims that Oculus stole all their technology, despite the headsets having massive differences and Oculus having way more engineers on their project and a massively different tracking hardware solution. It must be true![/QUOTE]
Oculus only [I]now[/I] has more engineering behind it, Valve innovated with rapid prototyping and tried many designs. Occulus went with the cheaper option and still lost in terms of technological capability, and came even with price.
[QUOTE=bitches;51175381]
Oculus is [I]also[/I] giving out tons of free Rift/Touch hardware.
[/QUOTE]
Ok? Vive has more controllers and room-tracked devkits in more studios than Rift. And unless Oculus starts tossing them out like candy, I don't see this changing.
[QUOTE=bitches;51175381]
OpenVR is [I]a completely different API[/I]. OpenVR and the Rift API are two very different pieces of work that accomplish the same fundamental goal: being an API to interact with VR hardware. Oculus can't just "support" OpenVR. What that means is Oculus not getting to make their own groundbreaking VR rendering optimizations.
[/QUOTE]
Yes it can, they're both APIs for integrating headsets into games, OpenVR supports all sorts of interfaces into the world, Oculus could [I]trivially[/I] add a patch to the github repo that adds support for their headset.
Oculus wants to corner the market, so ofc they're going to lock off their API and try to add features to it (Like buying an audio engine developer with good HRTF tech, then only providing it behind their API).
[QUOTE=bitches;51175381]
Valve requires Oculus to do the impossible and just [I]not[/I] use their own research. Valve knows that Oculus can't bend on that and use inferior software just because Valve says they should. Why can't Valve instead allow Oculus to support their hardware? It's Oculus, not Valve, who are actually supporting an open environment. Valve is just making big demands and withholding their peripheral, while Oculus isn't.[/QUOTE]
Tantamount to saying Oculus gets to take from Valve, but Oculus doesn't need to share.
Last time I checked it was Valve with OpenVR that has a completely open license API up on github.
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175405]Oculus only [I]now[/I] has more engineering behind it, Valve innovated with rapid prototyping and tried many designs. Occulus went with the cheaper option and still lost in terms of technological capability, and came even with price.
Ok? Vive has more controllers and room-tracked devkits in more studios than Rift. And unless Oculus starts tossing them out like candy, I don't see this changing.
Yes it can, they're both APIs for integrating headsets into games, OpenVR supports all sorts of interfaces into the world, Oculus could [I]easily[/I] add a patch to the github repo that adds support for their headset.
Oculus wants to corner the market, so ofc they're going to lock off their API and try to add features to it (Like buying an audio engine developer with good HRTF tech, then only providing it behind their API).
Tantamount to saying Oculus gets to take from Valve, but Oculus doesn't need to share.
Last time I checked it was Valve with OpenVR that has a completely open license API up on github.[/QUOTE]
Oculus didn't lock off their API. Valve did that by demanding that Oculus [I]abandon[/I] their API and use OpenVR instead, or else offer all of their research to Valve by putting it into Valve's OpenVR API instead.
Oculus doesn't need to "easily add a patch to the openvr github to support their headset". OpenVR already supports their headset, because Oculus didn't ban Valve from doing so.
What you're doing here is praising Valve for making the Vive a closed peripheral that mandates who is and isn't allowed to commercially use it. Shouldn't VR peripherals just be peripherals, like monitors are? Why praise Valve for restricting who can develop commercially for the Vive with arbitrary API demands?
If Valve allowed Oculus to develop with their own Oculus API for Vive hardware, it would benefit all consumers and make the Vive a truly open [I]hardware device[/I]. The Rift is [I]open hardware[/I], and Valve's OpenVR API is [I]open software[/I]. They're opposites in this regard, and I find Valve's approach to be grossly backwards.
[B]Imagine if classical PC monitors banned anything that wasn't Linux. That's what Valve is doing.
[/B]
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51175405]Oculus only [I]now[/I] has more engineering behind it, Valve innovated with rapid prototyping and tried many designs. Occulus went with the cheaper option and still lost in terms of technological capability, and came even with price.[/quote]
They didn't lose at anything. They developed a polished consumer device with greater visual clarity and equal tracking capability, with a much lighter weight and better head strap, with late but nicer controllers.
You guys fucking realize this closed source shit is the exact reason why we have things like Nvidia Shitworks or why Physx is basically ignored for anything other than special effects?
Closed anything that locks out competitors completely destroys not only optimization chances but also relegates things to fancy looking graphics, not actual gameplay changes.
This entire argument is moot because both sides are trying to lock themselves off from the other and they won't have to try to hard with the different input methods.
[QUOTE=Swilly;51177319]You guys fucking realize this closed source shit is the exact reason why we have things like Nvidia Shitworks or why Physx is basically ignored for anything other than special effects?
Closed anything that locks out competitors completely destroys not only optimization chances but also relegates things to fancy looking graphics, not actual gameplay changes.
This entire argument is moot because both sides are trying to lock themselves off from the other and they won't have to try to hard with the different input methods.[/QUOTE]
Oculus has been doing really well on developing major optimizations. They just announced a huge one this past week. If Valve wasn't making their hardware peripheral a closed one, Vive users would be enjoying those same benefits right now.
[QUOTE=bitches;51177600]Oculus has been doing really well on developing major optimizations. They just announced a huge one this past week. If Valve wasn't making their hardware peripheral a closed one, Vive users would be enjoying those same benefits right now.[/QUOTE]
Having a hardware development kit = closed peripheral ???
Rendering optimizations have been mostly spearheaded by Valve anyway, see their GDC 2015 and 2016 talks about it.
VR=Motion Controls
:unimpressed:
I dont think its ever gonna catch on, too much money and unnecessary.
Valve should not be devoting so much resources to this, its like the steam machine.
How about instead of this you stop neglecting your games.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51177886]
How about instead of this you stop neglecting your games.[/QUOTE]
And do what? Add paid sprays with limited use to them?
[QUOTE=glitchvid;51177788]Having a hardware development kit = closed peripheral ???
Rendering optimizations have been mostly spearheaded by Valve anyway, see their GDC 2015 and 2016 talks about it.[/QUOTE]
Valve only allowing their own OpenVR project to connect to their hardware device is the definition of a closed peripheral, even if it is open source. My Linux-only monitor comparison is spot on.
As for optimizations in VR, you're blatantly wrong. Look up ATW and ASW; games running on the Oculus runtime have massive performance gains.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51177886]VR=Motion Controls
:unimpressed:
I dont think its ever gonna catch on, too much money and unnecessary.
Valve should not be devoting so much resources to this, its like the steam machine.
How about instead of this you stop neglecting your games.[/QUOTE]
you do realize the hardware team and software team, and even the game developement team are completely different though yeah?
what is the point of having a hardware developer make games when he doesn't know games, he does hardware. Same goes for game devs working on hardware.
they're a multi billion dollar company. Canceling resources for VR isn't going to make games go faster.
[editline]9th October 2016[/editline]
hell, Valve has been a software developer since the start. This is why Steam exists, they've only just recently started making hardware.
Valve has NEVER been just a game studio.
[QUOTE=J!NX;51178040]you do realize the hardware team and software team, and even the game developement team are completely different though yeah?
what is the point of having a hardware developer make games when he doesn't know games, he goes hardware. Same goes for game devs working on hardware.
they're a multi billion dollar company. Canceling resources for VR isn't going to make games go faster.
[editline]9th October 2016[/editline]
hell, Valve has been a software developer since the start. This is why Steam exists, they've only just recently started making hardware.
Valve has NEVER been just a game studio.[/QUOTE]
rust is cancelled
[QUOTE=bitches;51178082]rust is cancelled[/QUOTE]
THANK GOD
[QUOTE=rndgenerator;51177948]And do what? Add paid sprays with limited use to them?[/QUOTE]
How about actually give a shit about tf2 community and listen to their feedback.
[B]
[U]Or release anything half life related.[/B][/U]
or publish the fucking tf2 comic
or the various beta gamemodes that never came out
or FIX competitive
or release source2
[editline]9th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=J!NX;51178040]you do realize the hardware team and software team, and even the game developement team are completely different though yeah?
what is the point of having a hardware developer make games when he doesn't know games, he does hardware. Same goes for game devs working on hardware.
they're a multi billion dollar company. Canceling resources for VR isn't going to make games go faster.
[editline]9th October 2016[/editline]
hell, Valve has been a software developer since the start. This is why Steam exists, they've only just recently started making hardware.
Valve has NEVER been just a game studio.[/QUOTE]
Good point, my argument wasn't well thought out.
I still think vr isn't gonna catch on though, too pricey and gimmicky
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51178423]How about actually give a shit about tf2 community and listen to their feedback.
[B]
[U]Or release anything half life related.[/B][/U]
or publish the fucking tf2 comic
or the various beta gamemodes that never came out
or FIX competitive
or release source2
[/QUOTE]
No point, none of that brings in as much money as hats and sprays do(will do)
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51178423]How about actually give a shit about tf2 community and listen to their feedback.
[B]
[U]Or release anything half life related.[/B][/U]
or publish the fucking tf2 comic
or the various beta gamemodes that never came out
or FIX competitive
or release source2[/QUOTE]
You know, I think if they stopped everything they were doing and released everything they had, finished or not, people would be complaining [B][I]more[/I][/B] because of how unfinished things are.
Also you can already mess about with an early version of Source 2 with Dota's workshop tools.
[QUOTE=Joshii;51178454]You know, I think if they stopped everything they were doing and released everything they had, finished or not, people would be complaining [B][I]more[/I][/B] because of how unfinished things are.
Also you can already mess about with an early version of Source 2 with Dota's workshop tools.[/QUOTE]
The tf2 shit has been finished for a while. They just need to polish it.
Competitive was just plain laziness, it was meant to save the game and players gave them tons of feedback but they left it in the same state as its beta, effectively dooming the game to never growing.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51178466]The tf2 shit has been finished for a while. They just need to polish it.
Competitive was just plain laziness, it was meant to save the game and players gave them tons of feedback but they left it in the same state as its beta, effectively dooming the game to never growing.[/QUOTE]
I'll agree competitive didn't have the best of starts but I think it's unfair to tell them to rush and release something aswell cause that'd also cause another situation I think like launch of comp where there's missing features and whatnot, and I think there kind of needs to be a middle ground for both Valve and the community where valve isn't staying silent and keeping secrets but also for the community to stop having this selfish attitude some people have.
I.E "Stop working on the vive and work on what [I]I[/I] want instead" etc.
Because it's then not fair for those Vive owners or people planning to get a Vive. Same with other games aswell,
"Stop working on dota 2 and work on csgo instead".
I'm typing on mobile the now but hopefully you get my point.
[QUOTE=Swilly;51175309]You also need to make the technology incredibly accessible and [B]cheap.[/B] Cars did not start taking off until Rockefeller forced production to make the cars as cheap as possible so even his own workers could afford it.
Right now, you have to put boonies on both a VR capable card, and then the headset. In total it'll set you back at least 500 to 700 dollars.[/QUOTE]
The cost will only get cheaper as more and more people adopt it.
More sales equals more demand for hardware, which means higher supplies have to be made, which means OEMs have to find more cost effective ways to produce the hardware, which only incites competition, which leads to lower and more competitive pricing over time.
Tech is always more expensive when it first comes out, but as more and more people adopt the tech, and people find more cost effective ways to produce it, its price will steadily drop. Just remember how expensive HDTVs and SSDs were initially compared to now.
[U][B]The problem[/B][/U] is, there is nothing out there currently that entices people to buy into VR. And the way to entice more people to adopt a VR platform is to put something that is both unique, and something that they want on it at the same time. As cool as some of the indie efforts are, they won't ever grab as much attention as an effort made by a reputable AAA studio. That's just the sad truth.
VR probably won't hit its stride until maybe some years from now when a feature HMD (all the bells and whistles) can be had for something like the price of a console ($400). Well, if it even lasts that long. I don't want this current take on VR to die, but I just constantly have this feeling in the back of my mind that it will.
What VR needs right now is a huge IP with a lot of brand power behind it having a VR unique experience made with it. Even if it's something as silly and pointless as a Call of Duty VR.:v: We may scoff at the idea, but if that gets more people into VR, and it's not shit, then it's only a good thing.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.