One-third of Valve is currently working on Virtual Reality - Polidicks

[QUOTE=RIPBILLYMAYS;50555121]2006 Wii tier gimmick technology. [/QUOTE] the wii didn't have 1:1 perfect tracking like the vive. It literally was just an IR tracker and a shitty camera. holding a shot gun in VR feels insanely good. outside of the lack of weight it's really good, and virtually seamless. [editline]20th June 2016[/editline] I'm the first to shit on motion controls but when it comes to the vive they do it right.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;50557910] Source has never been a friendly engine to modders. Valve's own popularity and willingness to release source code are it's only saving grace.[/QUOTE] I feel like the actual thousands upon thousands upon thousands of mods and the forum you're posting on itself which started as the official forum to a mod for Half-Life would disagree.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50557924]I feel like the actual thousands upon thousands upon thousands of mods and the forum you're posting on itself which started as the official forum to a mod for Half-Life would disagree.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://www.moddb.com/mods/city-17-episode-1"]Ok.[/URL] [editline]Edit:[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;50557914] I'm the first to shit on motion controls but when it comes to the vive they do it right.[/QUOTE] I'll second this. The VIVE is easily the best thing in the VR space right now. I only got to try one recently and I can finally say: Valve got it right. Hopefully the next generation improves the resolution and finds a good solution to movement in VR. I'm very excited to see what they do in this space. Honestly, on first use, I thought Valve had found some way to allow the controllers to '[URL="https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fm0LkVxnooU/maxresdefault.jpg"]shine through[/URL]' the headset. The tracking and positioning on them is that amazingly perfect.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;50557928][url=http://www.moddb.com/mods/city-17-episode-1]Ok.[/url][/QUOTE] Uh, okay.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;50557928][URL="http://www.moddb.com/mods/city-17-episode-1"]Ok.[/URL] [editline]Edit:[/editline][/QUOTE] you know dude it really seems like you're butthurt about source not working out for you but it actually provided a really enjoyable hobby for a lot of people and even got some people jobs in the game industry. just because source 1 is shite now doesn't mean it was never good

I dont understand the significance of this mod. Am i supposed to know what it is? You know you cant just link something without explanation and expect it to somehow prove you right if it doesnt instantly prove your point upon me visiting your link, right?

[QUOTE=NixNax123;50557958]you know dude it really seems like you're butthurt about source not working out for you but it actually provided a really enjoyable hobby for a lot of people and even got some people jobs in the game industry. just because source 1 is shite now doesn't mean it was never good[/QUOTE] That's not what I said at all. Source worked out fine for me. I worked with that engine for over 5 years and loved every minute of it. After that amount of time, I simply know what it's limitations are and what Source can offer compared to other engines available on the market, even in 2004. I would not have spent the countless hours of work it took to become the first Source Engine mod to add advanced shader effects like [URL="http://media.moddb.com/images/mods/1/10/9576/2011-09-18_00004.jpg"]Sun Shafts[/URL] & [URL="http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/560940105125841945/1CA3BBC0B60C39E0E809CBAAD81B7934E14B00EE/"]Bokeh DOF[/URL] had I not felt that Source was something special.

Oh is that HIS mod? Im still not sure i understand. I mean ive done stuff with Source myself, im pretty sure a large chunk of people here have. Am i supposed to know who you are?

this is just how you come off though, no offense

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;50557967]That's not what I said at all. Source worked out fine for me. I worked with that engine for over 5 years and loved every minute of it. After that amount of time, I simply know what it's limitations are and what Source can offer compared to other engines available on the market, even in 2004.[/QUOTE] Well, your exact words were [QUOTE=1/4 Life;50557910] Source has never been a friendly engine to modders. [/QUOTE] So, you kinda did.

[QUOTE=AaronM202;50557976]Well, your exact words were So, you kinda did.[/QUOTE] Friendly and supportive are two different things. If I told you I didn't have to drag that engine kicking and screaming while adding all those new features and effects I would be lying to you. Our lead mapper would tell you similar stories of Hammer and Valve's own MDL tools. A lot of people take the community-made tools for granted. Where would you all be without things like GCFScape? Crafty? VTFLib/VTFEdit? StudioCompiler? These things were made by the community for the community, because what was on offer was not quite up to the task. (You would still be using command-line tools to create textures without these) How about Biohazard's shader editor? So many mods released today rely on that incredible community-made tool for their shader effects. Source is great because Valve gave us the tools to actually create these sorts of things. Had another more modern engine come along with similar support for the modding community a lot of us might be over there working with that instead, but not a lot of companies have the foresight that Valve does in that regard. As much as I might knock Source 2 and Valve's current developments and methods of conducting business, you will never hear me say anything outside of well-intentioned criticism of the original Source engine and praise for Valve's earlier works. They were ahead of their time, even if their game engines were a little dated in places.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;50556761]I'm going to stop here[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=1/4 Life;50556772]I'm done.[/QUOTE] Are you gonna continue using the "I'm gone" shit to avoid being expected to defend your position against counter points, then return to continue in an hour or so? Edit: [QUOTE=AaronM202;50557968]Oh is that HIS mod? Im still not sure i understand. I mean ive done stuff with Source myself, im pretty sure a large chunk of people here have. Am i supposed to know who you are?[/QUOTE] No idea why he pointed it out. One of the reasons source is in high regard is the ease of modding it.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;50557910]This is all correct, but you forget that it still takes a factor of time longer to import basic assets into Source 2 than an engine like UE4, and that brush based content has been on it's way out for over two decades now. The lack of a shader editor also means that asset creation is quite a bit more limited than other engines, and that's forgetting things like mega-shaders.[/QUOTE] Source 2 is no longer brush based, S2 Hammer is basically modelling software with game engine integration. [URL="https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_2_Workshop_Tools/Level_Design/Basic_Construction/Mesh_Editing_1"](Src)[/URL] Asset importing is just about as easy as UE4, everything can be done in editor without needing to go to command line, it supports Maya FBX. While not as fast as UE4 importing assets, that's a design decision. With UE4 you have to import [I]everything[/I] so as to make the world, Source 2 can go without needing any external tools to build the world. [URL="https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Dota_2_Workshop_Tools/Modeling/Model_Creation"](Src)[/URL] I agree, Source 2 lacks any functional shader editor, which is a huge bane considering how UE4, Frostbite, and basically every other modern engine have them. However to say that UE4 hasn't benefited from being released openly and had many 3rd party contributions, would be disingenuous, it's received a lot of help from the unreal community just as Source. [editline]20th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50558090]No idea why he pointed it out. One of the reasons source is in high regard is the ease of modding it.[/QUOTE] Source isn't "easy to mod", ask any developer and they'll attest to fighting with it to do what they want. What Source has is a community that has developed a lot of tools to make it easier without having prior game-dev knowledge. Its immense asset library is also a significant reason for its success, look at most popular Source mods, you'll see they use mostly pre-existing Valve content.

[QUOTE=Mkt778;50557644]And like, lets not kid ourselves again - [I]It'll only get better.[/I] What we have right now is definitely not all they have up their sleeve. There's evidence of stuff existing that simply just aren't implemented yet. If you [I]seriously[/I] think that in a regular, 9-5 day at Valve that all they do is tap their keyboards, twiddle their thumbs and sit on Steam sales profit - You're an idiot. I'm sorry, it's just plain and simple. A company can multitask. If I can expect that out of single a politician, I can expect that out of a game company with ~300 employees.[/QUOTE] Oh it'll absolutely get better. I'm banking on it. I'm sure there is a lot more work done behind the figurative curtain that we can't see yet. I'm just basing my judgement off of what we currently have access to. I'm not sure where that second part of your post came from, but to oblige you for just a bit, I think it is going to be a difficult battle for Source 2 to become competitive with the other engines. If we compare man-hours spent on these engines, I'm confident that Source 2 is behind. In order to catch up, valve has to work smarter - not harder. In this case, the most obvious approach is to optimize and expedite the development process, which is what valve has already said they were doing. [quote]"The value of a platform like the PC is how much it increases the productivity of those who use the platform. With Source 2, our focus is increasing creator productivity. Given how important user generated content is becoming, Source 2 is designed not for just the professional developer, but enabling gamers themselves to participate in the creation and development of their favorite games," said Valve's Jay Stelly.[/quote] Merging this discussion with 1/4 Life's post for a minute here: [QUOTE=1/4 Life;50557910]This is all correct, but you forget that it still takes a factor of time longer to import basic assets into Source 2 than an engine like UE4, and that brush based content has been on it's way out for over two decades now. The lack of a shader editor also means that asset creation is quite a bit more limited than other engines, and that's forgetting things like mega-shaders. [B]Source has never been a friendly engine to modders.[/B] Valve's own popularity and willingness to release source code are it's only saving grace. I would wager that Sourcemods would be dead if developers of other popular games had followed in Valve's footsteps and released even a half-decent SDK for their games/engines. We're only starting to see some of this exodus now with UE4, CE4, and Unity becoming dirt cheap and/or free.[/QUOTE] It is as he says. Modding for Source 1 is very frustrating and tedious. Building cubemaps are still broken for fuck sakes, and the workaround will take you like 10-15 minutes, which is patchy at best and you'll have to do it every single time you compile the map. Model compiling is just as bad. You have to write your own .qc code to compile the model, as well as writing more code for the .vmt files. Adding salt to the wound, most of this stuff requires the use of community made tools like was mentioned a few posts above. Source 2 improves on that compared to source 1 by allowing you to import .fbx files directly. You can import .tga files directly. The presence of a new material editor helps in making your materials, but it is still basic and lacking in comparison to the Unreal 4 Material editor. The best improvement bar none is that they have done away with brushes and now everything is done with meshes. These are all great improvements compared to Source 1, but these have been standard for the other engines for a long time. So far the best thing that Source 2 has over the other engines is the ability to manipulate meshes directly, and this goes as far as being able to dive into the model itself and manipulate the geometry as you see fit. (@1/4 Life: I've never even heard of a shader editor, and google searches aren't yielding any fruitful results. Are you talking about the UE4 material editor by chance?)

Feels a bit sad when I stop and thinking about it... when we used to talk about Valve (and I'm talking 15+ years ago) it was all excitement for the GAMES they were making and the technical achievements and such. There was this wonderful atmosphere of development and discovery about their creations, and I genuinely miss that the most. I wonder if Gabe ever stops and thinks about 'the good old days' of just making games and having fun, pushing the tech and creating something for the fans. I hope VR doesn't become their sole focus going into the future, I'd still love to see some traditional games from Valve. Probably all but impossible since they don't even want to bother with single player any more, but maybe nostalgia will hit enough of them at once to revive some interest in creating a narrative driven game once again. Crazy to think that a THIRD of the company is investing its time into VR... I'm a bit out of the loop these days, but has Valve publicly announced that it's working on any BIG vr projects? Or is this likely just them refining the tech? Seems like now they've actually created the VR tech and device and it's out there and working pretty damn well, that if anything the amount of people actively working on it should drop? Move back into creating software for the device? I don't know. I miss the old days haha, I'm not a very 'VR' kinda guy and never was, and I guess it just makes me a bit sad that one of my favourite game software companies growing up really no longer makes GAMES like they used to.

[QUOTE=Sobek-;50558378]Feels a bit sad when I stop and thinking about it... when we used to talk about Valve (and I'm talking 15+ years ago) it was all excitement for the GAMES they were making and the technical achievements and such. There was this wonderful atmosphere of development and discovery about their creations, and I genuinely miss that the most. I wonder if Gabe ever stops and thinks about 'the good old days' of just making games and having fun, pushing the tech and creating something for the fans. I hope VR doesn't become their sole focus going into the future, I'd still love to see some traditional games from Valve. Probably all but impossible since they don't even want to bother with single player any more, but maybe nostalgia will hit enough of them at once to revive some interest in creating a narrative driven game once again. Crazy to think that a THIRD of the company is investing its time into VR... I'm a bit out of the loop these days, but has Valve publicly announced that it's working on any BIG vr projects? Or is this likely just them refining the tech? Seems like now they've actually created the VR tech and device and it's out there and working pretty damn well, that if anything the amount of people actively working on it should drop? Move back into creating software for the device? I don't know. I miss the old days haha, I'm not a very 'VR' kinda guy and never was, and I guess it just makes me a bit sad that one of my favourite game software companies growing up really no longer makes GAMES like they used to.[/QUOTE] Guy we just had like a 2 page long argument on this. [editline]20th June 2016[/editline] Also what do you mean they dont do singleplayer anymore, they did in Portal 2.

[QUOTE=FetusFondler;50557895]Protip: You can do it with the oculus too, if you've been keeping up with the scene[/QUOTE] Haha, nope, room-scale on the Oculus will never compare to the Vive. This is not fanboyism talking, it's just facts based on the technology's limitations. So long as they keep using camera based tracking, the FOV, precision and occlusion issues will never allow it to work as well as the Vive's lighthouse. Not even close actually. Touch is only supposed to work within 180 degrees and within a very small area .. and that's with an extra camera. Not to mention HTC owns the patent for chaperone which covers practically anything remotely similar that Oculus could come up with. Best case scenario, you get rudimentary 8x8ft~ room-scale with major occlusion issues if using Touch and you'll have 3-4 cameras + long ass USB cords strewn about your room. So yes, I've been keeping up. I'm pretty much a VR nut and I picked the Vive like I'd pick any other piece of tech. It's the best in class. Rift is a great HMD too but just make sure you're happy without the Vive's capabilities.

[QUOTE=Leintharien;50558277](@1/4 Life: I've never even heard of a shader editor, and google searches aren't yielding any fruitful results. Are you talking about the UE4 material editor by chance?)[/QUOTE] Yeah, I am indeed. UE4's material editor is incredibly powerful, as are most node-based shader editors. Some other notable examples are: [URL="https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Category:SourceShaderEditor"]Source (1) Shader Editor by Biohazard[/URL] (This also comes with a ton of excellent shader examples, including real Sun Shafts) [URL="http://img.gameru.net/img/986a9.jpg"]CryEngine Material Editor[/URL] [URL="https://www.assetstore.unity3d.com/en/#!/content/14147"]Shader Forge for Unity[/URL] So far from what we've seen in Source 2, Valve's idea of this is allowing primitive HLSL code inside of VMTs. It would take me a full page to explain how poor this is as a replacement for a true shader editor. One thing that is notable is that CryEngine allows for super shaders, which are combinations of different shaders on one texture. From an artists standpoint, this is so much better to work with. You'd need a separate VMT & VTF for each thing you wanted shaded differently on a single model in Source. I am excited to see if Source 2 improves at all when (if?) we get a proper SDK for it. It would certainly be nice to see some of the things the community has been doing for years become officially supported in the engine, but given what we've seen so far I'm not going to hold my breath. [QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50558090]Are you gonna continue using the "I'm gone" shit to avoid being expected to defend your position against counter points, then return to continue in an hour or so?[/QUOTE] Leintharien brought up a new topic that is fun and interesting to talk about for me, and one that I happen to have years of experience with. I have not gone against what I said earlier and I would appreciate that you do not attempt to instigate.

[QUOTE=glitchvid;50558212] Source isn't "easy to mod", ask any developer and they'll attest to fighting with it to do what they want. What Source has is a community that has developed a lot of tools to make it easier without having prior game-dev knowledge. Its immense asset library is also a significant reason for its success, look at most popular Source mods, you'll see they use mostly pre-existing Valve content.[/QUOTE] That's what I'm saying though. Of all engines I've tried to mess with source seems to be the easiest for people to learn and create with. It can be a struggle sometimes but I think it's quick to figure out basic knowledge, something I don't notice with a lot of engines. Making an entire standalone game from fresh assets is hard but I'd bet it's easier than most. The only engine I've used that seemed easier was BUILD (Duke Nukem 3D) because the map editor was ridiculously easy to use, it was like drawing in gimp and placing a Sprite of an enemy made it automatically have the AI etc but it's a dated engine

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50558592]The only engine I've used that seemed easier was BUILD (Duke Nukem 3D) because the map editor was ridiculously easy to use, it was like drawing in gimp and placing a Sprite of an enemy made it automatically have the AI etc but it's a dated engine[/QUOTE] Although this was multiplayer only, you would really like the map editor built into FarCry 2. I would argue that UE3/4 have caught up in terms of friendliness over the years. That part of an engine really takes time for the community to do. You wouldn't be saying Source is friendly if you didn't have the community tools made available over the years.

[QUOTE=J!NX;50557914]the wii didn't have 1:1 perfect tracking like the vive. It literally was just an IR tracker and a shitty camera. holding a shot gun in VR feels insanely good. outside of the lack of weight it's really good, and virtually seamless. [editline]20th June 2016[/editline] I'm the first to shit on motion controls but when it comes to the vive they do it right.[/QUOTE] God the Wii. I feel like I'm alone in saying that it was probably the worst console I've ever had. It was so far behind, felt like they rushed it to beat PS Move to the punch (it was being developed for ps2 before Wii) and the fucking recognition was so bad, and hardware more behind than any other console at the gen. I almost only played with a GameCube controller when given a choice. Wii U is nice though. [editline]20th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=1/4 Life;50558606]Although this was multiplayer only, you would really like the map editor built into FarCry 2. I would argue that UE3/4 have caught up in terms of friendliness over the years. That part of an engine really takes time for the community to do. You wouldn't be saying Source is friendly if you didn't have the community tools made available over the years.[/QUOTE] I mean wouldn't the community tools being able to be made count for something? I'm not seeing those same tools on other engines. Don't think it should be discredited for community support Never did play FC2, does it even have a big mod scene? Thanks to gmod and SFM there's almost endless amounts of resources on a steady stream that's still going. It also has a huge porting rate, I recall people posting lots of things from other games including maps into source. I started messing with source when I was like 13-14? I got into it after finding out about gmod because I was super into animation and machinima (I used to use second life for this). After awhile I was reskinning and toying with everything, even picked up hexing. I'll look into FC2 sometime. I love DN3D maps and editors

1/3rd of valve is working in Virtual Reality? I honestly thought it'd be more. Still, good that they're investing in VR, at least they're doing [B]something[/B] other than tickling their dingleberry ridden asscracks while watching the money stacks rise because of the Steam market.

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50558624] Never did play FC2, does it even have a big mod scene?[/QUOTE] If it does I don't know about it. The main point I was making is that you can also 'paint' maps with that editor. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLrP9pVSY1k[/media]

[QUOTE=Mitsudigi;50558441]Haha, nope, room-scale on the Oculus will never compare to the Vive. This is not fanboyism talking, it's just facts based on the technology's limitations. So long as they keep using camera based tracking, the FOV, precision and occlusion issues will never allow it to work as well as the Vive's lighthouse. Not even close actually. Touch is only supposed to work within 180 degrees and within a very small area .. and that's with an extra camera. Not to mention HTC owns the patent for chaperone which covers practically anything remotely similar that Oculus could come up with. Best case scenario, you get rudimentary 8x8ft~ room-scale with major occlusion issues if using Touch and you'll have 3-4 cameras + long ass USB cords strewn about your room. So yes, I've been keeping up. I'm pretty much a VR nut and I picked the Vive like I'd pick any other piece of tech. It's the best in class. Rift is a great HMD too but just make sure you're happy without the Vive's capabilities.[/QUOTE] You just spouted a bunch of things out of your derriere that boil down to "This is the way it is because I say so". How about looking at the VR thread here on Facepunch, the last two pages or so, eh? I don't wanna get too much into this because this isn't the VR thread but go ahead and post that exact same post there, watch it be completely dissected. Most things you said are wrong. It [I]is[/I] fanboyism talking.

One time I bought a mega collection of DN3D discs and found that they used to publish discs that were 1500+ community made levels. They were a blast. I still love Build despite it being a Sprite engine. I just wish you could use the added assets like vehicles from Shadow Warrior. Actually the DNF remake mod had a motorcycle. Maybe I'll dip into build again.

It genuinely confuses me that people think Valve employees just sit around doing nothing all day. Why would any company keep hundreds of employees on their payroll and pay for extensive benefits if they aren't doing anything? They could just consolidate them down to in the necessary few and have far more to go around.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;50558662]If it does I don't know about it. The main point I was making is that you can also 'paint' maps with that editor. [media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLrP9pVSY1k[/media][/QUOTE] Whoa the first few seconds literally looks like build with the selector outline This is cool. FC2 is cry engine right? Does modern crytek do this too?

[QUOTE=VenomousBeetle;50558690]Whoa the first few seconds literally looks like build with the selector outline This is cool. FC2 is cry engine right? Does modern crytek do this too?[/QUOTE] It's "Dunia" engine. As far as I know they built it from CryEngine 1, but I may be wrong. Sadly as I said it's limited to Multiplayer maps and FarCry 3 has nothing like it. Really wish they had stuck with it. [editline]Edit:[/editline] Disregard, it appears it does! I have not played with it though, so I can't attest to it's similarity with FarCry 2's editor.

Damn that's shit. Luckily iirc s2's hammer preview looked like painting and sculpture too iirc It's the thing I'm most excited for after the "no royalties if your game is also sold on steam" part

Seems a bit early to be teasing the next generation already. I was kind of hoping for a slightly longer release cycle so as to not fragment the market further. I can't imagine how difficult development would be if they decide to go for a yearly release. Even the best APIs suffer from leaky abstraction.