Half Life: Alyx

odditory

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
5,871
I would rather put that money towards a high end GPU capable of improving the experience for my entire library of games, rather than hanging my hopes on any further high caliber AAA VR games ever being released. And your analogy is a false equivalence because VR headsets are a peripheral, they are not the gateway platform. You didn't need to buy the xbox plus a specialised peripheral to play Halo, rather you immediately gained access to the entire library without having to spend any further money on hardware. A more apt analogy is buying the Steel Battalion controller and hoping that other games would eventually take full advantage of it.
Understandable some would rather just upgrade their GPU. But we'll have to agree to disagree on the rest because VR *is* a platform in and of itself, not merely a peripheral. As the tech continues to improve and iterate, the headsets will become more and more wireless and self-contained. It's only in VR's infancy now that headsets are tied to a PC umbilical cord for the best experience. Eventually that goes away and it crawls, walks, then runs.

Again, Alyx is a catapult/ignition event for VR, and its contribution will help VR as a platform futureactively.
 

odditory

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
5,871
Does Valve really think enough people are going to buy the VR only game to recover development costs?? Instead of selling millions of copies of a non-VR game, are they even going to sell tens of thousands of VR games?
Because billions in future VR game sales > millions in flat-monitor HL3 sales. Valve is playing long game, which is also easier for them since they're not publicly traded.

How did current gaming get where it is today, to be able sell millions of copies? Companies took risks because they had a vision or just a hunch; certain games came along that became defining, and catapulted the industry forward, influenced subsequent games.

Sure, a non-VR HL3 might've sold 1000:1 to copies of Alyx. Valve sees that equation as "1:1000 - every copy of Alyx is like a seed for every 1000 VR game sales that'll be happening 5 years from now". In other words the opportunity cost to not doing the big VR title now was too great.
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,343
Because billions in future VR game sales > millions in flat-monitor HL3 sales. Valve is playing long game, which is also easier for them since they're not publicly traded.

How did current gaming get where it is today, to be able sell millions of copies? Companies took risks because they had a vision or just a hunch; certain games came along that became defining, and catapulted the industry forward, influenced subsequent games.

Sure, a non-VR HL3 might've sold 1000:1 to copies of Alyx. Valve sees that equation as "1:1000 - every copy of Alyx is like a seed for every 1000 VR game sales that'll be happening 5 years from now". In other words the opportunity cost to not doing the big VR title now was too great.
Which is great if you work for Valve. But some of us don't care much about their profitability but just want a Half Life game. I don't even mind waiting a year for it. Obviously there would be some major changes to the gameplay, I'm sure Valve can afford it and can profit off of the extra sales from both versions as well as people who buy both versions. There are many areas they can improve on such as better AI. So yes, they can make a non-VR Half Life game that still stands above the crowd.

I understand why they're doing it, they're trying to push their hardware sales. Valve jumps on the next big thing to rake in the profits. First it was PC games, then digital distribution, then it was microtransaction infused free to play games and now VR hardware. Valve has always been a technology company first and a games company second. Practically the only games they made from the ground up were Half Life and TF2 (I'll give this to them because it was so different from the original). Which is perfectly fine. But if they made a version that could be played without VR I'd buy it and millions of others would. And then we'd buy the VR version in the future if we get a VR HMD.
 

odditory

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
5,871
Which is great if you work for Valve. But some of us don't care much about their profitability but just want a Half Life game.
It's great for everyone, because when a market and a platform is profitable then it attracts more developers and publishers, and we get more games.

Right now VR game offerings are anemic because "the market isn't mature", "there's no ROI in making a VR game" etc and publicly traded publishers run by bean counters are risk-averse.

Valve is trying to help break the chicken/egg deadlock, which is more important than another flat Half-Life game that would just come and go like every other AAA released the same year. This is the fate of even Cyberpunk - for all it's built up goodwill, and undoubtedly one of the highlights of 2020 - will ultimately just come and go, played once or twice and forgotten about.

I think VR experiences are inherently more timeless. And FWIW I wouldn't be surprised if CDPR's next game is designed around VR, or they add VR post launch.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

funkydmunky

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
2,443
No mention of ray tracing... Too bad for nVidia if this is another AMD partnered game :)
90Hz 3.5-inch AMOLED screens (one for each eye)—each with a resolution of 1440x1600 for my Odyssey+ with %200 super sampling. My OC RTX-2080 does not want to hear a word of your silly RT ramblings thank-you :eek:
 

Flogger23m

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,343
It's great for everyone, because when a market and a platform is profitable then it attracts more developers and publishers, and we get more games.

Right now VR game offerings are anemic because "the market isn't mature", "there's no ROI in making a VR game" etc and publicly traded publishers run by bean counters are risk-averse.

Valve is trying to help break the chicken/egg deadlock, which is more important than another flat Half-Life game that would just come and go like every other AAA released the same year. This is the fate of even Cyberpunk - for all it's built up goodwill, and undoubtedly one of the highlights of 2020 - will ultimately just come and go, played once or twice and forgotten about.

I think VR experiences are inherently more timeless. And FWIW I wouldn't be surprised if CDPR's next game is designed around VR, or they add VR post launch.
I don't think a non-VR version of the game would stop that, especially if it is a year or more later. I can't afford a VR set right now (would just use it for DCS and HL:A) but I'd love to get more HL. And if/when I go get an HMD, I'd absolutely rebuy the game.
 

odditory

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Dec 23, 2007
Messages
5,871
Valve auto-refunding anyone with Index hardware that preordered Alyx and didn't know they were entitled to the game free, or anyone that added Index hardware to their account after preordering.

Not that this is so unusual, but not every company is this proactive about giving money back, and it's typically the customer burdened with driving the process.


Screenshot_20191124-000211~2.png
 

Viper87227

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
17,448
I don't think a non-VR version of the game would stop that, especially if it is a year or more later. I can't afford a VR set right now (would just use it for DCS and HL:A) but I'd love to get more HL. And if/when I go get an HMD, I'd absolutely rebuy the game.
I think it would. It's pretty clear Valve isn't making this for the existing crop of VR customers, they are making it to drastically increase the number of VR customers. There will be huge amounts of people who buy a HMD because of this game. You tell people they don't have to buy an expensive HMD, they just have to wait it out a year, that does a lot of damage to that goal. Obviously some people who still jump in, but there would also be a significant number who would just wait out the clock. If they keep it VR, it will always be a major selling point of that platform. Even a year from now, or two years from now, it's a title sitting on Steam that will weigh heavily into someone's decision to finally buy an HMD.

I'm more confident now than ever that we will be seeing more of Half-Life, particularly whatever is next for Gordon Freeman. Dropping HL3 in a few years would be a good way to bring the franchise back into it's prime, bringing a renewed interest in Alyx and SteamVR for the people who were until that point unwilling to drop the cash on an HMD. We should all know by now that Valve does absolutely nothing as fan service. After all, video game development isn't the reason Valve is the juggernaut they are today, Steam sales are. Everything they do boils down to a singular goal: sell more games on Steam. This is why Valve is better off leveraging their most popular and desired IP for fresh customers in a niche market than they are shooting for raw sales numbers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

Armenius

I Drive Myself to the [H]ospital
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
20,644
Couple of things... First Merle is half Asian not Japanese. Secondly Nigerian is a nationality not a race. Lastly, how can it be a choice based on race? Both actresses are black. Yes, one is half Asian but Merle is still 50% black. I mean both of them are still minorities and the character of Alyx is a minority herself. I fail to see how race plays a role into this when both women are black (one being half) and the character of Alyx is half black herself. I mean if Alyx was ful Asian then yeah I would see an issue but she's not. So as far I can tell it wouldn't matter if a Black woman or Asian woman played the character.
Note that I did say that it did not matter, but it's nice to know you created an account just to reply to me :cat:
 

Flogger23m

[H]ardForum Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
10,343
I think it would. It's pretty clear Valve isn't making this for the existing crop of VR customers, they are making it to drastically increase the number of VR customers. There will be huge amounts of people who buy a HMD because of this game. You tell people they don't have to buy an expensive HMD, they just have to wait it out a year, that does a lot of damage to that goal. Obviously some people who still jump in, but there would also be a significant number who would just wait out the clock. If they keep it VR, it will always be a major selling point of that platform. Even a year from now, or two years from now, it's a title sitting on Steam that will weigh heavily into someone's decision to finally buy an HMD.

I'm more confident now than ever that we will be seeing more of Half-Life, particularly whatever is next for Gordon Freeman. Dropping HL3 in a few years would be a good way to bring the franchise back into it's prime, bringing a renewed interest in Alyx and SteamVR for the people who were until that point unwilling to drop the cash on an HMD. We should all know by now that Valve does absolutely nothing as fan service. After all, video game development isn't the reason Valve is the juggernaut they are today, Steam sales are. Everything they do boils down to a singular goal: sell more games on Steam. This is why Valve is better off leveraging their most popular and desired IP for fresh customers in a niche market than they are shooting for raw sales numbers.
I'm not so sure about HL3 still. I don't see Valve doing much in terms of games unless they partially exist to push some new marketing strategy or product. I'd love to be proven wrong though. Historically Valve hasn't done much game wise, they mainly buy IPs and WIP games (Portal, L4D, DOTA, CS, the list goes on).

I do sometimes wonder about that planned space game. Imagine if they had come out with more information about that and an intended released like HL2 EP3 that everyone was expecting. Star Citizen would never have been a thing. And Valve time might just be quicker than CIG time. :p
 

Viper87227

[H]ard as it Gets
Joined
Jun 2, 2004
Messages
17,448
I'm not so sure about HL3 still. I don't see Valve doing much in terms of games unless they partially exist to push some new marketing strategy or product. I'd love to be proven wrong though. Historically Valve hasn't done much game wise, they mainly buy IPs and WIP games (Portal, L4D, DOTA, CS, the list goes on).
That's my point though. I don't see Valve making HL3 because people want it. I see them pursing it because it's a potential tool to generate new interest in Alyx, and thus VR, after the initial interest window has passed. Obviously they know HL3 would be profitable, but that alone isn't enough. If HL3 has the potential to generate revenue outside of just the sales of itself though, I can see that being of interest to Valve.

I'm not necessarily getting my hopes up for HL3, but I do think the possibility is more real now than it has been in a very long time.
 

Vec234

n00b
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
2
Note that I did say that it did not matter, but it's nice to know you created an account just to reply to me :cat:
Np, I was just pointing out the last part of your original post about the choice being based on race made little sense.
 

MavericK

Zero Cool
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
29,274
It's interesting what they're counting as "VR Ready." I didn't even think a 1080 was really "enough" for VR. I can't imagine playing VR games with a 980.
A GTX 1080 is definitely "enough" to enjoy VR. I've been able to play any VR game I've tried, though I have heard of issues with certain ones like Fallout 4 VR. Skyrim VR works fine.

That may change with HL: Alyx and Boneworks, both look like they are a leap forward in VR graphics, but we'll see.
 

Youn

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Jan 22, 2007
Messages
5,638
should run on a 1060, how well it'll look... well, Source did well on it's min spec, better than other engines at the time. Also Valve's other "VR games" look great with seemingly little effort. They know their stuff, even if it is mostly better art direction that makes it seem like technically better graphics...
 

deton8

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 27, 2007
Messages
428
Goddammit.....I don't want to buy a fucking VR headset for one damn game! :mad:
If it was HL3 I would probably (ok definitely) buy the headset just for one game.

For HL1.5? I will probably end up waiting for the inevitable first-person mod before I put down money.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,051
should run on a 1060, how well it'll look... well, Source did well on it's min spec, better than other engines at the time. Also Valve's other "VR games" look great with seemingly little effort. They know their stuff, even if it is mostly better art direction that makes it seem like technically better graphics...
The thing about VR, is that the immersion is so drastic, is that"crappy" graphics really don't matter. You get sucked in and forget about it all. What breaks immersion is bad tracking and interaction.
 

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
49,051
Well, you don't care. But I guess you'll probably ban me for saying so...
You are not worth the effort.

And I am fairly sure that no one that will play the game gives a shit that you are not. Now go gripe about something else that you have no interest in. In other words, STFU and leave us alone.

This meme however sums much of how I feel about most of this.

stop_liking_file.jpg


Let us have fun and your can bitch about that later... And we will be laughing at you.
 

vegeta535

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
3,691
People seem to getting to much excitement for this game. It is not HL3 and probably nothing special either. Who left at Valve to actually make games? Didn't majority of the people involved with HL move on by now?
 

RazorWind

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 11, 2001
Messages
3,416
Gabe is still there. Valves games are usually at least “pretty good” - I see no reason not to be cautiously optimistic. What else am I going to use my Vive pro for?
 

Cypher-

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 5, 2007
Messages
1,098
Welp, Valve got me. VR was not anywhere on my purchase soon list. There are a few games I would have liked to play but I had absolutely no intention of buying a VR set.

Just ordered an index this morning. Super excited to play this. I'm sure I'll get other use out of the index to make it a worth while purchase.
 

Reaperkk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 30, 2000
Messages
1,717
I'll wait for reviews on this game but if it's good and if VR comes to Flight Sim 2020 I might bite the bullet and buy a VR kit.
 

GhostCow

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
368
I feel like I'm the only person who's not excited about this. As someone who only has one eye I worry that this is going to be the future of gaming and I'll be stuck in the past. Or at least stuck rending a second screen that's just wasting power. Why can't VR games have an option to still just render to a monitor?
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this

N4CR

[H]ardness Supreme
Joined
Oct 17, 2011
Messages
4,449
I see this as a hardware push for ecosystem expansion as others have eluded to, but also as hl1 and hl2 were such ground breakers and boundary pushers, that in order to really make hl1.5/A properly before hl3, they need a similar level of new hotness and ground breaking, or it'll be lost in a sea of same old fps games.
 

Denpepe

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 26, 2015
Messages
1,348
I feel like I'm the only person who's not excited about this. As someone who only has one eye I worry that this is going to be the future of gaming and I'll be stuck in the past. Or at least stuck rending a second screen that's just wasting power. Why can't VR games have an option to still just render to a monitor?
As someone with vision problems myself I can sympathise and it's one of the reasons I have not bought a headset yet.

My vision has defects similar to these
amsler-grid3.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: N4CR
like this
Top