Support NeoGAF

[DeltaPolarBear]

sheesh gamers are the most conservative group of old men yearning for the "good old days"!

personally I welcome change! if you can't deal with the future shut up and get out of the way. the future is unavoidable, the old ways will inevitably die out in favor of the next generation. it's only a matter of time, the future will inevitably replace the past

As I mentioned a few times in other threads, Virtual Reality is the direct opposite of Game Streaming. VR is either going to become big, or game streaming is going to become big. But not both.

Since i don't like game streaming, then VR it is. VR future is also the future where 60 frames a second is minimum requirement, and 90fps is standard.

 

[eot]

lol, it's real?

Well, I'm not invested enough to buy VR for it. Curious to see if Valve still have some chops though

 

[dsk1210]

How about you leave the thread to people that are actually excited about Half Life VR and stop being so aggressive to people Kadayi?

I am not really sure what you are trying to do here in this thread except shit on peoples opinions.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

lol, it's real?

Well, I'm not invested enough to buy VR for it. Curious to see if Valve still have some chops though

In the end, people don't buy hardware for hardware. People buy hardware for the software. And you run into the chicken or the egg problem where game developers couldn't spend AAA money because there isn't enough headsets to sell the game to.

That's where system sellers come in. Something console players are familar with. Historically PCs lack such games, because it doesn't have a platform owner. The closest thing to it in PC was the original Doom, where the shareware ended up convincing people to buy better hardware for the multiplayer.

Valve is in the position to be able to make a AAA VR game, knowing full well that there are not enough headsets in the wild to recoup costs, and yet pay for the production of the game anyway. Because Valve as a company has money, but as a private organisation they don't answer to public shareholders. They can promote VR because Gabe said so. Because Gabe made it so. Because money is made to be spent, and if you don't spend it then what is the point of being rich?

Facebook is stepping back from VR because they are not finding it profitable enough. Someone has to push things forward, to make that chicken that lays that egg. it might as well be Valve.

 

[Alexios]

How about you leave the thread to people that are actually excited about Half Life VR and stop being so aggressive to people Kadayi?

I am not really sure what you are trying to do here in this thread except shit on peoples opinions.

Haven't followed discussion but I don't think Kadayi is a VR hater, he follows the PC VR thread and (I think?) gave me gaf gold over my postings there as I keep it maintained with news, trailers and everything.

 

[dsk1210]

Haven't followed discussion but I don't think Kadayi is a VR hater, he follows the PC VR thread and (I think?) gave me gaf gold over my postings there as I keep it maintained with news, trailers and everything.

Just seems to be overly aggressive and dismissive to me. I never said he is a VR hater but he certainly seems to be unhappy that a high quality VR game is being produced for some reason.

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

Valve said many times that there was just not enough motivation in the company to make another Half Life game.

Half Life is not being held hostage by VR; VR is the only reason the Valve staffers had any reason to revisit the IP. Valve really did not care to make single player games that is only just "okay", with mediocre review scores. The money they could earn from making a normal game would be dwarfed by the actual earnings from the Steam store revenue. VR is a way for the team to differentiate this new Half Life from its predecessors.

If you don't like or want VR, then I understand. But at least know there was never a world where this new game was ever going to be made if VR didn't exist.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

I don't have VR and I'm not about to drop a grand on VR kit. I have a feeling this will be a Half Life 2 mod with VR or something.

 

[Romulus]

Given you're apparently all about openly laughing at 'the poor people' I find this response kind of ironic Doug

First, what quote specifically mentions that I laugh at poor people? Find it. Your response to my claim that you have no accountability was not only a deflection, but a lie.

Again, you dont read, don't understand, or your twisting words hoping I don't call you out on your bull. I made fun of trolls that might be dismissing the game because they can't afford VR or too cheap. But to you, that means I'm laughing at the homeless I guess

 

[Holammer]

both hl episodes did some interesting stuff with pathfinding and physics

don't think the source engine flexed its muscle until recently with apex legends

looking forward to the reveal, don't really care how i get more half-life

gimme

Titanfall 2 and Apex are still old Source (with heavy modifications), HL: Alyx on the other hand will be a brand spanking new build of Source 2 and that's the real star of the show for me. Especially if they finally ship the Source 2 SDK.
I expect the reveal to be a glorious demonstration of Valve's Rubikon physics engine along with other technologies.

 

[metareferential]

glorious

This will be to VR what HL2 is for physics, etc.

Full on hype mode engaged.

In Gabe we trust.

Oh, and of course: fucking portals.

 

[Wonko_C]

As I mentioned a few times in other threads, Virtual Reality is the direct opposite of Game Streaming. VR is either going to become big, or game streaming is going to become big. But not both.

Since i don't like game streaming, then VR it is. VR future is also the future where 60 frames a second is minimum requirement, and 90fps is standard.

In the future game streaming could end up aiding VR. Imagine an Oculus Quest that is just a sleek pair of glasses and all the processing is done on mega powerful computers in the cloud, 16K per eye at 400fps.

That doesn't mean I am happy about cloud gaming (I like to own my games) but it's where were going.

 

[Hudo]

Will be interested to see how Valve are going to monetize it. Maybe we can buy outfits for Alyx and have them work like hats in Team Fortress.

 

[Alexios]

Will be interested to see how Valve are going to monetize it. Maybe we can buy outfits for Alyx and have them work like hats in Team Fortress.

How would that bring in any money at all in a single player first person game?

 

[ISee]

Will be interested to see how Valve are going to monetize it. Maybe we can buy outfits for Alyx and have them work like hats in Team Fortress.

59.99€ + some Index Sales + general higher interest in VR = More people buying VR games on Steam
--> Profit

 

[Hudo]

How would that bring in any money at all in a single player first person game?

Because Valve and Gabe repeatedly said that they don't do those classic single player games anymore. Of course I was being tounge-in-cheek with that statement but I wouldn't be surprised if they somehow try to monetize it further than just sell it for $50 and be done with it. Valve don't do that anymore.

 

[kraspkibble]

I haven't got a VR headset. Honestly, I've not even played Half-Life. Alright, well, I played a tiny bit of one of them (can't remember which). So i don't really see myself running out to buy a VR headset. I'll just pass on it.

If they announce Portal VR then I will probably get whiplash from how fast I move to get a headset lol.

 

[hariseldon]

If they announce Portal VR then I will probably get whiplash from how fast I move to get a headset lol.

Portal VR would be amazing but I'm pretty sure I'd hurl so hard my head would explode.

 

[Wonko_C]

Because Valve and Gabe repeatedly said that they don't do those classic single player games anymore. Of course I was being tounge-in-cheek with that statement but I wouldn't be surprised if they somehow try to monetize it further than just sell it for $50 and be done with it. Valve don't do that anymore.

Apparently there's a new SteamDB entry that shows they're going to bundle the game with every Index and some are saying Valve are going to retroactively give copies to everyone who already owns their Index.

If that's true it'be no different than what Nintendo did by bundling Super Mario 64 with every N64 console at launch.

Gabe has also said they have been jealous of Nintendo's ability to create hardware and software together.

 

[Alexios]

Because Valve and Gabe repeatedly said that they don't do those classic single player games anymore. Of course I was being tounge-in-cheek with that statement but I wouldn't be surprised if they somehow try to monetize it further than just sell it for $50 and be done with it. Valve don't do that anymore.

Clearly things have changed since they revisit Half-Life at all, VR inspired them enough to do so

 

[Hudo]

Apparently there's a new SteamDB entry that shows they're going to bundle the game with every Index and some are saying Valve are going to retroactively give copies to everyone who already owns their Index.

If that's true it'be no different than what Nintendo did by bundling Super Mario 64 with every N64 console at launch.

Gabe has also said they have been jealous of Nintendo's ability to create hardware and software together.

Ah ok, yeah, that would make sense. Then I can actually imagine it being a more "classic" product.

EDIT:

Clearly things have changed since they revisit Half-Life at all, VR inspired them enough to do so

I can only hope! I just want Half-Life to continue, tbh. I am just a bit pissy at Valve doing some spinoff instead of just saying what's up with Half-Life 3 and what's up with the cliffhanger...
But I'd rather take a spinoff than nothing at all.
Sorry if I did come across as an arse, wasn't my intention. I am just frustrated with Valve...

 

[Alexios]

Apparently there's a new SteamDB entry that shows they're going to bundle the game with every Index and some are saying Valve are going to retroactively give copies to everyone who already owns their Index.

If that's true it'be no different than what Nintendo did by bundling Super Mario 64 with every N64 console at launch.

Gabe has also said they have been jealous of Nintendo's ability to create hardware and software together.

Well, it's similar but it's not gonna result in crazy sales of Index on Wii level, the cost is always a factor, and people will still be able to find much cheaper VR sets and buy the game extra. But Valve's just fine with that, they aren't in VR for short term profit, I mean, they and oculus gave birth to modern VR and have been working and doing R&D for years before this, no single game would recoup costs, they are sticking with it long term as the birth of a new medium and not a cash grab, I doubt they even make much profit despite the high Index price. And it's awesome they can afford it.

 

[Alexios]

Ah ok, yeah, that would make sense. Then I can actually imagine it being a more "classic" product.

EDIT:

I can only hope! I just want Half-Life to continue, tbh. I am just a bit pissy at Valve doing some spinoff instead of just saying what's up with Half-Life 3 and what's up with the cliffhanger...
But I'd rather take a spinoff than nothing at all.
Sorry if I did come across as an arse, wasn't my intention. I am just frustrated with Valve...

Why does it have to be a shitty spin off and isn't it better to make a potentially smaller game as their first try at VR and, if things go well, then blow things out with a full sequel taking all the lessons learned (especially player response) onboard, rather than have a flawed HL3 that didn't have lessons to take? I guess I don't have the same attachment because I thought HL2's story was dumb and I didn't even like that the game as a whole had more of an elaborate story than the original game which kept it to a minimum and was all the better for it in terms of atmosphere and pacing. Prequel, sequel or whatever makes no difference to me, as long as it's good content. Did people mind MGS3 was a decades-prior prequel that had next to nothing to do with Solid Snake who wasn't even born then after 1 & 2 and was it less of a sequel just because of the timeline? Ok it had 3 in the title, but still, it's been so long and even fans conflate things between wanting HL2: Episode 3 and an actual HL3, it's a tricky situation there's no easy way to navigate through. Let's see what they've managed to cook up for us and for the love of the medium even if they actually fail

 

[DeltaPolarBear]

In the future game streaming could end up aiding VR. Imagine an Oculus Quest that is just a sleek pair of glasses and all the processing is done on mega powerful computers in the cloud, 16K per eye at 400fps.

That doesn't mean I am happy about cloud gaming (I like to own my games) but it's where were going.

The fact that you even SAY this, suggest that you have no idea what Virtual Reality involves. It is physically impossible to do what you are suggesting unless we invent FTL. Thus, I am happy to tell you that it is NOT where we are going, that Game Streaming physically can't do VR just as you can't use molten lava to make ice cubes. They are diametric opposites and could never meet. Game streaming is incapable of Virtual Reality.

 

[Hudo]

Why does it have to be a shitty spin off and isn't it better to make a potentially smaller game as their first try at VR and, if things go well, then blow things out with a full sequel taking all the lessons learned (especially player response) onboard, rather than have a flawed HL3 that didn't have lessons to take? I guess I don't have the same attachment because I thought HL2's story was dumb and I didn't even like that the game as a whole had more of an elaborate story than the original game which kept it to a minimum and was all the better for it in terms of atmosphere and pacing. Prequel, sequel or whatever makes no difference to me, as long as it's good content. Did people mind MGS3 was a decades-prior prequel that had next to nothing to do with Solid Snake who wasn't even born then after 1 & 2 and was it less of a sequel just because of the timeline? Ok it had 3 in the title, but still, it's been so long and even fans conflate things between wanting HL2: Episode 3 and an actual HL3, it's a tricky situation there's no easy way to navigate through. Let's see what they've managed to cook up for us and for the love of the medium even if they actually fail

Well, that's a good point with "lessons learned" from a smaller game first, then make a big game out of that. I haven't thought of this approach. Maybe it's really because I am more invested and see Half-Life as this big thing. But I also think that Valve should come forward and say so. It might sound horribly entitled to say this but Valve have done a very, very poor job of communicating with their community in that regard. Now, after a long silence, they're doing something Half-Life again as if Half-Life 3 was never on the table. I just want a clear statement of what's going on. But I accept that I am probably fairly biased on this. And I agree with you. Maybe "wait and see" is the more reasonable approach, especially when we actually don't really know anything about Half-Life: Alyx.

 

[Alexios]

I mean it's only a few hours until they do say more about it, go outside haha

 

[Evil Calvin]

So this is for Valve Index VR that no one has? Why not PSVR which millions have?

 

[pr0cs]

Facebook is stepping back from VR because they are not finding it profitable enough.

Does not compute. The recent release of some AAA VR titles from Oculus studios suggests you're mistaken

 

[Alexios]

So this is for Valve Index VR that no one has? Why not PSVR which millions have?

It's for PC VR which millions also have and so doesn't have to deal with lower specs and outdated Move controllers that harmstring (almost, some cockpit games are okay) every release's potential (either you deal with limited interactivity as in Firewall with Aim controller and no independent hand tracking or you deal with limited predetermined teleport points in games like Blood & Truth and still deal with lacking tracking for your then independent hands). We don't have many numbers but for example something like Beat Saber, probably the closest to a mainstream game VR has gotten yet, has 5k user reviews on PS Store and 18K on Steam and 3k more on Oculus Store for the Rift version (also just PC) so that's 21k vs 5k, clearly people buy VR games on PC too despite the cost (some WMR sets aren't that different to PSVR in price though). For posterity the Quest version despite being so much newer also tops the PSVR version in amount of user reviews so that little machine is pushing software hard (Pistol Whip user reviews for it trump every other version combined) but sadly it's too weak for some games (though some of its owners will get PC games with Link). Frankly I fully expect PSVR2 for PS5 to be completely fucking amazing for most people and do wonders for VR in general but we're already at that level on PC and PSVR1 really doesn't hold a candle to it in so many ways even if it still has some fucking cool games and it's good enough for others.

 

[Grinchy]

I can't wait for this reveal. I know it's not realistic to hope for this, but I hope this is like the HL2 reveal and what it did for physics in games moving forward, but for VR. I hope they've been sitting there in the VR lab for years perfecting the little things that most developers of VR titles don't have the time or resources to even consider.

I'm also ready for it to be a medium-budget VR thrill ride. That will still be fun, but a disappointment compared to what I'm hoping for.

 

[Wonko_C]

The fact that you even SAY this, suggest that you have no idea what Virtual Reality involves. It is physically impossible to do what you are suggesting unless we invent FTL. Thus, I am happy to tell you that it is NOT where we are going, that Game Streaming physically can't do VR just as you can't use molten lava to make ice cubes. They are diametric opposites and could never meet. Game streaming is incapable of Virtual Reality.

It's true, I have no idea. To me technology is almost like magic, LOL. I just read stuff on the internet and thought something like that would be possible in the future. I heard companies are already working on streaming VR via 5G and ran with that.

 

[Alexios]

It's true, I have no idea. To me technology is almost like magic, LOL. I just read stuff on the internet and thought something like that would be possible in the future. I heard companies are already working on streaming VR via 5G and ran with that.

He basically just means any latency in VR is going to be awful in feel (imagine turning your head and the view doesn't respond instantly but instead folllows a split second later and how that adds up over time when you're constantly moving rather than just testing a single turn), way more so than in any other scenario, it'd probably make people physically ill or simply not feel in any kind of actual control (hence even Oculus Link will not be quite perfect like a native PC VR set, it's essentially going to be wired streaming, not native support of the Quest as a PC device) so it's unlikely online streaming can be good enough for VR any time soon if ever when Stadia shows it's not even good enough for normal games (but Steam's Remote play shows it can work alright in other scenarios). Locally streamed wireless could work though, to do away with cables (as some expensive third party adapters already do for existing VR) and that could be where the current potential of 5G for VR lays, not online but from local devices you also own, from your PC to your VR set or similar scenarios (like Wii U's gamepad could instantly stream gameplay but that was low resolution 60fps).

 

[GlassAwful]

What a strange argument to make on a gaming board.

Next time in an OT: This game is shit...

Maybe, not everybody can afford a console easily. Let alone a HDR TV!
Maybe, holding a controller is a waste of time because it is not earning you money. Games are unproductive!
Maybe, 30fps is to janky and the graphics are still not photorealistic. This looks terrible and nothing like real life.
Maybe, there are limitations to game design. Like this game is supposed to be "open world" but the game has boarders anyway, LOL.

A company, you don't like, is making a game, you do not care about, for hardware you don't want. Cool, nobody will remember that or care while playing it or another awesome VR game.
Now move on with your life and concentrate a bit more on your responsibilities and not on what somebody wrote on a gaming forum.

I think you misunderstood the point of that post. There's no argument there, I wasn't trying to persuade anyone in any direction.

It's simply a series of observations that may explain how many are not picking up what Valve is throwing down here.

The difference between my post and yours is that it seems hundreds of millions of people are willing to put up with traditional gaming in the sense you describe while they aren't for VR. Why do you think that is?

Anyway, I'm done taking a shit in the punch bowl. Feel free to run away with hype.

 

[Alexios]

The difference between my post and yours is that it seems hundreds of millions of people are willing to put up with traditional gaming in the sense you describe while they aren't for VR. Why do you think that is?

Because it's a now preexisting established and invested in for around 3 decades market that also didn't start out by selling to that many people but in far smaller scale approaches that weren't abandoned over it but instead cultivated which led to the current situation?

 

[PassionateGAMER]

It is really strange to me to see that so many people who have an affinity for technology don't get VR.
I would assume that people who are interested in games are always looking for better graphics, new input devices and advances in the way we play games, yet they seem to be very aggressive about VR.
I cannot see one single negative thing about the fact that Valve is bringing a Half Life game to VR, except that I might need to buy a PCVR in addition to PSVR.
And the discussions about that only 1% of PC Gamers have access to it doesn't make sense, too.
It is like saying it's not fair that an AAA studio develops for PS5 or the next Xbox because everyone has a PS4 and Xbox One and the new consoles are too expensive.
It's called technological progress....

 

[MiguelItUp]

It is really strange to me to see that so many people who have an affinity for technology don't get VR.
I would assume that people who are interested in games are always looking for better graphics, new input devices and advances in the way we play games, yet they seem to be very aggressive about VR.

Honestly I think it's because VR titles looked incredibly restricted for a very long time. They were experiences where you stayed in place, or were on rails. They essentially looked and felt like a digital amusement park ride or game. It wasn't until a few years ago where they really began to feel like they were more than that.

I don't think people are completely against the idea just yet. I'd just like to think it's more of a, "I'll believe it when I see it" approach. At least, that's what I'm trying to do.

VR has always interested me to an extent, but I could never justify the price tag for 1-3 games that I was genuinely wanting to play. I just wanted there to be more games that I found interesting, or I wanted the price tag to be lower. It's not that I can't afford it, I would just be upset at myself buying something that's $200+ dollars that just sits there.

 

[Alexios]

Honestly I think it's because VR titles looked incredibly restricted for a very long time. They were experiences where you stayed in place, or were on rails. They essentially looked and felt like a digital amusement park ride or game. It wasn't until a few years ago where they really began to feel like they were more than that.

I don't think people are completely against the idea just yet. I'd just like to think it's more of a, "I'll believe it when I see it" approach. At least, that's what I'm trying to do.

VR has always interested me to an extent, but I could never justify the price tag for 1-3 games that I was genuinely wanting to play. I just wanted there to be more games that I found interesting, or I wanted the price tag to be lower. It's not that I can't afford it, I would just be upset at myself buying something that's $200+ dollars that just sits there.

I feel like such games was only the very beginning of VR (speaking of modern VR, not some 80s amusement park or VR attempt when 3D was barely a thing at all itself) and devs/users quickly changed mind and showed they prefer free movement over anything else, with comfort/teleport options for those who can't handle it the same if it's viable. There are plenty such games now, it's just always nice to get more. Granted most of them are either oculus produced (no complains here lol, keep churning those out oculus, thanks) or indie games (nothing against indies, some incredible stuff, Boneworks was probably thought of as Half-Life VR early on) so it's been nice to get other big companies onboard with stuff like medal of honor vr (granted thanks to oculus funds still), sniper elite vr, potential splinter cell vr, and now half-life VR, to show how they will take this new medium on.

 

[PassionateGAMER]

Honestly I think it's because VR titles looked incredibly restricted for a very long time. They were experiences where you stayed in place, or were on rails. They essentially looked and felt like a digital amusement park ride or game. It wasn't until a few years ago where they really began to feel like they were more than that.

I don't think people are completely against the idea just yet. I'd just like to think it's more of a, "I'll believe it when I see it" approach. At least, that's what I'm trying to do.

VR has always interested me to an extent, but I could never justify the price tag for 1-3 games that I was genuinely wanting to play. I just wanted there to be more games that I found interesting, or I wanted the price tag to be lower. It's not that I can't afford it, I would just be upset at myself buying something that's $200+ dollars that just sits there.

That makes absolutely sense and it is true that there are not that many games that have the quality level of traditional games but even the "Tech Demos" show how much potential VR has. And so far everyone I know who tried it was blown away by it. Even the critics.

And your thinking is rational compared to a lot of comments I read here.

 

[PassionateGAMER]

I feel like such games was only the very beginning of VR (speaking of modern VR, not some 80s amusement park or VR attempt when 3D was barely a thing at all itself) and devs/users quickly changed mind and showed they prefer free movement over anything else, with comfort/teleport options for those who can't handle it the same if it's viable. There are plenty such games now, it's just always nice to get more. Granted most of them are either oculus produced (no complains here lol, keep churning those out oculus, thanks) or indie games (nothing against indies, some incredible stuff, Boneworks was probably thought of as Half-Life VR early on) so it's been nice to get other big companies onboard with stuff like medal of honor vr (granted thanks to oculus funds still), sniper elite vr, potential splinter cell vr, and now half-life VR, to show how other big companies will take this medium on.

That's also something that shows the potential of VR. At the beginning a lot of companies experimented and tried to figure out what works and what is fun.
Now we have a lot of really great games and the quality seems to increase really quickly.

And as someone said before, Facebook, Sony, Valve etc wouldn't invest so heavily if they thought it has flopped.
If you compare the first developer kit with the technology we have now it shows how fast the industry has moved forward.

 

[hariseldon]

I'd just like to think it's more of a, "I'll believe it when I see it" approach. At least, that's what I'm trying to do.

In some ways that's actually quite a big problem with the death of retail. With nowhere to go and try it out and then walk off with one under your arm it becomes much harder to sell something that doesn't translate well to images or videos.

 

[DeeDogg_]

i still cant believe this is happening

 

[MiguelItUp]

In some ways that's actually quite a big problem with the death of retail. With nowhere to go and try it out and then walk off with one under your arm it becomes much harder to sell something that doesn't translate well to images or videos.

That's an incredibly valid point! I was fortunate enough to at least be connected to a lot of folks that had various VR headsets when I was working in the industry. So, I at least got to check it out that way.

But for others that don't have that opportunity, it's essentially a several hundred dollar gamble that some may or may not enjoy. There are, unfortunately, even some that physically can't due to motion sickness, etc.

 

[Wonko_C]

He basically just means any latency in VR is going to be awful in feel (imagine turning your head and the view doesn't respond instantly but instead folllows a split second later and how that adds up over time when you're constantly moving rather than just testing a single turn), way more so than in any other scenario, it'd probably make people physically ill or simply not feel in any kind of actual control (hence even Oculus Link will not be quite perfect like a native PC VR set, it's essentially going to be wired streaming, not native support of the Quest as a PC device) so it's unlikely online streaming can be good enough for VR any time soon if ever when Stadia shows it's not even good enough for normal games (but Steam's Remote play shows it can work alright in other scenarios). Locally streamed wireless could work though, to do away with cables (as some expensive third party adapters already do for existing VR) and that could be where the current potential of 5G for VR lays, not online but from local devices you also own, from your PC to your VR set or similar scenarios (like Wii U's gamepad could instantly stream gameplay but that was low resolution 60fps).

Oh I know latency is the biggest obstacle. I just didn't think it was physically impossible to solve. I even experienced latency first-hand when I tried plugging my PSVR to my ancient PC via Trinus (and when I say ancient, I like to boast I'm still running current gen games like Forza Horizon 4 on a core2quad with the help of a GTX 1050 Ti.) to try Zaccaria Pinball. It was a surreal and horribly nauseating experience: Seeing how turning my head resulted in my the world following a fraction of a second afterwards. It was like I got super drunk, or something.

 

[magnumpy]

As I mentioned a few times in other threads, Virtual Reality is the direct opposite of Game Streaming. VR is either going to become big, or game streaming is going to become big. But not both.

Since i don't like game streaming, then VR it is. VR future is also the future where 60 frames a second is minimum requirement, and 90fps is standard.

over time, computers become cheaper to the point where they go from taking entire buildings and large amounts of power to being inconsequentially small low power devices that aren't even given a thought. might take a decade, but it will happen. VR is just a step on the much larger path.

 

[rofif]

Will there be a stream or something ?

 

[Bl@de]

Will there be a stream or something ?

Nobody knows. Interview, trailer, screenshots, stream ... Could be anything.

 

[Paiky]

*after one hour*

 

[dsk1210]

I suppose their Twitter and Steam is where they are going to publish the information?

 

[Slings and Arrows]

After this, CS:SVR is coming.

I see VR as a return to the good old days of gaming, where it was about passion and a love for the art, rather than a quick cash-grab through nefarious psychological marketing and addiction.

I'm happy to leave the fortnite generation behind to play their bland games. Give me some real passion projects in VR and lets get this show on the road!!

 

[Romulus]

I want to play HL 1, HL:Alyx, and HL2 in order, and all in VR.