Wolfgang Jr
Member
- Apr 21, 2011
- 2,914
- 661
- 690
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
-
Hi Guest. We've rebooted and consolidated our Communities section, so be sure to check it out and subscribe to some threads. Thanks!
Half-Life: Alyx Anouncement Trailer
- Thread starter 12Goblins
- Start date
- 494
IbizaPocholo
NeoGAFs Kent Brockman
TeamGhobad
Member
- Oct 15, 2018
- 2,990
- 3,022
- 470
MrTroubleMaker
Member
- Apr 18, 2007
- 13,208
- 600
- 1,245
damn this really makes me want HL3.
yeah it would be nice if this could be played without vr equipment.
yeah it would be nice if this could be played without vr equipment.
Last edited:
cormack12
Gold Member
- Mar 21, 2013
- 3,483
- 3,364
- 1,165
Gotta be honest.....
That blew me away. Looked incredible. That is a VR title that could actually onboard the critical mass of mainstream. From a software point of view at least. There are still the barriers of PC-VR. I own a PSVR and the low resolution really hurts the experience and I am really susceptible to 2/3 of the big VR issues at the moment (https://www.roadtovr.com/whats-the-difference-between-screen-door-effect-sde-mura-aliasing-vr-headset/) - screen door and Mura.
I could probably put up with that but when you factor into the equation wires, boxes, control boxes etc. I don't think the mainstream hardware is there for mass adoption. PCVR is better obviously but I'm probably still in that section of people who will wait to see what the trickle down to consoles looks like next year after dipping my toe in with the PSVR.
That blew me away. Looked incredible. That is a VR title that could actually onboard the critical mass of mainstream. From a software point of view at least. There are still the barriers of PC-VR. I own a PSVR and the low resolution really hurts the experience and I am really susceptible to 2/3 of the big VR issues at the moment (https://www.roadtovr.com/whats-the-difference-between-screen-door-effect-sde-mura-aliasing-vr-headset/) - screen door and Mura.
I could probably put up with that but when you factor into the equation wires, boxes, control boxes etc. I don't think the mainstream hardware is there for mass adoption. PCVR is better obviously but I'm probably still in that section of people who will wait to see what the trickle down to consoles looks like next year after dipping my toe in with the PSVR.
Then hey had to redesign the whole game and make it another regular shooter, which is not what they wanna do.
CausticVenom
Member
- Apr 27, 2018
- 1,201
- 701
- 360
They also don't have a starting price of $1000+ for both a headset and good hardware so it's not really the same.
But yes some games will only work in VR and that's okay too.
But yes some games will only work in VR and that's okay too.
Kadayi
Banned
Reading through your post and going back through the thread I think you've misinterpreted what I meant when I said 'Market Stakehold' below: -
I'm going to attempt to clarify this, and try and keep it as concise as possible in the process.
'Market stakehold' is not simply about money or short term profitability. It is a vested interest in a commercial arena in the long term, and Valve most definitely has that in spades. Firstly in digital sales and secondly and more recently in promoting VR, both of which they want to see go hand in hand.
To date Valves biggest commercial success hasn't been games, it's been Steam. As money-making ventures go it's been infinitely more profitable for them than any number of titles they've shipped past or present. Steams success freed them from the treadmill of delivery and profitability that hangs over most other development studios and operate in an experimental fashion somewhat akin to an entity like the MIT media lab for instance.
There have been positives to this in the added value they've been able to bring to Steam in terms of user-friendly features and the like (something most other digital stores have spectacularly failed to learn from). However, at the same time, there have been negatives, not the least of which has been a seeming lack of direction at times within the firm (a Bi-product of their work approach) with the result being a litany of cancelled projects over the years as well as a tangible apathy and tone-deafness when it comes both to maintaining their existing IPs and communicating effectively with the fans of said franchises. PR especially is not their strong point.
These negatives have arisen because in truth Valves primary focus when it comes to game development is in finding ways to strengthen user engagement with Steam because the more ubiquitous, essential and every day they can make a users engagement with the platform the more opportunity exists that said users will buy something from the storefront.
VR for Valve represents a new opportunity space in that regard. It's an exciting developing market that they've gotten into early on and they're heavily investing in pushing the technology because they want to both advance it (improved presence sells the experience as I'm sure all agree) and grow the user base. This extends far beyond games.
They're surprisingly frank about this in the Keighley interview: -
They looked at the market growth of VR and the reasons why uptick was so low and they concluded that this was in large part because VR presently lacks a clear AAA experience to draw people in, so they decided they needed to build it. They weighed up the pros and cons of their existing IPs and concluded that Half-Life despite having been shelved for over a decade-plus represented the best choice in that regard.
It is at this point though that a clear dichotomy arises because Valves interest in reviving the IP seems to be a combination of ease of use in terms of development at their end (no need to reinvent the IP wheel) and to capitalise on its brand name, whereas the interest for actual fans of the franchise has been for the next chapter in series that went AWOL in 2007 on a massive cliff hanger.
Brian057s post from earlier on is a great summary of the situation from a fan perspective: -
Half-Life fans have been clamouring for a sequel to HL2:EP2 for over a decade now only to be met by radio silence by Valve (who have doggedly refused to discuss EP3 MIA status even with the gaming press). Yet when they do decide to announce a further game, not only does it carry an additional price tag for engagement in terms of a peripheral, but it's not even a sequel to boot.
It's a situation akin to Geoge Lucas forgoing making RotJ as a follow up to ESB, but instead disappearing for ten years and then announcing TPM but requiring you to buy a 3D home theatre to see it. Great for those who have 3D Home Theatres already and are just interested in basking in 3D gloriousness, less so for those who just want to find out what happens next after Luke not only discovers that he's been jacking it to thoughts of his twin sister (awkward) but also ends up having his Dad chop off his wanking hand in the process (double bummer).
I get why Valve is doing what they are doing. From a production standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to build out from an existing IP versus go back to the drawing board, especially when first and foremost your focus is on making a must-play VR experience to capture public attention and move the needle of the VR Market forward and in the process encourage other development studios to take VR seriously as a viable development avenue.
It also makes sense from the perspective of the Half-Life franchise not to make a direct sequel to EP2 VR only at this juncture straight off the bat, because that definitely wouldn't go across well with either the Fans or the Gaming Press in terms of the requisite price tag for entry, for the conclusion of a story, already 2/3rds told. A prequel might seem like a reasonable compromise in that regard, but for those fans who've been patiently waiting for that conclusion, it feels a bit 'really? This is what were doing now?'
Don't get me wrong I'm excited as anyone to experience HLA in action and as I hope that the game leads to more developers/publishers investing in creating compelling richer VR experiences (full-body haptic feedback suits already damn it), but also think it's important to understand that Valves motivations here aren't about giving fans what they want, or even initial unit sales (this announcement will sell far more Rift S than Index units given the price disparity) it's first and foremost about building and cementing their stakehold in the VR space and Steam as a goto for market for VR in the long term, and at this juncture the Half-Life IP represents a convenient stepping stone towards advancing that ambition. Will Valve ever make an EP3 or HL3? No reason to assume not, but I think in large part it's going to depend on how successful they are in achieving their ambitions with regard to moving that needle. IIRC Valve has talked about having two other large VR projects in development and maybe one of them is EP3/HL3 but I'm of the view that these are probably new IPs as that would afford them the opportunity to take VR in different directions that might not fit with the HL frame.
I'm going to attempt to clarify this, and try and keep it as concise as possible in the process.
'Market stakehold' is not simply about money or short term profitability. It is a vested interest in a commercial arena in the long term, and Valve most definitely has that in spades. Firstly in digital sales and secondly and more recently in promoting VR, both of which they want to see go hand in hand.
To date Valves biggest commercial success hasn't been games, it's been Steam. As money-making ventures go it's been infinitely more profitable for them than any number of titles they've shipped past or present. Steams success freed them from the treadmill of delivery and profitability that hangs over most other development studios and operate in an experimental fashion somewhat akin to an entity like the MIT media lab for instance.
There have been positives to this in the added value they've been able to bring to Steam in terms of user-friendly features and the like (something most other digital stores have spectacularly failed to learn from). However, at the same time, there have been negatives, not the least of which has been a seeming lack of direction at times within the firm (a Bi-product of their work approach) with the result being a litany of cancelled projects over the years as well as a tangible apathy and tone-deafness when it comes both to maintaining their existing IPs and communicating effectively with the fans of said franchises. PR especially is not their strong point.
These negatives have arisen because in truth Valves primary focus when it comes to game development is in finding ways to strengthen user engagement with Steam because the more ubiquitous, essential and every day they can make a users engagement with the platform the more opportunity exists that said users will buy something from the storefront.
VR for Valve represents a new opportunity space in that regard. It's an exciting developing market that they've gotten into early on and they're heavily investing in pushing the technology because they want to both advance it (improved presence sells the experience as I'm sure all agree) and grow the user base. This extends far beyond games.
They're surprisingly frank about this in the Keighley interview: -
They looked at the market growth of VR and the reasons why uptick was so low and they concluded that this was in large part because VR presently lacks a clear AAA experience to draw people in, so they decided they needed to build it. They weighed up the pros and cons of their existing IPs and concluded that Half-Life despite having been shelved for over a decade-plus represented the best choice in that regard.
It is at this point though that a clear dichotomy arises because Valves interest in reviving the IP seems to be a combination of ease of use in terms of development at their end (no need to reinvent the IP wheel) and to capitalise on its brand name, whereas the interest for actual fans of the franchise has been for the next chapter in series that went AWOL in 2007 on a massive cliff hanger.
Brian057s post from earlier on is a great summary of the situation from a fan perspective: -
"I wish for a new Half-Life game."
It's a situation akin to Geoge Lucas forgoing making RotJ as a follow up to ESB, but instead disappearing for ten years and then announcing TPM but requiring you to buy a 3D home theatre to see it. Great for those who have 3D Home Theatres already and are just interested in basking in 3D gloriousness, less so for those who just want to find out what happens next after Luke not only discovers that he's been jacking it to thoughts of his twin sister (awkward) but also ends up having his Dad chop off his wanking hand in the process (double bummer).
I get why Valve is doing what they are doing. From a production standpoint, it makes a lot of sense to build out from an existing IP versus go back to the drawing board, especially when first and foremost your focus is on making a must-play VR experience to capture public attention and move the needle of the VR Market forward and in the process encourage other development studios to take VR seriously as a viable development avenue.
It also makes sense from the perspective of the Half-Life franchise not to make a direct sequel to EP2 VR only at this juncture straight off the bat, because that definitely wouldn't go across well with either the Fans or the Gaming Press in terms of the requisite price tag for entry, for the conclusion of a story, already 2/3rds told. A prequel might seem like a reasonable compromise in that regard, but for those fans who've been patiently waiting for that conclusion, it feels a bit 'really? This is what were doing now?'
Don't get me wrong I'm excited as anyone to experience HLA in action and as I hope that the game leads to more developers/publishers investing in creating compelling richer VR experiences (full-body haptic feedback suits already damn it), but also think it's important to understand that Valves motivations here aren't about giving fans what they want, or even initial unit sales (this announcement will sell far more Rift S than Index units given the price disparity) it's first and foremost about building and cementing their stakehold in the VR space and Steam as a goto for market for VR in the long term, and at this juncture the Half-Life IP represents a convenient stepping stone towards advancing that ambition. Will Valve ever make an EP3 or HL3? No reason to assume not, but I think in large part it's going to depend on how successful they are in achieving their ambitions with regard to moving that needle. IIRC Valve has talked about having two other large VR projects in development and maybe one of them is EP3/HL3 but I'm of the view that these are probably new IPs as that would afford them the opportunity to take VR in different directions that might not fit with the HL frame.
gifgaf
Gold Member
- Jul 6, 2016
- 469
- 596
- 515
It's exactly the same, what if I can't afford 300 for a switch or don't want to upgrade my WiiU to play Mario Odyssey? 300 or 1000 makes no difference if you can't afford it or do not want to pay extra to play new games.
I feel for people who are upset and want to play, I have been there too but it happens in all walks of life.
I feel for people who are upset and want to play, I have been there too but it happens in all walks of life.
Last edited:
Stitch
Member
- Nov 26, 2006
- 9,264
- 1,096
- 1,350
We don't know that. While it starts as a prequel it seems that it might be more than that and at least also takes place during the events of the previous episodes.
www.polygon.com
Maybe it even shows us what happens next? I mean right now we have seen like a minute of game footage..
Clues point to Half-Life: Alyx being more than than just a prequel
"Close your eyes, honey!" has people curious
www.polygon.com
Maybe it even shows us what happens next? I mean right now we have seen like a minute of game footage..
Last edited:
eot
Member
- Apr 13, 2012
- 10,171
- 515
- 650
i guess it's about time i play the exisiting Half Life games
seriously though i didn't buy a headset just for Alyx. i just think it's cool and i've always wanted one. i have some money in the bank so why not treat myself. i'll probably pick up Alyx though
seriously though i didn't buy a headset just for Alyx. i just think it's cool and i've always wanted one. i have some money in the bank so why not treat myself. i'll probably pick up Alyx though
edit: go replay it, the boat / car sections are simply a drag
Ep2 is still good
Last edited:
Kadayi
Banned
We don't know that. While it starts as a prequel it seems that it might be more than that and at least also takes place during the events of the previous episodes.
www.polygon.com
Maybe it even shows us what happens next? I mean right now we have seen like a minute of game footage..
Clues point to Half-Life: Alyx being more than than just a prequel
"Close your eyes, honey!" has people curious
www.polygon.com
Maybe it even shows us what happens next? I mean right now we have seen like a minute of game footage..
Last edited:
GlassAwful
Member
- Dec 4, 2016
- 448
- 271
- 330
When they announced the game as taking place before HL2 earlier this week and VNN made mention of it featuring grabbity gloves I pretty much figured it would be based on at least one of the leaked concepts for Episode 3 and the Alyx expansion they hinted at a decade ago.
I mean why would she have grabbity gloves that turn into the much clunkier gravity gun ten+ years later? Seems the gloves are more advanced.
Either they will hand wave the technology difference and its nothing or the game starts out right at the end of Episode 2 before Alyx is wisked away to the past, gravity gun in hand, where it is destroyed in the process and then reverse engineered into the gloves.
I think as others suggest the game will be about preventing the events of HL2 and episodes and the trailer is cut and presented as a misdirection, same with the interviews and such. Or its much simpler and everything is a flashback to show Eli's betrayal to mankind and his and Alyx's relationship to make his death hit harder....
What I originally thought when VNN mentioned the game leaning on nostalgia was she would go back to Black Mesa to stop Gordon's test but maybe that will be the ending of Alyx. I think it will ultimately lead there so they can have a fresh universe to play with for an eventual HL3 with a reboot and provide closure to Episode 2 by basically never going beyond it.
I mean why would she have grabbity gloves that turn into the much clunkier gravity gun ten+ years later? Seems the gloves are more advanced.
Either they will hand wave the technology difference and its nothing or the game starts out right at the end of Episode 2 before Alyx is wisked away to the past, gravity gun in hand, where it is destroyed in the process and then reverse engineered into the gloves.
I think as others suggest the game will be about preventing the events of HL2 and episodes and the trailer is cut and presented as a misdirection, same with the interviews and such. Or its much simpler and everything is a flashback to show Eli's betrayal to mankind and his and Alyx's relationship to make his death hit harder....
What I originally thought when VNN mentioned the game leaning on nostalgia was she would go back to Black Mesa to stop Gordon's test but maybe that will be the ending of Alyx. I think it will ultimately lead there so they can have a fresh universe to play with for an eventual HL3 with a reboot and provide closure to Episode 2 by basically never going beyond it.
CausticVenom
Member
- Apr 27, 2018
- 1,201
- 701
- 360
Zannegan
Member
- Feb 20, 2018
- 901
- 495
- 420
The entry fee is steep today, but I think Valve is trying to play the long game with this one. As the price for VR headsets comes down and PC parts that can run this become the baseline, there will be at least one narrative killer app for people to play that says VR is more that just a party trick platform.
Plus, with a new generation of consoles just around the corner and at least one of them planning to support VR in a significant way, the barrier for entry could be acceptably low for quite a few people sooner than you might think.
Plus, with a new generation of consoles just around the corner and at least one of them planning to support VR in a significant way, the barrier for entry could be acceptably low for quite a few people sooner than you might think.
gifgaf
Gold Member
- Jul 6, 2016
- 469
- 596
- 515
My brother doesn't have a job and can't afford a switch, so to him 300 is as out of reach as a 500 PC and a 300 headset, which is probably around base price for a full VR set up. If you do your research or go second hand you could get it cheaper.
On the other hand Randy Pitchford is bitching about it being an "Index exclusive" yet I'm pretty sure he can afford to buy a headset.
Nintendo gating it's games to Switch is the same, price is factor only if you can't afford it.
On the other hand Randy Pitchford is bitching about it being an "Index exclusive" yet I'm pretty sure he can afford to buy a headset.
Nintendo gating it's games to Switch is the same, price is factor only if you can't afford it.
Last edited:
Mendax89
Member
- May 21, 2019
- 75
- 196
- 325
VR was a failure in gaming, it's a niche. VR limits the game mechanics. You can't play for long. VR is good for interactive movies, not for playing. This is a tech demo to sell the VR software, only dumb fanboys will buy this.
gifgaf
Gold Member
- Jul 6, 2016
- 469
- 596
- 515
Breakfast at Noon
Member
Romulus
Member
- Mar 21, 2019
- 1,631
- 1,671
- 385
Heimdall_Xtreme
Member
- Jan 14, 2018
- 2,560
- 2,481
- 525
Damn!!
Im the only person that i never play Half life?
Im the only person that i never play Half life?
Red Crayon Aristocrat
Member
Yeah, I'm shit out of luck on this, can't afford VR in its current price range.
It really sucks as this looks great, I waited 12 years for Half-Life to come back and it's a game I literally can't play, we're back to 15 years ago when I couldn't play Half-Life 2 despite wanting to so badly.
It really sucks as this looks great, I waited 12 years for Half-Life to come back and it's a game I literally can't play, we're back to 15 years ago when I couldn't play Half-Life 2 despite wanting to so badly.
hariseldon
Gold Member
- Aug 22, 2018
- 3,754
- 6,465
- 655
FWIW my setup is quite simple. I have my man-cave which is just a box-room bedroom where I have my desktop PC and doubles as an office/study for when I need to work from home. Desk has my 3 monitors on it (a throwback to when I sim-raced without VR), one base station on a book-shelf, another perched on a printer and the third on the floor in the corner behind me. I don't bother taking them up or down. The Rift (CV1) headset I simply store in a draw when not in use as the cables can be easily unplugged when required.
Btw I've seen a few people saying room scale on the Rift isn't as good as Vive or Index - I can't speak for those as I've not tried them but I've thrown myself around the room playing Superhot VR dodging bullets, grabbing guns and throwing knives at people and had no issues whatsoever other than the occasional crash into a wall (it tells you when you're getting near a wall but I'm a special kind of idiot). Note that I have the Rift CV1 with the base stations and not the Rift S which I'm told doesn't use them - I sense that might not be so good as I can't imagine the hand tracking works as well without the base stations due to line of sight issues from helmet to hand.
Btw I've seen a few people saying room scale on the Rift isn't as good as Vive or Index - I can't speak for those as I've not tried them but I've thrown myself around the room playing Superhot VR dodging bullets, grabbing guns and throwing knives at people and had no issues whatsoever other than the occasional crash into a wall (it tells you when you're getting near a wall but I'm a special kind of idiot). Note that I have the Rift CV1 with the base stations and not the Rift S which I'm told doesn't use them - I sense that might not be so good as I can't imagine the hand tracking works as well without the base stations due to line of sight issues from helmet to hand.
hariseldon
Gold Member
- Aug 22, 2018
- 3,754
- 6,465
- 655
Jill Valentine
Member
- Sep 14, 2014
- 111
- 109
- 380
Making the game for VR would be similar to making the game for Mac only, except with a fraction of the Mac audience, needing a 4m^2 clear space minimum to even use it, and a pretty decent PC on top of that.
The best part about the game is it has a proper development team behind it with money aiming solely for VR. Closest I can think of was RE7 which was not a VR game.
Beat Saber
Store | Hub
1,187
playing 34 min ago
2,483
24-hour peak
42,095
all-time peak
This is the best they can do right now. Pretty much every other VR game is dead.
The best part about the game is it has a proper development team behind it with money aiming solely for VR. Closest I can think of was RE7 which was not a VR game.
Beat Saber
Store | Hub
1,187
playing 34 min ago
2,483
24-hour peak
42,095
all-time peak
This is the best they can do right now. Pretty much every other VR game is dead.
gifgaf
Gold Member
- Jul 6, 2016
- 469
- 596
- 515
I am not going to argue with you that VR has big numbers, I have never said it has mass market appeal but I will point out the bullshit you are saying like this.
This is complete crap. I have not played a roomscale game in ages where I was walking around, most games I play I sit down and move around like you would normally do in a flat screen game with sliding movement so no, you do not have to have a 4m^2 clear space, I dont have that much space anywhere for my main VR, I also sit on my sofa to play Oculus Quest games as its portable. You really should do your research before you pretend to know what your talking about.
Some poeple have this image that your running around an arena playing VR games, where in reality most games can and are played sat down without moving. Room scale is impressive when done right but devs know that most people want to play games sat down, only a few force roomscale and even then they could be played without moving.
There are a few big titles especially on the Oculus store and PSVR, but I guess you would not know that being someone who likes to throw random "Facts" about VR without knowing if they are true or not.
This is complete crap. I have not played a roomscale game in ages where I was walking around, most games I play I sit down and move around like you would normally do in a flat screen game with sliding movement so no, you do not have to have a 4m^2 clear space, I dont have that much space anywhere for my main VR, I also sit on my sofa to play Oculus Quest games as its portable. You really should do your research before you pretend to know what your talking about.
Some poeple have this image that your running around an arena playing VR games, where in reality most games can and are played sat down without moving. Room scale is impressive when done right but devs know that most people want to play games sat down, only a few force roomscale and even then they could be played without moving.
There are a few big titles especially on the Oculus store and PSVR, but I guess you would not know that being someone who likes to throw random "Facts" about VR without knowing if they are true or not.
Last edited:
CausticVenom
Member
- Apr 27, 2018
- 1,201
- 701
- 360
Wonko_C
Member
blly155
Member
- Aug 3, 2014
- 10,365
- 2,129
- 580
i see the "i hope they let us play it without VR" people are out in force.
i get it. they are gonna be locking out a lot of people because of the VR requirement. but the simple facts are:
A) the game is not designed to be played without VR.
B) valve wants to sell headsets. in particular their own Index.
C) someone needs to push VR if it is to succeed.
They are not gonna rework the entire game. they want to sell Index headsets. they want VR to become more popular/accessible.
So basically they are saying:
"You want to play it? Buy a headset. Otherwise keep crying"
i get it. they are gonna be locking out a lot of people because of the VR requirement. but the simple facts are:
A) the game is not designed to be played without VR.
B) valve wants to sell headsets. in particular their own Index.
C) someone needs to push VR if it is to succeed.
They are not gonna rework the entire game. they want to sell Index headsets. they want VR to become more popular/accessible.
So basically they are saying:
"You want to play it? Buy a headset. Otherwise keep crying"
Last edited:
eot
Member
- Apr 13, 2012
- 10,171
- 515
- 650
I think that's a misrepresentation, some of the Campo Santo people are working on it, but I bet when you see credits they'll be a small part of that list.
Jill Valentine
Member
- Sep 14, 2014
- 111
- 109
- 380
rofif
Member
- Sep 13, 2019
- 595
- 716
- 430
<-- taking a sip of water while reading on my phone
But to say the truth, while in vr You focus on picking up objects and moving them around, In a traditional game YOu just have a gun and use it and don't think about how You do this.
With limited movement around space in Your room (walking with sticks in vr makes me sick and teleportation sucks ass) and limitation of body physique as that You really have to move, aim and do everything as in real life, I find it IMPOSSIBLE right now to replay scenarios from Uncharted games, sekiro or even quake 3 deathmatch.
You can manipulate 3d objects incredibly well but in 2d games You just have a gun sticked in the corner and move outside of Your physical abilities
Hudo
Member
- Jul 26, 2018
- 2,476
- 2,563
- 400
That's PCGamer's sole raison d’être, judging by the last couple of years. Producing articles based on bad takes.
Also, trying to correctly infer arm and joint positions based on hand position is not a trivial problem to solve. At its simplest, it's a SAT solving problem, which is already non-trivial for real-time applications (NP-complete and all that. Though, I believe some strides have been made for certain cases). We've got a prototype running but it has lots of constraints to actually be feasible for real-time VR (for our setup). But there are even more factors to consider (what and how you pick something up/hold something also affects joint and arm positions, etc.). We've got some researchers actually still investigating this whole topic. I also believe that either Mel Slater or Jeremy Bailenson argued against depicting arms or that the correct(!) depiction of arms isn't significantly affecting immersion and presence in VR, but are extremely impactful, in a negative way, when depicted incorrectly.
Also, trying to correctly infer arm and joint positions based on hand position is not a trivial problem to solve. At its simplest, it's a SAT solving problem, which is already non-trivial for real-time applications (NP-complete and all that. Though, I believe some strides have been made for certain cases). We've got a prototype running but it has lots of constraints to actually be feasible for real-time VR (for our setup). But there are even more factors to consider (what and how you pick something up/hold something also affects joint and arm positions, etc.). We've got some researchers actually still investigating this whole topic. I also believe that either Mel Slater or Jeremy Bailenson argued against depicting arms or that the correct(!) depiction of arms isn't significantly affecting immersion and presence in VR, but are extremely impactful, in a negative way, when depicted incorrectly.
Shai-Tan
Member
- Mar 16, 2009
- 5,752
- 415
- 870
"micromanagement" could be good if it contributes to more "verbs". having to rummage and pick up bullets - "resource management" - can be good in the right type of game. I think that level of interactivity also has the potential to get us away from overuse of the "batman vision" so many games use but the substitute has to be interesting in its own right. it really depends on what kind of game it is - like finger tracking seems questionable for this aside from immersion pushing buttons or whatever
Ok... at the day of reveal I said, I won’t buy a PC and VR Gear to play this game..
Now, some days later I feel like 2004. I was Console only but I built a PC only for HL2.
To the PC gamers here, how much I must invest for a PC including VR to enjoy Half Life Alyx the most?
Thanks
Now, some days later I feel like 2004. I was Console only but I built a PC only for HL2.
To the PC gamers here, how much I must invest for a PC including VR to enjoy Half Life Alyx the most?
Thanks
gifgaf
Gold Member
- Jul 6, 2016
- 469
- 596
- 515
If you feel you have to get this game why not wait? No one knows how well this game will be recieved, it could be trash. The game is not released for a while and who knows if prices will drop by then. Don't feel pressured into getting a VR headset for one game if you were not sold on it before imo.
Do you know anyone with a PCVR headset or even a PSVR headset to see if its worth the price of admission to you personally?
Do you know anyone with a PCVR headset or even a PSVR headset to see if its worth the price of admission to you personally?
Last edited:
Kadayi
Banned
I think their main focus as I said earlier in the thread is about pushing the needle in terms of an audience growth with VR to make it a more attractive option for other developers/publishers, and allow Valve to Grow the Steam VR catalogue. Given the disparity between the Index and the Rift S I expect Oculus will benefit more from HLA than Valve in Unit sales, as the price of the Index is on par with a new GPU and then that becomes a weighing option between buying a peripheral that benefits a few games versus an upgrade that benefits all games. Obviously people in the 'why not both.gif' camp don't have to worry about these things, but they're the exception rather than the rule.
I wouldn't be surprised if Valve is looking to make a more affordable VR solution on a par with either the Rift S or Index down the road, and from the setup perspective, I expect them to drop the base stations and adopt Oculus camera system approach.
I wouldn't be surprised if Valve is looking to make a more affordable VR solution on a par with either the Rift S or Index down the road, and from the setup perspective, I expect them to drop the base stations and adopt Oculus camera system approach.
gifgaf
Gold Member
- Jul 6, 2016
- 469
- 596
- 515
I agree this is a good compromise going forward for VR imo.
Originally I used the Lighthouse system then moved onto Oculus Rift camera system which I thought was just as good if setup properly with 3 camera's. I was not convinced that the camera system on Windows Mixed Reality headsets was the way forward being an admittedly tracking snob. After getting a Rift S and Oculus quest I love not being tied to Camera's or Lighthouse's which I think is a downside to VR. Oculus Quest is a step towards how I would like to play VR.
Not being forced to play one static area is nice. My PC is in my living room and I have an area set aside for VR where my Oculus camera's are still setup but with the Rift S I can move out of that area and sit on my Sofa to play.
Tracking is not 360 like the Lighthouse but after playing for a few months I feel its pretty impressive and good enough. I have not missed the 360 tracking I used before and appreciate the freedom much more.
Originally I used the Lighthouse system then moved onto Oculus Rift camera system which I thought was just as good if setup properly with 3 camera's. I was not convinced that the camera system on Windows Mixed Reality headsets was the way forward being an admittedly tracking snob. After getting a Rift S and Oculus quest I love not being tied to Camera's or Lighthouse's which I think is a downside to VR. Oculus Quest is a step towards how I would like to play VR.
Not being forced to play one static area is nice. My PC is in my living room and I have an area set aside for VR where my Oculus camera's are still setup but with the Rift S I can move out of that area and sit on my Sofa to play.
Tracking is not 360 like the Lighthouse but after playing for a few months I feel its pretty impressive and good enough. I have not missed the 360 tracking I used before and appreciate the freedom much more.
Last edited:
Kadayi
Banned
The optics on affordability is definitely an issue for VR in terms of adoption. I feel like a lot of people are looking at HLA automatically thinking gotta buy an Index seeing that price tag and just 'nopeing' out straight away versus considering the alternative solutions as evinced by a lot of the commentary in these threads. I dare say that the base stations are great if you've got the room in terms of the tracking, but honestly, I think for most people space is a luxury, and extra peripherals just mean extra cables/power supplies.
Wonko_C
Member
i see the "i hope they let us play it without VR" people are out in force.
i get it. they are gonna be locking out a lot of people because of the VR requirement. but the simple facts are:
A) the game is not designed to be played without VR.
B) valve wants to sell headsets. in particular their own Index.
C) someone needs to push VR if it is to succeed.
They are not gonna rework the entire game. they want to sell Index headsets. they want VR to become more popular/accessible.
So basically they are saying:
"You want to play it? Buy a headset. Otherwise keep crying"
i get it. they are gonna be locking out a lot of people because of the VR requirement. but the simple facts are:
A) the game is not designed to be played without VR.
B) valve wants to sell headsets. in particular their own Index.
C) someone needs to push VR if it is to succeed.
They are not gonna rework the entire game. they want to sell Index headsets. they want VR to become more popular/accessible.
So basically they are saying:
"You want to play it? Buy a headset. Otherwise keep crying"
Grinchy
Member
Seeing people have an issue with "floating hands" is so strange to me. A person who looks at a video and says "floating hands" is guaranteed to have never tried VR, right?
It's like when people jump in every VR thread for months to let everyone know how much it sucks and then they get stuck in a spot where they have to describe VR and say it's just like looking at a movie theater screen that's playing a game. Suddenly you realize they've spent months shit-talking this thing they've never even tried.
It's like when people jump in every VR thread for months to let everyone know how much it sucks and then they get stuck in a spot where they have to describe VR and say it's just like looking at a movie theater screen that's playing a game. Suddenly you realize they've spent months shit-talking this thing they've never even tried.
Last edited:
pr0cs
Member
It's one of the things that's so hard to convey vr experiences with. It usually looks terrible when watched on a regular 2d screen, either a jittery mess or clunky (floaty hands).
Without the way to convey presence vr will always be difficult to sell to people who haven't tried it
Without the way to convey presence vr will always be difficult to sell to people who haven't tried it
rofif
Member
- Sep 13, 2019
- 595
- 716
- 430
You can do many gestures on oculus too. Thumbs up, pointing finger, both, grip, fist, open hand. Its very intuitive too and the stick is good on that controller.
Question to others who used new headsets:
Btw any idea what is the eyes focal distance on Quest compared to S ?
On S I did not needed my glasses like I did on cv1 or dk units. On S it seemed to be about 1 meter so my -2 eyesight was still ok. Is quest the same?
Remember that older headsets focused eyes on infinity so things were just as sharp to me as in real life things far away without glasses
Question to others who used new headsets:
Btw any idea what is the eyes focal distance on Quest compared to S ?
On S I did not needed my glasses like I did on cv1 or dk units. On S it seemed to be about 1 meter so my -2 eyesight was still ok. Is quest the same?
Remember that older headsets focused eyes on infinity so things were just as sharp to me as in real life things far away without glasses
Last edited:
Cleared_Hot
Member
- Feb 25, 2018
- 470
- 327
- 290
Merlot
Neo Member
- Nov 16, 2019
- 5
- 5
- 110
“Did you get a new Half-Life?”
“Yes.”
“What did it cost?”
“Team Fortress 2.”
This comment under a certain video greatly summarizes my feelings towards this announcement.
Although i am happy to hear Valve is releasing an actual game this time after so many years, i also know how it is a last nail to the coffin for TF2.
There are no people assigned to TF2 right now, except maybe one person just doing as a "keep an eye on" person.
It is confirmed Valve announced "All Hands on Deck" with Alyx, this includes TF2 devs as few of them also had previous HL development experience.
“Yes.”
“What did it cost?”
“Team Fortress 2.”
This comment under a certain video greatly summarizes my feelings towards this announcement.
Although i am happy to hear Valve is releasing an actual game this time after so many years, i also know how it is a last nail to the coffin for TF2.
There are no people assigned to TF2 right now, except maybe one person just doing as a "keep an eye on" person.
It is confirmed Valve announced "All Hands on Deck" with Alyx, this includes TF2 devs as few of them also had previous HL development experience.