Proof that VR is going to benefit all 3D gaming?
  1 / 2    
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YCBadIVro8&list=PLckFgM6dUP2hc4iy-IdKFtqR9TeZWMPjm So Valve has released all the videos to their Steam Developer Days. And the Palmer Lucky video is very interesting (17:30 minute mark) because he specifically talks about stereoscopic 3D. Says it has to be perfect (lighting, shadows, reflection, etc). P.S. The reason he's talking so fast is because he started running short on time, and rather that cut details, he just turned the speed up to 12. LOL Anyways, a lot of people seemed skeptical it would matter. But it does appear that stereoscopic issues are universal. And if you're going to design a game for VR, you can't have broken 3D. Period.
;list=PLckFgM6dUP2hc4iy-IdKFtqR9TeZWMPjm

So Valve has released all the videos to their Steam Developer Days. And the Palmer Lucky video is very interesting (17:30 minute mark) because he specifically talks about stereoscopic 3D. Says it has to be perfect (lighting, shadows, reflection, etc).

P.S. The reason he's talking so fast is because he started running short on time, and rather that cut details, he just turned the speed up to 12. LOL

Anyways, a lot of people seemed skeptical it would matter. But it does appear that stereoscopic issues are universal. And if you're going to design a game for VR, you can't have broken 3D. Period.

#1
Posted 02/11/2014 10:58 PM   
Its a bigger issue where stuff is broken because stuff is right in your face and you can't look away/focus on something outside of game to get your "bearings". Its much worse, I've tried tridef on it and compared. Then when you factor in motion/tilting its worse and more apparent. Not to mention there is "more" that could go wrong. I mentioned a few times that I have a real lack of faith of any renderer[tridef/3d vision] solution that isn't depth buffer on Rift for this reason. Though I suppose someone could treat rift as a 3d display by cutting fov at cost of screen size / disable headtracking but then your left with a lesser 3d display. --------------------- TBH, its big words unless something is done to enforce it. Lots of games have terrible implementation even now [that aren't Unity/Source engine]. Then you run into the situations where developers realize it work at low convergence, so they compensate by not fixing visual issues and set a restricted convergence value. Or even disable features. There is still no game with implementation that is "graphical" yet and this may be a factor they consider before considering.
Its a bigger issue where stuff is broken because stuff is right in your face and you can't look away/focus on something outside of game to get your "bearings". Its much worse, I've tried tridef on it and compared. Then when you factor in motion/tilting its worse and more apparent. Not to mention there is "more" that could go wrong.

I mentioned a few times that I have a real lack of faith of any renderer[tridef/3d vision] solution that isn't depth buffer on Rift for this reason. Though I suppose someone could treat rift as a 3d display by cutting fov at cost of screen size / disable headtracking but then your left with a lesser 3d display.
---------------------
TBH, its big words unless something is done to enforce it. Lots of games have terrible implementation even now [that aren't Unity/Source engine]. Then you run into the situations where developers realize it work at low convergence, so they compensate by not fixing visual issues and set a restricted convergence value. Or even disable features. There is still no game with implementation that is "graphical" yet and this may be a factor they consider before considering.

Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com

If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com

#2
Posted 02/11/2014 11:22 PM   
Well I should start out by saying I don't really have any faith in the AAAA publishers. But I would think it would be helpful for everything else. Because it's one thing if you've got broken things in something as niche as stereo 3D is right now. We yell and complain, but really, who cares? If VR takes off, even in the early days, it's market will be much bigger than 3D Vision ever was. The backlash for a broken and unplayable mess would be high. And the market would not be very kind to them. That's probably why I'm overly optimistic though. I always kind of forget that I've already written off this large section of the industry (that frankly, rarely appeals to me anymore anyways). So when I see things like this, my immediate reaction is excitement. Because I'm thinking about developers that I actually care about, and for them, those VR sales are something that actually matter to their bottom line and are worth chasing.
Well I should start out by saying I don't really have any faith in the AAAA publishers. But I would think it would be helpful for everything else. Because it's one thing if you've got broken things in something as niche as stereo 3D is right now. We yell and complain, but really, who cares? If VR takes off, even in the early days, it's market will be much bigger than 3D Vision ever was. The backlash for a broken and unplayable mess would be high. And the market would not be very kind to them.

That's probably why I'm overly optimistic though. I always kind of forget that I've already written off this large section of the industry (that frankly, rarely appeals to me anymore anyways). So when I see things like this, my immediate reaction is excitement. Because I'm thinking about developers that I actually care about, and for them, those VR sales are something that actually matter to their bottom line and are worth chasing.

#3
Posted 02/11/2014 11:41 PM   
But then the problem which will probably develop at least for a very long time with indie developers. Is that its going to be stagnant for a pretty long time. Like if I want to develop a game on Rift and I am indie. I am going to use Unity which is why like 9/10 tech demo's/games are on it right now. Outside of indies, I also see the same thing where at least for a few years off even if its popular at release there will not be any major AAA titles. Which is bad for me since I am the opposite where I might find 1/2 indie titles that are good a year. TBH, Im not a huge graphical snob but I find any first person unity game ugly.
But then the problem which will probably develop at least for a very long time with indie developers. Is that its going to be stagnant for a pretty long time. Like if I want to develop a game on Rift and I am indie. I am going to use Unity which is why like 9/10 tech demo's/games are on it right now.

Outside of indies, I also see the same thing where at least for a few years off even if its popular at release there will not be any major AAA titles. Which is bad for me since I am the opposite where I might find 1/2 indie titles that are good a year. TBH, Im not a huge graphical snob but I find any first person unity game ugly.

Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com

If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com

#4
Posted 02/11/2014 11:50 PM   
I would love to see HL3 be the first big VR game.
I would love to see HL3 be the first big VR game.

Acer H5360 / BenQ XL2420T + 3D Vision 2 Kit - EVGA GTX 980TI 6GB - i7-3930K@4.0GHz - DX79SI- 16GB RAM@2133 - Win10x64 Home - HTC VIVE

#5
Posted 02/12/2014 04:28 AM   
[quote="eqzitara"]But then the problem which will probably develop at least for a very long time with indie developers. Is that its going to be stagnant for a pretty long time. Like if I want to develop a game on Rift and I am indie. I am going to use Unity which is why like 9/10 tech demo's/games are on it right now. Outside of indies, I also see the same thing where at least for a few years off even if its popular at release there will not be any major AAA titles. Which is bad for me since I am the opposite where I might find 1/2 indie titles that are good a year. TBH, Im not a huge graphical snob but I find any first person unity game ugly.[/quote] DICE (EA) has announced a year ago that Frosbite 3 may have support for OR, the same for UNREAL 4 engine (one of the most used engine in the next years). It's not about Unity engine only. The fact that Unity is the most used engine for now is only because it's the cheaper one (so affordable for indie/ amator and underground scene). Many AAA publishers are technically ready for VR development. They are just waiting for the right time to make the right move.
eqzitara said:But then the problem which will probably develop at least for a very long time with indie developers. Is that its going to be stagnant for a pretty long time. Like if I want to develop a game on Rift and I am indie. I am going to use Unity which is why like 9/10 tech demo's/games are on it right now.

Outside of indies, I also see the same thing where at least for a few years off even if its popular at release there will not be any major AAA titles. Which is bad for me since I am the opposite where I might find 1/2 indie titles that are good a year. TBH, Im not a huge graphical snob but I find any first person unity game ugly.


DICE (EA) has announced a year ago that Frosbite 3 may have support for OR, the same for UNREAL 4 engine (one of the most used engine in the next years). It's not about Unity engine only. The fact that Unity is the most used engine for now is only because it's the cheaper one (so affordable for indie/ amator and underground scene).

Many AAA publishers are technically ready for VR development. They are just waiting for the right time to make the right move.

#6
Posted 02/12/2014 12:56 PM   
The video was interesting and also puts a realistic perspective on VR. Porting existing games has uncovered a lot of realities, drawbacks and all the implications of VR gaming. After all, the world is still not ready for it!. Growing pains will exist and I agree with the fact game development will take years before we see any thing that is noteworthy or substantial. OR has to stay the course otherwise it will be another failed attempt at VR. It is common sense to me that the OR will benefit the most when games are built from the ground up and designed specifically for it and of course the limitations. Interestingly, based on what Palmer talked about, will the OR be better for electronic human interaction than games? He hit the head on the pin when he talked about Facebook and the fragmentation of this type of social media.....humans need the full experience for social fulfillment.... that lost thought leads to me think that VR is all about the experience. When we consider current games, the experience is completely different and the limitations in current technology are far more acceptable. Games that lack any eye candy can make up for it in let's say tactical strategy or gameplay mechanics. VR according to me is all about the experience in the context of all your sensations. Chess is a good example of my point since the games fundamental purpose is strategy and the reward or experience is use of your mind and outsmarting your opponent. Sure, you can "enhance" the experience with nicely carved pieces or stylish computer version, but the fundamental experience of strategy does not change. In VR, the fundamental experience has to encompass everything about as if you are there and since there are problems of physical movement, It's kind of an all or nothing thing. There seems to be less compromises available to developers in game design for the VR than it is with our current gen games. Our current gen games can always fall back on some other game aspect, mechanic or element that is part of the whole.
The video was interesting and also puts a realistic perspective on VR. Porting existing games has uncovered a lot of realities, drawbacks and all the implications of VR gaming. After all, the world is still not ready for it!. Growing pains will exist and I agree with the fact game development will take years before we see any thing that is noteworthy or substantial. OR has to stay the course otherwise it will be another failed attempt at VR. It is common sense to me that the OR will benefit the most when games are built from the ground up and designed specifically for it and of course the limitations. Interestingly, based on what Palmer talked about, will the OR be better for electronic human interaction than games? He hit the head on the pin when he talked about Facebook and the fragmentation of this type of social media.....humans need the full experience for social fulfillment....

that lost thought leads to me think that VR is all about the experience. When we consider current games, the experience is completely different and the limitations in current technology are far more acceptable. Games that lack any eye candy can make up for it in let's say tactical strategy or gameplay mechanics. VR according to me is all about the experience in the context of all your sensations. Chess is a good example of my point since the games fundamental purpose is strategy and the reward or experience is use of your mind and outsmarting your opponent. Sure, you can "enhance" the experience with nicely carved pieces or stylish computer version, but the fundamental experience of strategy does not change. In VR, the fundamental experience has to encompass everything about as if you are there and since there are problems of physical movement, It's kind of an all or nothing thing. There seems to be less compromises available to developers in game design for the VR than it is with our current gen games. Our current gen games can always fall back on some other game aspect, mechanic or element that is part of the whole.

#7
Posted 02/12/2014 06:00 PM   
[quote="Laast"][quote="eqzitara"]But then the problem which will probably develop at least for a very long time with indie developers. Is that its going to be stagnant for a pretty long time. Like if I want to develop a game on Rift and I am indie. I am going to use Unity which is why like 9/10 tech demo's/games are on it right now. Outside of indies, I also see the same thing where at least for a few years off even if its popular at release there will not be any major AAA titles. Which is bad for me since I am the opposite where I might find 1/2 indie titles that are good a year. TBH, Im not a huge graphical snob but I find any first person unity game ugly.[/quote] DICE (EA) has announced a year ago that Frosbite 3 may have support for OR, the same for UNREAL 4 engine (one of the most used engine in the next years). It's not about Unity engine only. The fact that Unity is the most used engine for now is only because it's the cheaper one (so affordable for indie/ amator and underground scene). Many AAA publishers are technically ready for VR development. They are just waiting for the right time to make the right move.[/quote] I was referring to the fact that outside of Unity that there won't be many games being developed solely for the rift at least for a very long time. UE3/4 charges an exorbitant rate to use and unless a game is being built on it and is "very compatible game" such as Daylight. Very little people will be interested/afford licensing engine solely for a Rift game. TBH, the only people who adopt Unreal Engine are looking for multi-platform releases since it eases that process. TBH, you have alot of wishful thinking when it comes to AAA developers. Frostbite 3 said they also might have implementation for BF4 then they said someone needs to fly in and do it on there own dime. I don't think you realize how expensive Rift implementation will be just in development costs if not using a engine that has pre-integration especially as a game gets more graphical/feature heavy. Then liscensing one of the "graphical engines" defeats the purpose of cutting costs. Not to mention how little developers are prepared to take risks in this market where developers close/layoff employees on a regular basis.
Laast said:
eqzitara said:But then the problem which will probably develop at least for a very long time with indie developers. Is that its going to be stagnant for a pretty long time. Like if I want to develop a game on Rift and I am indie. I am going to use Unity which is why like 9/10 tech demo's/games are on it right now.

Outside of indies, I also see the same thing where at least for a few years off even if its popular at release there will not be any major AAA titles. Which is bad for me since I am the opposite where I might find 1/2 indie titles that are good a year. TBH, Im not a huge graphical snob but I find any first person unity game ugly.


DICE (EA) has announced a year ago that Frosbite 3 may have support for OR, the same for UNREAL 4 engine (one of the most used engine in the next years). It's not about Unity engine only. The fact that Unity is the most used engine for now is only because it's the cheaper one (so affordable for indie/ amator and underground scene).

Many AAA publishers are technically ready for VR development. They are just waiting for the right time to make the right move.


I was referring to the fact that outside of Unity that there won't be many games being developed solely for the rift at least for a very long time.
UE3/4 charges an exorbitant rate to use and unless a game is being built on it and is "very compatible game" such as Daylight. Very little people will be interested/afford licensing engine solely for a Rift game. TBH, the only people who adopt Unreal Engine are looking for multi-platform releases since it eases that process.

TBH, you have alot of wishful thinking when it comes to AAA developers.
Frostbite 3 said they also might have implementation for BF4 then they said someone needs to fly in and do it on there own dime.
I don't think you realize how expensive Rift implementation will be just in development costs if not using a engine that has pre-integration especially as a game gets more graphical/feature heavy. Then liscensing one of the "graphical engines" defeats the purpose of cutting costs. Not to mention how little developers are prepared to take risks in this market where developers close/layoff employees on a regular basis.

Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com

If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com

#8
Posted 02/12/2014 07:32 PM   
[quote="Stryker_66"]The video was interesting and also puts a realistic perspective on VR. Porting existing games has uncovered a lot of realities, drawbacks and all the implications of VR gaming. After all, the world is still not ready for it!. Growing pains will exist and I agree with the fact game development will take years before we see any thing that is noteworthy or substantial. OR has to stay the course otherwise it will be another failed attempt at VR. It is common sense to me that the OR will benefit the most when games are built from the ground up and designed specifically for it and of course the limitations. Interestingly, based on what Palmer talked about, will the OR be better for electronic human interaction than games? He hit the head on the pin when he talked about Facebook and the fragmentation of this type of social media.....humans need the full experience for social fulfillment.... that lost thought leads to me think that VR is all about the experience. When we consider current games, the experience is completely different and the limitations in current technology are far more acceptable. Games that lack any eye candy can make up for it in let's say tactical strategy or gameplay mechanics. VR according to me is all about the experience in the context of all your sensations. Chess is a good example of my point since the games fundamental purpose is strategy and the reward or experience is use of your mind and outsmarting your opponent. Sure, you can "enhance" the experience with nicely carved pieces or stylish computer version, but the fundamental experience of strategy does not change. In VR, the fundamental experience has to encompass everything about as if you are there and since there are problems of physical movement, It's kind of an all or nothing thing. There seems to be less compromises available to developers in game design for the VR than it is with our current gen games. Our current gen games can always fall back on some other game aspect, mechanic or element that is part of the whole.[/quote] It's kind of telling of why I'm so excited for VR. The one situation where you can port is games that use a cockpit. My favorite genre is sim racing. Almost all of the players in the PC space jumped on VR support early. I'm also greatly anticipating the revival of the Space sim genre (Elite, Star Citizen, Eve Valkyrie). These all have pledged Rift support. I'm also interested in getting into flight sims. And most of the players there have jumped on board. So if you're into games with cockpits, it's already looking amazing. If you're only into FPS games, though, it definitely looks problematic. You'd have to radically alter the core of the game. Which is why I have zero expectations of seeing anything worthwhile from EA, Activision, etc. They're not going to be driving innovation in this space.
Stryker_66 said:The video was interesting and also puts a realistic perspective on VR. Porting existing games has uncovered a lot of realities, drawbacks and all the implications of VR gaming. After all, the world is still not ready for it!. Growing pains will exist and I agree with the fact game development will take years before we see any thing that is noteworthy or substantial. OR has to stay the course otherwise it will be another failed attempt at VR. It is common sense to me that the OR will benefit the most when games are built from the ground up and designed specifically for it and of course the limitations. Interestingly, based on what Palmer talked about, will the OR be better for electronic human interaction than games? He hit the head on the pin when he talked about Facebook and the fragmentation of this type of social media.....humans need the full experience for social fulfillment....

that lost thought leads to me think that VR is all about the experience. When we consider current games, the experience is completely different and the limitations in current technology are far more acceptable. Games that lack any eye candy can make up for it in let's say tactical strategy or gameplay mechanics. VR according to me is all about the experience in the context of all your sensations. Chess is a good example of my point since the games fundamental purpose is strategy and the reward or experience is use of your mind and outsmarting your opponent. Sure, you can "enhance" the experience with nicely carved pieces or stylish computer version, but the fundamental experience of strategy does not change. In VR, the fundamental experience has to encompass everything about as if you are there and since there are problems of physical movement, It's kind of an all or nothing thing. There seems to be less compromises available to developers in game design for the VR than it is with our current gen games. Our current gen games can always fall back on some other game aspect, mechanic or element that is part of the whole.


It's kind of telling of why I'm so excited for VR. The one situation where you can port is games that use a cockpit. My favorite genre is sim racing. Almost all of the players in the PC space jumped on VR support early. I'm also greatly anticipating the revival of the Space sim genre (Elite, Star Citizen, Eve Valkyrie). These all have pledged Rift support. I'm also interested in getting into flight sims. And most of the players there have jumped on board. So if you're into games with cockpits, it's already looking amazing.

If you're only into FPS games, though, it definitely looks problematic. You'd have to radically alter the core of the game. Which is why I have zero expectations of seeing anything worthwhile from EA, Activision, etc. They're not going to be driving innovation in this space.

#9
Posted 02/13/2014 04:21 PM   
[quote="tehace"]I would love to see HL3 be the first big VR game. [/quote]Actually, that sounds like quite a realistic prospect. After all these years of build-up, Valve know they have to absolutely blow the pants off everyone with HL3 - an almost impossible task. Making it work well for VR could be just the ticket for them. Plus, Valve like to use their games to bring attention to their other products. They used Orange Box to get people to buy Steam, and Portal 2 to highlight Steam Workshop. They will almost certainly find something to attach to HL3, since HL3 will be their highest-profile product of all time. Maybe VR will be that something (or maybe they'll build their VR solution as a SteamOS exclusive?)
tehace said:I would love to see HL3 be the first big VR game.
Actually, that sounds like quite a realistic prospect. After all these years of build-up, Valve know they have to absolutely blow the pants off everyone with HL3 - an almost impossible task. Making it work well for VR could be just the ticket for them.

Plus, Valve like to use their games to bring attention to their other products. They used Orange Box to get people to buy Steam, and Portal 2 to highlight Steam Workshop. They will almost certainly find something to attach to HL3, since HL3 will be their highest-profile product of all time. Maybe VR will be that something (or maybe they'll build their VR solution as a SteamOS exclusive?)

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#10
Posted 02/14/2014 01:00 AM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"][quote="tehace"]I would love to see HL3 be the first big VR game. [/quote]Actually, that sounds like quite a realistic prospect. After all these years of build-up, Valve know they have to absolutely blow the pants off everyone with HL3 - an almost impossible task. Making it work well for VR could be just the ticket for them. Plus, Valve like to use their games to bring attention to their other products. They used Orange Box to get people to buy Steam, and Portal 2 to highlight Steam Workshop. They will almost certainly find something to attach to HL3, since HL3 will be their highest-profile product of all time. Maybe VR will be that something (or maybe they'll build their VR solution as a SteamOS exclusive?)[/quote] This makes sense to me from a business perspective, but I am thinking about them leveraging HL3 and their version of the console, steam boxes and what they term as big picture for the living room. VR could still tie into this. Personally, I cannot see myself buying a Steam Box because I primarily detest the console and if I wanted one, I would look at either the PS4 or Xbox One due to their years of experience in that space. I find Valve's decision for the Steam Box offerings somewhat perplexing since it is essentially a PC. I agree with you that if Valve ties in VR with HL3 for that breakthrough experience, it could be another winner for them. But with the current console market in motion, it appears that Valve is trying to get a piece of that. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Volnaiskra said:
tehace said:I would love to see HL3 be the first big VR game.
Actually, that sounds like quite a realistic prospect. After all these years of build-up, Valve know they have to absolutely blow the pants off everyone with HL3 - an almost impossible task. Making it work well for VR could be just the ticket for them. Plus, Valve like to use their games to bring attention to their other products. They used Orange Box to get people to buy Steam, and Portal 2 to highlight Steam Workshop. They will almost certainly find something to attach to HL3, since HL3 will be their highest-profile product of all time. Maybe VR will be that something (or maybe they'll build their VR solution as a SteamOS exclusive?)


This makes sense to me from a business perspective, but I am thinking about them leveraging HL3 and their version of the console, steam boxes and what they term as big picture for the living room. VR could still tie into this. Personally, I cannot see myself buying a Steam Box because I primarily detest the console and if I wanted one, I would look at either the PS4 or Xbox One due to their years of experience in that space. I find Valve's decision for the Steam Box offerings somewhat perplexing since it is essentially a PC. I agree with you that if Valve ties in VR with HL3 for that breakthrough experience, it could be another winner for them. But with the current console market in motion, it appears that Valve is trying to get a piece of that. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

#11
Posted 02/14/2014 03:16 AM   
I personally think the Steam Machines are a dumb idea that will almost definitely fail (or a good idea done in a dumb way). I can see why they're doing it (if Windows dies, Steam dies...and Windows is slowly dying), but with the way they're doing it, I'd bet money it'll flop (which is saying something, because Valve rarely makes bad moves). PC gamers like you or I aren't interested in a dumbed down secondary PC. While those few who want a PC in their living room already have one. For console gamers, it's an even worse prospect. They're used to having a single, elegant box that lasts for 7 years, with every game working perfectly out of the box. Meanwhile, Valve is offering them a confusing array of choices, at relatively high prices, which they'll need to upgrade regularly, and which even then isn't guaranteed to run all games well. And it's going to ship with a complicated controller and an obscure OS that is incompatible with 95% of games. Seriously, for someone who enjoys the streamlined console experience, receiving a Steam Machine would be like a downright punishment. The oddest thing is that Valve clearly stated long ago that their primary competitor in the living room will be Apple. Yet when Apple will [eventually] release the iTV, they'll take the diametrically opposite approach: They will create a single sexy device, manufactured and designed to their own high standards. It will have a tightly locked down ecosystem, will be annoyingly limited for hardcore users but blissfully simple for mainstream users. It will 'just work', and will have a very one-dimensional, straightforward, predictable upgrade path. It will attract all the biggest devs to develop games that work perfectly on the iTV, which will afford users full confidence that everything will work out of the box. If/when Apple does that, lots of people will lap it up, starting with those who are normally wary of PCs (the market Valve is trying to target), and Valve's mish-mash of ageing, mid-powered third-party pseudo-PCs will be left in the dust. Maybe Valve knows they've got an uphill battle, and VR will be used as leverage. They can't and won't make HL3 a SteamOS exclusive, because the outrage would destroy their reputation. But something like VR, maybe.
I personally think the Steam Machines are a dumb idea that will almost definitely fail (or a good idea done in a dumb way). I can see why they're doing it (if Windows dies, Steam dies...and Windows is slowly dying), but with the way they're doing it, I'd bet money it'll flop (which is saying something, because Valve rarely makes bad moves).

PC gamers like you or I aren't interested in a dumbed down secondary PC. While those few who want a PC in their living room already have one.

For console gamers, it's an even worse prospect. They're used to having a single, elegant box that lasts for 7 years, with every game working perfectly out of the box. Meanwhile, Valve is offering them a confusing array of choices, at relatively high prices, which they'll need to upgrade regularly, and which even then isn't guaranteed to run all games well. And it's going to ship with a complicated controller and an obscure OS that is incompatible with 95% of games.

Seriously, for someone who enjoys the streamlined console experience, receiving a Steam Machine would be like a downright punishment.

The oddest thing is that Valve clearly stated long ago that their primary competitor in the living room will be Apple. Yet when Apple will [eventually] release the iTV, they'll take the diametrically opposite approach: They will create a single sexy device, manufactured and designed to their own high standards. It will have a tightly locked down ecosystem, will be annoyingly limited for hardcore users but blissfully simple for mainstream users. It will 'just work', and will have a very one-dimensional, straightforward, predictable upgrade path. It will attract all the biggest devs to develop games that work perfectly on the iTV, which will afford users full confidence that everything will work out of the box.

If/when Apple does that, lots of people will lap it up, starting with those who are normally wary of PCs (the market Valve is trying to target), and Valve's mish-mash of ageing, mid-powered third-party pseudo-PCs will be left in the dust.

Maybe Valve knows they've got an uphill battle, and VR will be used as leverage. They can't and won't make HL3 a SteamOS exclusive, because the outrage would destroy their reputation. But something like VR, maybe.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#12
Posted 02/14/2014 06:39 AM   
TBH, I don't think Steam Machine is anything more then an attempt to sway Microsoft from current agenda's or at most a backup option. Its not offering "incentives" to adoption over pc. If people want "ease of use" theyd get a console [a real one]. There market is much better then PC. Though I agree, too much crap/time goes into each steam machine that by the time comes out its a outdated PC at a non-competitive price. Which doesnt sound ideal since its more limited then a standard pc. ------ VR only on steam box even on certain games just sounds like a niche inside a niche to me. Which doesnt sound like something Oculus would be too excited about.
TBH, I don't think Steam Machine is anything more then an attempt to sway Microsoft from current agenda's or at most a backup option. Its not offering "incentives" to adoption over pc. If people want "ease of use" theyd get a console [a real one]. There market is much better then PC.
Though I agree, too much crap/time goes into each steam machine that by the time comes out its a outdated PC at a non-competitive price. Which doesnt sound ideal since its more limited then a standard pc.
------
VR only on steam box even on certain games just sounds like a niche inside a niche to me. Which doesnt sound like something Oculus would be too excited about.

Co-founder of helixmod.blog.com

If you like one of my helixmod patches and want to donate. Can send to me through paypal - eqzitara@yahoo.com

#13
Posted 02/14/2014 06:53 AM   
I like the idea of a Steam box to plug into my TV and stream games, though I wouldn't pay much for it. I'd want absolutely minimal specs, because it would basically be a glorified A/V streamer though.
I like the idea of a Steam box to plug into my TV and stream games, though I wouldn't pay much for it. I'd want absolutely minimal specs, because it would basically be a glorified A/V streamer though.

#14
Posted 02/14/2014 07:28 AM   
[quote="eqzitara"]TBH, I don't think Steam Machine is anything more then an attempt to sway Microsoft from current agenda's or at most a backup option. Its not offering "incentives" to adoption over pc. If people want "ease of use" theyd get a console [a real one]. There market is much better then PC.[/quote]Yeah, I think Valve know this is a gamble, which is why they've chosen to not make the hardware themselves. If the whole thing is a flop, it's the third parties who get left with their dicks in the wind, not Valve. It's a cheap experiment that Valve can afford to fail. But it also makes it seem half-baked to me, and doomed to fail before it even begins. [quote] VR only on steam box even on certain games just sounds like a niche inside a niche to me. Which doesnt sound like something Oculus would be too excited about.[/quote]Yeah, you're right there. [quote="Pirateguybrush"]I like the idea of a Steam box to plug into my TV and stream games, though I wouldn't pay much for it. I'd want absolutely minimal specs, because it would basically be a glorified A/V streamer though.[/quote]Agreed. I got a Shield for xmas, and I've been surprised by how much I've enjoyed streaming. Since xmas, I've actually been doing almost no desktop 3D gaming, because I've been enjoying lying on the couch or bed with the Shield so much. (and that says something, because I love my 3D) The Shield also does 'console mode', where it stream to your TV. Some people love it for that, though it always seemed like overkill to me. Why do such a complicated setup to stream, when you can just connect your PC and TV with one long cable? Using a Steam Machine for the purpose seems even more complicated to me.
eqzitara said:TBH, I don't think Steam Machine is anything more then an attempt to sway Microsoft from current agenda's or at most a backup option. Its not offering "incentives" to adoption over pc. If people want "ease of use" theyd get a console [a real one]. There market is much better then PC.
Yeah, I think Valve know this is a gamble, which is why they've chosen to not make the hardware themselves. If the whole thing is a flop, it's the third parties who get left with their dicks in the wind, not Valve. It's a cheap experiment that Valve can afford to fail. But it also makes it seem half-baked to me, and doomed to fail before it even begins.


VR only on steam box even on certain games just sounds like a niche inside a niche to me. Which doesnt sound like something Oculus would be too excited about.
Yeah, you're right there.

Pirateguybrush said:I like the idea of a Steam box to plug into my TV and stream games, though I wouldn't pay much for it. I'd want absolutely minimal specs, because it would basically be a glorified A/V streamer though.
Agreed. I got a Shield for xmas, and I've been surprised by how much I've enjoyed streaming. Since xmas, I've actually been doing almost no desktop 3D gaming, because I've been enjoying lying on the couch or bed with the Shield so much. (and that says something, because I love my 3D)

The Shield also does 'console mode', where it stream to your TV. Some people love it for that, though it always seemed like overkill to me. Why do such a complicated setup to stream, when you can just connect your PC and TV with one long cable? Using a Steam Machine for the purpose seems even more complicated to me.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#15
Posted 02/14/2014 12:33 PM   
  1 / 2    
Scroll To Top