No they were largely right. VR hasn't even come close to living up to the hype from 10 years ago and all the money funneled into it.
-
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.
Yes.
Haint
Member
You're reading it wrong, it's talking about playing 2D games in 2D on a virtual screen. Lot of people presently hook Steamdeck devices up to those Xreal style glasses that mimic viewing a 100" TV. Deckard will be building that all in one device. It's not a VR mod or even a Stereoscopic 3D Injector, it's aiming to improve on playing 2D games mobilely, so you don't have to view a tiny 7" screen.I'm I reading the last bit correctly? Does that sort of sound like UEVR injector in a way in that we can play flatscreen games in VR?
In other words TLDR, Valve is positioning this to effectively be the top Steamdeck 2 SKU above the Steamdeck 2 OLED. A Steamdeck 2 with a 200" screen--hopefully OLED as well, but not confident on that if the whole bundle is only $1200.
Last edited:
I thought the idea is to have big screen in VR playing any game.
Killer8
Member
"BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE A KILLER APP" the Xbox creator screams, while his baby is now grown up and selling her body to other platforms to stay alive.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
Only company like Meta, with tight founder control, can afford to throw $10s of billions into the fire so they could price an advanced headset for Quest 3 pricing.
For all its money making on Steam, Valve is nowhere near that category. Hell, even MS bailed and they have money out of wazoo.
Last edited:
Haint
Member
Correct, that's what I said. By 2D I mean flatscreen standard games, not literal sprite sidescrollers.
Last edited:
Romulus
Member
that's not exciting at all if its just 2D. Not sure why that is a "core feature" when its just a big 2D screen. We've been doing for years with Quest. It's cool, but gets old after a while.
It would at least be cool if it was something similar to Vorpx. That app allows you to play games on a huge screen but in 3D. It's an extremely interesting hybrid approach that I love to use. Super disappointed if that's a "core" feature when Vorpx is literally old as hell and superior.
Last edited:
Minsc
Gold Member
You haven't though, not really.
Quest needs a PC to play the games, or a subscription service to a streaming platform.
This will play them natively, with no internet, and no PC.
Edit: I mean how the hell are you going to just "magically" play sprite based games like Vampire Survivor in VR automatically? If that's not UE, that's not the point, there's no way for a user-friendly, non-vomit inducing way to just flip ever game to VR.
At BEST you have a simulated 3DTV where you get a 3DS-like effect on the flat games so there's depth to them, but they aren't VR.
Last edited:
Haint
Member
There's certainly tremendous value in one device serving as the best Steamdeck 2 you can buy, and also one of the best VR headsets you can buy. I just hope they don't ruin it by puting garbage pale LCDs in it.
Romulus
Member
It's $1200, I would expect some sort of gimmick to be above what an old Quest can do. That goes without saying 100%
I don't know what you're talking about with 2D games in 3D, I've never done that before so idk what that's about.
The 3D in vorpx is WAY ahead of 3DTV. There are varying settings for the strength of the 3D. Fallout NV and many others feel 100% VR, but with a gamepad. Some of those games have more depth than "made for VR" games. So yeah, I completely disagree there.
Romulus
Member
I'd rather it not be LCD, but I'm still impressed with Quest 3's lenses. Cranking up resolution on PC still looks incredible. I'd rather that trade off than something else at the sub $500 range. For 1200? We should get the best.
Wonko_C
Member
Exactly. By selling each headset at a huge loss, Meta effectively warped the perception that VR can be as affordable as a game console, it has done both harm and good. Good because people who couldn't afford VR now can (myself included). Harm because they are pricing out the competition. PSVR2 was $550 at launch and there were meltdowns over that price, and that's a reasonably-priced VR headset even taking into account that it needs extra hardware (the PS5 or a PC+adapter) to work.
Last edited:
FeralEcho
Member
Sure,I agree but my point is it's still too early for mainstream appeal at such pricing and it's why VR still doesn't take off.
Romulus
Member
What metric would constitute "taking off?"
just never have enough time with more important stuff to do unfortch
FeralEcho
Member
When most prolific studios begin making games for it.
Romulus
Member
I don't think that's a good metric. 5-6 years ago there were more prolific studios making VR games, demos, and ports(ID software, Bethesda, EA, gearbox, Activsion, From Software, Rocksteady, insomniac etc) yet VR was selling far, far worse. The sales later absolutely crushed those years with AA games versus AAA.
Not arguing that AAA games aren't important, it's just their design philosophy is making 2d non VR games for years probably doesn't translate.
Last edited:
Minsc
Gold Member
How do you run Ori in it? Or something more 2D, like Terminator 2D: NO FATE.
Or something like Metaphor, where there's tons of 2D elements? I could see a 3DS effect working, but not true VR.
And then there's the issue of comfort. Most games like Spiderman Miles Morales may create issues for those sensitive to VR, a lot of people can't use smooth motion at all, and need teleport for moving around.
Romulus
Member
I'm not sure. It might not work at all. Some games simply don't work and they have profiles on the forums and the app for each.
I've mostly run 3d FPS games I've said. Some have better 3d than others, but the ones that are good feel straight up like VR game. I'd say there are probably 40 games that are really good in Vorpx and maybe another 50-100 that are big 3DTV type screens. Some have options for both. I played through both Fallout NV and 3 and they both felt like a VR port. Actually better than some official ports.
Last edited:
deriks
4-Time GIF/Meme God
Isn't Alyx already out?
Melon Husk
Member
I guess we'll have mainstream VR by 2035 then, if any technological advancement (which I assume Deckard delivers, in what form I'm not sure) over Quest 3 costs triple.
proandrad
Member
That was Half-Life 3 divided by 2.
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
That $1900 headset isn’t a standalone VR headset and require a PC to run.
Buggy Loop
Member
Right because these small projects don't have production capabilities like a company like Valve does. They put everything on the optics and have nothing left for features, sadly.
Pancake, microOLED, standalone with chipset, also streaming capable with very high quality signals, sensors all in headset, no towers, comfortable, probably a slew of sensors for Valve's BCI projects, allows spatial computing and playing 2D games on a giant screen with "3D" effects like stereoscopic 3D displays.
For $1200 it would be selling trust me. Just a stereoscopic 3D display like above costs way more than that.
Last edited:
ArtHands
Thinks buying more servers can fix a bad patch
They are just essentially different segments of PCVR. Ultimately this is just occupying the VR spot that has yet to be occupied yet.
Wonko_C
Member
I had a dream last night this got announced in a trailer playing Half-Life Alyx, then it zoomed out of the lenses and it was on top of a strange "dock". Where it was shown to be able to push the screen upwards (Nintendo Switch style) outside of the VR headset to be used as s Steam Deck. It's final name: Valve F⁶F³.
There was a big word below the F⁶F³ but I couldn't see what it said, they took it out too fast.
There was a big word below the F⁶F³ but I couldn't see what it said, they took it out too fast.
Last edited:
Ironman_Bad
Member
Devices like this do more harm to the vr market than good --_--
Minsc
Gold Member
Why? It's a gateway device. It'd be intended to show by example what other devices can do. Stand alone, capable of playing PC VR games and regular PC/console games, high quality, and running an open OS.
Someone else can make cheaper headsets that do the exact same thing next year or whenever.
Ironman_Bad
Member
It's another niche device in a niche market that desperately needs everyone to be pushing more mainstream to actually keep it afloat, valve should be either delivering a quest like alternative or actually creating a half life vr game for quest 3 imagine the mass market success it would have ala batman vs this that a dozen or so people will buy
Last edited:
lakitu1982
Member
No thank you, I'll stick to the Valve machine running steam.
StereoVsn
Gold Member
- The ONLY reason Quest 3 is priced so low is that Zuch is willing to lose hundreds of $ on each headset and over $10bil each year. Only the biggest Corpos could afford this and even Google noped out.
- Valve has no interest in producing a game for Meta platform. We will probably see a new VR game from them coinciding with Deckard release and Quest 3 owners can play that through variety of means.
Ironman_Bad
Member
Thats fine then you will get little to no high production vr titles other than what valve decides to make every 5 years or so and the vr hack modded games but as long as it's worth it
