8 ms·

Both are nice, but very niche. Now if they do Half Life 3 - that’ll be a mainstream blockbuster, but they won’t, as they’re not the company that can pull that

Both are nice, but very niche. Now if they do Half Life 3 - that’ll be a mainstream blockbuster, but they won’t, as they’re not the company that can pull that off anymore.

almenon 4y ago
Nitpick: niche, sure, but the deck isn't very niche. The mobile gaming market is a established market open to all sorts of gamers. I agree with you on VR though, that's very nice atm.
- akmarinov 4y ago
  Yeah, I was saying niche because the Steamdeck experience isn't as plug and play as other consoles. For example if you want to play Batman Arkham Asylum, you need to go into desktop mode, download a different Proton version then go back to the console mode, switch the used Proton version and then you can play. There's a whole bunch of other games where you have to tweak settings, maybe use the CLI to tweak things. And then add on top of that of managing settings to get optimal FPS and battery life. That's a lot to throw at kids or non-technical people. It's quite a different experience than a Switch where you just download it and it works at optimal for the device resolution/fps.
giobox 4y ago
VR absolutely niche, but Steam Deck has delivered on its promise far more than I expected, and this seems to be being reflected in impressive sales. I'd happily place a bet today on there being a family of Steam Deck devices forming a material part of the PC games industry in 5 years or earlier. Much of the implementation such as the store experience is already leagues ahead of the garbage Nintendo get away with on the Switch. When they inevitably release a second one with an OLED display and more performance and battery life, its going to be massively compelling. Sure we can all point to failures like the Steam Boxes, but from those failures came Proton which has been directly responsible for the Deck concept working so successfully.
- balefrost 4y ago
  It's unclear whether Valve is playing the long game or simply hedging their bets. My recollection is that their investment in Linux was expressly stated to be a hedge against a future where Microsoft put Windows in a walled garden, like iOS. On the other hand, I know that a bunch of people are unhappy that the Steam Controller has been discontinued. Secondhand prices are through the roof.
  - goosedragons 4y ago
    After having a Steam Deck for a bit I really really hope either Valve or some other decent controller company like 8bitdo makes a controller with the same style of setup. The dual haptic trackpads+paddle buttons combined with the customizability is incredible. To me it is easily the biggest leap in controller tech since the analog stick with the N64. I've never used the original Steam Controller and I still think the dual analog stick setup is better for some games but having the trackpads is good for many others.
    - Grazester 4y ago
      It should be noted that Sega released their analog controller for the Saturn before Nintendo released theirs.
      - balefrost 4y ago
        And Atari released theirs back in 1982.
        emeril 4y ago
        was that controller really analog though?
        balefrost 4y ago
        The Atari 2600 had a digital joystick. The Atari 5200 was completely analog. If you tear the controller down, there's a complex mechanism that links the stick to two rotational potentiometers. It's similar in outcome to modern analog thumbsticks, but the mechanism is completely different (and is MUCH bigger). The 5200 joystick didn't self-center, though. The only centering force was from the rubber boot. This ended up being advantageous in a game like missile command, but is widely seen as the Achilles heel of the controller.
zepppotemkin 4y ago
They are still pulling off big projects and pivoting well though though steam proton/steamdeck which pivoted from the initial failures of the steambox push they may not really be in the AAA game business as much but I'm not sure that's a bad thing
Sebb767 4y ago
> as they’re not the company that can pull that off anymore. No company could ever pull off Half Life 3. This game is hyped to death before it's even announced and everyone would come in with sky-high expectations. To make matters worse, everyone would expect that game to be something different and it would be impossible to make even just half of the players happy. There's no point in creating a Half Life 3, it's a guaranteed disappointment.
- stickfigure 4y ago
  They could just take the old game engine as-is, give it a new plot and art, and I would beg them to take my money.
  - AshamedCaptain 4y ago
    And this is how you end with "Jaws 19: This Time It's REALLY REALLY Personal".
  - markdestouches 4y ago
    This is the opposite of what Valve has always been doing, with one exception being Counter Strike.
  - cjvirtucio 4y ago
    I wouldn't mind this, honestly. a game can be solid even on an old engine. just look at how long the Monster Hunter series had been on their old engine before overhauling with World.
- cmsj 4y ago
  Always leave the audience wanting more.
- boppo1 4y ago
  Not if they figure out how to interact with the signals in my brain stem it won't be!
- Quiark 4y ago
markdestouches 4y ago
I strongly disagree. First, to adress the grandparent comment, Valve is a private company that is still lead by its founders, so the sentiment does not apply to them. First, Half-Life Alyx, from the technical standpoint, is a more complex project than a regular AAA fps due to the sheer amount of innovation that was required to make it work. They also developed their own VR set alongside it. Second, measuring a company's capabilities by how popular their products are is not fair, imo. Activision, Ubisoft and the like have been churning out "blockbusters" for years at this point, essentially packaging the same game under a new title. Are they really more capable than Valve, which has released an innovative product in a completely new field? Third, the reason Valve does not release HL3 (and this is me speculating) is not because they are unable to "pull it off" - technically, they are, they just did it with Alyx. The real issue is that the amount of hype generated behind the title is so immense almost anything they make would be underwhelming. Their decision to venture into VR complicated matters even further. VR, still being niche, would essentially make the game inaccessible to most of the fans. With valve having developed their own set, it would have looked like an intentional rip-off.

Both are nice, but very niche. Now if they do Half Life 3 - that’ll be a mainstream blockbuster, but they won’t, as they’re not the company that can pull that off anymore.

almenon 4y ago

Nitpick: niche, sure, but the deck isn't very niche. The mobile gaming market is a established market open to all sorts of gamers. I agree with you on VR though, that's very nice atm.

akmarinov 4y ago
Yeah, I was saying niche because the Steamdeck experience isn't as plug and play as other consoles. For example if you want to play Batman Arkham Asylum, you need to go into desktop mode, download a different Proton version then go back to the console mode, switch the used Proton version and then you can play. There's a whole bunch of other games where you have to tweak settings, maybe use the CLI to tweak things. And then add on top of that of managing settings to get optimal FPS and battery life. That's a lot to throw at kids or non-technical people. It's quite a different experience than a Switch where you just download it and it works at optimal for the device resolution/fps.

giobox 4y ago

VR absolutely niche, but Steam Deck has delivered on its promise far more than I expected, and this seems to be being reflected in impressive sales. I'd happily place a bet today on there being a family of Steam Deck devices forming a material part of the PC games industry in 5 years or earlier. Much of the implementation such as the store experience is already leagues ahead of the garbage Nintendo get away with on the Switch. When they inevitably release a second one with an OLED display and more performance and battery life, its going to be massively compelling. Sure we can all point to failures like the Steam Boxes, but from those failures came Proton which has been directly responsible for the Deck concept working so successfully.

balefrost 4y ago
It's unclear whether Valve is playing the long game or simply hedging their bets. My recollection is that their investment in Linux was expressly stated to be a hedge against a future where Microsoft put Windows in a walled garden, like iOS. On the other hand, I know that a bunch of people are unhappy that the Steam Controller has been discontinued. Secondhand prices are through the roof.
- goosedragons 4y ago
  After having a Steam Deck for a bit I really really hope either Valve or some other decent controller company like 8bitdo makes a controller with the same style of setup. The dual haptic trackpads+paddle buttons combined with the customizability is incredible. To me it is easily the biggest leap in controller tech since the analog stick with the N64. I've never used the original Steam Controller and I still think the dual analog stick setup is better for some games but having the trackpads is good for many others.
  - Grazester 4y ago
    It should be noted that Sega released their analog controller for the Saturn before Nintendo released theirs.
    - balefrost 4y ago
      And Atari released theirs back in 1982.
      - emeril 4y ago
        was that controller really analog though?
        balefrost 4y ago
        The Atari 2600 had a digital joystick. The Atari 5200 was completely analog. If you tear the controller down, there's a complex mechanism that links the stick to two rotational potentiometers. It's similar in outcome to modern analog thumbsticks, but the mechanism is completely different (and is MUCH bigger). The 5200 joystick didn't self-center, though. The only centering force was from the rubber boot. This ended up being advantageous in a game like missile command, but is widely seen as the Achilles heel of the controller.

zepppotemkin 4y ago

They are still pulling off big projects and pivoting well though though steam proton/steamdeck which pivoted from the initial failures of the steambox push they may not really be in the AAA game business as much but I'm not sure that's a bad thing

Sebb767 4y ago

> as they’re not the company that can pull that off anymore. No company could ever pull off Half Life 3. This game is hyped to death before it's even announced and everyone would come in with sky-high expectations. To make matters worse, everyone would expect that game to be something different and it would be impossible to make even just half of the players happy. There's no point in creating a Half Life 3, it's a guaranteed disappointment.

stickfigure 4y ago
They could just take the old game engine as-is, give it a new plot and art, and I would beg them to take my money.
- AshamedCaptain 4y ago
  And this is how you end with "Jaws 19: This Time It's REALLY REALLY Personal".
- markdestouches 4y ago
  This is the opposite of what Valve has always been doing, with one exception being Counter Strike.
- cjvirtucio 4y ago
  I wouldn't mind this, honestly. a game can be solid even on an old engine. just look at how long the Monster Hunter series had been on their old engine before overhauling with World.
cmsj 4y ago
Always leave the audience wanting more.
boppo1 4y ago
Not if they figure out how to interact with the signals in my brain stem it won't be!
Quiark 4y ago

markdestouches 4y ago

I strongly disagree. First, to adress the grandparent comment, Valve is a private company that is still lead by its founders, so the sentiment does not apply to them. First, Half-Life Alyx, from the technical standpoint, is a more complex project than a regular AAA fps due to the sheer amount of innovation that was required to make it work. They also developed their own VR set alongside it. Second, measuring a company's capabilities by how popular their products are is not fair, imo. Activision, Ubisoft and the like have been churning out "blockbusters" for years at this point, essentially packaging the same game under a new title. Are they really more capable than Valve, which has released an innovative product in a completely new field? Third, the reason Valve does not release HL3 (and this is me speculating) is not because they are unable to "pull it off" - technically, they are, they just did it with Alyx. The real issue is that the amount of hype generated behind the title is so immense almost anything they make would be underwhelming. Their decision to venture into VR complicated matters even further. VR, still being niche, would essentially make the game inaccessible to most of the fans. With valve having developed their own set, it would have looked like an intentional rip-off.