4 ms·

VR is just standstill on PC. Steam VR is not dead but not having in any movement at all. In typical Valve fashion their own efforts were one-and-done (Index and

VR is just standstill on PC. Steam VR is not dead but not having in any movement at all. In typical Valve fashion their own efforts were one-and-done (Index and HL Alyx). VR is not a gimmick but a niche and relatively expensive hobby sub genre. Like building your own cockpit with controls for Flight Simulator or a racing game. Edit: Deleted the Twitch VR Chat part cause seems like they reverted the policy changes https://x.com/twitchsupport/status/1799589284367696213 https://x.com/twitchsupport/status/1799589284367696213

corytheboyd 2y ago
I’ll still respect Valve for clearly CARING so much about what they do, in a world full of garbage people selling out beloved properties for a quick dirty buck. I’m not super hopeful I’ll ever get what would have been the amazing follow up to Alyx (really, episode 2), as yeah, VR didn’t explode. I never expected Alyx in the first place though so… maybe will be surprised in 10 years! I’m super happy for them about the Steam Deck success, this thing is legitimately awesome.
- haunter 2y ago
  While I like them 1, companies are not our friends 2, they ruined gaming foerever with lootboxes pioneered by TF2 and enabled the whole illegal digital gambling system with CSGO which is going for more than a decade now. They could shut it down but they don’t because they also benefit from it and the ship has now sailed. And it’s a billion dollar unregulated black market. 3, they ruined gaming forever with the whole battlepass system pioneered by Dota 2
  - akr4s1a 2y ago
    Seriously, the pass Valve gets from allowing a gambling empire to piggyback on their API and profit from the lootboxes that fuel it is crazy to me. "Yeah they might have a pseudo-monopoly but their product is good, I think the 30% cut is fine." would be laughed at in most other sectors. They barely even try for their market position, people just rejected competition and scream it's not Steam because "I don't want multiple launchers"
    - voxic11 2y ago
      Don't twitch and apple take 30% cuts as well? Seems pretty standard for content distribution platforms.
      - jachee 2y ago
        Don’t forget Sony, and MS, and Nintendo.
    - dotnet00 2y ago
      Valve just has a lot of goodwill, they don't feel the need to comment on every social issue, they censor less than the competition, they are very indie friendly, they'd rather just not put out a sequel than churn out yearly releases, the tech they have put out has been (mostly) innovative and still retains popularity. They also have the goodwill for helping make gaming on linux practical enough that there can be a handheld gaming console that runs linux (plus, of course, popularizing that entire new market segment). They also don't constantly change large parts of Steam. Point is, people like that Valve is relatively stable, and that's why they insist on sticking to it. The industry is otherwise such a shitshow. The stability is an especially important value for a platform that holds, in many cases, thousands of dollars worth of games for people.
    - lmm 2y ago
      > "Yeah they might have a pseudo-monopoly but their product is good, I think the 30% cut is fine." would be laughed at in most other sectors. In most other sectors the bar is higher. They've earned their near-monopoly fair and square (unlike Apple, they don't do anything to block competing marketplaces - they're not even preinstalled) by being head and shoulders above their competitors in terms of quality - the fact that that's due to those competitors all sawing their own legs off doesn't change that.
    - _carbyau_ 2y ago
      They might have some features that Steam has but that platform has been in hard development for a long while now. When you've tried the others and then been denied playing your game because of their crappiness... it gets old quick.
  - jimbob45 2y ago
    I’d not give Valve credit for lootboxes when Pokémon and baseball cards surely were the direct parents of lootboxes. Not would I credit CSGO for creating the digital item economy when Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 were doing that much earlier on.
  - pseudo0 2y ago
    Valve likely played a role in normalizing lootboxes in Western markets, but they definitely didn't invent the idea. MapleStory was doing lootboxes years earlier, and EA's Fifa was doing P2W lootboxes prior to TF2. Their model of cosmetic-only lootboxes is also far less obnoxious than the P2W form that has taken over mobile gaming. Many mobile games today are designed to be as obnoxious as possible in the hopes that the player will crack open their wallet for a shortcut.
    - jcranmer 2y ago
      > Valve likely played a role in normalizing lootboxes in Western markets, but they definitely didn't invent the idea. My first thought was that lootboxes were a natural development of Japanese gacha toys, and Wikipedia's article does cite them as a precedent for lootboxes. Not that it was a pay-real-money-to-spin situation, but Legend of Zelda: Minish Cap had a gacha-based minigame mechanic in the game, and that came out several years before TF2, let alone TF2's shift towards free-to-play mechanics.
      - shortrounddev2 2y ago
        If you wanna go further back, magic the gathering booster packs are just lootboxes. Old arcade games were pay to win via extra lives/tries for more quarters
        lmm 2y ago
        I remember laughing at the lawsuits claiming that Pokemon cards were promoting gambling to children. In retrospect they were right and I wish they'd won.
- ThatPlayer 2y ago
  I disagree that they care. The Index is outdated and overpriced compared to the competitors, and they haven't released anything new since. It came out around the same time as the Quest 1. The recent #SaveTF2 fan campaign shows how little they care about that game, except for releasing new skins to sell every couple of months. https://www.save.tf/ https://www.save.tf/ I don't even expect a Steam Deck 2 now that every other manufacturer is making x86 handhelds. At release their main competitor was the Switch, which didn't run Steam. What's the point of making a new one when all the competitor devices will have Steam installed anyways? They haven't even released a generic SteamOS 3 install
  - navjack27 2y ago
    Valve is making deadlock TF2 is dead
  - salomonk_mur 2y ago
    TF2 is a decades old game. They don't have a responsibility to anyone to keep maintaining it.
    - no_carrier 2y ago
      They do when they still create and sell skins and items for the game.
erikpukinskis 2y ago
Valve isn’t “done” they are working on their next gen headset, codenamed “Deckard”: https://youtu.be/YVkbcZ8JH2E?si=0-URGXYlsFGMZvGO https://youtu.be/YVkbcZ8JH2E?si=0-URGXYlsFGMZvGO This is all speculation, but I get the sense that Valve understands better than anyone that 1) the VR market is a long game, 2) there are a number of minimum requirements for a VR system which are not ready to be commercialized yet (120hz, 10+ million pixels, eye tracking, etc) so no one is going to “win” in this round, 3) the developer platform and general developer relations matters just as much as the hardware. It’s not so much “build it and they will come” it’s “build it, and the market, and the developer community, and land them all at once and they will keep coming”. Valve has the luxury of having absolutely no one to answer to for their cost structure, so they really don’t have to show any particular traction metrics, nor do they have to put on any annual developer conferences to impress their shareholders. They can just focus on goals that won’t bear fruit for 10 or 20 years and they’ll be totally fine. Valve is the definition of skate to where the puck is going not where it currently is.
- zamadatix 2y ago
  I think it's better explained as "Valve is willing and financially able to keep tinkering with lots of things that will fail over a long time in hopes one of them pans out" than "Valve understands this exact set of assumptions of when VR will take off and is waiting for them to hit the trigger". One thing I do agree on is we don't know whether Valve is really "done" with releasing new VR products to consumers and, to be honest, I don't think Valve knows either at this point.

corytheboyd 2y ago

I’ll still respect Valve for clearly CARING so much about what they do, in a world full of garbage people selling out beloved properties for a quick dirty buck. I’m not super hopeful I’ll ever get what would have been the amazing follow up to Alyx (really, episode 2), as yeah, VR didn’t explode. I never expected Alyx in the first place though so… maybe will be surprised in 10 years! I’m super happy for them about the Steam Deck success, this thing is legitimately awesome.

haunter 2y ago
While I like them 1, companies are not our friends 2, they ruined gaming foerever with lootboxes pioneered by TF2 and enabled the whole illegal digital gambling system with CSGO which is going for more than a decade now. They could shut it down but they don’t because they also benefit from it and the ship has now sailed. And it’s a billion dollar unregulated black market. 3, they ruined gaming forever with the whole battlepass system pioneered by Dota 2
- akr4s1a 2y ago
  Seriously, the pass Valve gets from allowing a gambling empire to piggyback on their API and profit from the lootboxes that fuel it is crazy to me. "Yeah they might have a pseudo-monopoly but their product is good, I think the 30% cut is fine." would be laughed at in most other sectors. They barely even try for their market position, people just rejected competition and scream it's not Steam because "I don't want multiple launchers"
  - voxic11 2y ago
    Don't twitch and apple take 30% cuts as well? Seems pretty standard for content distribution platforms.
    - jachee 2y ago
      Don’t forget Sony, and MS, and Nintendo.
  - dotnet00 2y ago
    Valve just has a lot of goodwill, they don't feel the need to comment on every social issue, they censor less than the competition, they are very indie friendly, they'd rather just not put out a sequel than churn out yearly releases, the tech they have put out has been (mostly) innovative and still retains popularity. They also have the goodwill for helping make gaming on linux practical enough that there can be a handheld gaming console that runs linux (plus, of course, popularizing that entire new market segment). They also don't constantly change large parts of Steam. Point is, people like that Valve is relatively stable, and that's why they insist on sticking to it. The industry is otherwise such a shitshow. The stability is an especially important value for a platform that holds, in many cases, thousands of dollars worth of games for people.
  - lmm 2y ago
    > "Yeah they might have a pseudo-monopoly but their product is good, I think the 30% cut is fine." would be laughed at in most other sectors. In most other sectors the bar is higher. They've earned their near-monopoly fair and square (unlike Apple, they don't do anything to block competing marketplaces - they're not even preinstalled) by being head and shoulders above their competitors in terms of quality - the fact that that's due to those competitors all sawing their own legs off doesn't change that.
  - _carbyau_ 2y ago
    They might have some features that Steam has but that platform has been in hard development for a long while now. When you've tried the others and then been denied playing your game because of their crappiness... it gets old quick.
- jimbob45 2y ago
  I’d not give Valve credit for lootboxes when Pokémon and baseball cards surely were the direct parents of lootboxes. Not would I credit CSGO for creating the digital item economy when Diablo 2 and Diablo 3 were doing that much earlier on.
- pseudo0 2y ago
  Valve likely played a role in normalizing lootboxes in Western markets, but they definitely didn't invent the idea. MapleStory was doing lootboxes years earlier, and EA's Fifa was doing P2W lootboxes prior to TF2. Their model of cosmetic-only lootboxes is also far less obnoxious than the P2W form that has taken over mobile gaming. Many mobile games today are designed to be as obnoxious as possible in the hopes that the player will crack open their wallet for a shortcut.
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    > Valve likely played a role in normalizing lootboxes in Western markets, but they definitely didn't invent the idea. My first thought was that lootboxes were a natural development of Japanese gacha toys, and Wikipedia's article does cite them as a precedent for lootboxes. Not that it was a pay-real-money-to-spin situation, but Legend of Zelda: Minish Cap had a gacha-based minigame mechanic in the game, and that came out several years before TF2, let alone TF2's shift towards free-to-play mechanics.
    - shortrounddev2 2y ago
      If you wanna go further back, magic the gathering booster packs are just lootboxes. Old arcade games were pay to win via extra lives/tries for more quarters
      - lmm 2y ago
        I remember laughing at the lawsuits claiming that Pokemon cards were promoting gambling to children. In retrospect they were right and I wish they'd won.
ThatPlayer 2y ago
I disagree that they care. The Index is outdated and overpriced compared to the competitors, and they haven't released anything new since. It came out around the same time as the Quest 1. The recent #SaveTF2 fan campaign shows how little they care about that game, except for releasing new skins to sell every couple of months. https://www.save.tf/ https://www.save.tf/ I don't even expect a Steam Deck 2 now that every other manufacturer is making x86 handhelds. At release their main competitor was the Switch, which didn't run Steam. What's the point of making a new one when all the competitor devices will have Steam installed anyways? They haven't even released a generic SteamOS 3 install
- navjack27 2y ago
  Valve is making deadlock TF2 is dead
- salomonk_mur 2y ago
  TF2 is a decades old game. They don't have a responsibility to anyone to keep maintaining it.
  - no_carrier 2y ago
    They do when they still create and sell skins and items for the game.

erikpukinskis 2y ago

Valve isn’t “done” they are working on their next gen headset, codenamed “Deckard”: https://youtu.be/YVkbcZ8JH2E?si=0-URGXYlsFGMZvGO https://youtu.be/YVkbcZ8JH2E?si=0-URGXYlsFGMZvGO This is all speculation, but I get the sense that Valve understands better than anyone that 1) the VR market is a long game, 2) there are a number of minimum requirements for a VR system which are not ready to be commercialized yet (120hz, 10+ million pixels, eye tracking, etc) so no one is going to “win” in this round, 3) the developer platform and general developer relations matters just as much as the hardware. It’s not so much “build it and they will come” it’s “build it, and the market, and the developer community, and land them all at once and they will keep coming”. Valve has the luxury of having absolutely no one to answer to for their cost structure, so they really don’t have to show any particular traction metrics, nor do they have to put on any annual developer conferences to impress their shareholders. They can just focus on goals that won’t bear fruit for 10 or 20 years and they’ll be totally fine. Valve is the definition of skate to where the puck is going not where it currently is.

zamadatix 2y ago
I think it's better explained as "Valve is willing and financially able to keep tinkering with lots of things that will fail over a long time in hopes one of them pans out" than "Valve understands this exact set of assumptions of when VR will take off and is waiting for them to hit the trigger". One thing I do agree on is we don't know whether Valve is really "done" with releasing new VR products to consumers and, to be honest, I don't think Valve knows either at this point.