I'd agree that the visual aspect of VR is something that would just be a fad normally.
But when people say VR they're not just talking about the visual device right? Isn't there a whole different set of game control mechanics?
I don't know much about occulus and vive, but I'm basing most of what I know off of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RehCTRrWM0 [External Link]

I'd guess that what determines if VR is here to stay or not, is if people find a need for the extra degrees of freedom you get from the controls that come with VR, like being able to shoot behind you while running or throw grenades over your shoulder.
Those are probably the deciding factors, the visual device is just piggy backing along with it even though it gets most of the media attention.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tuubiAn implementation of an idea is not the same as the idea itself. IMHO the way Vogelsap's gone about it seems more like a cooler-than-thou arts project than a genuine attempt to make a better survival game.

I disagree. It's easy to say that when you don't have to offer an alternative that can achieve the same effect. There might not be one, and although it seems like a silly idea on the surface it might be the only way to create this type of experience in a game.

This is more of a service than software.
If you're just thinking about what you're getting in terms of software then sure I can see why it's upsetting, but it's not like they are tricking anyone.

It's a service with a piece of temporary software written around it, and people are paying for the experience.
Games don't simulate victory, they simulate artificial obstacles that you then overcome to achieve a sense of satisfaction.
By the same token the service they are offering here is to simulate something that will increase your sense of importance in the game. They can't do that without artificially creating negative circumstances. So just as you pay for the artificial obstacles in other games you would be paying specifically for the artificial restriction that you can never play it again because it enhances the experience while you can play it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

You all are giving the exact same reactions to this as people do whenever a game comes out with hardcore death penalties or open world PvP and they complain until the devs add an easier option (see ark)

Some of us like those things because it increases suspense and immersion. One major difference between entering a real dungeon and fighting for your life versus doing it in a game is that you don't get to respawn.

I get it that this isn't your personal preference, but to call the idea to increase the games suspense and create a sense of ephemerality a "stupid idea" is pretty narrow minded if you ask me, and I find it pretty funny how everyone who has gone to insult the idea has chosen to do so on the grounds of intelligence when it seems to me that it is _you_ who isn't considering it from other points of view.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I think this is a brilliant idea!
I've actually always wanted an online game that was only playable for specific periods of time. But permanently going off is good too

Quoting: melkemindIt's an interesting concept, but maybe not such a great long-term business model.

I don't think so at all, especially while this is a new concept in online games.
For starters, they don't have to waste any money on supporting the game after it's finished.
But I definitely think they'll be getting a ton of sales they wouldn't have gotten otherwise, just because of how unique the idea is.

Personally I hope this sort of thing does become popular, and we see more games like this. I'd also like to see variations on it like periods of temporary unplayability instead of permanent unplayability.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Just thinking about the question of developer motivation is enough to make me interested.

Getting money from players is obviously not a concern of theirs at all. Their payment is a long term one that is probably correlated with how good of an experience people have while playing the game.
I just looked it up and there is no in-game shops, payed cosmetics, or charging for upgrades/DLC, so that sort of confirms my suspicion.

So not being concerned with taking players money plus actually needing you to enjoy the game is a winning combination if you ask me. I was even a little worried that they would throw in things like cash shops due to thinking gamers actually like it, but it's good to see they didn't.

I just wanted to make note of that, but of course ultimately we need to look at the game in detail to decide if it looks fun.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

In case anyone sees this in time

They are accepting Linux/Mac testers for today, just go to this thread and post your system specs to be considered: http://steamcommunity.com/app/346110/discussions/0/523890528711941143/ [External Link]

They decided to wait another day due to some bandwidth issue, and made a guarantee that it will be released for us tomorrow.
But in the meantime they will accept some of us as testers for today starting around 9PM EST

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: MaelraneOf course neither amd nor nvidia have a reason to add Vulkan support to older cards.

There should be.
If either AMD or NVidia support their older cards with Vulkan I'll probably buy my next new card from them. It's simple, they show me they are willing to give their customers the support they deserve and stand by their products for at least a reasonable amount of time offering upgrades for new technology, then I'll feel more comfortable buying from them.

Of course, it's also very likely neither of them will, which is sad. If everyone refused to buy their new cards at that point then they would definitely decide to support their older cards. But that would never happen, so I'd just have to bite my tongue and buy from one of them since I can't change anything alone.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: ZeitgeistMaybe Source2 will not support OpenGL at all. Could be Vulkan only :-D .

Well they did actually say it was OpenGL they were working on. Plus we don't even have Vulkan drivers yet, aside from that intel one Valve made.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: QantouriscSure: Linux port just isn't done yet / different team / more,harder work,more new stuff to learn for Vulkan ?

I mean:
MS-Team: "Hey Linux porting department, we are done, how about you guys ?"
Linux: "Mwea still working on this new Vulkan stuff."
MS-Team: "Well we ain't letting our users wait."
Or would you rather prefer everybody gets to wait equally ?

The question wasn't why they would make that decision, the question is why they would be in that situation in the first place if the engine was developed to be multiplatform from the start.

But I think I already got my answer from others. It's not so much a windows/linux thing as it is a directX/OpenGL thing, if I understood them correctly.
I just hope once they get this sorted out in the "coming weeks" that they keep development on both APIs in sync with each other.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Can someone put our fears to rest and say this makes sense from a development perspective on an engine that is supposed to be built from the bottom up with multiplatform support?

View this comment - View article - View full comments