why no multiplayer?

[beer is good for migraines]

VR still doesn't have a kickass multiplayer FPS game. The only very active ones are Pavlov (most active) and then Onward, and the rest are just active enough to be playable with others or have nobody playing. Half Life Alyx could finally have been the game to fix this problem. Pavlov doesn't offer much variety and nothing unique as far as gameplay whereas a new Half Life deathmatch would probably be extraordinarily fun so this is a truly epic soul-crushing letdown of the 1st-world-problem variety here, man.

[Aldaris]

Messaggio originale di Sham!:

Messaggio originale di Aldaris:

I never said you were talking about all games, but the point is relevant whether talking about all games or one game. Devs make choices about the game they wish to make. The fact that this is VR is proof of that. No multiplayer is another choice.

the choices devs make arent random, they dont make things out the heck of it
they didnt chose VR just because, they did cause they belive in the tech as something that will define the future of gaming

cutting multiplayer because they didnt want to include it simply doest make sense especially when hl multiplayer helped defining many other valve games that came after
if they didnt want it to be part of alyx there must be a reason behind that

Messaggio originale di Aldaris:

Your argument is illogical and I showed that. You argued that they should make something that supports their game.

no?
i argued that cutting multiplayer is a clear choice and is indicative of the limits of vr - probably due to the limits of the tech or lack of playerbase.
multiplayer helping the game longevity is just a fact

I literally never said they were random. Not wanting to make a game type isn't random. It's them not having interest in making that game type.

So you agree that they chose VR because it's the game they wanted to make. Why then can you not accept that multiplayer is a game they don't want to make? Your cognitive dissonance is showing.

It does make sense if you stop trying to tie everything into some stupid conspiracy. Again, for the 50th time because you refuse to listen, not every game has everything in it. Devs start with an idea of a game they want to make. That doesn't mean there's a reason they didn't choose another game type.

Yes

"because devs didnt want to isnt going to cut it, why wouldnt they want to make something that is known to be good for their titles?"

Literally words you said.

[Sham!]

Messaggio originale di Aldaris:

So you agree that they chose VR because it's the game they wanted to make. Why then can you not accept that multiplayer is a game they don't want to make?

because it's a literal downgrade
while i can see VR as a step forward (even if i dont strictly agree with that) cutting multiplayer is not

[LemonyNebula]

Messaggio originale di Sham!:

because it's a literal downgrade
while i can see VR as a step forward (even if i dont strictly agree with that) cutting multiplayer is not

We get it, you like deathmatch.
But lets be honest, it's removal will not affect the main story campaign, which is the part they are focusing on.

[EAST]

Messaggio originale di ContraVania:

And yet they made half life: deathmatch, a stand-alone deathmatch game based on half life.

Deathmatch released two weeks after HL2s release as a surprise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2:_Deathmatch Could happen for HL Alyx as well. Also with the source 2 mod tools I expect some multiplayer stuff from the community similar to what happened with HL1 and 2.

[Sham!]

Messaggio originale di LemonyNebula:

Messaggio originale di Sham!:

because it's a literal downgrade
while i can see VR as a step forward (even if i dont strictly agree with that) cutting multiplayer is not

We get it, you like deathmatch.
But lets be honest, it's removal will not affect the main story campaign, which is the part they are focusing on.

i mean ofc it wont
but especially when it comes to innovation (and im not being sarcastic like earlier) to me it's a huge missed opportunity to not even dabble a bit with it

[LemonyNebula]

Messaggio originale di Sham!:

i mean ofc it wont
but especially when it comes to innovation (and im not being sarcastic like earlier) to me it's a huge missed opportunity to not even dabble a bit with it

I wouldn't argue with having it in, the more options the better.

I don't dislike it at all, I just understand why if anything was put on the back burner or cut, it would be that due to it being less integral to the main part of the game and is, however worth it it may seem, costly.

If Valve is to make a multiplayer deathmatch game, they are going to want to make it the best one they can. Just having deathmatch in VR has been done already, they would want to innovate upon it, which would take time. They would dedicate a game to it most likely.

I would not be surprised if at least one of the two other VR games they promised was multiplayer focused, and also wouldn't be too surprised to see a Half-Life: Alyx deathmatch modded in with the tools being freely available anyway.

[UrbanMech]

HL Alyx is coming with SDK tools. If this game is successful enough among modders (basically if the game is a success) this game will most likely have multiplayer mods and even total conversions to make other games.

Also there's a good chance that Valve will follow up on said success with another title (some speculate L4D3/VR) to keep the VR sales going and to keep current VR people interested.

[Aldaris]

Messaggio originale di Twisted Rhythm :: Bitchute.com:

Messaggio originale di Aldaris:

not matter how much you try and fail to insult my intelligence.

Occams Razor applies.

I love how you ended your post with a reference to an English shaving implement to prove how smart you are. That's adorable.

I'm sorry that mentioning an example logic makes you think of adorable things?

Messaggio originale di Twisted Rhythm :: Bitchute.com:

Messaggio originale di Aldaris:

HL multiplayer was arguably driven by mods, not base multiplayer.

I've made that argument in another thread and I agree with that. How would that in any way detract from multiplayer being important to the success of HL's community?

Because it wasn't HL's multiplayer. It was some else's efforts to make what was standard deathmatch into something interesting.

[beer is good for migraines]

There are a few things I read in the replies that I disagreed with and will address.

#1. No MP because there's not enough VR users to sustain a VR MP game.
Pavlov and Onward are being sustained after years, and a AAA game from Valve would far exceed even those. Current players from other games would probably stop what MP game they are playing and congregate on half life VR MP.

#2. VR MP is too demanding on computer resources.
People are already playing MP VR games just fine. Most VR users are on hardware surpassing a 512 MB GPU and AMD FX CPUs...

#3. Half Life Alyx is too much for the internet because of physics.
When the MP levels are being made, problematic objects could simply not be added to excess.

#4. Developers just weren't interested.
The programmers and designers don't get together and talk about what they enjoy and what is fun to decide what they make, because commercial game development is a job, not a hobby. They are given jobs by upper management who look at what games are commercially successful and the company's resources and tell the developers what they're going to make. Now the fact that Valve even made a VR-exclusive half life is pretty damn interesting. I mean who all thinks this game will get a penny over breaking even? They must have looked at all the games I bought the past year, saw they were mostly VR games, and realized they could take a loss on a VR-only half life and vastly surpass the losses in future Steam sales by growing the VR market. So Half Life Alyx is the most ambitious game ever because it wasn't even designed to be profitable, but rather to just take a chance that it could substantially grow a new market. Valve is so forward-thinking. I want to be a shareholder. :D :D

[LemonyNebula]

Messaggio originale di ContraVania:

There are a few things I read in the replies that I disagreed with and will address.

#1. No MP because there's not enough VR users to sustain a VR MP game.
Pavlov and Onward are being sustained after years, and a AAA game from Valve would far exceed even those. Current players from other games would probably stop what MP game they are playing and congregate on half life VR MP.

#2. VR MP is too demanding on computer resources.
People are already playing MP VR games just fine. Most VR users are on hardware surpassing a 512 MB GPU and AMD FX CPUs...

#3. Half Life Alyx is too much for the internet because of physics.
When the MP levels are being made, problematic objects could simply not be added to excess.

#4. Developers just weren't interested.
The programmers and designers don't get together and talk about what they enjoy and what is fun to decide what they make, because commercial game development is a job, not a hobby. They are given jobs by upper management who look at what games are commercially successful and the company's resources and tell the developers what they're going to make. Now the fact that Valve even made a VR-exclusive half life is pretty damn interesting. I mean who all thinks this game will get a penny over breaking even? They must have looked at all the games I bought the past year, saw they were mostly VR games, and realized they could take a loss on a VR-only half life and vastly surpass the losses in future Steam sales by growing the VR market. So Half Life Alyx is the most ambitious game ever because it wasn't even designed to be profitable, but rather to just take a chance that it could substantially grow a new market. Valve is so forward-thinking. I want to be a shareholder. :D :D

1. This is a reason the developers gave about multiplayer games in an interview. So it stands to reason that would be a reason they would avoid the development time. Whether they are right to or not does not matter, that is likely their reason direct from the source.

2. and 3. In my case, most of the 'resource' I mentioned is in reference to the time and development they need to put into making it rather than hardware running it.
I did talk about servers though. This game may not be the same as those other games. Being physics based with many, many objects being interactable there is no doubt that you could easily hit a limit of what you can sync. The boneworks developers have already stated they would have hit this issue, and the same is likely Valve could too.
But in the end it all depends on how much interactivity there is. We will see down the line.

They could certainly remove those things for the deathmatch mode, but that could take away a lot of what this game is if core to the mechanics (dependant on said mechanics). They would rather cut something that does not meet the same standard of the main part, than to leave it in. Also from a developer standpoint, you can only extend a deadline so many times before it becomes a time/money drain, so something like Deathmatch would be the first to go if constrained.

4. They probably are interested, they looked into every avenue to find out what suited best. I believe the other reasons are why they did not do it, and with those time constraints (possibly originally meant to be released alongside the index for example) they had to cut/ not develop it out of necessity.
But we don't know. Maybe they do just hate the idea, we can't tell unless they at least give us some indication of it.
A multiplayer game due to the smaller base may not be as viable to upper management either. One games success does not equal another. They are likely spending a lot more resources on this project making the returns of other successful projects as potential losses for this one.

Hope this cleared some stuff up.

[Recpal]

If Tyler McVicker (Valve News Network) is right about his leaks, which so far have confirmed HLA, Valve's next game will be Left For Dead VR. Their third is still up in the air externally, but I am assuming there will be a competitive multiplayer title as well

[DeeEcks]

i'd keep an eye out for that sweet, sweet source 2 sdk, wait and see if there's multiplayer support for that. there haven't really been any universal or fundamental issues with multiplayer vr games as was lamented about before with my experience aside from dodgy inverse kinematics making you look like a dork so multiplayer should be a-ok

Messaggio originale di Recpal:

If Tyler McVicker (Valve News Network) is right about his leaks, which so far have confirmed HLA, Valve's next game will be Left For Dead VR. Their third is still up in the air externally, but I am assuming there will be a competitive multiplayer title as well

i watched the 'everything about half-life: vr' video when it first came out (and before it was renamed) and it was scarily accurate. i swear he's just become a stealth marketing tool by valve by now. i'd put some trust in those l4d:vr claims

[beer is good for migraines]

If multiplayer can be modded in, then this might kill Pavlov, onward and zero caliber.

[Aldaris]

Messaggio originale di Twisted Rhythm :: Bitchute.com:

Messaggio originale di Aldaris:

Because it wasn't HL's multiplayer. It was some else's efforts to make what was standard deathmatch into something interesting.

Yes, that was my point. The existence of the multiplayer made the modding and mapping community possible. It centered around the multiplayer.

No, you were making the argument about HL multiplayer. The modding scene drove HL multiplayer, not the other way round. HL scene exploded because of mods, not because of the base multiplayer. Counter Strike was played far more than HL multiplayer.

[Aldaris]

Messaggio originale di ContraVania:

There are a few things I read in the replies that I disagreed with and will address.

#1. No MP because there's not enough VR users to sustain a VR MP game.
Pavlov and Onward are being sustained after years, and a AAA game from Valve would far exceed even those. Current players from other games would probably stop what MP game they are playing and congregate on half life VR MP.

#2. VR MP is too demanding on computer resources.
People are already playing MP VR games just fine. Most VR users are on hardware surpassing a 512 MB GPU and AMD FX CPUs...

#3. Half Life Alyx is too much for the internet because of physics.
When the MP levels are being made, problematic objects could simply not be added to excess.

#4. Developers just weren't interested.
The programmers and designers don't get together and talk about what they enjoy and what is fun to decide what they make, because commercial game development is a job, not a hobby. They are given jobs by upper management who look at what games are commercially successful and the company's resources and tell the developers what they're going to make. Now the fact that Valve even made a VR-exclusive half life is pretty damn interesting. I mean who all thinks this game will get a penny over breaking even? They must have looked at all the games I bought the past year, saw they were mostly VR games, and realized they could take a loss on a VR-only half life and vastly surpass the losses in future Steam sales by growing the VR market. So Half Life Alyx is the most ambitious game ever because it wasn't even designed to be profitable, but rather to just take a chance that it could substantially grow a new market. Valve is so forward-thinking. I want to be a shareholder. :D :D

Specific to point 4 which is my argument, designers and devs are the same people. In quite a few examples they'll pitch a game to a publisher because it's a game they want to make. Game development is closer to a hobby than most jobs because of the passion and interest has to be present in order to create. It's only when the dev studio is owned by a much larger studio or publisher that they get told what projects they're making.

This is especially relevant in Valve's structure as it isn't management driven. People work on the projects they're interested in.