Why Valve Will Probably Make More VR Games

[temps]

As we know, Valve makes its money primarily from selling games on Steam rather than from developing their own in-house games to sell on Steam. And to the extent they make their own games to sell on Steam, it's probably just to provide an incentive for fans to install and use Steam rather than Epic, Meta, or GoG.

So what was Half-Life: Alyx? I think HL:A was Valve's flag in the dirt basically for the emerging community of VR gamers -- to draw them into Steam. The point of HL:A was to give the emerging community of VR gamers a reason to install Steam so that as the community grew and began to purchase more VR games into the future, they would buy those games on Steam rather than on other platforms.

Now we see Meta moving toward standalone VR. Some of this is certainly for practical financial reasons (standalone VR is more affordable than PC VR, and therefore has a bigger market). But I suspect some small part of the reason is Meta is moving toward standalone VR is that Meta didn't like people buying their cheap Quest 2 headsets only to end up buying PC VR games through Steam and running those games on Meta's hardware rather than buying their PC VR games in the Oculus store to run on Meta hardware. By moving toward standalone VR games and away from PC VR, Meta seems to attempting to exclude Steam from the sales of most VR games going forward on Quest brand headsets.

I mean, if Meta can gently push people away from Steam and into the Meta store so Meta gets that 30% cut on third party developer VR game sales instead of Steam, why wouldn't they?

As long as Steam provides value to Meta customers by providing highly demanded AAA VR games, if we assume Meta makes profit from VR headset sales, perhaps it makes sense for Meta to allow users to use Steam to get stuff like Half-Life: Alyx... because that probably drives Meta headset sales, which is good for Meta... for now. But is it in Meta's long-term interest to allow people to buy games through Steam rather than through the Meta store going forward?

Put another way, Meta might be okay with people being allowed to buy HL:A on Steam & run it on a Meta headset if that drives Meta headset sales... but that also means Meta loses that 30% cut of all the other games Meta headset owners buy through Steam rather than Meta's store. So it seems arguably in Meta's long-term interest to cut off Meta headset users from accessing Steam.

If Valve's only contribution to Meta headset sales is one single VR game (HL:A) that many Meta headset owners can't play anyway as they don't even have a PC, it makes me wonder if Meta might just cut off access to Steam at some point on Meta's headsets, forcing everyone to use the Meta store for ALL their game purchases. The only reason I see for them not to do this is angry customers who want to play HL:A.

But if all Steam offers to Meta headset owners is one single game, no matter how good it is... as the overall VR market grows, the financial incentive for Meta to cut off Steam from Meta game sales will probably increase relative to their disincentive (angry customers) for doing that. The only way to stop that is if Valve releases more VR games, such that cutting off access to Steam angers "too many" Meta customers to be a profitable move for Meta.

Steam can and probably should address this by developing more VR games, making Steam's popularity among Meta headset owners increase... and thus making it harder for Meta to pull the plug on Steam access for people in Meta headsets.

It's easier for Meta to pull the plug on Steam if all Steam offers Meta headset owners is one single VR game, but if there are like 4 very popular Valve brand VR games on Steam, Meta will probably have a harder time doing that.

[IanL]

I don't think Valve will be overly surprised by Meta's market placement as it was clear from the beginning when Oculus were bought by Facebook what direction their products and marketing strategy would take and Facebook's ability to subsidise that.

Although I take your point about Steam losing out on VR game sales should Meta discontinue PCVR support at some point, I think Valve follow their own course primarily driven by maintaining a more inclusive and open approach to VR but clearly focused in terms of their VR game production on encouraging sales of their own hardware, which like Meta has undoubtedly eaten into sizeable amounts of their R&D budget.

I'd expect possibly more VR games from them upon the release of their next generation VR hardware which will almost certainly have their targets set on some of Meta's current marketplace. I don't believe Valve will be looking to compete directly with Meta but rather concentrate on the higher quality hardware end of the VR market again whilst offering similar or better technical functionality. Valve would lose an all out price war against Meta and I can't see them entering into that arena, I suspect they'd be happy grabbing some of Meta's marketplace back from them as current Meta users look to upgrade in the future.

[IanL]

Originally posted by Setech:

Valve is a strange company that will produce more VR games, if the people working there feel like making them. As I understand Gabe doesn't really put limits on his employees and their creativity or ability to create wonderful products.

What Meta and others do is largely irrelevant to their decision making, the best we can hope for is they had fun making this so they want to make another one.

Great point and very true. Gabe stated he wasn't done with VR so we shall see, but you're right his management style is to give pretty much autonomy to his teams. That's what brought HL back to life after all these years, the excitement of creating it in VR.

[Rob⛧Slayer]

Originally posted by temps:

As we know, Valve makes its money primarily from selling games on Steam rather than from developing their own in-house games to sell on Steam. And to the extent they make their own games to sell on Steam, it's probably just to provide an incentive for fans to install and use Steam rather than Epic, Meta, or GoG.

So what was Half-Life: Alyx? I think HL:A was Valve's flag in the dirt basically for the emerging community of VR gamers -- to draw them into Steam. The point of HL:A was to give the emerging community of VR gamers a reason to install Steam so that as the community grew and began to purchase more VR games into the future, they would buy those games on Steam rather than on other platforms.

Now we see Meta moving toward standalone VR. Some of this is certainly for practical financial reasons (standalone VR is more affordable than PC VR, and therefore has a bigger market). But I suspect some small part of the reason is Meta is moving toward standalone VR is that Meta didn't like people buying their cheap Quest 2 headsets only to end up buying PC VR games through Steam and running those games on Meta's hardware rather than buying their PC VR games in the Oculus store to run on Meta hardware. By moving toward standalone VR games and away from PC VR, Meta seems to attempting to exclude Steam from the sales of most VR games going forward on Quest brand headsets.

I mean, if Meta can gently push people away from Steam and into the Meta store so Meta gets that 30% cut on third party developer VR game sales instead of Steam, why wouldn't they?

As long as Steam provides value to Meta customers by providing highly demanded AAA VR games, if we assume Meta makes profit from VR headset sales, perhaps it makes sense for Meta to allow users to use Steam to get stuff like Half-Life: Alyx... because that probably drives Meta headset sales, which is good for Meta... for now. But is it in Meta's long-term interest to allow people to buy games through Steam rather than through the Meta store going forward?

Put another way, Meta might be okay with people being allowed to buy HL:A on Steam & run it on a Meta headset if that drives Meta headset sales... but that also means Meta loses that 30% cut of all the other games Meta headset owners buy through Steam rather than Meta's store. So it seems arguably in Meta's long-term interest to cut off Meta headset users from accessing Steam.

If Valve's only contribution to Meta headset sales is one single VR game (HL:A) that many Meta headset owners can't play anyway as they don't even have a PC, it makes me wonder if Meta might just cut off access to Steam at some point on Meta's headsets, forcing everyone to use the Meta store for ALL their game purchases. The only reason I see for them not to do this is angry customers who want to play HL:A.

But if all Steam offers to Meta headset owners is one single game, no matter how good it is... as the overall VR market grows, the financial incentive for Meta to cut off Steam from Meta game sales will probably increase relative to their disincentive (angry customers) for doing that. The only way to stop that is if Valve releases more VR games, such that cutting off access to Steam angers "too many" Meta customers to be a profitable move for Meta.

Steam can and probably should address this by developing more VR games, making Steam's popularity among Meta headset owners increase... and thus making it harder for Meta to pull the plug on Steam access for people in Meta headsets.

It's easier for Meta to pull the plug on Steam if all Steam offers Meta headset owners is one single VR game, but if there are like 4 very popular Valve brand VR games on Steam, Meta will probably have a harder time doing that.

Fan fiction.

[temps]

Originally posted by IanL:

Originally posted by Setech:

Valve is a strange company that will produce more VR games, if the people working there feel like making them. As I understand Gabe doesn't really put limits on his employees and their creativity or ability to create wonderful products.

What Meta and others do is largely irrelevant to their decision making, the best we can hope for is they had fun making this so they want to make another one.

Great point and very true. Gabe stated he wasn't done with VR so we shall see, but you're right his management style is to give pretty much autonomy to his teams. That's what brought HL back to life after all these years, the excitement of creating it in VR.

But aren't some things ultimately decided on by management there when it's needed for the health of the company? Like, for example, Valve's work getting Steam Proton going. To my understanding, Valve was concerned that Microsoft might use its Windows OS dominance to threaten Steam's business, so they responded by trying to move into the gaming hardware space with Steam consoles (running a Linux OS), the Steam Deck (also Linux), and Steam Proton (to make Windows games workable on Linux operating systems on those consoles & the Steam Deck). Am I misinformed?

[IanL]

Well things would definitely be decided but they reportedly run a 'flat corporate system' meaning that there is no formal management and no one reports to anyone else. People are encouraged to present ideas and if they gain sufficient interest and people want to partake then teams are formed and a project ensues. Not having any first hand experience of such systems I can't really comment further. Gabe himself tends to act as a catalyst as far as I can ascertain and joins arranged meetings to gain a view of whats going on and provide input and possible support.

[temps]

Well, Steam's main money-maker is the games they sell on the Steam platform, and if Meta has everyone in Meta headsets buying VR games through the Meta store instead of through Steam, that's a big problem for Valve. Especially if VR is the future of gaming, as a lot of us VR players (and Meta) seem to believe.

And it's an even bigger problem for Valve if Meta decides to simply ban the Steam app from their platform, forcing all Meta headset owners into the Meta store.

[Sham!]

Originally posted by temps:

Well, Steam's main money-maker is the games they sell on the Steam platform, and if Meta has everyone in Meta headsets buying VR games through the Meta store instead of through Steam, that's a big problem for Valve. Especially if VR is the future of gaming, as a lot of us VR players (and Meta) seem to believe.

And it's an even bigger problem for Valve if Meta decides to simply ban the Steam app from their platform, forcing all Meta headset owners into the Meta store.

the vr money is infinitesimal compared to the rest of the market, even if they lost 100% of that share they probably wouldnt even notice, it's not a big problem lol

not to mention they make one full fledged game every 10 years or so
like sure, they will eventually make another game and it might be VR, and maybe they'll do another visor too, but you shouldnt hold your breath at all

valve moves at glacial pace and whatever vr and hl:a accomplished (nothing imo, but im sure we have different opinions) sure didnt spur them

[IanL]

Originally posted by temps:

Well, Steam's main money-maker is the games they sell on the Steam platform, and if Meta has everyone in Meta headsets buying VR games through the Meta store instead of through Steam, that's a big problem for Valve. Especially if VR is the future of gaming, as a lot of us VR players (and Meta) seem to believe.

And it's an even bigger problem for Valve if Meta decides to simply ban the Steam app from their platform, forcing all Meta headset owners into the Meta store.

I think a lot of VR adopters see a future for VR but if you're inferring VR is the future of gaming and will replace conventional gaming then I would probably disagree. I see the two running in parallel, with VR continuing as an alternative to conventional gaming which I'm fairly sure will continue to remain popular.

I don't see the Meta issue you suggest as much of an issue for Steam income either tbh. The majority of game sales probably already go through the Meta store as many of their VR headset purchasers don't even have PCs and operate in stand-alone mode only and those that do will still be buying some content from Meta.

Zuckerberg's vision of the Metaverse was always deeply flawed non more so than his belief that the majority of people would actually want that, headset sales still remain primarily for the purpose of gaming.

[temps]

Originally posted by IanL:

Originally posted by temps:

Well, Steam's main money-maker is the games they sell on the Steam platform, and if Meta has everyone in Meta headsets buying VR games through the Meta store instead of through Steam, that's a big problem for Valve. Especially if VR is the future of gaming, as a lot of us VR players (and Meta) seem to believe.

And it's an even bigger problem for Valve if Meta decides to simply ban the Steam app from their platform, forcing all Meta headset owners into the Meta store.

I think a lot of VR adopters see a future for VR but if you're inferring VR is the future of gaming and will replace conventional gaming then I would probably disagree. I see the two running in parallel, with VR continuing as an alternative to conventional gaming which I'm fairly sure will continue to remain popular.

VR doesn't need to "replace" traditional gaming for this to be a problem for Valve. If VR someday grows to a point where any substantial % of the flatscreen gaming audience gets into VR, and that audience starts buying their games through Meta instead of through Steam, assuming they have PCs or used to have PCs, and are now in VR headsets, this is a problem for Steam because it represents a loss of market share.

Originally posted by IanL:

I don't see the Meta issue you suggest as much of an issue for Steam income either tbh. The majority of game sales probably already go through the Meta store as many of their VR headset purchasers don't even have PCs and operate in stand-alone mode only and those that do will still be buying some content from Meta.

If people who would never have bought PC games or PC VR games buy Meta headsets and start buying games through the Meta store, sure, that's not a problem for Valve. But if people who are currently buying PC games and/or PC VR games on Steam decide to get Meta headsets and buy their games through Meta instead of through Steam, that absolutely is a problem for Valve. It's only a small problem at the moment because the VR community is niche, but as the size of the VR community grows it will become a greater and greater problem for Valve/Steam over time. And it represents a loss of market share for them in Steam game sales, which is the most important core part of their business.

[IanL]

Sure, if Valve see that as an issue that represents a major impact on their future profitability I'm sure they will address that. I acknowledge the point you are making but don't see it as a major factor for Valve currently that's likely to result in increased production of VR games by them any time soon.

I don't even think they are resourced to do that currently even if they wanted to. unless they go the Meta route of subsidising third party developers to make games for them but then Meta would gain too from that with Valves open approach of not locking games into their own hardware and changing that policy would not be good for VR gaming as a whole. It's better remaining open where possible.

I'd like to think we will see more VR games from Valve at some point though and more than happy to be proved wrong if they are indeed working on multiple VR games right now.

[LemonyNebula]

Originally posted by IanL:

I don't even think they are resourced to do that currently even if they wanted to. unless they go the Meta route of subsidising third party developers to make games for them but then Meta would gain too from that with Valves open approach of not locking games into their own hardware and changing that policy would not be good for VR gaming as a whole. It's better remaining open where possible.

They shouldn't need to worry about the meta gains in that instance, as meta is already taking the market over anyway. No need to change the open policy. If the games Valve subsidised do appear on both, the PCVR version will still be superior. If users then start expecting higher end games, while they may still use a meta headset, it could help attract bigger names and more games to PCVR, selling more games through steam and introducing people to PCVR headsets.

The best thing for Valve to do right now in my view is make games or make them happen.

[IanL]

Originally posted by LemonyNebula:

They shouldn't need to worry about the meta gains in that instance, as meta is already taking the market over anyway. No need to change the open policy. If the games Valve subsidised do appear on both, the PCVR version will still be superior. If users then start expecting higher end games, while they may still use a meta headset, it could help attract bigger names and more games to PCVR, selling more games through steam and introducing people to PCVR headsets.

The best thing for Valve to do right now in my view is make games or make them happen.

I tend to concur, game sales would be Valves anyway and any additional Meta headset sales would likely have gone that way anyhow as Valve are generally not competing in the same hardware market, preferring to pitch there's at the higher quality end.

Admittedly we have not seen Deckard yet but I suspect it will still be a high quality build and probably reflected in the price, but only time will tell.

I'd hoped Valve would go down the subsidised route following the success of Alyx as I believe that would be a great for PCVR, seeing as the big AAA publishers and developers have shown little to no interest. We need more quality games than it's realistic to expect Valve to make purely in-house.

[temps]

Originally posted by IanL:

I don't even think they are resourced to do that currently even if they wanted to. unless they go the Meta route of subsidising third party developers to make games for them but then Meta would gain too from that with Valves open approach of not locking games into their own hardware and changing that policy would not be good for VR gaming as a whole. It's better remaining open where possible.

Valve would not necessarily need to go the route of making their games hardware exclusive. They might simply make games that CAN be played with any common controller, but that have features in the game that highlight the specific capabilities of Valve's in-house hardware. Then nobody is totally excluded based on which VR headset they purchased, but people who buy Valve hardware get some gameplay perks.

For example, if we assume the upcoming Valve Deckard VR headset has the same type of controller as the Valve Index did, Valve might fund the development of some VR games that have gameplay that specifically highlights this feature, while still making the games playable by people on any common headset... so people on Meta headsets are not excluded.

They really should consider doing something like that, because as I'm sure you've seen people post before... the Valve Index fingers are a cool and immersive feature that enhances the overall VR experience, but there weren't a lot of games released that put that feature to work gameplay-wise.

This is something Valve can and should address when they release a new VR headset. The games they release as launch titles for that headset should highlight the unique capabilities of Valve VR hardware.

[Flameworks]

Deckard will probably release with new Half life (or TF)

[V I D A L]

That is a lot to read, but man... there is nothing I want more.
Obviously I want to see HL3 in VR.. or HL Alyx 2 or whatever.. some more HL in VR.
But it also be amazing a Left 4 Dead in VR.