安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
此主题已被锁定 
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
They seem to like experimenting with different things; controller, vr, steam link, SteamOS, Steam Machines, Steam Deck. Seems their intent is to attempt making something people will be happy with, that applies more than to just one single game series/title.
If they make a non HL3 game, people get unhappy & others get happy. Make Alyx (VR), people get unhappy & others get happy. They made a few good games on an engine prone to some issues/easily being overwhelmed and having hard caps on entities in their SDK as it would cause issues, often preventing higher quality maps from being made.
Someone will always find one game better/the best of a year, by age/generation etc. Kong, Mario, FF7/FF8, FF10, C&C, WZ, Crash series, Halo etc. Any one Dev/company can be seen as needing to continue making more of the same, but if you look at a lot of movies/games making too much often doesnt do well unless you have a hardcore fanbase and actually keep making what they like without fail.
What you became known for does not define an entire path, the Steam Deck is a perfect example of taking immense risks especially in hard times/supply issue times, but the device is incredibly popular with seemingly very limited fault count. If they want to try making their own path, who's to say they shouldn't? Valve knows people vote with their wallet, and so far, the vote is in and it is good for the Deck and Alyx.
Whatever they do, some people will always be unhappy with it. As a company, you cannot ever make everyone happy, and the very few does not define functional models nor should dictate it, especially if we use twitter as an example in regard to people vs companies.
"Steam is not your girlfriend"
Companies CAN be nice, but they're not obligued to. They don't OWE you anything (other than what's contractually agreed). It COULD BE NICE if they did certain things, but it's up to them if they choose to.
A company can sometimes behave like a bad girlfriend, ignoring your wishes, giving you the silent treatment but eventually you start spending your time and money with other girls, like Nintendo and Sony, money and time that you could've spent with Valve if she had listened to you.
And Anyone who's had good a girlfriend probably knows that sometimes you have to ask the same thing repeatedly, over the course of many months (or even years) before she invites her bestfriend for a sleep over, or whatever you've been asking her to do.
Persistence and communication is key!
In the end they're here for profit from a broad covering type of consumers; people that play games. As such, they may offer different things in attempt to get more of those types of users; Steam Deck as a prime example. Not to mention being an open OS and not restricting users, for the purpose of making them happy, shows they're still thinking of user happiness, but not the kind of happiness where "you will only do what I want". Most companies tend to go to only-proprietary, locked down stuff but Valve displaying you should have a choice in model AND OS, is a significant move on their part.
They've experimented and failed, they've experimented and succeeded. They don't really have to make games, companies take risks all the time, and now it's paying off.
Except Tito was saying that Valve is NOT your girl friend.
But if we go by the example of Valve being your girlfriend, then it is more like all those girls are fine sharing you with the others and none are truly fighting over you, since there is enough to go around. They just all want a little of your time now and then.
So the idea of "I you don't listen, I'll go to someone else!" doesn't work when they all know and allow for people having different preferences at different times.
Companies as girlfriends would very much contain and encourage at lot of polygamy among them. They are not really vying for your exclusive attention, because that would cost more then the effort would be worth.
And companies that have the room to innovate and try new things are the most successful and long lasting.
Steam has become Valve's core that allow them to branch out and try new things.
They do still make game and have even said they had more in the works besides Alyx.
https://www.nme.com/news/gaming-news/valve-has-multiple-games-in-development-and-theyre-pretty-exciting-3174645
300 Valve employees are not working on one project at a time, they work on multiple projects among them.
Already said here but my goodness, you dismiss something new and innovate "just because" you perceive it as something to sell VR gear. Lets forget the thousands of other games with VR support or made for Vr. lets focus on that one because. You even dismiss the Steam controller which like it or not (I quite like mine) was an innovate way to take PC gaming to the couch.
Fact of the matter is, your post makes it blatantly obvious you're at worse, being dishonest to start an argument and at best, jumping through mental hoops of your own making and not realising it.
At the same time, I'd be being dishonest if I didn't agree you do actually have half a point (in a round about way).
Valve are unique in the gaming landscape. They are a privately own company (rare among big game devs) that made a bunch of hit games then started branching out and ended up with the top digital store front to buy other peoples games from.
They print money because of it and have ZERO shareholders to answer to except themselves.
They're in a unique position to do things other company's wont. Experiment in whatever field they like and shelve anything they don't think is good enough. All of this is done by a relatively small team of over 300 - 400 people. Compare that to any other AAA studio and you'll see they have a fraction of the employees in comparison.
Vale where so innovative with games early on that they set benchmarks that everyone else copied and in some instances, 1-up'd.
Now they could have kept churning out title after title. Given that Portal 2 came out in 2012, I;d like to know what exactly they could have done game wise that was new or innovative between now and then. VR WAS new and innovative but there's nothing new when it comes to desktop games. It's been a mix and match of things that where done previously with better graphics.
So they've spent the last 10 years "mostly" looking at hardware and improving that for the end user rather than making games. And you know what..it works.
I;d like more games from Valve as well but the market is saturated with games good and bad. Old IPs have been milked dry and greed has started to trump creativity with many companies.
I;d rather Valve push back and do things that end the whole exclusivity nonsense we've previously had to put up (and still are). I'd rather they put out things that the team cared about putting out rather than one of them wanting a new yacht so a product gets rushed. I like the fact that they're focused on the end user and things like right to repair where as other tech companies want to take that away from you.
Valve are a company, same as any other. They're here to make money and if they move into the hardware market, which they clearly are, then so be it. They constantly shelve games and it's something you need to accept.
There is zero point getting frustrated over something a company didn't do because Valve are not obliged to make a game because you demand it. they;re doing what they think is right for them and their customers and on that they should be judged. Steam Deck aint for me and they clearly underestimated demand from the wider public but you know what, good for them for bridging the game between PC and handheld gaming.
Such things really are a matter of personal taste and opinion, I completely agree. I enjoyed Half-Life and Portal games, but didn't quite care for Counter Strike and TF2, but others may have different opinions.
Heck, some really enjoyed Artifact, while others hated it.
All four have been seen by the industry as great games, getting awards and/or becoming very popular with those who play games, so there is at least some evidence to show they were seen by many as good games (at the least).
Right now it's at the same point monitors were when a 17" CRT was "top of the line".
What Valve games were you playing M8?
The writing in Half Life was even somewhat less than the writing for Duke3D, or Quake.. Half-Life 2, had writing on par.
And what'd would we have gotten. the same thing we have now. Artifact, Underlords, Alyx, etc.
Yeah, because when all you're doing is imaginuing, youcan get some amazing possibilities., Because you know, imagination isn't bound by pesky reality.
I mean your whole premise is that Valve is doing less than they would have otherwise.
Which if you take things logically. Is unlikely. Plus you're assuming that Valve doesn't have teams working on games.
Valve has always been a studio that keeps their cards Very close to their chest. You don't hear about a game untill its pretty much ready to go gold. Not like other studios that'll be gabbing about it for months, even years, ahead.
Yeah they were revered because games journos built up this entire myth in their competition to sing the praises of what were some honestly mediocre games.
Valve has however not let the squawks and parrots get to their heads and knows exactly what they are. They know exactly what their games are. Happy accidents.
So basically because you don't like VR, a game made for VR doesn't count?
Well in that case I do declare that none of the mario games after 3 count because I owned no nintendo console after the NES. So all the others don't count as Mario games.
That's not a bad thing though.
Yeah. I mean HL was okay but really the most interesting thing was how they hid the level and map transitions.
STrife was waay more revolutionary interms of its game design and systems though.
Portal was interesting, and there's a reason the games are pretty short. Valve knew enough to know the game was not going to do well with sequals ore long form. If you want more Portal. Try custiom maps and campaigns. Plenty of those.
The Steam controller was a niche product and designed to work with their experimental steam boxes for couch gaming.
These are a whole new ball games.
Much like the Switch it demonsrtated there's a massive market for something that covers both mobile and home gaming. For PCs there's NOBODY else in this space that has any real market dent with this.
To not see that is either not underastanding how things work, or you're being obtuse.
For a start, companies are faceless entitities. You haven't remotely understood that what YOU might think you want does not necessarily extend to everyone else. And to assume you know better than they do when they have a wealth of better data regarding their customers is foolish.
Maybe jjust maybe what YOU are after isn't what the vast majority of people want or are remotely interested in.
I agree... VR is the future of gaming, but a distant future.
Please demonstrate that, lol.