Convincing people to install software that doesn't cost any money is quite a bit easier than convincing them to invest in an expensive piece of hardware and the even more expensive computer needed to work with it. Not to mention overcoming all the other issues people have with current VR tech, like the space requirements.

But that's precisely why their first big AAA VR Experience is based on Half Life. It's probably one of the few franchises that (could) force people to jump into buying a VR rig. Yes, it's not exactly cheap, and it has some requirements like space, but being able to experience a new Half Life game after 12 years, is quite exactly the thing that will get people seriously interested.

(This is all coming from someone who's probably going to jump back into PC/VR gaming for this experience, depending on the reveal and pre-release coverage...)

The space thing is what kills it for me. Even if the VR and computer were free, I just don't have the space to use it. I'm not going to rearrange furniture or lock my dogs outside just to play a video game.

Given the previous history of the Half Life franchise, we're most likely in for a FPS Shooter with lots of environmental physics manipulation through a new VR control scheme, utilizing the Valve Index (and other VR controllers).

Given what other people in this thread have mentioned, you will not be moving within a virtual space via VR inputs with full body mapping to in-game movement, as that's a recipe for getting sick.

Given my experience with VR and playing games that required a fair amount of movement, Superhot VR and BeatSaber, the space needed was just enough to stand up, and move my arms around. I am really unsure of why this space requirement issue keeps popping up. Unless you're doing full room mapping, which I highly doubt this game will utilize, I cannot imagine that most people with an entertainment center or with a desk dedicated to their PC, don't have enough room to stand up and move their arms around...

The space requirement issue keeps coming up because not everyone lives in the same sized house. Just because you have ample space to stand in your room waving your arms around with a headset on doesn't mean everyone else does.

I'm having a hard time imagining a living situation where you don't have enough space to stand up and move your arms. Could you describe one? At worst it could only be a tiny number of people, maybe people living in their cars, and definitely not the target audience of electronic entertainment.

You need enough space to stand up, stick your arms out, and move around. Considering the average human wingspan is 5' 9" for men, add another foot and change on each side for a safety factor so you don't smack things if you lean a bit, and you end up needing a playing space that's an 8' diameter cylinder, and that's just for seated/standing experiences, not room-scale. This 8' cylinder also needs to be next to a computer, or you need to run a lot of cables. I live in a 3 story row house and the only space I have with enough room is my kitchen, anywhere else in the house and I'd end up hitting something.

Standing up and moving your arms has much lower space requirements than standing up and moving your arms while blindfolded and under a barrage of industry-leading illusions engineered for maximum distraction.

There's boundaries that the VR will put a red wall on screen if you approach. Setting them up is part of the installation of VR. I helped a friend setup Rift Oculus a while ago in a very small living room. Like bedroom sized living room. I've also played VR while sitting on a couch. Room is not an issue unless you play in a closet.

In a typical users playspace you're always near enough to the boundaries that they're visible. And speaking from experience, you do not want your VR setup within several feet of anything nice, like your television or hanging wall art, even if they're outside the boundary. As a good game of Gorn is guaranteed to make you run past that boundary and punch a nearby object.

Yes you can play some VR on a couch, but not Superhot, not Gorn, not Space Pirate Trainer. Very likely not Half Life Alyx.

I've used my VR setup from within cramped confines, but it's not something a non-enthusiast will do.

Edit: Also were forgetting a very important point mentioned above

"I'm not going to [...] lock my dogs outside just to play a video game."

There's a big difference between being able to stand up and move your arms, and being able to stand up and move your arms anywhere without looking while being certain not to hit anything.

At least for me, in all the spaces I have computers, if I stand up I have some stuff or shelves within arm's reach, because I want that stuff to be accessible - but that makes those spaces unusable for VR, because I'll hurt myself those things or myself if I'm swinging around without being able to see what's there.

I have ample space available, but I have gotten so lazy in VR that I tend to confine myself to a chair or just a small place to stand. Teleport locomotion is my favorite. I really don't feel like I'm missing a whole lot by not walking around much.

I don't know. Maybe I'm a miserable cynic by now, but too many big names have been burning my good-will. I've been disappointed by too many names by now. Blizzard, Ubisoft, Bethesda, EA. Valve hasn't done so by not publishing games. Why should I trust e.g. EA with a long-dead franchise like Lost Vikings because it's VR now? Lost vikings were pretty dope puzzles games.

At this point I prefer throwing $60 at 4-6 indie games and usually I'll find something with a couple of days or weeks playtime. Increasing the title's cost by an entire VR headset doesn't really improve my trust. Especially because a lot of the VR games I've seen on stream so far are just .. lackluster horror scare fares and entirely whacky things.

I don’t have VR and will be buying a rig for this game and will be willing to rearrange the furniture in my 624 sqft apt to do it.

Born in 1992, HL1 was what really got me into gaming.

If you haven’t tried VR yet, I would before you buy one. I bought a secondhand oculus a year ago and I don’t play with it very often because I get a cold sweat within minutes. It is cool and it is immersive, but it’s also physically uncomfortable. It’s worth getting some answers before spending hundreds of dollars on it.

Just wearing an HMD with a comfortable experience probably shouldn't make you sick within minutes. If you're running on an underpowered PC, or a PC that is adding latency due to outdated drivers, bad hardware, bad software, USB controller issues (the list goes on) that could be the cause. If your IPD adjustment isn't correct that could be a problem as well. Lastly if you jumped right into uncomfortable experiences (potentially anything with artificial locomotion or any unoptimized game) that could make you sick as well. It's possible that you are unusually sensitive but it's likely that this is something that can be fixed.

I worked on a game called Luna (https://store.steampowered.com/app/605770/Luna/) and many of the people who play tested it said it was the first VR game they played that didn't make them sick, previously they thought "VR makes me sick". It was optimized for player comfort and is a pretty slow paced relaxing game so I think that helped.

I’m familiar with all of that. The “comfortable experiences” don’t bother me, but they also don’t stimulate me. I enjoy 6DOF shooters and racing simulators.

It's a sliver of a sliver of the market. Gamers -> PC gamers -> PC gamers with powerful gaming rigs -> PC gamers with powerful gaming rigs who care even a little about VR and so might buy a headset, if they don't already have one

I don't get this move. But hey, maybe I'm wrong and this'll be what takes it mainstream... somehow.

Valve supports some weird stuff, but I'm glad they do. They've put a lot of work into improving Linux gaming, and their Steam surveys show that more people have VR setups than use Linux for gaming.

Otoh, its also the part of the market that has demonstrated that they have a lot of disposable income and an interest in the hobby.

I think it's a better way of getting VR off the ground than the "social" mass market stuff that Facebook is pursuing. The industry should focus on building high quality niche stuff first, like FPS games and flight sims, then work on broadening the appeal once the tech has matured.

This whole announcement has been a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for Valve in terms of reception. At this point Valve has put a lot of investment in VR. For years people have asked for a big first party VR game from Valve, often explicitly a Half-Life game. They announce it and many responses are "why did Valve release a game for their own hardware". It's possible that growth will slow in VR and Valve will give up, but why do it now when they have a game ready for release and solidly selling first party hardware?

Anecdotally, I've got a PC that is VR-capable. I've tried VR as a curiosity, but it hasn't been compelling enough for me to buy my own headset. However, Half-Life 2 is my favorite videogame of all time, and this announcement will probably get me to reconsider and shell out for an Index or similar.

The announcement got like 120k upvotes on r/gaming.

I think it'll be fine. Half-Life hasn't had a proper entry in a long time -- though it's worth pointing out that Portal takes place in the same universe and has some mechanical similarities, at least -- but it still has legendary status among gamers.

While I may not buy Valve Index specifically, the announcement of this game is the decision maker for me to save up for VR. Previously I just wanted it, but probably wouldn't have purchased it. So I think people will buy VR for this game, whether or not it's Valve's Index is unknown though.

> enough weight to be a system-seller for Valve Index the way Half-Life 2

I doubt so. There are inherent issues with VR currently (stuck in a small environment, limited interactions), I can't see how they could make a first-person game extraordinary enough for people to suddenly open and empty their wallets and embrace VR just for one game. But I may be wrong.

How many VR first-person shooters are there where you can actually move? The last I heard, having your character move in VR while you are standing still is a fast pass to nauseaville.

Pistol Whip (just came out) seems to have nailed it pretty well - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bae9EykifVk

Not sure it applies to FPS, but nausea in VR first person continuous movement almost completely disappears after 2-3 hours (over a few days) of gameplay on lower turning speed.

I played Fallout 4 like this a bit, and my wife spent nearly 100h in Skyrim VR.

I watched on youtube some Fallout4 and Skyrim gameplay and the player after adjusting some of the options seemed to enjoy it a lot, a few hours of playing seem possible for an average gamer after getting used with the technology.

I played a stationery FPS vr game and it’s certainly a weird disorienting feeling. I also get motion sick pretty easily. That said it didn’t really effect me much outside of a little disorientation.

In some games you can at least move some meters around if you have roomscale VR. But for every bigger movement than that you have to use teleportation.

No, you just need to get past the initial 2-3 hours with breaks while your brain adjusts.

easier said than done unfortunately

The most popular game by player count is Pavlov VR and it's full movement via left hand C-stick. I play for hours at a time comfortably.

If you want to sell something as expensive as VR based on a game franchise, you'd better hope that it's old enough for the initial players to have paid off their mortgage...

In any case or kind of makes sense for something called Half-Life to slow down over time.

It should have been a free launch title with the Index to spur sales. This is not going to do that now as a separate sale. The buzz (what little there was for an expensive VR rig) is over. It may well be good for VR overall, however.

There is no name that could sell a meaningful number of $1000 systems, especially when the game is playable on a $400 system that's barely any worse than the $1000 one.

Especially for teenagers. They're a big gaming demographic, but do they know or care about Half-Life as more than a meme?

Yes but also not necessarily a big spending demographic. It seems better to target nostalgic late 20's to early 40-somethings since they are more likely to have the disposable income for a VR capable desktop and VR headset.

It has been long enough and Valve quiet enough that delivering anything meets expectations. We aren't in one of those cycles which ended in disappointment like Duke Nukem or Battlecruiser 3000? which took forever to deliver and underwhelmed on all counts.

the only way to alienate fans would be to use it as a platform to deliver a political message; many game players take offense at such and it horribly dates games that do much like music