Exclusive Version of Portal 2 Developed for PC Motion Controller
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
I'm interested in that extra content and I'm interested in those motion controllers.
However, I'm not interested in playing Portal 2 with these motion controllers (or at least not without being able to use keyboard/mouse as well).
So my question is: If you buy that bundle, will you still be able to play the game with keyboard and mouse? If so, I might buy it.
However, I'm not interested in playing Portal 2 with these motion controllers (or at least not without being able to use keyboard/mouse as well).
So my question is: If you buy that bundle, will you still be able to play the game with keyboard and mouse? If so, I might buy it.
Who says the main Portal 2 dev team have any input on this? For all we know, Valve have a smaller team who have been working on just this version, thus unaffecting Portal 2 development.Fumbleumble said:
Highly likely that you'll be able to play the game with mouse and keyboard. Not sure wabout playing the extra content with mouse and keyboard though.Bloodstain said:
I'm also wondering if it's possible to "unlock" these extra levels by buying the peripherals separate later on. I'm already getting Portal 2 for free on Steam, and I'd prefer to know how well this actually works before buying them.
I look at this, and think to myself...everything those controls are doing, one can do better with a mouse and keyboard.
This just screams gimmick to me, and a big waste of money.
I wouldn't get my neck out of joint over any content developed to work with this control. I doubt you will be missing anything.
My wrists hurt just watching that video. I have to wonder, Tom, if you have ever tried handling items like that on a surface. I have, and I can tell you it is a faster path to persistant pain than anything else.Tom Goldman said:
This just screams gimmick to me, and a big waste of money.
I wouldn't get my neck out of joint over any content developed to work with this control. I doubt you will be missing anything.
Being a fetishist for new control devices, it looks fun.
One problem:
How ambidextrous is it? The input device development sector just doesn't make left-handed gaming controlers. They're all righty or ambi. (And no, the Razer Death-Adder Lefty Mouse, with only five buttons is the barest minimum nod Razer could have made to us southpaws.)
It looks like Razer's got some pretty rigid ideas as to what control elements are tied to what actions. I'm left-handed. I mouse around with my left hand and control movement with my right (using the number pad). Are they going to make the same presumptions that everyone else does that we lefties can conform to their procrustean scheme?
I would speculate: probably. And they'll lose customers in the process. Razer has before expressed disinterest in refining a control scheme for versatility once a device is out. I expect their attitude hasn't changed.
In my case, for some obvious reasons, I don't want gaming on a PC to resemble gaming on a console. I like that most games allow one to reconfigure its controls, since I do with every game, whether through the game interface itself, through coding keybindings (which I've done with every single Valve title) or through external profiling software such as autohotkey.
One problem:
How ambidextrous is it? The input device development sector just doesn't make left-handed gaming controlers. They're all righty or ambi. (And no, the Razer Death-Adder Lefty Mouse, with only five buttons is the barest minimum nod Razer could have made to us southpaws.)
It looks like Razer's got some pretty rigid ideas as to what control elements are tied to what actions. I'm left-handed. I mouse around with my left hand and control movement with my right (using the number pad). Are they going to make the same presumptions that everyone else does that we lefties can conform to their procrustean scheme?
I would speculate: probably. And they'll lose customers in the process. Razer has before expressed disinterest in refining a control scheme for versatility once a device is out. I expect their attitude hasn't changed.
In my case, for some obvious reasons, I don't want gaming on a PC to resemble gaming on a console. I like that most games allow one to reconfigure its controls, since I do with every game, whether through the game interface itself, through coding keybindings (which I've done with every single Valve title) or through external profiling software such as autohotkey.
Ultimately, I wouldn't be too surprised if it transpired that Razor designed the maps using a version of Portal 2's SDK, thus rendering Fumbleumble's worries somewhat irrelevant, considering there pretty much has to be an SDK released or there will be blood spilt. (Especially considering their channel contains videos of a modified version of World of Goo, amongst other games).
360 controller's done step one. Step two and three is dependant on consoles failing more than anything else (I'd guess 2014-ish).SelectivelyEvil13 said:
No he isn't.Zachary Amaranth said:
Development time is not directly correlate to how much he has to pay. Why would games retail at the same price if that was true? So no, them having to sell more copies to break even, doesn't affect how much he's paying for it.
Well the Wiimote used on PC can be almost as accurate as a cheap mouse once you get it configured properly and get used to them. All it needs is better resolution and it could easily take on Razors precision mice with practice, which is what Razor claim to be offering here.Metalrocks said:
You can't really see how accurate the controller is in the video because the controller is viewed from above, which could be razor trying to hide just how accurate\inaccurate the device is or just simple convenience for making the vid.
On another note:
The Wiimote, PSMove and various PC controllers on the horizon are NOT motion controllers any more than the desktop mouse, they are simply pointing devices (they track a single point in space) that have six degrees of freedom (x,y,z,yaw,roll,pitch) rather than the normal two(x,y).
Everything else they do (flick left, flick up, etc.) is gesture mapping which you can do with a normal mouse and the right software.
In fact the only real motion controller is the kinect in that it tracks a complex object in motion and then translates that motion into control functions and it remains to be seen how viable that is as a meaningful control system.
I might just get it; maybe THIS time the 6DOF mouse might take off for the PC. Or maybe not...
Only question is the Response Time quick enough? Motion controllers always makes the games feel like your lugging bricks around when moving. Nothing worst than the feeling of inertia/momentum in an FPS when precious is what you need.
Except that's not the only way one pays for development time.So while you can reaffirm that they don't directly correlate until you're blue in the face from something so "obvious" you called it that yourself, you're still trying to retrofit an ill equipped argument.Critical_Sneeze said:
So what would the retail price of this new Portal game have been if they didn't develop this bit?Zachary Amaranth said:
So a game that took 4 years to develop costs double what a game that was made in 2 years? Imagine the price of Duke Nukem Forever! It will be epic!Fumbleumble said:
No, you don't pay developer time directly. You pay for a product, which is priced taking many things in consideration. Market prices are almost always more determinant to final price than the time taken to develop it -- no one will put a game on the market priced at $100 because it took more time to develop if everyone else is selling their games for $50.
Ok, let me see if i got this right. You pay 40 bucks for the game. Others will pay 100 bucks for the game and a new controller.Fumbleumble said:
Those who pay 100 bucks for the game AND the controller, will get maps with puzzles specially designed with the controller in mind. You would probably have a hard time solving those puzzles without the controller but that isn't really the question.
Now, in summary: You're paying the regular price for the full game. 40 bucks. Like most other games cost at release date.
For 40 bucks you get:
full single player campaign
full co-op campaign
+whatever advanced challenges they will throw in
+probably a TF2 hat or badge.
For 100 bucks you get:
full single player campaign
full co-op campaign
+whatever advanced challenges they will throw in
+probably a TF2 hat or badge.
+motion controller from razer
+couple maps designed for that controller.
Now. If you pay 40 you get a full complete product. If you shell out some more money you get some extras. Hasn't stuff worked like that for ages? Please explain me how is there something wrong with that?
Valve/Razer have invested in a joint venture towards advancing available control schemes for PC games. No you are not entitled to every bit of effort the devs can squeeze for the single project you were interested in. You've got it backwards. Valve is taking advantage of the fact that they already have a solid framework/fanbase in portal, to create bonus content to ship with a new controller. They're not making you pay for any of this. Portal 2 is a product. If you don't think theres enough in the game to justify it's price then don't buy it. The bundle that the bonus version comes with COST MORE MONEY, than the one you were interested in. Valve is a privatley held company so the only people who paid to develop the bonus content are valve. You can choose how much of that developed content you would like to buy, depending on your interest and how much you are willing to spend. Let me make it simple.Fumbleumble said:
You pay 60 dollars - you get portal 2.
You pay 100 dollars(est) - you get portal 2 + bonus content and a controller to play it.
Go to the car dealership and tell them you want to pay for the standard corvette, but are entitled to the features and horsepower of the ZR-1.
Seriously what is with you people that equate purchases to a company prying money out of your wallet and using it to piss you off. Your point is in no way valid as it's based on the assumption that valve is using your money for any of it's projects. Any money they got from you was for the sale of a product, meaning it's not your money anymore. You're not some investor that they owe money to.
