I think as time goes on it's becoming less relevant to current gamers. Which makes it less attractive to Valve as an investment. They have a company lifestyle to maintain, they ain't got time to diddle around with the title that put them on the map.
Yes, I have not doubt that if HL3 was released Valve could throw everything and the kitchen sink at marketing it.
But a couple years or so back, can't remember if it was the same article or not, they stated in not so many words that online multiplayer gaming is where the money is at. And that they would no longer be making games that had an isolated single player campaign.
As far as references in files and what not. I'm of the opinion that the community makes far more out of those than they really are. A little part of it might be to just have a laugh at fans expense. Most likely it's a matter of files being shared across multiple projects, whether those projects are currently in development or not.
Closing in on a decade now since the last release of anything HL related. I personally lost hope about 3-4 years ago.
played the closed beta, it was fun until I started dying from people blocks away from me through buildings because the game has the worst netcode ive ever seen.
idk, I was doubtful there were cheats out already like 2 days into closed beta. The game has issues with players desyncing positions, but still being able to shoot people on their client. So anyone with fake or actual lag can essentially cheat.
Honestly you'd be suprised how quickly people can develop cheats for a new game, I remember when Modern Warfare 2 came out and people were already using aimbot/hax for it 2 days after it launched.
As in, has more gameplay to it than we have already seen and the whole thing isnt running 100% clientside anymore? Netcode still shows your team doing something entirely different from what they are saying?
played open beta for some hours, then preordered - it's been a long time since I was so hyped for a game. looks like a borderlands in a more realistic setting, plus the dark zone is great psychology wise.
found some deals for around 35 euro, but i thought fuckit and bought the full priced gold edition on steam. i'm officially a victim of AAA games now :/
anway, add me on steam and let's play together once may 8th hits
well, it's only for one game right now(ashes of singularity), but after having a second look on it, the R9 390 performed better there than the gtx970 even in dx11(you have those games, where one card is noticable better than the other, which most of the time is the 970 tho), so i'm not too sure what to make out of it.
so my msi gtx 970 arrived today, and it's nicely silent while the fan RPM goes over 50% actually ingame(GTA 5).
If you want 970, i would go for one which is silent under stress, because i can imagine it could get annoying having 50%+rpm on some least good cooling.
I'm considering R9 390 as well. Researching a bit it seems 390 is better overall. That includes: memory size, memory bandwith, better in benchmarks and better dx12 support. However, downsides to gtx970 are power usage, heating and oc capabilities.
But considering 390 is even a bit cheaper than 970, I might go with that one.
Only concern I have is if my PSU is enough, Seasonic X 560W, it's solid PSU but not sure if it will be enough for 390. Only reason why I would consider gtx970 over r9 390.
My gtx 970 at least seems to be unproblematic, with my bequiet 550W.
I would say it depends on the games you want to play, and also frametimes are important, which are usually better on the gtx 970(therefore smoother experience).
R9 390 would be more futureproof of course, but as i already had a g-sync monitor, it wasn't an option.
The PowerColor R9 390 PCS+(which is as silent as my msi gtx 970, and is the most silent r9 390) pulls 370W in modern games, which is only 70w more than my msi.
I would say go for it. ;)
And if i was you, i would maybe later have a look into the acer xf240 with freesync(as i'm well satisfied with my g-sync version, and wouldn't wanna miss X-sync ever again).