VR Editions: Yay or Nay

[Hydroaddiction]

They're not. The primary companies are Bethesda, which is basically being used as a testbed by EA for a potential future market to try to dominate before it exists so as to make up for the shortfalls caused by their terrible decisions, and Valve, which is pretty up-front that their primary business model is to make money off gamers and indie developers (and VR is one of the three game development paths very popular with indie developers right now; it's behind sprite games, like Stardew Valley, in popularity among indie devs).

The major developers are, otherwise, mostly refusing to touch it.

Yeah, Bethesda is nobody.. Valve is nobody.. Sony is nobody.. Facebook/Oculus are nobody..

You say Valve reason is making money on steam.. and what are the primary reasons of ALL companies? Loving the art?? Come on. With CDPR the same. Or you think people work for free..

Bethesda being used as testbed? Bethesda is a Pioneer. If they are into VR is because they want. EA said three or four weeks ago that the future of FIFA is the VR. Ubisoft is exploring VR ways too, and even CDPR confirmed the same. MANY companies.

You are only refusing the inevitable. Don't know your reasons, maybe it's because you can't use vr gears because your phisycal reason (maybe IPD?). Maybe one day you can use one of them. But that you can't use vr is no reason to throw rocks to this path. Dying platform.. absolutely not. It's being born.

Post automatically merged: Nov 14, 2018

I appreciate the excitement, but that's not how the development process works. Most games are built using tech sometimes several generations earlier than what will be out when they are released. I can't build something for stuff that doesn't exist yet, nor can I build something in the hopes that the hardware will catch up. Sometimes it's possible to modernize a game during dev to take advantage of new tech as it goes. Sometimes not. Sometimes it can be detrimental to do so, as it opens up a Pandora's Box of unexpected problems. For something like Skyrim, or GTA, or Cyberpunk -- we've seen that it's not simply a matter of "displaying the game in VR". Game mechanics themselves break down and need to be redesigned, or we wind up with the clunky results we've got with Fallout 4's venture.

The fact of the matter is, VR never really caught on in a big way. That makes developing titles for it both limiting and risky. A few titles have proven that it can be great. I was most impressed with Elite: Dangerous. (The only thing I liked more was a tech-demo RTS game, which was amazing.) But for whatever reason, whether it's the cost, or that it makes people dizzy, or it gives them headaches, etc., it's simply not a widespread market yet. Until it establishes itself more, it's highly unlikely that studios or producers will pour a tremendous amount of resources into developing for it.

I know a VR versión would require a lot of redesign.. redesign of the reloading mechanics.. driving mechanics.. even walking mechanics.. but anything of that is imposibble with the correct time and money invested.. and that money of course would not be wasted. Is not the same wasted and invested. It looks like it would be wasted, but no. Because there is a lot of people who would like to pay for playing cp on vr, so that investment would return to cdpr. Why not try with a VR mechanics specialized team? So the argue of "that time could be for DLCs" is nothing. Without money lossing and with the totally of the team working on the base game.. what is the problem now? Of course this versión should have a lot of problems that would need to be fixed. But, the work and investment is for that! You can't start to building a house without the base!

 

[BaalNergal]

Yeah, Bethesda is nobody.. Valve is nobody.. Sony is nobody.. Facebook/Oculus are nobody..

You say Valve reason is making money on steam.. and what are the primary reasons of ALL companies? Loving the art?? Come on. With CDPR the same. Or you think people work for free..

Bethesda being used as testbed? Bethesda is a Pioneer. If they are into VR is because they want. EA said three or four weeks ago that the future of FIFA is the VR. Ubisoft is exploring VR ways too, and even CDPR confirmed the same. MANY companies.

You are only refusing the inevitable. Don't know your reasons, maybe it's because you can't use vr gears because your phisycal reason (maybe IPD?). Maybe one day you can use one of them. But that you can't use vr is no reason to throw rocks to this path. Dying platform.. absolutely not. It's being born.

One developer, one game platform, one hardware manufacturer, and a social media company do not a new movement make. And while the others have stated it is the future, the proof is in the actions: Where are the games to back those statements?

They've announced they are considering it. Investigating it. That it is the way of the future. Yet, they're not announcing games for it. They're not announcing products for it. They're not announcing effort to make those statements real. And this wouldn't be the first time the video game industry has considered something "the wave of the future!" and then dropped it like it was molten rock before it could ever take off; remember the Dreamcast? Not even the first time they've done this with VR, either.

And if VR is just being born, then why are sales down 33.7% last quarter? Tough to sell a wave of the future that has already declined by one third and is still falling.

I'd consider advocating for the technology if it even had a chance, but I can guarantee you it doesn't. It's already performing worse than similar experiments that crashed and burned.

 

[Hydroaddiction]

One developer, one game platform, one hardware manufacturer, and a social media company do not a new movement make. And while the others have stated it is the future, the proof is in the actions: Where are the games to back those statements?

They've announced they are considering it. Investigating it. That it is the way of the future. Yet, they're not announcing games for it. They're not announcing products for it. They're not announcing effort to make those statements real. And this wouldn't be the first time the video game industry has considered something "the wave of the future!" and then dropped it like it was molten rock before it could ever take off; remember the Dreamcast? Not even the first time they've done this with VR, either.

And if VR is just being born, then why are sales down 33.7% last quarter? Tough to sell a wave of the future that has already declined by one third and is still falling.

I'd consider advocating for the technology if it even had a chance, but I can guarantee you it doesn't. It's already performing worse than similar experiments that crashed and burned.

One developer (Bethesda) -> nothing to say. SkyrimVR, FO4VR, Starfield and TESVI on the horizon, and their external studios also have vr titles.

One game platform (steam) -> No, not steam. Valve. And Valve is making three VR games if you didn't know. https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/valve-three-vr-games-in-development/ Also new vr complete system (hmd + controllers).

One hardware manufacturer (sony) -> So, Sony doesn't have studios that make games? Hahahahah.

One social media company (Facebook) -> Facebook is not a game developer, but they own Oculus studios wich is investing a lot on VR titles.

So, four pro-active BIG companies who are actually making big investments on VR games.
Ubisoft has released minor VR titles too. Ubi, EA and CDPR are explroring the VR. And you're only counting the companies that I told you, because there out are much more. nDreams, FromSoftware (Deracinée), Capcom (RE7), Square-Enix, Warner Bros Studios, Insomniac Games (Edge of Nowhere and Stormland), Crytek (The Climb, Robinson), Ready at Dawn (Lone Echo), Tripware Interactive (Killing Floor Incursion), Rocksteady (Batman Arkham VR), Gunfire Games (Chronos), Elite Dangerous (Frontier), Ninja Theory (Hellblade), Overkill (Payday2), Slightly Mad Studios (Project Cars 2)...

Compare VR with Dreamcast is even more ridiculous than comparing it with 3D.

"And if VR is just being born, then why are sales down 33.7% last quarter?"

Hmm? Don't know if you know something of Economics. But is easy. Economic cycle. All products are attended
to an economic cycle.
First generation of VR is not good enough to be massive. People who wanted VR on the beginning, now the 99% of them have their vr system. So it's easy to guess why the sales are a bit down now.

VR needs a new impulse to catch more people. And that's why new manufacturers are investing on the new generation of HMDs. Oculus with their Project HalfDome, Quest and Caspar. Valve with their very recent leaked hmd, Samsung with their Odyssey +, LG, Sony (who recently patented a new controller for PSVR2)

This happens with all products. VR systems, PS4, XBOX, smartphones, TVs, graphics cards.. products are not eternal, they have a cycle. And the first generation hmds cycle is decreasing. NOT the VR.

Because when you see that a console sales are going down, pc hardware sales are going down, you don't say that GAMING is going down, right? Why you do with VR?

Actually you only say things like
-"Dying platform"
-"Low sales on last quarter"
-"No companies interest"

Only things that you are interested to mention to argue that this is an unnecesary platform. But the reality is not that. You have a lot of proofs, but you don't want to see them. I'm answering to you with real facts, and you are answering me with excuses, like "is a social media company", "it's a game platform", "they are not interested in vr, they are interested in the money", "they are being used as a testbed".

Post automatically merged: Nov 14, 2018

I really recommend you and all skepticals to watch at this. Two VR upcoming games from mid-big studios (Insomniac Games and Ready at Dawn)
First is a 23 minute gameplay. It is worth it to watch the full videos, believe me.

 

[BaalNergal]

One developer (Bethesda) -> nothing to say. SkyrimVR, FO4VR, Starfield and TESVI on the horizon, and their external studios also have vr titles.

Bethesda doesn't have external studios. You're thinking of the publishing division that Bethesda the game developer was spun off from. Despite the same name for both, they are two different companies. But they're both owned by ZeniMax, which also owns most of the studios that publish through the Bethesda publisher.

Also, Skyrim VR and FO4VR have both been PR headaches for Bethesda. They also have not confirmed if Starfield and TESVI will be VR, and so far steadfastly refuse to say.

Incidentally, I didn't find most of those other publishers showing any interest in VR.

One game platform (steam) -> No, not steam. Valve. And Valve is making three VR games if you didn't know. https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/valve-three-vr-games-in-development/ Also new vr complete system (hmd + controllers).

Steam is Valve. Steam is just Valve's publishing software and store. And, yeah, I read that... but it does not prove there is more interest from other big names.

One hardware manufacturer (sony) -> So, Sony doesn't have studios that make games? Hahahahah.

The only studio I found for them that still makes games makes mobile games. Sony's former game development studio seems to function entirely as a publisher these days. So, I'm going out on a limb and saying "for the purposes of this conversation, they don't."

One social media company (Facebook) -> Facebook is not a game developer, but they own Oculus studios wich is investing a lot on VR titles.

And they're losing lawsuits over it because the Rift was created using code stolen from ZeniMax. Which was an interesting find, by the way, and a good example of why companies like Facebook should stay out of this game.

So, four pro-active BIG companies who are actually making big investments on VR games.
Ubisoft has released minor VR titles too. Ubi, EA and CDPR are explroring the VR. And you're only counting the companies that I told you, because there out are much more. nDreams, FromSoftware (Deracinée), Capcom (RE7), Square-Enix, Warner Bros Studios, Insomniac Games (Edge of Nowhere and Stormland), Crytek (The Climb, Robinson), Ready at Dawn (Lone Echo), Tripware Interactive (Killing Floor Incursion), Rocksteady (Batman Arkham VR), Gunfire Games (Chronos), Elite Dangerous (Frontier), Ninja Theory (Hellblade), Overkill (Payday2), Slightly Mad Studios (Project Cars 2)...

You have one studio that has invested heavily in VR, but refuses to confirm they will do so further. One that is developing three games for their own system after determining their existing titles won't do the job. And two that don't even make games that could be ever played in VR, one of which is currently being sued back out of the video game industry for being idiots about copyright. That is not a good basis for creating a new platform for gaming.

Compare VR with Dreamcast is even more ridiculous than comparing it with 3D.

Why? The Dreamcast was ahead of its time at the time, and it actually had a lot of positive industry attention before it was released. All of the main advances it sold with are currently standard for video game consoles, too. And the Dreamcast didn't see most of those promises and positive comments amount to anything and suffered for it... exactly like VR has been for the past eleven years.

Hmm? Don't know if you know something of Economics. But is easy. Economic cycle. All products are attended
to an economic cycle.
First generation of VR is not good enough to be massive. People who wanted VR on the beginning, now the 99% of them have their vr system. So it's easy to guess why the sales are a bit down now.

I know about economic cycles. A downtrend of one third of your total sales is not "a bit down" for a new technology trying to establish itself. Historically, it's been the first sign of a technology about to crash and burn. HD DVD is another technology that saw the same problem, but it at least had a contemporary competitor. Alternating current saw the same problem in several areas before we discovered how crap direct current really was. The last wave of electric cars, the one prior to the current wave, were crushed by that problem when competing against gasoline cars. The Dreamcast. And on and on the list goes.

VR, at current, is just another item on a very long list stretching back a good five thousand years. It will eventually be accepted, sure... but not today. It's not ready.

VR needs a new impulse to catch more people. And that's why new manufacturers are investing on the new generation of HMDs. Oculus with their Project HalfDome, Quest and Caspar. Valve with their very recent leaked hmd, Samsung with their Odyssey +, LG, Sony (who recently patented a new controller for PSVR2)

This happens with all products. VR systems, PS4, XBOX, smartphones, TVs, graphics cards.. products are not eternal, they have a cycle. And the first generation hmds cycle is decreasing. NOT the VR.

Because when you see that a console sales are going down, pc hardware sales are going down, you don't say that GAMING is going down, right? Why you do with VR?

With gaming, there is another metric you can measure: Video game sales. Those usually move independent of hardware, since console hardware upgrades in stages and computer hardware is pretty stagnant as far as yearly improvement as of now; you can pretty much update computer hardware requirements to run a game at the same pace you release new consoles, if not a little slower. As such, video game sales usually operate independently of hardware sales.

Guess what? VR has another issue: The game sales are slowing as the hardware sales slow. And about as fast, from what I've seen. The hardware and software are still linked, so one sinking kills the other.

Only things that you are interested to mention to argue that this is an unnecesary platform. But the reality is not that. You have a lot of proofs, but you don't want to see them. I'm answering to you with real facts, and you are answering me with excuses, like "is a social media company", "it's a game platform", "they are not interested in vr, they are interested in the money", "they are being used as a testbed".

What real facts? You have three exceptions from the video game industry and one company not even part of the industry trying to break in... and only a couple of actual big-league games combined with some small ones to back the idea VR is going strong.

Four companies do not the computer industry make. Two AAA games in a market with hundreds do not a true interest make. Sales sinking like the Titanic after it gave an iceberg a hug does not a success make. Exceptions do not disprove the rule.

I really recommend you and all skepticals to watch at this. Two VR upcoming games from mid-big studios (Insomniac Games and Ready at Dawn)
First is a 23 minute gameplay. It is worth it to watch the full videos, believe me.

That's mind-blowing? The first game was... okay, for an EA game. The second one was... Okay, maybe I could justify those graphics from an indie studio. Those videos are not selling what you say at all.

And I looked up Ready At Dawn. Their best-known games are... mobile God of War games that were subcontracted to them. Yeah. They are not a middle-big studio at all; they're so small time it hurts.

Insomniac Games is a somewhat mid-sized studio, but their best-known developed properties are the Resistance series, Spyro, and Ratchet and Klank. So, they're a studio that's slid downhill over the years; that happens.

And their most recent successful game, the Spiderman game of 2018, is not VR. Prior to that, it was a Resistance-series game. Their first VR game apparently did well with the critics, but I can't name people who've heard of it, so it didn't do as well as you might expect.

Overall... No big names, for the most part.

Also, the second video looks like they ripped the idea for that game from this:

 

[Hydroaddiction]

...

1 - No matter if I talk about them as developers or publishers. This is valid for both, Bethesda and Sony.
Sony has a lot of external studios, Bethesda too. Doom VFR, Wolfenstein and Prey experiences. And more games Will come.

Todd Howard was recently interviewed about VR. He said this:
"The idea is to keep being ambitious," adds Howard. "Playing it safe is the worst way to do things. Morrowind was hard. It was our first time on console. If it didn’t do well, the company was probably out of business. Oblivion was really difficult. We really pushed the tech. I liked that line in the movie Shakespeare in Love: How is this going to work out? I don’t know, but it always does."

Also, they merged BETHESDA DALLAS (Their studio who ported their VR games) with the major team of Starfield.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/62782/bethesdas-new-dallas-studio-helping-starfield/index.html
Hmm a pair of ases aren't enough for you?...

2 - You say that the fact that Valve IS making and investment on THREE AAA VR games and new generation hardware, don't tell you more than other studios interest?... Okay. I'm starting to think that I'm losing my time.

3 - Facebook and Zenimax fight is over. They are going to pay 250m$ to Zenimax (they made an Accord to pay less if I'm not wrong) and life continues. Like a looot of big companies. And what? REALLY are you using that to throw rocks to VR??? Oculus is more strong than ever.

4 - You told me that companies are not interested in VR. I told you a lot!!
- Bethesda. Sony. Valve. Oculus. Ndreams. CDPR. Ubi. Ea. Capcom. Square Enix. Ninja Theory. Slightly Mad. Frontier. Crytek. Warner Bros / Rocksteady. Insomniac.

5 - When CDPR launched The Witcher 1, I suspect, by your rules, that you thought that that studio were going to crash and burn.

6 - Ready at Dawn (The Order 1886, Lone Echo) is a mid studio. Insomniac Games (Ratchet and Clank, Spiderman, Resistance, Spyro) is a big studio. Obviusly that you haven't seen any VR titles like Spiderman because VR is something NEW. They made Edge of Nowhere as I told you and they are making STORMLAND.
Oh and I forgot it: Respawn is making a VR title too. That studio is small too?

And you say "what facts?".. you're never going to accept anything because you hate VR. It's very clear.


For the last: no, they are not mind-blowing. But if you ACTUALLY tried a VR headset you could imagine what they could be inside of the glasses. The first time that you answered me you said that you have a vr system blablablá.. a few comments up you said "I'd consider advocating for the technology if it even had a chance," and now you said that about that two games. ACTUALLY had you tried VR? I don't think so. Someone who ACTUALLY tried VR knows that you can't see the same graphics level on VR than on monitor/tv, but inside the glasses they are a LOT more spectacular. The immersion is uncomparable. So someone who tried VR could make an idea of what Cyberpunk COULD BE.

And of course, Virtual Reality will not be massive TODAY. I didn't said that.
As a mate said before
"we need some point to start"
This generation is ending. Next generation is coming. And when Cyberpunk came out, there will be a new generation out. I'm not asking to making Cyberpunk VR for tomorrow. I'm asking to consider a VR versión several years ahead. Note the difference.

Bad graphics… indie studio… yeah.

 

[BaalNergal]

1 - No matter if I talk about them as developers or publishers. This is valid for both, Bethesda and Sony.
Sony has a lot of external studios, Bethesda too. Doom VFR, Wolfenstein and Prey experiences. And more games Will come.

Todd Howard was recently interviewed about VR. He said this:
"The idea is to keep being ambitious," adds Howard. "Playing it safe is the worst way to do things. Morrowind was hard. It was our first time on console. If it didn’t do well, the company was probably out of business. Oblivion was really difficult. We really pushed the tech. I liked that line in the movie Shakespeare in Love: How is this going to work out? I don’t know, but it always does."

Also, they merged BETHESDA DALLAS (Their studio who ported their VR games) with the major team of Starfield.
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/62782/bethesdas-new-dallas-studio-helping-starfield/index.html
Hmm a pair of ases aren't enough for you?...

Todd Howard talks a lot, but he doesn't necessarily deliver a lot. He tends to, well... he could use a few lessons on how to tell the truth. He's the same man who said there would be no Fallout 4 paid mods... which is exactly what the Creation Club is. And that's not even the most dishonest he's been. So, you can't exactly trust his word on, well, anything.

Oh, and notice how he didn't actually commit to a game for VR beyond what they've already done? That should be a hint.

And, right. Sure, publishers and developers are the same thing for this. Right. So when publishers are looking to publish VR games and no one is making any, do you think they'll manage to publish some? This isn't complex logic; you can't fill a demand for which the supply does not exist. At the same time, you can't sell a supply for which there is no demand.

2 - You say that the fact that Valve IS making and investment on THREE AAA VR games and new generation hardware, don't tell you more than other studios interest?... Okay. I'm starting to think that I'm losing my time.

Valve invests a lot in games that never come into being. Half-Life 3, for example. You learn to wait and see with them.

Besides, just because they're offering cash for the games doesn't mean those games will appear. Notice the lack of details about the games in question?

3 - Facebook and Zenimax fight is over. They are going to pay 250m$ to Zenimax (they made an Accord to pay less if I'm not wrong) and life continues. Like a looot of big companies. And what? REALLY are you using that to throw shit to VR??? Oculus is more strong than ever.

ZeniMax filed more lawsuits against Facebook over Oculus. Facebook also filed some court documents pertaining to future possible litigation. The fight is just starting; all you're talking about are the results of Round 1.

4 - You told me that companies are not interested in VR. I told you a lot!!
- Bethesda. Sony. Valve. Oculus. Ndreams. CDPR. Ubi. Ea. Capcom. Square Enix. Ninja Theory. Slightly Mad. Frontier. Crytek. Warner Bros / Rocksteady. Insomniac.

In order:
Bethesda- Made two games, refuses to confirm making more.
Sony- Only makes mobile games these days, definitely won't make VR games.
Valve- Okay, I'll give you this one.
Oculus- Currently in the process of preparing for the next round of lawsuits from ZeniMax.
Ndreams- Small studio
CDPR- No confirmed VR games, currently has no plans for their next big IP to be VR.
Ubisoft- Checked their website. None of their major games are VR. Shows no plans for a shift that direction in the major lines yet.
EA- Only if they can force Origin on VR. Even then, regularly lies through their teeth about future plans.
Capcom- Two games, already telling people not to expect VR in future projects.
Square Enix- Couple of minor games, mostly published some indie titles brought to them by indie devs. All major titles stay off VR.
Ninja Theory- Small studio.
Slightly Mad- Small studio
Frontier- One game, and future projects show no signs of considering it.
Crytek- Once a large studio, now quite small and struggling to survive.
Warner Bros/Rocksteady- One game, shows no signs of VR attempts in future projects.
Insomniac- Medium-sized studio, releasing second game for VR, doesn't do big games in VR.

So far... you have even many of the studios that did touch it either obviously or giving every sign that they are walking away, some others expressing interest, and small studios with nothing to lose.

5 - When CDPR launched The Witcher 1, I suspect, by your rules, that you thought that that studio were going to crash and burn.

Not really. It's kinda rare for game studios to crash and burn. Plus, they already had an established foothold as a localization company, so even if they did fail spectacularly at making games they would still be operating long after everyone forgot they ever attempted such.

And you say "what facts?".. you're never going to accept anything because you hate VR. It's very clear.

Why do you assume I hate VR? Because I say it's not ready yet and the market is turning against it? That is not hatred; that is simple statement of how reality is from what I see of the evidence presented.

VR will come. When we have the technology to do it properly. That is not now. And when it comes, I'll deal with it like I deal with all of humanity's steps forward: Either find a way to benefit from it, or ignore it and wait for it to be replaced by something else if there's no benefit for me. Hating it requires an emotional investment I frankly just don't care to make.

For the last: no, they are not mind-blowing. But if you ACTUALLY tried a VR headset you could imagine what they could be inside of the glasses. The first time that you answered me you said that you have a vr system blablablá.. a few comments up you said "I'd consider advocating for the technology if it even had a chance," and now you said that about that two games. ACTUALLY had you tried VR? I don't think so. Someone who ACTUALLY tried VR knows that you can't see the same graphics level on VR than on monitor/tv, but inside the glasses they are a LOT more spectacular. The immersion is uncomparable. So someone who tried VR could make an idea of what Cyberpunk COULD BE.

Actually, I found it rather underwhelming before the headache set in. The cones and rods in my eyes are not patterned right for properly seeing VR as it currently exists without quickly overstressing the visual cortex. So, for me, trying the Oculus amounted to seeing worse graphics than I can see on the standard computer screen. I get the same problem when I get my face too close to the computer screen and with certain flatscreen TVs.

Beyond that? I didn't see anything about it that I can't accomplish with a couple more screens for my computer, a chair with a custom control rig, and a good set of headphones. In fact, my own experiments suggested what I came up with is better. Tad bit costly on the space it takes up, though.

And of course, Virtual Reality will not be massive TODAY. I didn't said that.
As a mate said before
"we need some point to start"
This generation is ending. Next generation is coming. And when Cyberpunk came out, there will be a new generation out. I'm not asking to making Cyberpunk VR for tomorrow. I'm asking to consider a VR versión several years ahead. Note the difference.

The thing is, I've been having this same exact conversation with varying people since 1995. So, at this point, I'm forced to ask: How many generations does it take before it actually gets off the fucking ground?

What we're currently discussing are the failings of 5th-gen VR tech and you're advocating how the 6th-gen is going to magically do better than the previous five generations of failure. Five. Fucking. Generations. Of. Failure.

So, when the 6th gen fails, do you think the 7th will magically succeed? The 8th? 9th? Or is it, quite possibly, that we simply haven't discovered the basic technology we need to do it right just yet and it's less likely to get off the ground than Apollo 1?

And the worst part is? I will be having this same exact conversation about the 10th generation. Because I'm just too stubborn to accept people need to be left to back something and suffer crushing disappointment on their own.

Bad graphics… indie studio… yeah.

Parts of the video were good. Others... Well, they looked like they came from Doom 3. That's normally something you see from an indie studio.

 

[Hydroaddiction]

1) Bethesda confirmed The Elder Scrolls: Blades for VR and confirmed they will continue to support VR. Obviously how can you expect they to say Starfield will support VR if they haven't confirmed ANYTHING about Starfield or TES VI.. even the platforms. And the fact that Bethesda Dallas (VR STUDIO) is working with Starfield team it's true, not a Todd quote. More clear than water.

2) I think you hate VR because you can't use it and you are only talking bad things about it. I haven't read anything good on any of your messages. I told you a lot of studios/publishers and you are aminoring them. "small studio" "small studio" "no games" "involved in lawsuits"
(Sony paid a lot of studios for making games for PSVR, like FromSoftware for example) Oculus is investing a lot of money on VR. But you are reducing their reality to the fights with Zenimax. Ehh… I will not waste more time.

3) What 5th generation. You are talking about experiments. Virtualboy. Oculus Development kits. All of them were experiments.

The TRUE first VR generation was born on 2016 with HTC Vive, Oculus Rift and PSVR.
And it is the TRUE first VR generation because the headsets are not experiments. They have games. Films. Documentals. They have fucking porn. A lot of companies are currently investing on VR.

You talked about things must be done two times. Okay, I Will accept that one. Virtual Boy was the first one. Now it's the definitive.

But hey. I'm wasting my time here. You will see it in the sooner future. Maybe not with Cyberpunk. But in 2019, 2020, you will see the "dying platform". I can only wish to you a lot of luck for playing and enjoying the VR like me and like a lot of people will do without headaches. And if one day, don't know when, but if one day you play Cyberpunk 2077 or 2080 on VR, don't forget all of this.

 

[Guest 4211861]

I can't afford VR and it makes me feel dizzy.

 

[BaalNergal]

1) Bethesda confirmed The Elder Scrolls: Blades for VR and confirmed they will continue to support VR. Obviously how can you expect they to say Starfield will support VR if they haven't confirmed ANYTHING about Starfield or TES VI.. even the platforms. And the fact that Bethesda Dallas (VR STUDIO) is working with Starfield team it's true, not a Todd quote. More clear than water.

It's also a mobile game, not their main product line. But, fine, add a minor item.

And, a studio working on something doesn't necessarily mean anything. Their skills are not limited to just creating VR. Did they say what they are doing?

2) I think you hate VR because you can't use it and you are only talking bad things about it. I haven't read anything good on any of your messages. I told you a lot of studios/publishers and you are aminoring them. "small studio" "small studio" "no games" "involved in lawsuits"
(Sony paid a lot of studios for making games for PSVR, like FromSoftware for example) Oculus is investing a lot of money on VR. But you are reducing their reality to the fights with Zenimax. Ehh… I will not waste more time.

I don't own a Playstation, so I can't use a Playstation release. Do you see me arguing they shouldn't release one on that console?

I also mentioned I have the same issue with certain TVs. Do you see me arguing those devices should be off the market?

I can't use the 3D mode on Nintendo's 3DS. Do you see me arguing that should be off the market?

Have you considered my arguments against VR have nothing to do with if I can use it?

3) What 5th generation. You are talking about experiments. Virtualboy. Oculus Development kits. All of them were experiments.

The TRUE first VR generation was born on 2016 with HTC Vive, Oculus Rift and PSVR.
And it is the TRUE first VR generation because the headsets are not experiments. They have games. Films. Documentals. They have fucking porn. A lot of companies are currently investing on VR.

You talked about things must be done two times. Okay, I Will accept that one. Virtual Boy was the first one. Now it's the definitive.

The first generation of devices were the Sega VR and Virtuality, back in 1991; Sega VR had an arcade release in 1994. The Virtual Boy, released in 1995, was part of the second generation of VR devices, which included another Virtuality product. The third gen was, again, dominated by Virtuality.

So, no, I am not talking experiments. I am not talking about laboratory work. I am talking actual, released products. So, no, the first true VR generation was not born in 2016.

And, as I've shown, this isn't the first time there has been a concentrated effort over multiple devices. It failed last time, and for mostly the same exact reasons it's failing this time.

But hey. I'm wasting my time here. You will see it in the sooner future. Maybe not with Cyberpunk. But in 2019, 2020, you will see the "dying platform". I can only wish to you a lot of luck for playing and enjoying the VR like me and like a lot of people will do without headaches. And if one day, don't know when, but if one day you play Cyberpunk 2077 or 2080 on VR, don't forget all of this.

The same thing was said to me about Virtuality and Virtual Boy. 23 years later and it still hasn't happened.

When it fails, look back on this. And when the next hype product rolls around, research the history of it and see if it, too, repeats past mistakes.

 

[EngryEngineer]

1) Bethesda confirmed The Elder Scrolls: Blades for VR and confirmed they will continue to support VR. Obviously how can you expect they to say Starfield will support VR if they haven't confirmed ANYTHING about Starfield or TES VI.. even the platforms. And the fact that Bethesda Dallas (VR STUDIO) is working with Starfield team it's true, not a Todd quote. More clear than water.

2) I think you hate VR because you can't use it and you are only talking bad things about it. I haven't read anything good on any of your messages. I told you a lot of studios/publishers and you are aminoring them. "small studio" "small studio" "no games" "involved in lawsuits"
(Sony paid a lot of studios for making games for PSVR, like FromSoftware for example) Oculus is investing a lot of money on VR. But you are reducing their reality to the fights with Zenimax. Ehh… I will not waste more time.

3) What 5th generation. You are talking about experiments. Virtualboy. Oculus Development kits. All of them were experiments.

The TRUE first VR generation was born on 2016 with HTC Vive, Oculus Rift and PSVR.
And it is the TRUE first VR generation because the headsets are not experiments. They have games. Films. Documentals. They have fucking porn. A lot of companies are currently investing on VR.

You talked about things must be done two times. Okay, I Will accept that one. Virtual Boy was the first one. Now it's the definitive.

But hey. I'm wasting my time here. You will see it in the sooner future. Maybe not with Cyberpunk. But in 2019, 2020, you will see the "dying platform". I can only wish to you a lot of luck for playing and enjoying the VR like me and like a lot of people will do without headaches. And if one day, don't know when, but if one day you play Cyberpunk 2077 or 2080 on VR, don't forget all of this.

We have been trying to make VR happen since before we had personal computers, and many of the projects did result in actual products they just were so expensive and single purpose that they were only ever used by NASA or the US military. The 90's saw an explosion of consumer centric VR, mostly in arcades. The first VR generation absolutely was not in 2016, that said this current phase of VR devices has been significantly more successful than previous attempts and this is the first time we see significant development actually embracing it.

I think it is premature to really say this time definitively will or will not work, but what I expect is that the companies pushing it will continue to do so enough that I don't think this phase will really fade away like previous ones though I also don't think it will take off until various factors come into play and issue in the next phase. I am using phase here as a replacement for a technological generation because we will likely see several model generations within the current technological generation, and that gets confusing.

Either way, until mass adoption happens I think it is fine to hope for your favorite games/developers to embrace the tech but we shouldn't expect or demand it.

 

[SigilFey]

Sorry -- I missed this! (Fixed the post above, too. )

Where did you read that? Cause what you says looks like old 3D, not the kind used in VR.
In (most) VR there is only one big screen divided in two parts which show almost the same thing (almost is because of the different POV of each eye).
And I don't think I would feel cross eyed as that's how it normally is IRL where both your eyes are seeing different things at the same time.

Spoiler: As this is interesting, but getting off-topic:

I'm very sure it's VR, but I'm not sure what developments may have been made along the way to deal with it. Basically, early versions of VR left a lot of people with that "cross-eyed" feeling. The reason for it is that one eye processes information slightly faster than the other eye. It's how our brain differentiates between the signals being received from the right or left. When stimulus is received by both eyes in true real-time (ala from the real world), that difference creates our natural, 3D depth perception.

Trouble with VR is that it's still a series of still images displayed in rapid succession on a screen. While, ironically, the illusion might be "invisible to our eye" -- it's not invisible to our brain. If the image that is seen by the left eye versus the right eye should fall out of sync, the result is a crossover between the two images that doesn't line up and a distorted final image in the brain. (The example of it feeling "cross-eyed" is just a way of trying to explain what the sensation is like. That's how it felt to me when it happened.) To rectify this, so that the brain can't possibly get the two signals crossed, when one eye's display draws an image, the other display draws a black frame. (Or that's how it was handled the last time I spoke to someone about it...which was a fair few years ago.)

Perhaps, now, they've come up with a better way of handling it, I'm not sure. Maybe 90 Hz is enough to draw both frames in real-time, and it's fast enough to fool the brain. But what's 100% necessary is that both frames remain perfectly in-sync at all times. If the "wrong" image is displayed for either eye for even an instant, the brain will almost definitely detect it.

Actually that's just an hardware problem. You don't have to degrade something for everyone because it takes ressources, just to have sliders. Just like the normal game, which won't work the same on an high end gamer PC than on an old PC.

Actually, when playing with vorpX, you see that problems doesn't really comes with "where is the middle", but more from "how far is left eye from right one".

Same difference, in both cases.

Fact remains that environments on a flat screen are able to be much more complex than images in VR. That's a huge consideration when deciding where to put the resources for development.

For positioning, it's simply going to take more processing power to keep track of where everything is in 3D space between the data received from two displays. Of course, it's possible, but as the environments and/or game mechanics get more complex, the processing cost for this increases exponentially.

Minus what makes people not having VR isn't that most people doesn't likes it, it's because VR is costly and not easy to use.
If VR costed 50 bucks and were as easy to use as putting a pair of glasses, most people would have it.

Besides, peoples liked Fallout 4 VR.
Actually a very slightly more people liked Fallout 4 VR than original Fallout 4: 69% liked Fallout 4 on Steam versus 71% who liked Fallout 4 VR.

I agree. You're probably right. But it's not feasible yet. It's not that it isn't very cool; it's that the interest and value isn't stable yet.

The same thing happened with 3D accelerators. I remember reading about the original, 3DFx card when it was released. I was in university, so I needed to save up for almost a year to afford one. Got it and was blown away by it. (Mechwarrior 2 was the game I got it for.) How could people not buy into it!? It was nearly 10 years before a 3D accelerator of some sort was "standard" in most computer systems. And, think about how critical a 3D card is to the gaming experience.

VR is not at all critical, and it's a fairly big departure from established systems for both gaming and user interface. It's not surprising to me that it's taking a long time to find its place.

And if VR is just being born, then why are sales down 33.7% last quarter? Tough to sell a wave of the future that has already declined by one third and is still falling.

I'd call this a reflection of overzealous marketing. I think they need to start making more "quick-and-dirty" VR rigs that ensure a much wider market gets into it. As it stands, most companies want to charge a premium for a technology that the wider market considers a novelty at best. Naturally, it may create a surge here or surge there as interest ebbs and flows, but it's not getting consumers into VR.

From there, the cycle will continue. A title will hit. A burst of excitement. The response is mixed. It doesn't offer enough to compete with the established market. Sales flag again.

For that, I would say that investors are going to need to bite the bullet. Step one is to get a rig into as many people's hands as possible. That means price needs to get cut waaay down. Forget bells and whistles like built-in sound support and stylish cosmetics -- cut-and-dry, black, plastic case, ensure standard headphones will fit over it. No frills; just a VR display that works reliably. Step two, tighten their belts. Make their price on-par with standard monitors (~$100-$150). Yup, that might mean a loss at the beginning (although, more than likely, it simply means reduced profits.) Step 3, take what profits have been generated and start re-investing in developers to build software that utilizes VR in a meaningful way for the average person.

Right now, most of the VR titles I've tried have been gimmicky. A lot of "cool" and "nifty"...but little in the way of "you-have-to-try-this!" It seems like the Oculus hit the market and wanted to be the "caviar and fine wine" of the gaming world...even though they could only offer spinach dip and onion rings on the menu.

The finest, top-shelf liquor began with barrels used to make beer.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

Nay.

 

[BaalNergal]

Sorry -- I missed this! (Fixed the post above, too. )

Spoiler: As this is interesting, but getting off-topic:

I'm very sure it's VR, but I'm not sure what developments may have been made along the way to deal with it. Basically, early versions of VR left a lot of people with that "cross-eyed" feeling. The reason for it is that one eye processes information slightly faster than the other eye. It's how our brain differentiates between the signals being received from the right or left. When stimulus is received by both eyes in true real-time (ala from the real world), that difference creates our natural, 3D depth perception.

Trouble with VR is that it's still a series of still images displayed in rapid succession on a screen. While, ironically, the illusion might be "invisible to our eye" -- it's not invisible to our brain. If the image that is seen by the left eye versus the right eye should fall out of sync, the result is a crossover between the two images that doesn't line up and a distorted final image in the brain. (The example of it feeling "cross-eyed" is just a way of trying to explain what the sensation is like. That's how it felt to me when it happened.) To rectify this, so that the brain can't possibly get the two signals crossed, when one eye's display draws an image, the other display draws a black frame. (Or that's how it was handled the last time I spoke to someone about it...which was a fair few years ago.)

Perhaps, now, they've come up with a better way of handling it, I'm not sure. Maybe 90 Hz is enough to draw both frames in real-time, and it's fast enough to fool the brain. But what's 100% necessary is that both frames remain perfectly in-sync at all times. If the "wrong" image is displayed for either eye for even an instant, the brain will almost definitely detect it.

Spoiler: Addressing a bit of the off-topic

90 Hz isn't actually faster than the eye can see; they've measured 120 Hz for the human eye before, and I've heard of some people supposedly hitting 180 Hz without loss of ability to differentiate. It doesn't help that the human eye has a massive amount of variation in structure, so there is no actual reliable measure for what the top-end is.

 

[Suhiira]

Trouble with VR is that it's still a series of still images displayed in rapid succession on a screen. While, ironically, the illusion might be "invisible to our eye" -- it's not invisible to our brain.

To the best of my knowledge no research has been published (tho I'm sure some has been done) concerning the percentage of the population that has problems with VR. I'd be willing to bet it's larger then the percentage that have problems with first person perspective. How much larger, who knows, but a sizable enough minority to make current (and maybe future) VR something many people cannot use.

VR is not at all critical, and it's a fairly big departure from established systems for both gaming and user interface. It's not surprising to me that it's taking a long time to find its place.

And this is another MAJOR strike against VR's popularity. If you're not playing first-person games, and the best selling and most played games ... Tetris, Minecraft, Mario, etc. are not first-person, it's of little to no use. Even if VR were given away free it'd still be of extremely limited use/value in such games.

Right now, most of the VR titles I've tried have been gimmicky. A lot of "cool" and "nifty"...but little in the way of "you-have-to-try-this!"

Very much so.
It's fun and interesting to mess around with, but by no means vital to anything. Even FPS games have, and will continue, to play fine without it.

 

[BaalNergal]

To the best of my knowledge no research has been published (tho I'm sure some has been done) concerning the percentage of the population that has problems with VR. I'd be willing to bet it's larger then the percentage that have problems with first person perspective. How much larger, who knows, but a sizable enough minority to make current (and maybe future) VR something many people cannot use.

The portion of the population that can't use a certain type of 3D, like that used by the 3DS, is large enough it forced Nintendo to rethink their approach to handheld gaming and release a non-3D product line in the 3DS family (which, from what I've seen, is selling incredibly well). If it's the same vision issue affecting both the 3DS and VR across the board, then VR never stood a chance.

 

[Harthwain]

Right now, most of the VR titles I've tried have been gimmicky. A lot of "cool" and "nifty"...but little in the way of "you-have-to-try-this!"

What do you mean by that?

 

[SigilFey]

Spoiler: Addressing a bit of the off-topic

90 Hz isn't actually faster than the eye can see; they've measured 120 Hz for the human eye before, and I've heard of some people supposedly hitting 180 Hz without loss of ability to differentiate. It doesn't help that the human eye has a massive amount of variation in structure, so there is no actual reliable measure for what the top-end is.

Spoiler: Further off-topic:

I guess as long as the FPS are fast enough not to interfere with natural eye dominance, that would do it. It will certiainly be different for different people. For me, I was able to cope with it. It was sort of like those old illusion posters from the '90s. I'd simply need to focus a certain way, and all was well. But it would eventually crop up again, and I'd need to consciously try to refocus correctly. It was pretty annoying. The host of a later event explained the back-and-forth thing that was developed to fix it.

To me, it made perfect sense. As long as a matched pair of frames was drawn at the correct persepctive, then staggering one eye after the other would ensure that stimulus was only receieved by one eye at a time. As long as that image is synced with the following image for the other eye, there is no way for the "off" eye to conflict -- the brain will simply ignore the black frame. The final image in the brain would be cohesive regardless of eye dominance. Can't confuse what isn't there.

 

[Suhiira]

Spoiler: Further off-topic:

I guess as long as the FPS are fast enough not to interfere with natural eye dominance, that would do it. It will certiainly be different for different people. For me, I was able to cope with it. It was sort of like those old illusion posters from the '90s. I'd simply need to focus a certain way, and all was well. But it would eventually crop up again, and I'd need to consciously try to refocus correctly. It was pretty annoying. The host of a later event explained the back-and-forth thing that was developed to fix it.

To me, it made perfect sense. As long as a matched pair of frames was drawn at the correct persepctive, then staggering one eye after the other would ensure that stimulus was only receieved by one eye at a time. As long as that image is synced with the following image for the other eye, there is no way for the "off" eye to conflict -- the brain will simply ignore the black frame. The final image in the brain would be cohesive regardless of eye dominance. Can't confuse what isn't there.

Needless to say this isn't something people that don't experience it can "grok".

 

[SigilFey]

To the best of my knowledge no research has been published (tho I'm sure some has been done) concerning the percentage of the population that has problems with VR. I'd be willing to bet it's larger then the percentage that have problems with first person perspective. How much larger, who knows, but a sizable enough minority to make current (and maybe future) VR something many people cannot use.

The portion of the population that can't use a certain type of 3D, like that used by the 3DS, is large enough it forced Nintendo to rethink their approach to handheld gaming and release a non-3D product line in the 3DS family (which, from what I've seen, is selling incredibly well). If it's the same vision issue affecting both the 3DS and VR across the board, then VR never stood a chance.

Honestly, I don't think this is significant enough to interrupt its success. I myself don't prefer VR, but I'd probably dabble with it for a few things here and there. However, I'm not paying $500 for it.

That's the major issue, in my estimation. Basing a venture on how many people might have physical, mental, or emotional problem with is setting it up to fail. Of course, not everyone will be able to take part in it. There's always someone that will not be able to take part in something.

By "3DS", did you mean the "Virtual Boy"? That was a severe lack of study, I believe. Red light is very fatiguing on the eyes.

And this is another MAJOR strike against VR's popularity. If you're not playing first-person games, and the best selling and most played games ... Tetris, Minecraft, Mario, etc. are not first-person, it's of little to no use. Even if VR were given away free it'd still be of extremely limited use/value in such games.

First-person felt a little awkward to me. Physically moving through space with a controller didn't feel natural when virtually all other movements were regular, body movements. I could get used to it, I suppose...but I really don't glean much that much enjoyment from it.

Conversely, being in a vehicle felt good. I admit, I'd probably keep coming back to VR for Elite (despite the very frustrating aspect of not being able to see your hands and the keyboard when you needed to). But sitting the cockpit of the ship, naturally being able to look around and lean...was unbelievable. What got me the most was the sense of scale. On a flat screen, stations are a visual feast, but in VR, it's awe-inspiring. Things feel unbelievably immense. (That was one of the few titles I would label "you-have-to-try-this!") But, in the end, I can take it or leave it. It's a really nice feature, but it doesn't affect my enjoyment of the game.

RTS is where I truly feel it's at. If people have never played an RTS game in VR..."you-have-to-try-this!" That blew me away.

Which leads me to...

Very much so.
It's fun and interesting to mess around with, but by no means vital to anything. Even FPS games have, and will continue, to play fine without it.

What do you mean by that?

...this. The above experiences have been very few and far between. I've been "trying" VR for almost 15 years now. I've gone to numerous, hands-on demonstrations, and I have a few friends that use it. I can't even remember how many different titles I've tried, but most of them feel like 1980's arcade games to me. Very one-note. It gets stale really quickly. (Personally, I like the "Space Pirate" game where you get the two laser pistols and shoot at drones. Funs. But that's it. That's all you do.) I can't tell you how many "castles" or "houses" I've "walked through". Can't begin to explain how many times I've "picked something up and manipulated it".

Elite: Dangerous, Alien: Isolation, and that RTS thing (which was only a tech demo) were the only titles that made me gawk a little.

 

[Mevik1023]

The combination of V's mobility and VR give me a headache at the thought of this. However, assuming the game isn't shamelessly tailored to a VR-first experience, more options are always fine with me. I didn't use GTAV's first-person feature, but thought hey that sounds like it'll be fun for some people and isn't ruining my time.