VR Editions: Yay or Nay

+

Do you think Cyperpunk 2077 should come to VR?


  • Total voters
    94
VR being high-quality is probably a good 70 years out, at minimum.

The major stumbling blocks are biological, not technological. Headaches are very common occurrences, even after short periods of time, and VR has been known to cause seizures. In addition, some people simply cannot see it properly just due to the way their eyes are structured.

So, really, there's a lot of reasons to not even make the attempt.
 
Hmm.. how many of you tried high quality VR? Yes, now it's very recent-born, but it's the logical next step in the future of gaming. PSVR is just an experiment and it was sold very well. Also Bethesda's Skyrim VR is only a port and had fantastic solds.

Headaches were common with dk1, dk2.. but not with 90hz displays. That's just a myth. But people who doesn't look at the framerate and run the games at 60fps.. yes, having a headache it's normal in that case.

However, this is only about to have the oportunity for a future. Maybe the next generation of consoles can with new and better headsets. About the movement, there are a lot of options out there. Natural Locomotion (NaLo) is one example. That's developers concern.

But come on, all of you cyberpunk fans, don't you ever imagine to see that world by your own eyes and not by a window (screen)? :)
 
Hmm.. how many of you tried high quality VR? Yes, now it's very recent-born, but it's the logical next step in the future of gaming. PSVR is just an experiment and it was sold very well. Also Bethesda's Skyrim VR is only a port and had fantastic solds.

Headaches were common with dk1, dk2.. but not with 90hz displays. That's just a myth. But people who doesn't look at the framerate and run the games at 60fps.. yes, having a headache it's normal in that case.

However, this is only about to have the oportunity for a future. Maybe the next generation of consoles can with new and better headsets. About the movement, there are a lot of options out there. Natural Locomotion (NaLo) is one example. That's developers concern.

But come on, all of you cyberpunk fans, don't you ever imagine to see that world by your own eyes and not by a window (screen)? :)

Yes, I have, and i am one of the people who cannot physically use the devices due to my eye structure. And, no, it's not the next logical step into gaming. People have been saying that VR is the next logical step in gaming since Nintendo announced the Virtual Boy. Not only that, but sales figures show that VR is slowly dying for the fourth (or is it fifth?) time since the idea of using it for gaming was first postulated. Just as I figured it would back when I saw the current generation announced.

Also, 60fps is the optimal frame rate for video games. Basically, to play VR without headaches, VR players have to downgrade graphics. And I like how you call the headaches a myth, then turn around and admit they're normal when used with high-quality graphics. I really don't want to petition CDPR to downgrade the graphics of CP2077.

And, no, it's not an investment in the future. Nor was it the last four times the technology was attempted. Nor will it be next time, either. It's an investment in what amounts to a gimmick involving expensive equipment... just like it's always been. And the flagging market reflects that.
 
Only sound like everybody else: scare about a downgrade because VR.

And don't know why you all think VR implementation should imply a downgrade.

You said this: "I really don't want to petition CDPR to downgrade the graphics of CP2077."

But what downgrade? You forget that CDPR is going to launch CP2077 on PS4 and XBOX ONE. If ps4 (no pro) and Xbox one (no X) can run this game, why a 1080ti can't, on VR, on mid settings? We have scalable settings on pc since the eternity. Why VR implementation means downgrade for you? If you want to play on ultra, play on ultra on monitor. If we want to play on mid settings but in VR, what is the problem for you?

Actually I don't understand that selfishness of the community when VR is in the air.

PD: https://www.roadtovr.com/valve-monthly-active-vr-users-on-steam-are-up-160-year-over-year/
 
I don't think VR will ever be as good as traditional gaming.
That's a very bold statement, considering how far the traditional gaming has gotten since Pong.

Ever watched how VR is implemented, with 'teleporting' for movement of 'you the player'? To even have VR, it'll need a lot more than the screens infront of your eyes, but also movement sensors tied to your feet or similar to simulate movement.
There are VR games where you actually move, instead of teleporting around. Look for "Onward" (it's the VR game), if you are interested.

The major stumbling blocks are biological, not technological.
Availability is an issue though, because right now VR is pretty costly (although one could argue that it's not necessarily much more costly than buying an iPad), which means there is a high barrier of entry and that translates into how many people are willing to use VR, making it less prospective than focusing other things than VR.

Overall I agree with Suhiira and Baal - it's a very cool gimmick and it'd nice to have, but there are still things that need to happen in order to make it more popular, so VR feature isn't exactly a priority at the moment.
 
"so VR feature isn't exactly a priority at the moment."

Agreed, but that's the point of the petition: trying to make CDPR to hear the VR community and, with luck, make them reconsidering to make a PAID vr dlc/versión in the future (post launch)

If it's post launch, what kind of damage can it do to the game? Really don't understand that afraid of the people.
 
Only sound like everybody else: scare about a downgrade because VR.

And don't know why you all think VR implementation should imply a downgrade.

You said this: "I really don't want to petition CDPR to downgrade the graphics of CP2077."

But what downgrade? You forget that CDPR is going to launch CP2077 on PS4 and XBOX ONE. If ps4 (no pro) and Xbox one (no X) can run this game, why a 1080ti can't, on VR, on mid settings? We have scalable settings on pc since the eternity. Why VR implementation means downgrade for you? If you want to play on ultra, play on ultra on monitor. If we want to play on mid settings but in VR, what is the problem for you?

Actually I don't understand that selfishness of the community when VR is in the air.

PD: https://www.roadtovr.com/valve-monthly-active-vr-users-on-steam-are-up-160-year-over-year/

The fact you admitted it can't be run on 60fps without giving users a headache means an automatic downgrade, beyond what the consoles already require just to run it.

And the problem I have is not that it can't be done, but the amount of focus and tools necessary and often the unfortunate results for play experience. Skyrim, for example; its VR mode is basically a version of the game with some of the end features cut out. Plus, VR requires significant investments of resources; it simply cannot be a DLC unless the game is made with VR in mind to begin with or is simplified enough in overall design that adding VR doesn't affect the engine much, which is very much not true of RPGs (including action-RPGs like Skyrim).

So, basically, you're asking for them to remove features and graphics to make it capable of supporting VR. Otherwise, they have to take the time they would have devoted to something like an expansion pack and focus it on making an entirely new, VR version of the game.

So, no, I don't want VR simply because I see it as a waste of resources for what is currently a dead-end technology.

Also, a note on sales: https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/274518-vr-sales-are-tanking-but-is-the-market-in-a-tailspin
 
The fact you admitted it can't be run on 60fps without giving users a headache means an automatic downgrade, beyond what the consoles already require just to run it.

And the problem I have is not that it can't be done, but the amount of focus and tools necessary and often the unfortunate results for play experience. Skyrim, for example; its VR mode is basically a version of the game with some of the end features cut out. Plus, VR requires significant investments of resources; it simply cannot be a mod unless the game is made with VR in mind to begin with or is simplified enough in overall design that adding VR doesn't affect the engine much, which is very much not true of RPGs (including action-RPGs like Skyrim).

So, basically, you're asking for them to remove features and graphics to make it capable of supporting VR. Otherwise, they have to take the time they would have devoted to something like an expansion pack and focus it on making an entirely new, VR version of the game.

Also, a note on sales: https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/274518-vr-sales-are-tanking-but-is-the-market-in-a-tailspin

Man, I really don't understand you.

The fact you admitted it can't be run on 60fps without giving users a headache means an automatic downgrade, beyond what the consoles already require just to run it.

No, this doesn't imply a downgrade for all of you. Games have different settings (low, med, high, very high, ultra...). If your pc can handle it, go for the máximum. If, at the moment, vr is enough demanding to play on ultra, play on med on VR until the arrival of new graphics cards. But if you play on monitor you're going to watch the game without downgrade. And belive me, people who tried VR prefer play a game on med on VR than ultra on monitor.

Also, I'm NOT asking for a FREE VR version. Bethesda solds their Skyrim and Fallout at a new game price. We would paid for that. If VR versión needs somethings to be cutted, this Will only be cutted down ON THAT specific version, not on 2D version.
 
Hydroaddiction, I will say something: The way history is often taught in school makes it seem like there is a steady, step-by-step progress of invention and adoption of technology, making it seem like the "way of the future" is inevitably adopted once it comes around.

Reality is far different, and far more messy.

For example, indoor plumbing had to be discovered three times that I'm aware of before humanity had the technological progress to make it stick.

Computers and vending machines both had to be discovered twice.

The brassier had to be discovered twice.

The bikini had to be invented twice.

Electric cars are on their third or fourth attempt; I've lost track.

Iron and steel tools had to be discovered twice.

Brain surgery had to be discovered at least twice, if not more times.

Crop rotation had to be discovered twice (at least for the U.S.)

Vaccination had to be discovered twice.

The iphone had to be invented twice.

Rocket launchers had to be invented twice.

Land mines had to be invented twice.

Sea mines had to be invented twice.

The battery had to be invented twice.

As a corollary to the above, electricity had to be discovered twice.

The military tank had to be designed at least twice.

The submarine had to be invented at least twice.

Are you seeing a pattern here? The sheer amount of "this will be the future" technologies that existed, but failed due to technology limits that existed during prior attempts?

VR is the same way. We simply don't have the technology to do it properly yet.

Man, I really don't understand you.

You don't have to. You just have to understand that history is full of technology that simply wasn't ready yet due to technology limits that existed, and that VR is the exact same.

No, this doesn't imply a downgrade for all of you. Games have different settings (low, med, high, very high, ultra...). If your pc can handle it, go for the máximum. If, at the moment, vr is enough demanding to play on ultra, play on med on VR until the arrival of new graphics cards. But if you play on monitor you're going to watch the game without downgrade. And belive me, people who tried VR prefer play a game on med on VR than ultra on monitor.

Except this is not how it works in games with engines this complex. Yes, you can do that with something like Obduction or Myst because they have very simple engines. There is a very good reason why it is they had to release Skyrim VR as an entirely separate product; it's because attempting to merge VR with the base game's engine wasn't possible. You have to design a game that complex with VR in mind from the beginning, and with VR in mind includes graphical limitations you're not going to see in PCs and consoles.

So, yes, it is a downgrade for everyone simply because of technological limitations if they make it DLC.

Also, I'm NOT asking for a FREE VR version. Bethesda solds their Skyrim and Fallout at a new game price. We would paid for that. If VR versión needs somethings to be cutted, this Will only be cutted down ON THAT specific version, not on 2D version.

No, you're just asking that development time that could be spent on making DLCs and other content to expand the game instead be spent on making an entirely new version of the game that is going to be sold on what is already a dying platform.
 
If it's post launch, what kind of damage can it do to the game? Really don't understand that afraid of the people.
They aren't afraid. They simply don't believe. Still, I don't think a petition signed by a bunch of people will do much. This decision has to come from CDPR itself, which means it will come down to the usual - money. With that said, there is still a possibility that they might include VR post-release, once they're done making the actual game.

Plus, VR requires significant investments of resources; it simply cannot be a DLC unless the game is made with VR in mind to begin with or is simplified enough in overall design that adding VR doesn't affect the engine much, which is very much not true of RPGs (including action-RPGs like Skyrim).
Payday 2 has VR as an actual free DLC and people who play "normally" can be paired with VR users. Just saying.
 
They aren't afraid. They simply don't believe. Still, I don't think a petition signed by a bunch of people will do much. This decision has to come from CDPR itself, which means it will come down to the usual - money. With that said, there is still a possibility that they might include VR post-release, once they're done making the actual game.

Yeah.. don't believe and a lot of selfishness. It's a shame. I want to believe many of them haven't tried good VR yet. Hope their minds change with the time.

Anyway, thanks for the support.
 
VR version doesn't imply an inferior flat/monitor version, but you don't want to understand that. If a parallel team works after launch there is definitely no way that you could have an inferior product. So yes.. it is selfish.
 
The question becomes, what is the team not working on that they could be working on to provide better quality elsewhere? That team could instead be working on DLC for the game to add content, rather than working on a version of the game that will see play in a much smaller market space.

I'm asking them to devote their resources to add quality to the game even after launch. How is that selfish?

I'm asking them not to degrade the quality of graphics by adding an unnecessary mode to the game during development that can be activated by DLC rather than focusing on adding more content. How is that selfish?

I'm asking them not to focus on a minor, and by evidence shrinking, market they show no signs of having planned on focusing on anyway. How is that selfish?

You have a very strange concept of what "selfishness" is. I shall have to study it sometime.

But, in any case, I'm done here. At the point trying to shame people for disagreeing became involved, it degraded too far for civilized discussion anyway.
 
Payday 2 is also 5 years old and pretty much a pure FPS game. That example does not help the case for CP2077 as VR.
Could you elaborate? CP77 being pretty much exclusively an FPP game seems perfect for VR.

You have a very strange concept of what "selfishness" is. I shall have to study it sometime.
There is a saying: "The quilt is short", which basically means that if you pull it your way, you take it away from the other person.
 
I think VR is rather stressful instead of fun.

I’ve nothing agsinst a VR port, though, just as long as the base game isn’t (in any way) designed with an eventual VR port in mind and is allowed, if so chosen, to utilize mechanics and controls that more or less incompatible with VR environment.
 
Uhh... No.

VR as it is right now is a novelty. Pretty sure most people realize that and the market share for VR stuff is shrinking very quickly. Nobody wants it.

I don't want CDPR to focus their time and energy into this niche market. Instead, I'd rather they add new story DLC's and new content to the game, rather than rehash the base game for a dying market.
 
That's a very bold statement, considering how far the traditional gaming has gotten since Pong.
VR requires a headset at the very least, Pong requires your cell phone. And that lack of ease of use is a major impediment to VR.

It's not that someday, probably in the next 20 years or so, VR won't mature as a technology. But currently, as good as it may seem to some, it's a barely functional technology. In 1885 Karl Benz built the first automobile, but it took till 1913 for Ford and mass production, and Rockefeller and Getty building gas stations before the technology became practical. Then another 10-20 years after that before they became commonplace.

The processing power needed to create VR is still also still lacking, that's why most VR is pretty low res. And with the current plateau in processing (they simply can't fit any more integrated circuits on microchips because there needs to be a minimum space between them or you get electrical arcing) this isn't going to change anytime soon. There are some new experimental layered microchips, but the key here is experimental, it'll be years before they become available/affordable. And forget quantum computing, no way will the liquid nitrogen required for superconductivity become a commonplace household item. So don't expect any major innovations in VR any time soon.
 
Last edited:
VR requires a headset at the very least, Pong requires your cell phone. And that lack of ease of use is a major impediment to VR.
We didn't have cell phones back in 1972, did we?

And that lack of ease of use is a major impediment to VR.
Wasn't the first computer mouse released in 1984? And let's not forget Windows, which replaced MS-DOS as an operational system. I can't stress enough how much I hated MS-DOS. If it weren't for Windows I probably wouldn't be using PC much, if ever.

It's not that someday, probably in the next 20 years or so, VR won't mature as a technology. But currently, as good as it may seem to some, it's a barely functional technology. In 1885 Karl Benz built the first automobile, but it took till 1913 for Ford and mass production, and Rockefeller and Getty building gas stations before the technology became practical. Then another 10-20 years after that before they became commonplace.
I am not contesting that, in fact I am thinking the same as you - VR needs to go cyberpunk, it needs to be on the streets (cheap and accessible for everybody) and right now it isn't there. At least not yet. What I wanted to say was basically: "[N]ever is too long a word even for me..."
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom