10% Of 'Resident Evil 7' Players Are Wearing VR Headsets (digitaltrends.com) 77
Released five days ago, Resident Evil 7: Biohazard already has over 800,000 players -- and 84,036 of them are using a PlayStation VR headset. An anonymous reader quotes Digital Trends:
These numbers show that VR might have some real legs if compelling software is made... The numbers are also being updated live, so expect them to go up in the coming weeks. Earlier this week, numbers were in the 60-thousand range, meaning that positive buzz is driving gamers to pick up the game along with a VR headset.
Unfortunately for many gamers, Resident Evil 7: Biohazard is a PSVR exclusive, meaning PC gamers that own an HTC Vive or Oculus Rift are unable to experience the game in VR... Luckily, patient PC gamers will be able to experience the game in VR next year, when Sony and Capcom's PSVR exclusivity deal expires.
It's the first Resident Evil game using the first-person point-of-view. Are there any Slashdot readers who have already tried gaming with a VR headset?
It's the first Resident Evil game using the first-person point-of-view. Are there any Slashdot readers who have already tried gaming with a VR headset?
Re: (Score:3)
Not the first Resident Evil game using 1st p. (Score:2, Informative)
Nope.
The value of "proper" games (Score:4, Insightful)
The big challenge for "alternative" ways of playing video games has always been "can you play a proper game that way". We've seen supposedly revolutionary new technologies come along before and then falter when it turns out that all they are good for is playing casual or party-games.
The Wii's motion control sold a hell of a lot of consoles on the basis of Wii Sports. However, before too long, it dawned on people that Wii Sports was pretty much the limit of the device's capabilities. Similarly the Kinect had a lot of early success on the basis of some party games, but every attempt to integrate it into a proper game was either irrelevant or disastrous (Steel Battalion says hi). It's becoming increasingly clear that if any of these new technologies are going to "stick", then they need to be something you could realistically use to play a major AAA title; a Dragon Age or a Call of Duty (not that I'm a big fan of either of those).
VR had looked like it was headed in the same direction as the Wii/Kinect; an initial burst of hype, then growing disillusionment. It generated a load of pretty but thin tech demos, a handful of novelty party games and, until recently, not much else. RE7 is interesting because it's an attempt to do a major release, from a well-known franchise, via VR, without diluting the thing beyond recognition. I've held off from buying a VR set myself so far; even if it takes off, the number of mutually-incompatible offerings on the market at the moment makes it a bit too likely I'd end up on the Betamax side of the divide. But I'd like to see it succeed and it's good that serious efforts are being made to adopt it in major games.
I also find it interesting that it seems to be Sony that is spearheading this effort via PSVR (RE7 isn't even their first attempt; there were some "proper" games, even if not of the same profile, among the PSVR launch titles). While technically superior, the Oculus and Vive still seem to be mostly pushing minigames and tech demos so far.
Re:The value of "proper" games (Score:5, Interesting)
Steam would have to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and release some of their own titles for Vive. I'm pretty sure a Vive version of Portal would be interesting.
What the VR world is currently lacking is that must-have content. Yes, you're right: The VR market is currently mostly indie developers testing the waters and throwing ideas about to see what sticks. You have a lot of gimmicky games that showcase the whole virtual reality thing but very little substantial gameplay. That's not to mean that there ain't games that put you on your toes, Raw Data sure is a great and intense game but it lacks depth.
In a nutshell, NONE of the games that currently reign in the VR market could survive or even be considered worth a dime without VR, essentially proving that all they are is VR. And that's simply not enough.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Steam would have to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak, and release some of their own titles for Vive. I'm pretty sure a Vive version of Portal would be interesting.
You mean like this [steampowered.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
This is not made by Valve. It's just a Portal 2 mod made by fans. It's quite well done but also short having maybe 30 minutes of gameplay.
Valve is working on multiple VR titles according to Gabe's latest AMA on Reddit though.
Re: (Score:1)
They should showcase it a bit more. Imagine someone (like me) who considers that Reddit has too poor a signal-to-noise ratio to bother with, where should I get to hear about this?
Re: (Score:2)
It's more a matter of time constraints rather than a lack of interest in doing research. So many thing that need my attention, so little time...
Re: (Score:3)
Reddit /r/Vive is my main source of information...
However, I periodically listen to a podcast called "Everything Vive". The number of VR games currently being released on Steam is still low enough where it isn't very time consuming to just glance at every new release. The discussions pages on Steam seem pretty active for the more popular games as well.
Re: (Score:2)
They should showcase it a bit more. Imagine someone (like me) who considers that Reddit has too poor a signal-to-noise ratio to bother with, where should I get to hear about this?
Agreed. It's hard for "average" people to hear what Valve is working on. I'm surprised Valve doesn't use Steam better to make announcements to the community of what they are working on. Although considering the snail's pace their projects move, maybe they don't have much to announce? I'm a pretty active PC gamer, but when I hear "Valve" my mind only associates them with the Steam store and some games I haven't played in many years.
Re: (Score:2)
> In a nutshell, NONE of the games that currently reign in the VR market could survive or even be considered worth a dime without VR, essentially proving that all they are is VR. And that's simply not enough.
Elite Dangerous. I started playing this a week ago and it's simply a sublime experience. In VR it is SO immersive which adds on top of a great starship simulation game.
My main gaming PC is offline, so I'm playing Elite Dangerous on a standard monitor. While it is still fun, the visuals and sounds ren
Re: (Score:2)
'Assetto Corsa' rocks VR.
'Alien Isolation' shows great promise, but I can't get the frame rate up to a non-pukey level.
Re: The value of "proper" games (Score:1)
I guess you never experienced VR porn... Websites that currently produce VR porn are doing pretty well!
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how far you can push the VR experience?
VR has been used for years to help vets suffering from PTSD, and is now getting used in more and more treatments for mental illness. It's clearly a very powerful tool for affecting the mind. How far can you take it before the VR horror game experience starts causing actual psychological harm?
My guess would be that RE is going to be mostly jump scares, like the previous games. I expect there will be videos of people playing the game with the headset on and some
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how far you can push the VR experience?
As far as your neck can go, which isn't very far or fast.
We play games to be able to do things we cannot do in real life. Restricting it to what we can do is then counter-productive.
The mouse has enabled us to "move" much faster and more precise than our heads and torsos can. That's a main reason why it's been a winner. We should focus on interfaces that are even faster and more precise, and not ones that mimic our limitations.
Re: (Score:2)
i heard this argument before. There are different ways to consume games; competitive, exploratory, as an experience, and so on.... Not all of these methods require better or faster interfaces. Some of them become special _just because_ they are giving real restrictions. I am not a player, but the onward players seem to enjoy that a lot. VR sure has lesser viable game genres at the moment, and therefore for lot's of people VR just isn't their device, like the mouse is for the shooter and a stick is for the f
Re: (Score:2)
yeah LOTS and a "for" too much. Saw it the moment i clicked submit :)
VR party games? (Score:3)
What VR parties games? A VR headset really gets in the way of any sort of group experience. It seems fundamentally incongruous. The only thing I see VR really kicking off with is the pornographic industry.
Re: (Score:1)
There's 'Keep talking and nobody explodes' when the player wearing the headset needs to cooperate with the ''outstsiders'' to solve problems or stuff like PSVR Playroom when people without headsets play on TV while the guy wearing the headset chases them / runs away from them. There's plenty of ways to make this work.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I read it's not a game designed for VR. They simply were able to tack on VR support. You don't use motion controls and it's "look to aim". They could add this type of VR support to really any other game with minimal effort.
I think the primary reason anybody is talking about it is because of the lack of VR content and that horror games work exceptionally very well in VR.
Re: (Score:3)
Elite Dangerous is a 'proper' game, almost. It has it's own set of faults which may take years to iron out (it is not a polished game). However, it is amazing to play it in VR.
Other games, like fruit ninja, and others are very Arcade, and like you said seem to be mini games at best.
What VR needs is for it to be backward compatible with 3D technology, as I've played games like Dark Souls, Divinity and WoW in 3d and they are amazing. While not true VR, it gives you a use for the helmet in almost all games thu
The level of "new revolutionnary" (Score:2)
We've seen supposedly revolutionary new technologies come along before and then falter when it turns out that all they are good for is playing casual or party-games.
The Wii's motion control sold a hell of a lot of consoles on the basis of Wii Sports. However, before too long, it dawned on people that Wii Sports was pretty much the limit of the device's capabilities. Similarly the Kinect had a lot of early success on the basis of some party games, but every attempt to integrate it into a proper game was either irrelevant or disastrous (Steel Battalion says hi). It's becoming increasingly clear that if any of these new technologies are going to "stick", then they need to be something you could realistically use to play a major AAA title; a Dragon Age or a Call of Duty (not that I'm a big fan of either of those).
VR had looked like it was headed in the same direction as the Wii/Kinect; an initial burst of hype, then growing disillusionment.
I don't necessarily agree with your last statement.
Wii and Kinect (and countless other "revolutions in game play(tm)") share something that they don't have in common with VR.
They completely change the way game are played, and that's a problem for an industry that has perfected other different way to play.
That's not the case with VR.
When you boil down to the core concepts, Wii and Kinect are about completely throwing the input interface out of the window and trying something completely different : you do NOT
Re: (Score:2)
We've been told the major reason that 3D failed is because people have to wear glasses. Now you're telling me that a technology requiring a much larger, heavier headset is going to succeed. Somehow I doubt it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3D failed because the experience of watching a 3D TV adds almost no value over a 2D one. The vast majority of the 3D content was shot in 2D and added in post production and generally contributes very little to the story/overall experience. Never mind the higher costs and cumbersome glasses.
The current high end (Vive, Rift, and PSVR in that order) consumer VR devices are pretty damn impressive and offer some very unique experiences. If you have the opportunity to test one out I highly recommend it.
Re: (Score:2)
3D failed because the experience of watching a 3D TV adds almost no value over a 2D one. The vast majority of the 3D content was shot in 2D and added in post production and generally contributes very little to the story/overall experience. Never mind the higher costs and cumbersome glasses.
Also, all the Hollywood producers who can't seem to resist breaking the fourth wall with 3D effects, which kills the suspense of disbelief. That may be okay for comedies, but it ruins the immersement, which is all that 3D had going for it in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
in 2017 you can simply decide to play Doom with a VR helmet instead of a computer screen. Beside the quality of the experience (immersion, etc.) no big deal, game design isn't profoundly affected by the choice.
This isn't exactly true... Any artificial locomotion (any camera movement disconnected from your physical movement) in VR is still a big problem for many people (myself included) because it makes them sick. The current best method for minimizing motion sickness is to use teleportation which absolutely impacts on game play and design. Lots of progress has been made but using a gamepad or a mouse and keyboard to move the camera in VR is still going to make more people sick than not.
Details vs. entirely new style (Score:2)
This isn't exactly true... Any artificial locomotion (any camera movement disconnected from your physical movement) in VR is still a big problem for many people (myself included) because it makes them sick.
Yes, there are a lot of *small details* that are getting refined. (and more so : most of them are subjective. I happen to be lucky enough not to suffer from kinetosis (sea-sickness). So I don't give such a big damn fuck about some of those details)
But still you don't need to invent a whole new genre to be able to exploit them.
- back at the time when Forte's VFX1 headset was available for testing at a local computer shop, I could simply load up Descent and play test it.
(Though some of my fried had spacial or
Re: (Score:2)
The Wii's motion control sold a hell of a lot of consoles on the basis of Wii Sports. However, before too long, it dawned on people that Wii Sports was pretty much the limit of the device's capabilities.
I don't really disagree with your overall point, but I actually thought the wii controller was really good for 1st person / shooting games. You had the thumb pad for movement and the 'stick' was a pointer. Since it was point and shoot you could more or less aim with the controller. There were just very few games to make use of it.
Do the same poll in 2 month (Score:5, Insightful)
And we'll talk.
VR is mostly a novelty that wears off VERY fast.
--a VIVE owner of 3 months who didn't put it on for the past 2 months.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a few games that work pretty well in a VR setup, Raw Data sure is a great game to unwind. Nothing like beating the shit out of a few robots. And there's another game that I forgot the name of where you pretty much run around a town, climb up some walls in some kinda parcour style and shoot shit.
That's capable of development. There's even a milsim game in development that looks quite promising. But that's basically the problem here: Everything's in development. There isn't anything you can point to
Re: (Score:1)
Arizona Sunshine (http://store.steampowered.com/app/342180/) is probably the biggest right now.. But yes, mostly I would agree with you a lack of killer apps.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of curiosity are you playing non VR games instead or just nothing at all?
Vive owner since June and also have had streaks where I wouldn't touch it for a month. However, I wasn't playing any non VR games in it's place.
Re: (Score:2)
I play a fair lot, actually. I'd have to check my Steam profile to know just how much, but I fear I'd find out I spend more time playing than working.
Headline truncated (Score:3, Funny)
The headline got truncated. There should be " - and nothing else" at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
The headline got truncated. There should be " - and nothing else" at the end.
Wow.
I've heard of a lot of sexual fetishes, but you have to admit that Pasty White Virgins Playing Resident Evil Naked in Moms Basement is one of the more odd ones...
Exclusive? Fuck you. (Score:1)
What the fuck are they smoking? They think PC gamers will buy a damn console because of that? That's the same as asking someone driving a pick-up truck to also buy a damn car just to listen to exclusive radio content. It's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a timed exclusive.... It'll come out for PC VR eventually.
Oculus is doing a similar thing where they are paying developers to release for the Rift first and then 6 months later Vive/Steam. However, I think in the case of RE7 it was originally a non VR game and they added VR support very late in development. They simply didn't finish Vive/Rift support and Sony made it worth their while to release without it.
Re: (Score:1)
VR is almost there (Score:2)
I have an Oculus Rift and had a DK2, and to be honest I was skeptical of gaming in VR at the current iteration of the technology as it gets tiring in the long run and a lot of the games are more tech demos than real games.
But then I played Elite:Dangerous (space sim) and later The Unspoken (fireball-tossing wizard duels in multiplayer). These are games where that sense of presence that VR offers is used to mind-blowing effect. Especially in E:D, as VR allows a real sense of *scale*. I never thought about th
750k+ (Score:2)
The only recent numbers I could find had a revised estimate of 750k sold at the end of 2016. I think the number may be a bit higher than that, probably not much... I have a PSVR unit myself, but don't have the RE game so it is interesting to wonder what the percent of VR owners will play RE7. I had not heard that it worked with the VR unit though, so as word spreads that the experience is good, the numbers will probably climb.
Sony still seems like the best bet to me to make VR work for the mainstream, but
VR IS AWESOME (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Word up - I really hope they make a mechwarrior style game for VR (along the lines of that hardcore one for the XBOX, with the seperate controls and perma-death)
Re: (Score:2)
Mechwarrior Online supports VR.
Mechwarrior Mercenaries supported the VFX1 in 1997.
Re: (Score:1)
Long time gamer - RE7 blew me away. (Score:2)
Just logged in to respond to this, I usually just graze on comments.
Resident Evil 7 in VR is jaw dropping - Capcom have made a lot of effort with the options for VR, and the effort really shows. This isn't a small bolt on extra mission - its the real deal.
Moving round the house, the feeling of presence is immense - the graphics and 3d audio, coupled with the ability to quickly glance round a corner, or behind you. It is just brilliant.
Check out the reddit comments on various threads including this one.
https [reddit.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I second this.
RE7 on VR is AMAZING. Simply the most fun/scare I have had playing games. And I have been playing video games over 30 years.
It is so involving and intense. You are IN the game not just watching it... I believe playing it in VR, is the only real way to play the game.
Can't wait for a plateform player. The robot mini-game just shows the potential. I was hoping they would make the Crash Bandicoot remaster a VR option, but it doesn't look likely. A new Armored Core by From Software is also an optio
What VR needs to survive (Score:2)
is for the developers to realize that deciding to make a game an exclusive for particular hardware is a bad idea in the long run.
I have a VR unit ( a Vive ) and it was a rather expensive add on. I see plenty of games I would pay for in a moment, if only they were not Oculus or PSVR exclusives.
No, I am NOT going to buy two or three different VR setups just to play a certain game. In the end, they'll just lose a lot of sales because of it, then declare that VR isn't worth developing for because of the poor
Re: (Score:2)
Incredible, but exhausting (Score:3)
I'm a Vive owner and I must say it's absolutely incredible. I've owned it for months and still play it almost every day.
I would say that for me, the room-scale integration and motion tracking is key to enjoyment. Having the headset is a nice novelty, but being able to really "be" there, standing in a virtual space, is what's incredible.
I play a lot of Minecraft (there's a free Vive VR plugin for it) and during the nighttime (in-game) I'll climb up on top of my little virtual house, sit down on the "roof" (i.e. my office floor) and just simply enjoy the view while I have a little snack, both in game and in real life. Not to mention actually looking around and mining/placing blocks that are as big as you are, and actually swinging your sword and actually shooting your bow at mobs. I've never had a comparable game experience in my life. And I can play in the same game as people using non-VR minecraft, so there's no restrictions.
Onward, which is sort of VR Counter Strike, is another game that is incredible (but I suck really, really bad). You can peek around corners, duck behind things, crouch, go prone, and "really" reload your gun and throw grenades.
Content is a bit of an issue, but there are plenty more great room-scale games other than Minecraft and Onward... Legend of Luca is one of my favorites, it's like VR meets classic NES Legend of Zelda. Holoball is VR pong and great fun, and you can really get a workout playing it. 5089 and Vanishing Realms are both excellent, immersive RPGs, Arizona Sunshine is the best zombie shooter I've ever played, Anyland is a unique building and community game that is a really different kind of experience, Out of Ammo is a fun FPS with a lot of RTS elements, and there are a few others. Perhaps it's just because Steam's catalog of Vive games lines up with my preferences, but I'm not disappointed in the selection.
Besides content, there are other cons of the Vive that are, unfortunately, pretty bad The huge cable and the bulkiness are the biggest. I do know there is a wireless kit available that has been getting good reviews, but that's another $200 bucks for first-gen hardware. The cable is strange because although it never really gets in your way, you *feel* like it's going to get in your way, which is almost as bad. The headset being wireless would solve a lot of problems, however it's still very bulky and not easy to wear for long sessions (more than 45 minutes, say). It's sweaty, and it feels, for a lack of a better word, claustrophobic. Having two monitors about half an inch from your eyes is not comfortable either, and after long play sessions I feel... unusual. Not nauseous or sick or fatigued, exactly, but unusual. And keep in mind you need a really beefy PC to be able to run this stuff, so that drives up the price tag even more. Also, local multiplayer is basically non-existent because each person needs their own computer and their own 5 x 6 meter space to play in, although the games that have internet play function as good as you'd want them to be.
It bears mentioning that I got a touch of motion sickness with some of the games that don't use teleportation, but you get used to it after about a half hour (and forevermore after that). And that's saying a lot, because I get motion sickness in vehicles very easily. But, your mileage may vary.
With all that being said, do I think it's worth the roughly $900 (if you already have a nice PC)? Absolutely! And I'd buy another one if mine broke. Although the cons are easiest to put into words, the pros are not - it's an experience like no other. VR is not gimmicky like I thought it was going to be. However, I probably wouldn't be saying this if I didn't have the Vive with its motion tracking. Simply having the headset alone would be a bit of a novelty that would wear off fast.
I'd recommend that if you've already got the money and the desire to buy something like a new TV or a surround-sound system or something, spend it on the Vive instead. Way more bang for your buck. It's a professional product and doesn't feel like a prototype, although if you want to wait for the 2nd generation I can only imagine how much better that will be.