Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Games Technology

'We Expected VR To Be Two To Three Times as Big', Says CCP Games CEO (roadtovr.com) 234

Posted by msmash from the reality-check dept.
CCP Games, the Icelandic studio known for their long-running MMO Eve: Online (2003), shuttered their VR production studios in a surprise move last year, selling off their Newcastle-based branch behind their multiplayer space dogfighter EVE: Valkyrie (2016), and completely shutting down their Atlanta studio behind sports game Sparc (2017). Now, CEO Hilmar Veigar Petursson speaks out in an interview with Destructoid about the studio's return to traditional desktop gaming, and his thoughts about the VR landscape. From a report: In short, he thought VR would be bigger by now, and more capable of supporting a healthy multiplayer userbase. EVE: Valkyrie, the company's flagship VR game, was the result of over three years of development before becoming a day-one launch title on Oculus Rift and PSVR, arriving shortly afterwards on HTC Vive via Steam in 2016 -- a seemingly best-case scenario for any multiplayer-only game.

Under CCP direction, EVE: Valkyrie saw a number of updates designed to entice players back, including new ships, maps, and weekly events; CCP even pushed a major update to the game last year that brought support for desktop and console players, a move to help boost sales and revive the ailing VR-only playerbase. Still, the multiplayer game just didn't perform as CCP ultimately expected, and the company officially stepped back from VR shortly thereafter. "We expected VR to be two to three times as big as it was, period," Petursson tells Destructoid. "You can't build a business on that."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'We Expected VR To Be Two To Three Times as Big', Says CCP Games CEO More

'We Expected VR To Be Two To Three Times as Big', Says CCP Games CEO

Comments Filter:

  • No VR for me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Oswald McWeany ( 2428506 ) on Wednesday October 24, 2018 @09:14AM (#57529097)

    I never expected VR to be bigger.

    It always seemed like a no-go for me. At least for now. Most people play games to relax and de-stress. When playing VR is as simple as sitting on the settee and wearing something as light and simple as a pair of sunglasses, people will play VR in numbers. When the sights looks lifelike and not uncanny valley, and don't leave you nauseous... people will like it.

    VR probably will rebound in the future but for now it's a dying fad for a niche market. As long as you have to wear bulky contraptions with head straps and fit into awkward devices I'd much rather just have a keyboard, mouse and a monitor- you can keep your VR.

    Someday in the future VR will take off- but today's generation is not good enough to warrant a big market. All the best gaming experience is still to be found on a flat screen. VR is a curiosity for those willing to spend money on unproven tech but not what most people want.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Zocalo ( 252965 )
      Similar here, but for slightly different reasons. I tried it and agree that VR hardware tech still isn't quite there (although it's definitely getting close and is vastly better than the previous serious attempts), but never thought that the first gen headsets from Oculus and HTC were going to take off and become "must have" products. My initial feeling was that perhaps by the second gen, or maybe the third if vendors stick it out that long, it might get somewhere, but I pretty much gave up on that notion

    • When playing VR is as simple as sitting on the settee and wearing something as light and simple as a pair of sunglasses

      This to me is the real problem - it's just not simple. Every VR setup, even PSVR, has quite a lot of cables going on, and then you have to find space to play in.

      I think AR is where the future will be because it offers more of a choice between full VR and partial VR, along with more practical uses. Plus to date they have been more as you say - like a pair of glasses, even if over-large and

        • Yes I've seen that but you still have to have a safe play space set aside.

          Of all the VR systems I've tried (and I've had or tried all of the commercial ones) I liked the Vive the best. But it still is too complex even with things like that, to really be mass market.

          Vive is compelling enough though (moving within a space for real) that I was hoping it would grow enough of a niche to survive, maybe what needs to happen though is some other VR systems die off so more Vive specific content can me made that tak

          • Windows MR headsets are way easier: unless you want to set up a safe boundary, which is optional, you just plug in two cables and go.And even if you do want it to track the boundary, it's enough to just walk around the perimeter once and that's it. There's currently no wireless solution but no reason it couldn't work with WiGig or something like Vive does.

            I have an Odyssey myself and while it's probably one of the best mainstream solutions right now, there are still limitations that get in the way of better

    • Re:No VR for me (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Immerman ( 2627577 ) on Wednesday October 24, 2018 @10:59AM (#57529861)

      There's an easy way to avoid the uncanny valley without enormous horsepower - just stay away from it. There's no need for realism in a fun game. Nintendo has embraced that aesthetic - Mario, Zelda, etc. make for fun, immersive games without any uncanny valley problems, and very little computational demand. It seems likely that consumer-level VR would be wise to embrace a similar aesthetic for the forseeable future - otherwise the target market is limited to people willing to spend an outrageous amount of money on a high-end gaming computer, plus a bunch more for the headset, etc. At a $2-3k entry price to desktop VR, I'm not at all surprised the market is currently very limited - that's well into the seriously hard-core gamer price point there. Fortunately there's the professional market to help drive the development of high-end stuff that will eventually trickle down. Engineering, medicine, etc.

      As much as I dislike Facebook, I think the Oculus Quest is heading in the right direction to create a market for consumer VR - cheap and easy, with full immersion. It's not sunglasses, but so long as it's light enough to not be particularly uncomfortable - so what? You can't see them while playing, and opaque sunglasses aren't exactly going to make you look a whole lot "cooler".

      And really, sitting on the settee misses much of the potential of VR - if you're going for full immersion, you want to actually move in and interact with the world, not just look around. Racing, flying, and other such "cockpit games" can work well by presenting a compelling scenario where you're just sitting is expected (especially if you have proper physical controls and are only using the headset for audio/visual immersion), but the real promise is in actually being in a virtual world. Plus, that lets you actually *move* while playing, which stimulates both health and endorphin production (a.k.a. pleasure) - something that the rise of digital entertainment has largely stripped from modern playing. There's a reason that the Wii was so popular - heck, I know lots of people that still have and use them, many who never bothered to upgrade because the only thing that's improved is the graphics, which are largely irrelevant to the fun. I still bowl, play golf, shoot pool, etc. that way on a semi-regular basis.

      And, if they can work out the details to let a desktop PC drive the same cordless VR headset, then there'd an easy path for more serious enthusiasts to get more involved. Whether that means pushing many millions of pixels wirelessly, or utilizing the on-board processing power to apply zero overdraw, perspective correct texture fills to pre-transformed and pre-clipped geometry.

      And then of course there's AR - now *that* I think will really shine once they make AR "sunglasses". But despite much technological overlap, that's targeting a *very* different experience.

      • I was really interested but the price was always the breaking point. You had to buy a high end gaming video card and then the headsets are still several hundred dollars on top of that. An additional concern though was always whether or not a given headset would work with eye glasses. I don't wear contact lenses and am not going to start just so I can use a VR headset.

        I don't particularly care for the being able to move around by physically moving my body though. All I really cared for was head tracking for

        • Agreed on the price - it needs to come down dramatically before it becomes genuinely tempting for most people. Have you actually had the opportunity to compare the two experiences though? I highly recommend it before making any decisions.

          As for just looking around, have you ever looked at the TrackIR, OpenTrack, etc? Quite a few cockpit games (and a very few FPSs) support it out of the box, and a lot more via user-made patches. Basically it tracks your head position and updates the in-game camera accord

        • In continuing the VR trend of "just spend more money" you can actually get prescription insets for the Vive. The Vive also has enough room for normal glasses but is less comfortable that way.

    • When the sights looks lifelike and not uncanny valley,

      Oh please. If that were an actual consideration then the entire games industry wouldn't exist.

  • Lack of Pron (Score:5, Insightful)

    by voss ( 52565 ) on Wednesday October 24, 2018 @09:17AM (#57529131)

    None of the big VR headset makers want pron on their store so noone buys $400 headsets and $1000 rigs when there is no content.

    • Don't forget bitcoin (Score:4, Informative)

      by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Wednesday October 24, 2018 @09:32AM (#57529255)
      and miners. For the last 18 months you couldn't get a VR capable graphics card for less than $500 and the PS4 Pro just isn't powerful enough.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Hadlock ( 143607 )

        Yeah the fact that a VR capable card went from $200 to $1200 had a major impact on my decision to buy in to VR. Sure the goggles/headset is only $400, and the PC to run it is only $400 (if you don't reuse any parts) but when the video card costs 3x what the headset does... well I can go on two european vacations for the cost of VR. And I'm sure if you're in college that's just an astronomical cost to buy in to.

        The Quest being a totally self-contained unit for $400, even if it's lower quality graphic

      • ...the PS4 Pro just isn't powerful enough.

        How so? I use a PSVR on a PS4, and it works just fine. Seems like it would be even better on the Pro.

    • There is a lack of content and lack of utility. Period. The few games there are, many are the same re-skinned or barely tech demo. Even if there was porn , so what ? There is available VR porn by the way. Does not seem to make VR boom. It just is that some *lower* quality tech (2D flat screen) is actually still better and less costly than the 3D VR one. And THAT is why people don't buy in drove.

    • Every VR headset maker has VR video players on their store.

      The porn is on Piratebay. Beware female POV, there are no warnings.

      There are VR porn 'games', mostly Japanese, but uncanny valley.

      Phones based VR is good enough for playing a video. VR porn isn't going anywhere.

    • What are you talking about. There is a shitload of VR porn content dedicated to major popular headsets to suit various resolutions and playback capabilities. Also the lack of some app store hasn't stopped Illusion's games adopting VR either.

      If you can't find the content you must be blind. ... How did you... oh wait.

    • Let me blow... your mind :)

      There's content and it's even free like all the other porn nowadays: https://www.vrsmash.com/ [vrsmash.com]

  • Dust (Score:3)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Wednesday October 24, 2018 @09:18AM (#57529133)
    Dust 514 would probably also have been much more successful if they had launched it on the PC and not just PS4.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Targon ( 17348 )

      You go for only one platform, and you limit your options. Going PC-only because a console doesn't provide the controls needed to properly play the game, the PC can play games, and with higher end video cards, at higher graphics/detail settings than a console.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Tailhook ( 98486 )

        Plus CCP's player base is already fully invested in PC gaming. Yes, the console only launch was monumentally stupid.

        CCP has been making bad calls for 10+ years now. One stupid decision after another; pointless "walking in stations," strange vampire mmos no one asked for, two failed attempts a mmo fps, VR stuff when no one has the gear...

        CCP is a holding of a South Korean company as of last month; the end result of chronic failure.

    • Dust 514 would probably also have been much more successful if they had launched it on the PC and not just PS4.

      Dust 514 was on the PS3, not the PS4. If I remember correctly, it was to be replaced with Project Legion, which is now to be replaced with Project Nova [ccpgames.com] which I recently registered for an invite to be an alpha tester.

      All that aside, I agree they should have released Dust on the PC.

  • Given all the previous questionable moves they made they're pretty bad at anticipating how technology will play out for them.
    Their main game EVE Online runs on Python, which requires them to use specialized server hardware that emulates single-core behaviour on multi-cores systems.
    They made deals with Sony to develop their Dust 514 for the PS3, a console whose feature was already superseded by the PS4 when the game finally released. And also while all of their consumer base was using the PC platform.
    Thei

    • Given all the previous questionable moves they made they're pretty bad at anticipating how technology will play out for them.

      I'm sure their lack of success has also nothing to do with their game, at all.
      It has lackluster ratings on Steam (58%) and is a multiplayer only game. I could be the target market for their game - I love space sims and own a VR headset - but I couldn't care less about a multiplayer only game. I'm pretty certain that applies to the vast majority of people who enjoy a space sim.
      That old X-Wing / TIE Fighter / Wing Commander / Freespace crowd? All singleplayer gamers in their 30's and 40's with jobs and cash t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fazig ( 2909523 )
        You underestimate those older Millennial and younger GenX gamers. There's a good chunk that is interested in multi-player which is reflected in the crowd funding base of Star Citizen for example. The average age of players in EVE Online also happens to be within that range. CCP even had the means to evaluate the hardware of their player base and see whether they'd be a possible target audience for the game. Other than that, Valkyrie also has a single player campaign as far as I know.

        Other than, yes, their

  • RE:We Expected VR To Be Two To Three Times as Big' (Score:5, Funny)

    by mandark1967 ( 630856 ) on Wednesday October 24, 2018 @09:21AM (#57529153) Homepage Journal

    They should use the "zoom" feature

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      They should use the "zoom" feature

      When the project was first proposed to them they thought it was VR for ants.

  • Lost interest (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DarkRookie2 ( 5551422 ) on Wednesday October 24, 2018 @09:25AM (#57529183)
    I lost interest in VR once Oculus was bought by Facebook.

    • I lost interest in VR once Oculus was bought by Facebook.

      Indeed. I'd never buy a system that was owned by Facebook. I don't use any service or website owned or operated by them and pray nothing I do use ever gets sold to them. I know they have hooks everywhere- but I avoid them where I can.

      • Vine is HTC. I wouldn't trust a cell phone companty for the same reasons as Facebook
        Its still to expensive
        Requires a completely new system for me.
        Requires an account before I can even install the thing. This is a major deal breaker. I will not buy this for that reason. No hardware should EVER require an account to use on my system.

    • Why? I'm no fan of Facebook, but Oculus is hardly synonymous with VR, and the Vive kicks butt.

      It *is* a shame they fragmented the market - it sounded like Steam and Oculus were talking big on interoperability prior to the sale, and that seems to have largely gone out the window under Facebook.

  • EVE: Valkyrie didn't take off because it is an fast arcade-style game that most people can only stomach in VR for short periods and gets old very quickly. It's also competing with Elite: Dangerous, while not quite the same style of game, is the most immersive space VR experience you can get.

  • Current VR setups are awesome, if you are into simulators.

    A force feedback setup, VR, and i-racing is phenominal. It feels pretty much the same as being on track and you can judge depth and speed far better than through a screen. It's similarly good for flight sims.

    Of course few people are into simulators, so its a small market.

  • VR growth may be slow, but it isn’t stopping. I have a Lenovo Microsoft Mixed Reality set and it can be very immersive. That said, it was balky to set up at first with unanticipated bluetooth problems. Even though the Headset is affordable, you still need a serious rig to run it. There is a very noticeable screen door effect that makes it impractical for watching movies or reading fine print (so don’t expect to replace your monitor for day to day tasks). That said, true 360 degree videos ca

  • DERP (Score:3)

    by the_skywise ( 189793 ) on Wednesday October 24, 2018 @09:42AM (#57529319)
    VR *HAS BEEN* (for decades) and always will be a niche. On what basis did he think it was gonna go big? It's a very cool concept, sure, but your average players are never going to strap a helmet to their heads to play a game that you still have to use a joystick with.
    In fact that's not even really "VR" - just a 360 degree view with head control.
    Now - you make a thought control interface (ala Sword Art Online... without the microwave frier...) or a full suit interface (ala Ready Player One) where the player's entire body can be engaged and receive feedback - THAT would take off.
    VR as it stands right now is nothing more than 3D or where voice control was about 10 years ago.
    It's a novelty.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jeti ( 105266 )
      Try out a modern headset with roomscale support and hand-tracking. You don't really know what you're talking about.

    • VR *HAS BEEN* (for decades) and always will be a niche.

      And the VR headsets themselves are only part of the hardware needed for the application that -- while still heavily a niche target -- is probably best suited for VR as it currently stands: flight simulation and air combat MOBAs. Both of these really want a HOTAS and rudder pedal setup for best effect, but even the limited VR-oid functionality of, say, a TrackIR setup, which puts a sensor on top of your monitor and an emitter or reflector on your head to track your head movements and feed them into the game

    • VR *HAS BEEN* (for decades) and always will be a niche.

      VR Has been, (past tense) far more of a niche than it is at present. With actual major studio content starting to move towards it that niche is ever shrinking.

      but your average players are never going to strap a helmet to their heads to play a game that you still have to use a joystick with.

      Huh? Why? That seems to be exactly what people are doing.

  • Today's VR presents our eyes and brain with an uncanny valley that is different enough from reality that the brain strains and rejects the result. I know a lot of smart people are working on this. But some pieces of the puzzle are still missing.

    That said, the perfect is the enemy of the good. VR is plenty good enough to be fun and even useful and products can be successful.

    I think Hollywood reality with its portrayals of VR and even the name "Virtual Reality" itself have been artificially constraining

  • I'm not discounting the possibility that in the future, tech will advance far enough so virtual reality becomes attractive to people again (probably at the stage where we can inexpensively generate 3D holograms of things floating in front of people). But this constant incremental churn of VR headsets and gear is stale and not getting much traction.

    Among other things, I think some people in the industry aren't willing to accept that when it comes to gaming, a whole lot of people don't WANT that level of imm

  • In addition to needing some fairly substantial upgrades to a two year old computer (video card, mostly) and having to sink hundreds of dollars on a bulky headset with multiple wires, there is another problem for me.

    My eyes are terrible. VR headsets don't fit over my glasses very well. And since I'm farsighted, I can't use it without them.

    The VR industry has basically completely ignored people who don't have perfect vision.

  • The problem with a title like Eve Valkrie is that it was all in on VR. For a multiplayer experience, this is a challenge as the experience isn't compelling without other people, and other people won't join until it is compelling.

    Contrast with, for example, Elite Dangerous where VR is core to the development, but it is but a *mode* of experiencing the game.

    VR-only titles are going to be a problem, as a financial endeavor development has to stick to game that only optionally requires VR for now.

    It is much th

  • No shit most people can't afford hundreds of dollars in VR gear on top of the high-end gaming PC required to use it. If companies don't like it, they should try paying their employees more, it worked for the Ford Model T...

  • EVE is like CQC portion of Elite but worse and very few Elite players bother with CQC.

    I gave my EVE license that came with Rift to someone else. Wasn't interested in trying after seeing videos of gameplay. That and would have had to un-firewall Oculus malware just to play. Not worth it.

  • Every successful tech goes through a phase of garage development. This hasn't happened with VR.

  • When 3D accelerators first came out, you had a clear improvement in the quality of the visuals as well as an improvement in framerates. In addition to that, there were more than a handful of games that were actually good. The move to VR has a lot of amazing chances, you look at a game like Rise of the Tomb Raider, and I mean the full game, not just some DLC, and that would have been an amazing experience if it were fully VR. Hell, in 4k, Rise of the Tomb Raider was stunning on a 27+ inch display. So,

  • Most consumers DON'T want to wear some bulky, fugly VR glasses.

    Furthermore people who wear glasses find it annoying having to wrangle with headsets and glasses.

    Second, the lack of haptic feedback along with contradictory MIXED messages your brain is receiving (eyes tells your brain you are moving, your ears tells your brain you aren't) is one of the reasons of nausea. Not extactly a great selling point.

    Third, good VR required high end GPUs. Most consumers don't care about having the latest and greatest GPU.

  • Look, many of us tried to tell you this whole VR immersive environment and overuse of video on web and media platforms was a bad idea, but you bought into the sales pitches of those who made money from selling high end graphics hardware and software.

    Now stop making videos of everything - provide a link to the video, but stop trying to show it when I really don't care, and neither does anyone except teens who have no real jobs.

  • VR much like 3D has to be for a purpose other than just itself. When used in conjunction and to enhance a good story or function it will catch on. Up until now it has been just a one trick pony used for just a lark, in no way contributing to a story or function.

  • When a omnidirectional treadmill for VR gets to a reasonable price range and functions seamlessly then VR will be amazing.
    Right now it's pretty stupid to stand in place and move your thumbs around.. it's uncomfortable to stand in one place without moving, but walking is awesome exercise and people will love it if they can walk and game.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dj245 ( 732906 )

      When a omnidirectional treadmill for VR gets to a reasonable price range and functions seamlessly then VR will be amazing. Right now it's pretty stupid to stand in place and move your thumbs around.. it's uncomfortable to stand in one place without moving, but walking is awesome exercise and people will love it if they can walk and game.

      I doubt that will happen anytime soon. Making an omnidirectional treadmill isn't an impossible task. Making a cheap one probably can't be done. Something that people stand and walk on has to be rugged. The cheapest treadmill I can find is $300, and treadmills are a very mature technology. Being omnidirection is going to boost that to at least $600 if not more. It's a big bulky object, material costs, shipping, and low-production numbers are working against being cheaper. Add in the sensors and proce

  • An AC on another Slashdot story had a really interesting point [slashdot.org]:

    Here's the thing. When a real problem is being solved, the tech that addresses it is used DESPITE its issues. Like Word Perfect embedded formatting characters you had to manage yourself because WYSIWYG tech didn't actually quite work yet. But office secretaries everywhere were forced to learn that crap because the value of editing a doc and reprinting it was too valuable to pass up.

    VR is not like this. No one really uses it to solve a real p

  • Where the fuck is Star Wars X-Wing VR? The VR Demo from Battlefront is the only great VR experience and at 15 minutes long is pathetically short. Hell at least a FreeSpace 2 Port to VR should have happened by now. Dickhead obsession with "presence" and high framerate content is what's killed VR. Sony nailed it. Use a hardware framerate doubler, so devs just have to get 60FPS to the hardware. All the other VR systems require crazy spec computers and don't really work properly. Sony should have thrown $20 mil

  • I love my VR setup, the vive. It gets me extra exercise each day, keeps it from being boring, and makes it happen regardless of the weather. Fallout, Skyrim are amazing in it, even if they aren't designed for it.

    EVE Valkyrie was a Rift exclusive, so I pretty much ignored it. I didn't even know it came over the Vive until I read this, 2 years later. Meh, no thanks. I know studios love doing exclusives, but the VR ecosystem is far too small for that.

  • Developers don't want to go all in because of small user base.

    Small user base exists because of so few games.

    Add the relatively high cost ( for most people ) of a Vive or Occulus setup complete with gaming rig level hardware to run it, plus the bullshit infighting between hardware makers to become the " standard " and it's easy to see why it hasn't taken off.

    It really never stood a chance.

  • Well maybe it's not VR, but the fact that it's a VR MMO game in Space for hardcore players?
    It's not really a super large player base there to begin with, and most people are probably still playing the old Eve Online, why move over to this?

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close