'We Expected VR To Be Two To Three Times as Big', Says CCP Games CEO (roadtovr.com) 234
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."
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."
No VR for me (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
I agree, not simple (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.vive.com/eu/wirele... [vive.com]
Still not simple (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Cheap by VR standards, doesn't actually need a subscription to use it (it's an offer for subscription service for the VR software store). And yes, it requires additional slots of various types in your machine, something that is common in VR industry when it comes to HMDs.
Re:No VR for me (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it has to be treated as differently as it is from normal gaming. Because you are up, moving around and have something strapped to your face you're probably going to want to take a break after an hour or two (as opposed to playing Fallout for 10 hours straight). The much smaller install base makes these giant scale AAA games less feasible as well. (Fallout VR is still my most played VR title though.)
I went through both Apollo 11 VR and Titanic VR and thought they were spectacular. I want more things
Re: (Score:2)
Lack of Pron (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
...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.
Porn would not help (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
They expected a lot of things to go differently. (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Other than, yes, their
RE:We Expected VR To Be Two To Three Times as Big' (Score:5, Funny)
They should use the "zoom" feature
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Reasons (Score:2)
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 is awesome (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Never is a long time. If they can trick your inner ears, it will be a breakthrough.
I wouldn't go so far as 'feels like track time'. But It's pretty good. Better than sims on flat screen (with exceptions, short tracks exceed my tolerance for yaw rate).
Re: (Score:2)
I was looking forward to racing in VR but while it's fun, it's nowhere near the same experience as actually hitting the track, you're still missing way too many sensations and feedback from the car.
As for the inner ear, I read a while ago about I think Samsung having some sort of device that could fake it out to some degree and mitigate some of the nausea effects from VR. Not sure if it could work well enough to simulate stronger feedback, or even if it actually works at all.
It'll get better (Score:2)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
VR is good and has some work to do. (Score:2)
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
VR is a dud .... (my prediction for your 2 cents) (Score:2)
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
Of course it hasn't. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
be thankful, the ones with better vision get seasick, headaches, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, I get that too.
It's just *also* exceedingly uncomfortable.
Chicken and Egg (Score:2)
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
VR: Gaming for rich people (Score:2)
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...
It's called Elite Dangerous (Score:2)
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.
Garage developers (Score:2)
Every successful tech goes through a phase of garage development. This hasn't happened with VR.
How to enhance the game experience is the question (Score:2)
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,
It's about the hardware, stupid (Score:2)
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.
So did the MSM with video (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
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.
Treadmills Suck!! (Score:2)
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)
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
People just don't care about VR (Score:2)
VR sucks because the content sucks (Score:2)
No GTA, No Harry Potter, No Iron Man (Score:2)
The list goes on, it's a chicken or egg problem... you need the NES as well as Mario.
Blizzard doesn't want to invest in VR because the market demographic is too small and fragmented.
Exclusive title fails (Score:2)
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.
Chicken vs Egg (Score:2)
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.
Playerbase for Space Based Games? (Score:2)
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?
Re:History repeats itself (Score:5, Funny)
This will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.
Re:History repeats itself (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, but admittedly it's always simply because the tech isn't good enough.
This time, admittedly, the tech was SIGNIFICANTLY better than in previous attempts, but it's still not to the point of true seamless immersion.
Unlike other techs, VR pretty much has to be more or less "perfect" or most people aren't interested. That makes developing it incrementally hard - you can't finance the next gen of it with profits from the current gen. Instead every few years we just have to try it again based on technological advancements made due to other segments of the industry and hope that everything has gotten good enough.
I'd say that whenever VR is finally perfected, it will be nothing short of amazing. That said, I don't think it's there yet. I don't even though the next attempt or two will be there yet. Maybe in 20-30 years.
Re:History repeats itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Unlike other techs, VR pretty much has to be more or less "perfect" or most people aren't interested.
I don't agree. What it has to be is either perfect, or cheap. Since it is neither of these things, it's a non-starter suitable only for tech demos.
Re: (Score:2)
What it has to be is either perfect, or cheap. Since it is neither of these things
It's as cheap as you want to make it. The GearVR headset can be had for less than a Benjamin Franklin. Google cardboard for a significant cut lower.
Now that IS cheap, however it's not good. So you can't say that it just has to be perfect or cheap. There has to be an element of both in it.
Also cheap is overrated. Look at all those sold out RTX2080s everywhere. It's amazing the kind of money people are actually willing to part with for incremental improvements. Don't confuse "cheap" with "affordable".
Re: (Score:2)
VFX1 as well. Street price was under 1k$. Stereo resolution was halved, but how much resolution was a 486 going to generate anyhow?
Re: (Score:2)
Duke3D ran fine on 480p iirc. I remember trying one HMD in store back in 1990s with it, and it was one of my favourite games to play over internet back then (remember heat.net?). It had a really weird implementation on where head tracking would use the "look to the side" function of duke3d, that no one used because it was awful. Had to look straight to keep the game coherent.
Also, it ran in a Pentium MMX iirc.
Re: (Score:2)
It varied. Some games had native support, some had support hacked in, some used the headset to emulate a mouse.
Pretty sure Duke was the last category.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The issues currently:
1. Low resolution, most "VR" games are half resolution, and since it takes up your entire visual field unlike a computer screen, that makes it equivalent to looking at a 240p game. That's nowhere near good enough for an immersive game, and at best gives you 80's nostalgia.
2. Input is the shittiest thing ever. You can not see the game controller. VR needs to quite literately go back and re-invent the power glove at the minimum and work from there. It may be possible to mimic this with mu
Re: (Score:2)
I love the powerglove...it's so bad. [link [youtube.com]]
Re: (Score:2)
You can not see the game controller.
Of course you can. You cannot see you hand on the controller, but the controller in most games is rendered accurately in the 3D space.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If I had a beefy system, I might try the 3D game, but I really don't see the need to go a step further for a full VR experience. There's really not much point to it that I can see. But if you look at the average PC gamer that won't spend more than $200 for a graphics card and will never bother with absurdity of dual SLI cards, those people aren't going to see the point of wasting money on VR for a handful of games they don't care about.
Re:History repeats itself (Score:5, Insightful)
As someone who's tried most VR tech since the early 90s, all my experience with the current generation suggests that the tech is indeed good enough.
In particular, I get lost in the Steam/HTC Vive setup my friend has every time I use it. Google Earth alone is a killer app, if you know where to go (I'm a climber: try Yosemite or Eldorado Canyon in Boulder, they've imaged the cliffs in both places to the point where you can actually see the handholds and make out routes). The paint programs are surreal as well.
I get motion sick easily. This is the first generation of VR gear that I've been able to spend 30+ minutes with the headset on and feel fine afterwards.
So, why don't I have my own VR setup? Two reasons: (1) cost and (2) I have half of it. For the latter, I purchased an X-Box One X for my son specifically because MS was setting it up as a VR platform. $500 for a game console was steep, but the hardware was right for good VR. Unfortunately, MS has now signaled that VR is not coming to the platform and I've overpaid for a gaming console. (yes, I should have just bought a PS4)
Cost, and to a lesser extent the hassle associated with that cost, is what I think is the real issue. Without a consumer friendly setup in the $500-700 range all-in that supports all VR content (PS4's problem is content), it's just too expensive to get started. I don't want to drop a few grand on a high end gaming PC, then the hundreds on the VR gear, plus the time it will take to setup and maintain the PC. It's just too expensive in money and time commitment.
The tech is there. There are compelling apps. It's just still too expensive to get started.
-Chris
Re: (Score:2)
They did signal VR and even put a lot of development effort into it. It's only recently that they decided against it:
https://www.cnet.com/news/here... [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: History repeats itself (Score:2)
There IS (sort of) a way... make it look like the larger environment is stationary & perfectly-synchronized with head motion (low latency, zero jiggle/slosh), and limit the moving stuff to small elements within the larger scene. Your brain can deal with small things that wobble/jiggle/slosh, as long as the "big picture" is consistent with what you see. It's when your entire WORLD is seemingly in conflict with your senses that you get motion sickness.
Eyestrain is a related, but different, problem that's
Re: History repeats itself (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Cars and boats seem to have become pretty popular despite some people suffering motion sickness from them.
There are many people that do not get motion sickness from the current VR headsets (I am one of them). I predict that those numbers will rise as children are introduced to it at a younger age and their brains learn to adjust. That won't work for everyone of course. The same people that suffer from car sickness now will probably always suffer from VR motion sickness as well. But there are people that ge
Re: (Score:2)
You also need to manage expectations, and eliminate the nausea caused by the semicircular canals not reflection the visual field.
I agree that eventually VR will be dominant, but there's far yet to go.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree. Tech is good enough already. Problem is cost which feeds into lack of software. Few are willing to shell out four digits on hardware BEFORE the costs of the actual headset and its peripherals not to mention software for gaming entertainment. Additionally current VR games are awful in terms of visual fidelity because of the FPS and low latency per frame needed. Current graphics cards sorta kinda can deliver the relevant power, but you will have to pay well into four digits for a system that can d
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think it necessarily needs to be highly immersive, however it needs to be much cheaper. You have to start off first with a high end gaming PC, and then spend the equivalent of the cost of a gaming console (viewer plus controls). It's a steep burden for your typical PC gamer.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing as VR has caught on this time? Its good.
This time, a lot of the horrid technical features is fixed. Which still leaves us with a few essential problems:
1. Most VR game stuff is designed for high end desktops. There isn't a lot of those, meaning its a small marked
2. There is a platform/controller/store split
3. The upgrades to controllers or input methods will cause fragmentation, and its possible that we are stuck with the current control set(but with more buttons)
Now, if this will be like the 144hz m
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But it would have made VR *profitable*, which is the key thing. It's a lot easier to design for the consumer market when you already have a steady flow of money from the industrial/commercial market and aren't betting the company's survival on whether you sell enough for Christmas.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly this.
$700 for a video card is ludicrous. $700 for a video card that launched 2 years ago is beyond ludicrous, it's gone plaid.
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on if the card is really better than the $600 and below cards. The problem is when performance is stagnant, or you don't get anything extra for the higher price tag.
Re: (Score:2)
You get bragging rights for your water cooled, overclocked 2080 ti SLI setup.
Telling a girl your computer has so much GPU power you need a 1600 Watt power supply is instant panty remover! (do I need an explicit /sarc?)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, but that comparison is laughable and is certainly not common sense. 3D was not a solution to anything. VR, the real interactive kind and not just the 360 video with which it's often conflated, allows a form of interactivity that didn't exist. The real problem, or one of them, is that not enough effort has been put into making it do useful things besides entertainment. The marketing to consumer was all wrong and has too many people thinking it's just another game peripheral.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In fairness, 3D movies are considerably more expensive to create, and rarely have much extra to offer except things occasionally flying at your head. They're also plagued by directors trying to put the content in front of the screen instead of behind it, where field-of-view issues don't exist. Understandable for the "experience", but it does a great disservice to what the technology *can* do well by introducing lots of annoying artifacts, especially if you're not sitting directly centered in front of the
Re: (Score:2)
The real key to Avatar in 3D is that it wasn't just items sticking out of the screen at you, but was more about depth in every scene. 3D still has the potential to enhance TV, but unless it is used properly, ends up being worthless. The move from mono to stereo in movies/TV, and you had people saying that stereo wasn't needed. The key is that it DID enhance the experience, and after a while, if you didn't have stereo sound, it felt like there was something missing. Surround sound isn't EVERYWHERE, b
Re: (Score:2)
Remember 3D movies? Remember how Avatar was promoted relentlessly? 3D was a solution in search of a problem. While it allowed for a nifty new feature that could be sold for more money, it didn't solve a problem. It also had some nasty side effects that bother a lot of people. It didn't take long for 3D to be effectively abandoned. It simply isn't worth the cost to make something in 3D.
I often wonder if those carting out the 3DTV analogies have even once tried a modern 6DOF HMD for themselves.
I expected VR to be like looking thru binoculars or a viewmaster. Basically two big looking screens hanging in front of each eye going into it when I bought it sight unseen. Bzzt was I wrong. Totally completely and utterly not that way at all.
There is no Avator for people to relate to. Instead of buying one piece of technology you are buying one for each person. This makes 3D an expensive experience that can't be shared with anyone else. 3D is destined as a niche product that will never gain widespread consumer acceptance.
Split screen multiplayer and LAN play are an endangered species on consoles and PCs across the board and that royally sucks ass.
Play rec room in VR or meet u
Re: (Score:2)
3D was a solution to a serious problem: How can we get people to go the the theaters again to make more money. The solutions turned out to be foreign markets, better action movies (e.g. Marvel), and significantly better non-theater options for the studios.
Bluetooth earpieces have always been quite popular. Hell, that's pretty much what AirBuds are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually a harder problem to solve than you might expect.
Problem 1: what is the camera looking at? You can't just follow what the user is looking at... it would be like watching a bad camcorder video shot by a drunk person. To write the virtual camera positioning code, you need somebody who actually understands cinematography & can apply that knowledge to the user who's lurching around inside the VR world (keeping it pointed at the most interesting content, zooming as necessary, but nevertheless