Those are the two unique features of VR, but neither have been shown to improve gameplay yet. I've been wracking my brain to think up examples for months, but can't come up with any myself, so I'm reliant on developers to explain it to me. Nobody on these forums has been able to provide me with examples either, despite me asking for months.
So, what gameplay is possible with a VR headset that isn't possible with a standard gaming platform?
But its another space flight sim. I don't think anyone can really argue that racing and flight sims won't do well in VR. The problem is, most of the "best games" out there are very similar in these regards.
If they don't make some good games we will see VR go back down the toilet again.
I predict and I have predicted for awhile now that the 'good games' will not be coming for 3 years post the release date of Vive. I have explain why I predict this many times and I will be more than happy to again however my stance and my reasoning is not up for debate or discussion
Do you think VR will survive 3 years without any good games?
I think I missed your reasoning behind the 3 years as well. Do you think there will be a fundamental change in hardware in the 3 years? Or will it be the price dropping over 3 years, leading to more purchases and thus more willingness by developers to build games for VR? Or is it just that it will take 3 years for developers to not only understand how to best utilise VR, but then build a AAA game too?
VR has some "good" games; I'm tempted to say "plenty". However, there may not be that AAA blockbuster like BioShock some are looking for.
Yes, I think VR will survive for 3 years without it. #remindme
The following is a pretty good article on the ins and outs of current VR headsets:
By the way, I hear with Asynchronous Space Warp the overall entry price for a Rift + PC has taken a dive from $1,600 to $1,100, and that tech is less than a year old as a consumer product.
plus as a sightly different topic but does apply here there are plenty of games that are outstanding and in some case even better in all aspects then the big blockbuster hits. People wait (and I know this because I used to be one of these people) for validation of a game from marketing with the believe (same believe I had) that if a game has millions to spend on advertising then its proof positive that the game must be outstanding. So unfortunately people are simply waiting for 'big blockbuster' validation which is NOT in my experience dependent on actual quality
Its an issue of trust, between the consumer and the vendor.
....
hold on there cowboy!!!!
COD 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 with some Serious Sam and some Starwars Battfield Front with some Battlefield sprinkled on top are EXACTLY the ones I DONT trust.
which is the point I am making around marketing.
sorry to tell you but indies are doing EXTREEMLY well per developer and very often put games like NMS to fucking shame in quality as well as sales per dollar invested by firms.
so not for this cat.
It is has I had illustrated and I know this because I used to think exactly that way, I used to drink the koolaid and I know its horsehit.
also AAA companies typically FOLLOW the indies, not the other way around. they are usually late to the game, not early
I don't believe the hype either.
But, based on CoD 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9, I have a good idea what CoD 10 is going to be like and what sort of enjoyment I'll get out of it. It's not trusting the hype or marketing, its trusting my own experience.
So, when it comes to choosing a new gaming platform, consumers will look at their history, remember what they enjoyed and then look at the new tech.
Do I go xbox one?
I had an xbox and loved it
I had an xbox 360 and loved it
I've enjoyed a lot of games on xboxes
I prefer the games library on xbox to ps4
I like the marketing for the new xbox
I'm afraid of red ring of death
Do I go ps4?
I had a PS1 and loved it
I had a PS2 and didn't like it
I had a PS3 and didn't like it
The controllers are uncomfortable
Only a few exclusives
Do I go Oculus Rift?
I heard they are owned by Facebook, which I don't like
The marketing....
The cost is high
The games library is small
Unsure what the benefit is
Do I go HTC Vive?
Don't they make telephones?
etc
etc
Regardless of whether you believe the hype or not, other gaming platforms have a long history (in gaming terms) which the customer can help make their decision with. Most people have played either an xbox or playstation in their lives and so have a good understanding of what their new purchase will get them. There is trust there, not in the marketing but in the product.
With VR, there is no product history. There is no previous experiences to help make that decision. All the customer knows is that it costs a lot, is called virtual reality, and "does stuff".
In other words, it is a risk.
The marketing needs to build trust in the product. If you buy an oculus rift, it will give you a superior gaming experience because of X, Y and Z. So far, marketing for VR hasn't done that. All we hear about is how much x-company has invested, how the hardware is better, how great the graphics are, how many new games are being ported etc.
No company has managed to successfully explain the benefit to the average consumer.
Nobody here can do it either. I hear wishy-washy answers like its a great experience, it feels like you're there, nothing compares to it etc. That is not good enough for the general public. That will not sell new tech to the masses. Hell, I've even tried VR - played a racing game with full HOTAS and oculus rift, as well as job simulator on the vive - and I couldn't tell you what the benefits are! I enjoyed the 3D vision in the racing game, it made cockpit view better than when playing on a monitor, but the gameplay was the same. Job simulator just flat out sucked.
So, if I've tried the systems myself (granted, only ~1.5hrs in total gametime) and I still don't see a reason to buy one, why would the general public?
Trust in the product. Not in the companies, or the hype, but the product itself. Thats what I'm talking about.
If they don't make some good games we will see VR go back down the toilet again.
I predict and I have predicted for awhile now that the 'good games' will not be coming for 3 years post the release date of Vive. I have explain why I predict this many times and I will be more than happy to again however my stance and my reasoning is not up for debate or discussion
Do you think VR will survive 3 years without any good games?
I think I missed your reasoning behind the 3 years as well. Do you think there will be a fundamental change in hardware in the 3 years? Or will it be the price dropping over 3 years, leading to more purchases and thus more willingness by developers to build games for VR? Or is it just that it will take 3 years for developers to not only understand how to best utilise VR, but then build a AAA game too?
VR has some "good" games; I'm tempted to say "plenty". However, there may not be that AAA blockbuster like BioShock some are looking for.
Yes, I think VR will survive for 3 years without it. #remindme
The following is a pretty good article on the ins and outs of current VR headsets:
By the way, I hear with Asynchronous Space Warp the overall entry price for a Rift + PC has taken a dive from $1,600 to $1,100, and that tech is less than a year old as a consumer product.
plus as a sightly different topic but does apply here there are plenty of games that are outstanding and in some case even better in all aspects then the big blockbuster hits. People wait (and I know this because I used to be one of these people) for validation of a game from marketing with the believe (same believe I had) that if a game has millions to spend on advertising then its proof positive that the game must be outstanding. So unfortunately people are simply waiting for 'big blockbuster' validation which is NOT in my experience dependent on actual quality
Its an issue of trust, between the consumer and the vendor.
....
hold on there cowboy!!!!
COD 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 with some Serious Sam and some Starwars Battfield Front with some Battlefield sprinkled on top are EXACTLY the ones I DONT trust.
which is the point I am making around marketing.
sorry to tell you but indies are doing EXTREEMLY well per developer and very often put games like NMS to fucking shame in quality as well as sales per dollar invested by firms.
so not for this cat.
It is has I had illustrated and I know this because I used to think exactly that way, I used to drink the koolaid and I know its horsehit.
also AAA companies typically FOLLOW the indies, not the other way around. they are usually late to the game, not early
I don't believe the hype either.
But, based on CoD 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9, I have a good idea what CoD 10 is going to be like and what sort of enjoyment I'll get out of it. It's not trusting the hype or marketing, its trusting my own experience.
So, when it comes to choosing a new gaming platform, consumers will look at their history, remember what they enjoyed and then look at the new tech.
Do I go xbox one?
I had an xbox and loved it
I had an xbox 360 and loved it
I've enjoyed a lot of games on xboxes
I prefer the games library on xbox to ps4
I like the marketing for the new xbox
I'm afraid of red ring of death
Do I go ps4?
I had a PS1 and loved it
I had a PS2 and didn't like it
I had a PS3 and didn't like it
The controllers are uncomfortable
Only a few exclusives
Do I go Oculus Rift?
I heard they are owned by Facebook, which I don't like
The marketing....
The cost is high
The games library is small
Unsure what the benefit is
Do I go HTC Vive?
Don't they make telephones?
etc
etc
Regardless of whether you believe the hype or not, other gaming platforms have a long history (in gaming terms) which the customer can help make their decision with. Most people have played either an xbox or playstation in their lives and so have a good understanding of what their new purchase will get them. There is trust there, not in the marketing but in the product.
With VR, there is no product history. There is no previous experiences to help make that decision. All the customer knows is that it costs a lot, is called virtual reality, and "does stuff".
In other words, it is a risk.
The marketing needs to build trust in the product. If you buy an oculus rift, it will give you a superior gaming experience because of X, Y and Z. So far, marketing for VR hasn't done that. All we hear about is how much x-company has invested, how the hardware is better, how great the graphics are, how many new games are being ported etc.
No company has managed to successfully explain the benefit to the average consumer.
Nobody here can do it either. I hear wishy-washy answers like its a great experience, it feels like you're there, nothing compares to it etc. That is not good enough for the general public. That will not sell new tech to the masses. Hell, I've even tried VR - played a racing game with full HOTAS and oculus rift, as well as job simulator on the vive - and I couldn't tell you what the benefits are! I enjoyed the 3D vision in the racing game, it made cockpit view better than when playing on a monitor, but the gameplay was the same. Job simulator just flat out sucked.
So, if I've tried the systems myself (granted, only ~1.5hrs in total gametime) and I still don't see a reason to buy one, why would the general public?
Trust in the product. Not in the companies, or the hype, but the product itself. Thats what I'm talking about.
first off I am not talking about hype I am talking about trust.
Having said that, if you consider having the same gaming experience repeatedly over and over again like yet another indie survial game but even less diverse then I guess that it good for you.
I dont, nor do i think at its core do most people. The 'trust' as you call it is for most people is related to what I had said, the philosophy that if a project can afford loud marketing then it means they have a product that is good. I know this line of thinking because I use to have it.
regarding trust..I dont trust them.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Regardless of whether you believe the hype or not, other gaming platforms have a long history (in gaming terms) which the customer can help make their decision with. Most people have played either an xbox or playstation in their lives and so have a good understanding of what their new purchase will get them. There is trust there, not in the marketing but in the product.
With VR, there is no product history. There is no previous experiences to help make that decision. All the customer knows is that it costs a lot, is called virtual reality, and "does stuff".
In other words, it is a risk.
The marketing needs to build trust in the product. If you buy an oculus rift, it will give you a superior gaming experience because of X, Y and Z. So far, marketing for VR hasn't done that. All we hear about is how much x-company has invested, how the hardware is better, how great the graphics are, how many new games are being ported etc.
No company has managed to successfully explain the benefit to the average consumer.
Nobody here can do it either. I hear wishy-washy answers like its a great experience, it feels like you're there, nothing compares to it etc. That is not good enough for the general public. That will not sell new tech to the masses. Hell, I've even tried VR - played a racing game with full HOTAS and oculus rift, as well as job simulator on the vive - and I couldn't tell you what the benefits are! I enjoyed the 3D vision in the racing game, it made cockpit view better than when playing on a monitor, but the gameplay was the same. Job simulator just flat out sucked.
So, if I've tried the systems myself (granted, only ~1.5hrs in total gametime) and I still don't see a reason to buy one, why would the general public?
Trust in the product. Not in the companies, or the hype, but the product itself. Thats what I'm talking about.
"It feels like you're there" is "wishy-washy"??
No amount of technical detail will satisfy you, neither will any amount of personal experience. You are beyond hope, @cameltosis
edit: the following true statement may aggravate the generalism-intolerants out there, however: the things I focus on while in VR are different, leading to a different gameplay experience. Case in point: over the last several years in the game I listed above, I never continuously-consciously realized how much there was around me or just how large it was in comparison to a human scale: VR revealed these things to me. I'll leave it to you to grasp the significance of this in terms of game design.
Moments of euphoria were there just by flying through space and seeing all the stars around me, listening to a soundtrack I had heard hundreds if not thousands of times before. VR totally changed how I related to the game. That may be important to you, as a game designer. I'm not going to write how; there's plenty of literature on that already.
Post edited by Phaserlight on
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Regardless of whether you believe the hype or not, other gaming platforms have a long history (in gaming terms) which the customer can help make their decision with. Most people have played either an xbox or playstation in their lives and so have a good understanding of what their new purchase will get them. There is trust there, not in the marketing but in the product.
With VR, there is no product history. There is no previous experiences to help make that decision. All the customer knows is that it costs a lot, is called virtual reality, and "does stuff".
In other words, it is a risk.
The marketing needs to build trust in the product. If you buy an oculus rift, it will give you a superior gaming experience because of X, Y and Z. So far, marketing for VR hasn't done that. All we hear about is how much x-company has invested, how the hardware is better, how great the graphics are, how many new games are being ported etc.
No company has managed to successfully explain the benefit to the average consumer.
Nobody here can do it either. I hear wishy-washy answers like its a great experience, it feels like you're there, nothing compares to it etc. That is not good enough for the general public. That will not sell new tech to the masses. Hell, I've even tried VR - played a racing game with full HOTAS and oculus rift, as well as job simulator on the vive - and I couldn't tell you what the benefits are! I enjoyed the 3D vision in the racing game, it made cockpit view better than when playing on a monitor, but the gameplay was the same. Job simulator just flat out sucked.
So, if I've tried the systems myself (granted, only ~1.5hrs in total gametime) and I still don't see a reason to buy one, why would the general public?
Trust in the product. Not in the companies, or the hype, but the product itself. Thats what I'm talking about.
"It feels like you're there" is "wishy-washy"??
No amount of technical detail will satisfy you, neither will any amount of personal experience. You are beyond hope, @cameltosis
edit: the following true statement may aggravate the generalism-intolerants out there, however: the things I focus on while in VR are different, leading to a different gameplay experience. Case in point: over the last several years in the game I listed above, I never continuously-consciously realized how much there was around me or just how large it was in comparison to a human scale: VR revealed these things to me. I'll leave it to you to grasp the significance of this in terms of game design.
Moments of euphoria were there just by flying through space and seeing all the stars around me, listening to a soundtrack I had heard hundreds if not thousands of times before. VR totally changed how I related to the game. That may be important to you, as a game designer. I'm not going to write how; there's plenty of literature on that already.
Lol, when it comes to VR I probably am beyond hope!
I've used oculus, I've used vive, I understand what they can and can't do and my personal conclusion is that it's a gimmick that does nothing to improve gameplay and once the novelty of depth perception wears off, you're left with a lesser gaming experience. All the people I've spoken to in real life who've tried it all came to the same conclusion (but, it is a small sample size).
But, I'm talking about the general public and how you market to them. "It feels like you're there" is wishy-washy: what does it mean to feel like you're there? Can I touch things? Can I smell things? Can I feel the wind in my hair? Feeling like you are actually somewhere else is a complete experience, taking in all your senses. VR headsets clearly don't provide that.
Whenever any new product is released, the marketing is key to it's success (assuming the product is worth having). If the product is emerging into an existing market (e.g. a new graphics card) then you can focus on wishy-washy benefits, associations etc to sell it because the understanding of the product already exists.
When a product is launched and creates a brand new market, such as VR headsets, the marketing must educate the public as well as provide emotional associations and wishy-washy pr shite. So far, VR marketing isn't doing that. We see the smaller headsets, we hear about improved framerates, we hear about the occasional game, we hear about the ridiculous amounts of money being invested and we hear vague statements about feeling like you're in the game.
The public is still confused.
The closest people get to understanding of what the products actually do is watching videos of people jump around their living rooms playing games. We recently had that video of a grandad playing some sort of zombie game in VR, was fun to watch and everyone had a good laugh but if anything it put most people off buying it, rather than actually get it.
Maybe its just a fundamental drawback of the tech - its physically impossible to show or explain the benefits, you have to actually put on a headset and be "in" a virtual environment to understand it.
Regardless of whether you believe the hype or not, other gaming platforms have a long history (in gaming terms) which the customer can help make their decision with. Most people have played either an xbox or playstation in their lives and so have a good understanding of what their new purchase will get them. There is trust there, not in the marketing but in the product.
With VR, there is no product history. There is no previous experiences to help make that decision. All the customer knows is that it costs a lot, is called virtual reality, and "does stuff".
In other words, it is a risk.
The marketing needs to build trust in the product. If you buy an oculus rift, it will give you a superior gaming experience because of X, Y and Z. So far, marketing for VR hasn't done that. All we hear about is how much x-company has invested, how the hardware is better, how great the graphics are, how many new games are being ported etc.
No company has managed to successfully explain the benefit to the average consumer.
Nobody here can do it either. I hear wishy-washy answers like its a great experience, it feels like you're there, nothing compares to it etc. That is not good enough for the general public. That will not sell new tech to the masses. Hell, I've even tried VR - played a racing game with full HOTAS and oculus rift, as well as job simulator on the vive - and I couldn't tell you what the benefits are! I enjoyed the 3D vision in the racing game, it made cockpit view better than when playing on a monitor, but the gameplay was the same. Job simulator just flat out sucked.
So, if I've tried the systems myself (granted, only ~1.5hrs in total gametime) and I still don't see a reason to buy one, why would the general public?
Trust in the product. Not in the companies, or the hype, but the product itself. Thats what I'm talking about.
"It feels like you're there" is "wishy-washy"??
No amount of technical detail will satisfy you, neither will any amount of personal experience. You are beyond hope, @cameltosis
edit: the following true statement may aggravate the generalism-intolerants out there, however: the things I focus on while in VR are different, leading to a different gameplay experience. Case in point: over the last several years in the game I listed above, I never continuously-consciously realized how much there was around me or just how large it was in comparison to a human scale: VR revealed these things to me. I'll leave it to you to grasp the significance of this in terms of game design.
Moments of euphoria were there just by flying through space and seeing all the stars around me, listening to a soundtrack I had heard hundreds if not thousands of times before. VR totally changed how I related to the game. That may be important to you, as a game designer. I'm not going to write how; there's plenty of literature on that already.
Lol, when it comes to VR I probably am beyond hope!
I've used oculus, I've used vive, I understand what they can and can't do and my personal conclusion is that it's a gimmick that does nothing to improve gameplay and once the novelty of depth perception wears off, you're left with a lesser gaming experience. All the people I've spoken to in real life who've tried it all came to the same conclusion (but, it is a small sample size).
same exact opposite for me including the people I talked to about the topic
but I agree that you are beyond hope on this and maybe (I am not trying to be rude here) its time for you to just move on and stop posting in VR related topics. I am not saying your not welcome to do so. I am saying I think its a huge waste of time. Its not going to change your mind, its not going to change our mind, we have heard it all before, we all disagree strongly so maybe just move on?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The problem with VR is that you have developers and wannabe devs making games as fast as possible for 'experiences' to sell and make money. The idea is that they are all trying to be first in whatever experience they are offering. The problem is a lot of it is already repetitive to what has come before.
In my opinion there are some great things out there for VR. The problem is they are few and far between. As for PSVR specifically, I'm not surprised at all. The games to start with MUST hit 90 fps to avoid that dizzy/nauseous feeling. They can't even hit that with games, nor is it a requirement for them. Also the graphics are significantly poorer. They need a proper console built from the ground up with the intention of handling the processing power required of top quality VR. Not an addon novelty.
The problem with VR is that you have developers and wannabe devs making games as fast as possible for 'experiences' to sell and make money. The idea is that they are all trying to be first in whatever experience they are offering. The problem is a lot of it is already repetitive to what has come before.
In my opinion there are some great things out there for VR. The problem is they are few and far between. As for PSVR specifically, I'm not surprised at all. The games to start with MUST hit 90 fps to avoid that dizzy/nauseous feeling. They can't even hit that with games, nor is it a requirement for them. Also the graphics are significantly poorer. They need a proper console built from the ground up with the intention of handling the processing power required of top quality VR. Not an addon novelty.
yes but what makes you assume that pattern of content will continue despite people like myself having posted news articles about firms being setup and currently working on projects? of course the small ones are going to trickle up first while the larger ones are still being worked on.
Game development on average takes 3 years! and only a very risky developer would start working on a VR project while the API and hardware literally changes nearly weekly (I am speaking pre-retail release).
I dont understand why so many people despite having this explained insist on being confused and surprised by this
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The problem with VR is that you have developers and wannabe devs making games as fast as possible for 'experiences' to sell and make money. The idea is that they are all trying to be first in whatever experience they are offering. The problem is a lot of it is already repetitive to what has come before.
In my opinion there are some great things out there for VR. The problem is they are few and far between. As for PSVR specifically, I'm not surprised at all. The games to start with MUST hit 90 fps to avoid that dizzy/nauseous feeling. They can't even hit that with games, nor is it a requirement for them. Also the graphics are significantly poorer. They need a proper console built from the ground up with the intention of handling the processing power required of top quality VR. Not an addon novelty.
yes but what makes you assume that pattern of content will continue despite people like myself having posted news articles about firms being setup and currently working on projects? of course the small ones are going to trickle up first while the larger ones are still being worked on.
Game development on average takes 3 years! and only a very risky developer would start working on a VR project while the API and hardware literally changes nearly weekly (I am speaking pre-retail release).
I dont understand why so many people despite having this explained insist on being confused and surprised by this
Not sure whom you're talking about, but it certainly isn't me. I didn't assume anything. I stated an observation about the current availability of the VR market and made no judgement on what was coming in the future. I never said new things couldn't be made that aren't repetitive. I never implied that I was confused or surprised about it either. The second paragraph is my critique on PSVR specifically. Looking at the hardware and what is capable for it, I believe that it will be an inferior system to something built for the ground up with VR in mind.
The problem with VR is that you have developers and wannabe devs making games as fast as possible for 'experiences' to sell and make money. The idea is that they are all trying to be first in whatever experience they are offering. The problem is a lot of it is already repetitive to what has come before.
In my opinion there are some great things out there for VR. The problem is they are few and far between. As for PSVR specifically, I'm not surprised at all. The games to start with MUST hit 90 fps to avoid that dizzy/nauseous feeling. They can't even hit that with games, nor is it a requirement for them. Also the graphics are significantly poorer. They need a proper console built from the ground up with the intention of handling the processing power required of top quality VR. Not an addon novelty.
yes but what makes you assume that pattern of content will continue despite people like myself having posted news articles about firms being setup and currently working on projects? of course the small ones are going to trickle up first while the larger ones are still being worked on.
Game development on average takes 3 years! and only a very risky developer would start working on a VR project while the API and hardware literally changes nearly weekly (I am speaking pre-retail release).
I dont understand why so many people despite having this explained insist on being confused and surprised by this
Not sure whom your talking about, but it certainly isn't me. I didn't assume anything. I stated an observation about the current availability of the VR market and made no judgement on what was coming in the future. I never said new things couldn't be made that aren't repetitive. I never implied that I was confused or surprised about it either. The second paragraph is my critique on PSVR specifically. Looking at the hardware and what is capable for it, I believe that it will be an inferior system to something built for the ground up with VR in mind.
let me help you then.
Large investments have been made into creating content for VR. Many of those projects started not to long ago or started now. One should not expect to see any large scale deep VR games for 3 years post first RETAIL release date. HTC Vive has said just a few days ago that they are working on some major titles of which will be released later.
The problem with VR is that you have developers and wannabe devs making games as fast as possible for 'experiences' to sell and make money. The idea is that they are all trying to be first in whatever experience they are offering. The problem is a lot of it is already repetitive to what has come before.
In my opinion there are some great things out there for VR. The problem is they are few and far between. As for PSVR specifically, I'm not surprised at all. The games to start with MUST hit 90 fps to avoid that dizzy/nauseous feeling. They can't even hit that with games, nor is it a requirement for them. Also the graphics are significantly poorer. They need a proper console built from the ground up with the intention of handling the processing power required of top quality VR. Not an addon novelty.
yes but what makes you assume that pattern of content will continue despite people like myself having posted news articles about firms being setup and currently working on projects? of course the small ones are going to trickle up first while the larger ones are still being worked on.
Game development on average takes 3 years! and only a very risky developer would start working on a VR project while the API and hardware literally changes nearly weekly (I am speaking pre-retail release).
I dont understand why so many people despite having this explained insist on being confused and surprised by this
Not sure whom your talking about, but it certainly isn't me. I didn't assume anything. I stated an observation about the current availability of the VR market and made no judgement on what was coming in the future. I never said new things couldn't be made that aren't repetitive. I never implied that I was confused or surprised about it either. The second paragraph is my critique on PSVR specifically. Looking at the hardware and what is capable for it, I believe that it will be an inferior system to something built for the ground up with VR in mind.
let me help you then.
Large investments have been made into creating content for VR. Many of those projects started not to long ago or started now. One should not expect to see any large scale deep VR games for 3 years post first RETAIL release date. HTC Vive has said just a few days ago that they are working on some major titles of which will be released later.
He often uses the "hardware" as an example of why developers couldn't create games 4 years ago for the Oculus DK1, but thats precisely what happened, they did create games, and lo and behold those games still work on the consumer version just as well.
It's reaching at best. He "sean" also touts how there was no large investment in developing games for these headsets, but if you tell him that there's no support he'll be the first to list dozens of companies that have invested millions of dollars in VR software some of which going back 3 to 4 years easy.
Long story short, he's in his own fantasy world, that isn't the reality of the situation. Creating content for VR revolves around two issues.
1) Interest - not a lot of people own these sets, creating mobile experiences at the moment is much more profitable and has been going on for years.
2) Scope - Most developers create short games for VR because that's essentially the best way to do it currently. Headsets are uncomfortable, they cause sickness in most people that try them (yes most, even those that love the sets have experienced it at least once or twice), and ultimately the more intense and time consuming the game is, the greater the chance of experiencing sickness.
Nobody really knows what long term effects of several hour gaming sessions will have. We do know that the guinness book of world records holder for longest time in VR (he played a painting game on the vive, no actual movement by the world, and most closely resembles an actual physical world due to walking and roomscale) upon removing the set promptly became sick in the nearest trashcan.
Mostly, as cool as it is, experiences are all developers will take a chance on, not real games. Not any where VR adds such a far and beyond experience over normal gameplay that it makes one version strikingly better than another.
just so everyone knows who havent already figured it out and to be fair I could assume its not easy to figure out. Maskedweasel is on my ignore list and has been for about a month now so I am not seeing anything he writes or want to. I am saying this just in the interest of clarity and saving people time
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
just so everyone knows who havent already figured it out and to be fair I could assume its not easy to figure out. Maskedweasel is on my ignore list and has been for about a month now so I am not seeing anything he writes or want to. I am saying this just in the interest of clarity and saving people time
paraphrase: "I am writing this to say that I know you responded and I read what you wrote but I won't argue or dispute it so if you didn't know I have you on ignore, so take that maskedweasel"
My responses aren't directed for you, they're for others in response to you.
Regardless of whether you believe the hype or not, other gaming platforms have a long history (in gaming terms) which the customer can help make their decision with. Most people have played either an xbox or playstation in their lives and so have a good understanding of what their new purchase will get them. There is trust there, not in the marketing but in the product.
With VR, there is no product history. There is no previous experiences to help make that decision. All the customer knows is that it costs a lot, is called virtual reality, and "does stuff".
In other words, it is a risk.
The marketing needs to build trust in the product. If you buy an oculus rift, it will give you a superior gaming experience because of X, Y and Z. So far, marketing for VR hasn't done that. All we hear about is how much x-company has invested, how the hardware is better, how great the graphics are, how many new games are being ported etc.
No company has managed to successfully explain the benefit to the average consumer.
Nobody here can do it either. I hear wishy-washy answers like its a great experience, it feels like you're there, nothing compares to it etc. That is not good enough for the general public. That will not sell new tech to the masses. Hell, I've even tried VR - played a racing game with full HOTAS and oculus rift, as well as job simulator on the vive - and I couldn't tell you what the benefits are! I enjoyed the 3D vision in the racing game, it made cockpit view better than when playing on a monitor, but the gameplay was the same. Job simulator just flat out sucked.
So, if I've tried the systems myself (granted, only ~1.5hrs in total gametime) and I still don't see a reason to buy one, why would the general public?
Trust in the product. Not in the companies, or the hype, but the product itself. Thats what I'm talking about.
"It feels like you're there" is "wishy-washy"??
No amount of technical detail will satisfy you, neither will any amount of personal experience. You are beyond hope, @cameltosis
edit: the following true statement may aggravate the generalism-intolerants out there, however: the things I focus on while in VR are different, leading to a different gameplay experience. Case in point: over the last several years in the game I listed above, I never continuously-consciously realized how much there was around me or just how large it was in comparison to a human scale: VR revealed these things to me. I'll leave it to you to grasp the significance of this in terms of game design.
Moments of euphoria were there just by flying through space and seeing all the stars around me, listening to a soundtrack I had heard hundreds if not thousands of times before. VR totally changed how I related to the game. That may be important to you, as a game designer. I'm not going to write how; there's plenty of literature on that already.
Lol, when it comes to VR I probably am beyond hope!
I've used oculus, I've used vive, I understand what they can and can't do and my personal conclusion is that it's a gimmick that does nothing to improve gameplay and once the novelty of depth perception wears off, you're left with a lesser gaming experience. All the people I've spoken to in real life who've tried it all came to the same conclusion (but, it is a small sample size).
But, I'm talking about the general public and how you market to them. "It feels like you're there" is wishy-washy: what does it mean to feel like you're there? Can I touch things? Can I smell things? Can I feel the wind in my hair? Feeling like you are actually somewhere else is a complete experience, taking in all your senses. VR headsets clearly don't provide that.
Whenever any new product is released, the marketing is key to it's success (assuming the product is worth having). If the product is emerging into an existing market (e.g. a new graphics card) then you can focus on wishy-washy benefits, associations etc to sell it because the understanding of the product already exists.
When a product is launched and creates a brand new market, such as VR headsets, the marketing must educate the public as well as provide emotional associations and wishy-washy pr shite. So far, VR marketing isn't doing that. We see the smaller headsets, we hear about improved framerates, we hear about the occasional game, we hear about the ridiculous amounts of money being invested and we hear vague statements about feeling like you're in the game.
The public is still confused.
The closest people get to understanding of what the products actually do is watching videos of people jump around their living rooms playing games. We recently had that video of a grandad playing some sort of zombie game in VR, was fun to watch and everyone had a good laugh but if anything it put most people off buying it, rather than actually get it.
Maybe its just a fundamental drawback of the tech - its physically impossible to show or explain the benefits, you have to actually put on a headset and be "in" a virtual environment to understand it.
@cameltosis I thought of you when narrating this video:
Just some thoughts on Vendetta Online VR and current virtual reality in general
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
The problem with VR is that you have developers and wannabe devs making games as fast as possible for 'experiences' to sell and make money. The idea is that they are all trying to be first in whatever experience they are offering. The problem is a lot of it is already repetitive to what has come before.
In my opinion there are some great things out there for VR. The problem is they are few and far between. As for PSVR specifically, I'm not surprised at all. The games to start with MUST hit 90 fps to avoid that dizzy/nauseous feeling. They can't even hit that with games, nor is it a requirement for them. Also the graphics are significantly poorer. They need a proper console built from the ground up with the intention of handling the processing power required of top quality VR. Not an addon novelty.
Any games made for an entirely new system tend to suck, no matter if it was for the C-64 when it came out or the latest console.
It doesn't help that PC VR still is pretty rare. My guess is that we get a few good car games (and porn) first boosting sale before most companies get involved for real. Car and flight sims are the ones working best in current gen VR,
VR Games will improve but in reality the point for VR will expand far beyond games.. from education, to medical fields and art. The day when you walk into a museum and put on a VR to view the art is probably less than a decade away at the rate things are going. I've personally only tried the Gear VR.. fuzzy, not great quality, but still amazing when you've never experienced VR before. Personally I'll wait a year or two, see what the Xbox Scorpio offers, although I believe the best VR experience will always be through the VR PC with the Vive or Rift.
VR Games will improve but in reality the point for VR will expand far beyond games.. from education, to medical fields and art. The day when you walk into a museum and put on a VR to view the art is probably less than a decade away at the rate things are going. I've personally only tried the Gear VR.. fuzzy, not great quality, but still amazing when you've never experienced VR before. Personally I'll wait a year or two, see what the Xbox Scorpio offers, although I believe the best VR experience will always be through the VR PC with the Vive or Rift.
I don't disagree
But if I'm going to put on a VR to see the art, why the heck would I bother walking into the museum.
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But, based on CoD 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 and 9, I have a good idea what CoD 10 is going to be like and what sort of enjoyment I'll get out of it. It's not trusting the hype or marketing, its trusting my own experience.
So, when it comes to choosing a new gaming platform, consumers will look at their history, remember what they enjoyed and then look at the new tech.
Do I go xbox one?
- I had an xbox and loved it
- I had an xbox 360 and loved it
- I've enjoyed a lot of games on xboxes
- I prefer the games library on xbox to ps4
- I like the marketing for the new xbox
- I'm afraid of red ring of death
Do I go ps4?- I had a PS1 and loved it
- I had a PS2 and didn't like it
- I had a PS3 and didn't like it
- The controllers are uncomfortable
- Only a few exclusives
Do I go Oculus Rift?- I heard they are owned by Facebook, which I don't like
- The marketing....
- The cost is high
- The games library is small
- Unsure what the benefit is
Do I go HTC Vive?Regardless of whether you believe the hype or not, other gaming platforms have a long history (in gaming terms) which the customer can help make their decision with. Most people have played either an xbox or playstation in their lives and so have a good understanding of what their new purchase will get them. There is trust there, not in the marketing but in the product.
With VR, there is no product history. There is no previous experiences to help make that decision. All the customer knows is that it costs a lot, is called virtual reality, and "does stuff".
In other words, it is a risk.
The marketing needs to build trust in the product. If you buy an oculus rift, it will give you a superior gaming experience because of X, Y and Z. So far, marketing for VR hasn't done that. All we hear about is how much x-company has invested, how the hardware is better, how great the graphics are, how many new games are being ported etc.
No company has managed to successfully explain the benefit to the average consumer.
Nobody here can do it either. I hear wishy-washy answers like its a great experience, it feels like you're there, nothing compares to it etc. That is not good enough for the general public. That will not sell new tech to the masses. Hell, I've even tried VR - played a racing game with full HOTAS and oculus rift, as well as job simulator on the vive - and I couldn't tell you what the benefits are! I enjoyed the 3D vision in the racing game, it made cockpit view better than when playing on a monitor, but the gameplay was the same. Job simulator just flat out sucked.
So, if I've tried the systems myself (granted, only ~1.5hrs in total gametime) and I still don't see a reason to buy one, why would the general public?
Trust in the product. Not in the companies, or the hype, but the product itself. Thats what I'm talking about.
Having said that, if you consider having the same gaming experience repeatedly over and over again like yet another indie survial game but even less diverse then I guess that it good for you.
I dont, nor do i think at its core do most people.
The 'trust' as you call it is for most people is related to what I had said, the philosophy that if a project can afford loud marketing then it means they have a product that is good. I know this line of thinking because I use to have it.
regarding trust..I dont trust them.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
No amount of technical detail will satisfy you, neither will any amount of personal experience. You are beyond hope, @cameltosis
edit: the following true statement may aggravate the generalism-intolerants out there, however: the things I focus on while in VR are different, leading to a different gameplay experience. Case in point: over the last several years in the game I listed above, I never continuously-consciously realized how much there was around me or just how large it was in comparison to a human scale: VR revealed these things to me. I'll leave it to you to grasp the significance of this in terms of game design.
Moments of euphoria were there just by flying through space and seeing all the stars around me, listening to a soundtrack I had heard hundreds if not thousands of times before. VR totally changed how I related to the game. That may be important to you, as a game designer. I'm not going to write how; there's plenty of literature on that already.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I've used oculus, I've used vive, I understand what they can and can't do and my personal conclusion is that it's a gimmick that does nothing to improve gameplay and once the novelty of depth perception wears off, you're left with a lesser gaming experience. All the people I've spoken to in real life who've tried it all came to the same conclusion (but, it is a small sample size).
But, I'm talking about the general public and how you market to them. "It feels like you're there" is wishy-washy: what does it mean to feel like you're there? Can I touch things? Can I smell things? Can I feel the wind in my hair? Feeling like you are actually somewhere else is a complete experience, taking in all your senses. VR headsets clearly don't provide that.
Whenever any new product is released, the marketing is key to it's success (assuming the product is worth having). If the product is emerging into an existing market (e.g. a new graphics card) then you can focus on wishy-washy benefits, associations etc to sell it because the understanding of the product already exists.
When a product is launched and creates a brand new market, such as VR headsets, the marketing must educate the public as well as provide emotional associations and wishy-washy pr shite. So far, VR marketing isn't doing that. We see the smaller headsets, we hear about improved framerates, we hear about the occasional game, we hear about the ridiculous amounts of money being invested and we hear vague statements about feeling like you're in the game.
The public is still confused.
The closest people get to understanding of what the products actually do is watching videos of people jump around their living rooms playing games. We recently had that video of a grandad playing some sort of zombie game in VR, was fun to watch and everyone had a good laugh but if anything it put most people off buying it, rather than actually get it.
Maybe its just a fundamental drawback of the tech - its physically impossible to show or explain the benefits, you have to actually put on a headset and be "in" a virtual environment to understand it.
but I agree that you are beyond hope on this and maybe (I am not trying to be rude here) its time for you to just move on and stop posting in VR related topics. I am not saying your not welcome to do so. I am saying I think its a huge waste of time. Its not going to change your mind, its not going to change our mind, we have heard it all before, we all disagree strongly so maybe just move on?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
In my opinion there are some great things out there for VR. The problem is they are few and far between. As for PSVR specifically, I'm not surprised at all. The games to start with MUST hit 90 fps to avoid that dizzy/nauseous feeling. They can't even hit that with games, nor is it a requirement for them. Also the graphics are significantly poorer. They need a proper console built from the ground up with the intention of handling the processing power required of top quality VR. Not an addon novelty.
Game development on average takes 3 years! and only a very risky developer would start working on a VR project while the API and hardware literally changes nearly weekly (I am speaking pre-retail release).
I dont understand why so many people despite having this explained insist on being confused and surprised by this
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Large investments have been made into creating content for VR. Many of those projects started not to long ago or started now. One should not expect to see any large scale deep VR games for 3 years post first RETAIL release date. HTC Vive has said just a few days ago that they are working on some major titles of which will be released later.
does this help?
sorry but to me this is obvious
http://uploadvr.com/htc-amassing-vive-content/
this is happening within multiple firms, not just HTC
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's reaching at best. He "sean" also touts how there was no large investment in developing games for these headsets, but if you tell him that there's no support he'll be the first to list dozens of companies that have invested millions of dollars in VR software some of which going back 3 to 4 years easy.
Long story short, he's in his own fantasy world, that isn't the reality of the situation. Creating content for VR revolves around two issues.
1) Interest - not a lot of people own these sets, creating mobile experiences at the moment is much more profitable and has been going on for years.
2) Scope - Most developers create short games for VR because that's essentially the best way to do it currently. Headsets are uncomfortable, they cause sickness in most people that try them (yes most, even those that love the sets have experienced it at least once or twice), and ultimately the more intense and time consuming the game is, the greater the chance of experiencing sickness.
Nobody really knows what long term effects of several hour gaming sessions will have. We do know that the guinness book of world records holder for longest time in VR (he played a painting game on the vive, no actual movement by the world, and most closely resembles an actual physical world due to walking and roomscale) upon removing the set promptly became sick in the nearest trashcan.
Mostly, as cool as it is, experiences are all developers will take a chance on, not real games. Not any where VR adds such a far and beyond experience over normal gameplay that it makes one version strikingly better than another.
Maskedweasel is on my ignore list and has been for about a month now so I am not seeing anything he writes or want to. I am saying this just in the interest of clarity and saving people time
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
My responses aren't directed for you, they're for others in response to you.
Just some thoughts on Vendetta Online VR and current virtual reality in general
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
It doesn't help that PC VR still is pretty rare. My guess is that we get a few good car games (and porn) first boosting sale before most companies get involved for real. Car and flight sims are the ones working best in current gen VR,
But if I'm going to put on a VR to see the art, why the heck would I bother walking into the museum.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee