New to the forums? Click here to read the "How To" Guide.

Developer? Click here to go to the Developer Forums.

Is this the Poor Attitude from Developers/Publishers which hold VR back?

Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,844 Valuable Player
edited November 24 in General
CDPR spill some inner thoughts on VR and it's quite disappointing. It's a poor attitude many developers and publishers most likely share.  Whilst it's understandable it's all about the mainstream $$$, at the same time where are the inner gamers from these people. Have they lost that spark? VR enthusiasts all know VR is more immersive than 2D gaming so why aren't these developers taking a leaf out of Valve/Oculus' book and trying to push the medium further? I mean look at the developers of Hellblade who dedicated a team to make the VR version. They were a passionate crew who had a vision for their game and made it happen. Look at how successful Resident Evil 7 was/is with the 2D/VR combo. The 2D game subsidised the VR offering so the problem of mainstream and lost $$$ wasn't an issue at all. I am saddened when I hear such things.

I will mention again my chat with developers at Gamescom this year with one game looking like a perfect candidate for VR and asking them about it. Their response was it made them all sick so they decided not to pursue it further.  So it looks like the chicken & egg scenario here. Developing for VR isn't ever going to progress at any reasonable pace when the numbers of users is so small.  Consumers aren't going to adopt VR if the software isn't there. Valve is somewhat different to most as they have a vested interest in the medium given their hardware production, the same with Oculus. Everyone else it seems sits on the fence and plays the waiting game ( the lovely Bethesda excluded). 

My takeaway from this is and bear in mind the huge PROFITS these companies make.

"WE LOVE VR BUT ONLY WHEN OTHERS TAKE THE FINANCIAL HIT."

https://twinfinite.net/2019/11/cyberpunk-2077-developer-comments-on-next-gen-consoles-multiplayer-and-vr/

Asked about whether they’re worried that Half-Life Alyx could pull some gamers away from Cyberpunk 2077 and CD Projekt could release some of its games on virtual reality platforms, we hear that VR remains a “nichy niche” market. Alyx is probably a big effort from Valve to expand that niche, which is defined as “very, very, very, and I could add a few verys here, small.”

From a market perspective CD Projekt isn’t worried because it’s a very different niche. While Valve is trying to push the market, CD Projekt is targeting the mass market as it is now, which is major consoles and PC without the need of VR gear.   

In their conversations with other publishers, CD Projekt is unaware of hard pushes for VR, and they have not heard of anybody building an actual solid business on that niche.

That being said, this “can very well change” in the future, but it’s definitely not going to be the case in the first half of next year, and probably not even further in 2020. 
At some point VR might become mass-market entertainment that will validate the business around it, but that’s not the case for CD Projekt right now.

Speaking further of possibly releasing past games on VR, the executives mentioned that to prepare a game for VR one should design for VR. They’d “rather work on new great things than on older stuff.” That’s not always true as we can see with The Witcher 3 on Switch, but that’s the general attitude.
Incidentally, the release of  The Witcher 3 on Switch is generating additional revenue, but it isn’t comparable to the release of a new game. Sales are in-line with expectations.

Polish studio CD Projekt has just published its third-quarter earnings report for 2019, and has cited the release of Witcher 3 on Switch as one of the key reasons for a 38% revenue jump year-on-year.

In the last quarter, CD Projekt Capital Group posted 92.9 million PLN in sales revenues, scoring a net profit of 14.9 million PLN (£2,977,832.05).



System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
Tagged:
«1

Comments

  • KentobiKentobi Posts: 36
    Brain Burst
    I think you answered your own question. Valve is in a unique situation that they can throw a ton of money at the VR problem and be OK without seeing immediate returns. Other companies have to make decent money in the short term. VR is such a small market that the revenue just isn’t there yet. Quest is the fastest growing VR market, but it’s orders of magnitude smaller than the mainstream market. Until the profits are there, the developers won’t be in a big way.   
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,844 Valuable Player
    edited November 24
    I'm not so sure that Valve's Half Life Alyx announcement is going to increase sales of the Valve Index dramatically. The VR market is quite fragmented so people have lots of choice to still be able to play it. You can pick-up some pretty cheap WMR headsets for example. Valve obviously know this and are doing the right-thing by making sure no-one gets left out. That will hopefully convert to increased software sales in the long-run for them.  At the end of the day though it's quite possible Valve could lose money on this project for the greater good.  My point is, lots of publishers sit on huge sums of profits - CDPR not so much as they aren't a publishing giant.  Why aren't the likes of EA, Activision, Ubisoft and even Microsoft and Sony (to a lesser degree) investing in top quality (bigger budget) VR experiences that don't necessarily have to fit the mainstream gaming business model? Sure, they are businesses about maximizing profits (micro-transactions anyone) but why not put something back into the gaming communities they exploit. It almost looks like a belief that VR isn't going to go anywhere, it's a fad so they either sit on the fence, or tentatively dip their toes in with low-budget projects. 

    A real shame in my view as VR has come a long way since the Vive and Rift CV1 released. The library of decent VR experiences has grown exponentially. It's no longer a haven of gloried tech demos.

    Activision ATVI, -1.21%  reported third-quarter net income Thursday of $204 million, which amounts to 27 cents a share, versus $260 million, or 34 cents a share, in the year-ago period. Adjusted earnings were 38 cents a share. Revenue fell to $1.28 billion from $1.51 billion in the year-ago period.




    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • zork2001zork2001 Posts: 552
    Trinity

    Whatever is all I have to say. This has been the statement from the start of VR conception. I have been following VR since the day the DK1 was announced and bought every headset that came out. I have downloaded every game that was supported at the time and have seen the progression of VR first hand. For literally 3 years the Dk2 was sitting on my desk because it was the only HMD available and I would try anything that was posted to oculus web page. I remember they posted a demo of “I expect you to die” that blew me away because motion controllers did not exist as even a concept but the game let you use your mouse as an arm, you could pick up any item than use your scroll wheel to bring it to you or away from you; click to have the item float in mid air; double click to have it drop to the floor. It felt like you could really interact with things.

    When the DK1 was released Palmer Lucky whent to a small conference and someone asked him what he thinks the future of VR and HMD’s is going to go. He said eventually all the computing will be on board the HMD with no wires. 7 years later we know have the quest.

    Boneworks is coming out in a few weeks. I think we will finally get a taste of what VR 2.0 interactions in a games will be like.


  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,153 Valuable Player
    Like I've said in another thread we won't see the majority of publishers and developers developing VR games until Microsoft have a VR headset available for the NextBox.

    There are currently only 2 platforms for developers to cater to and those two platforms don't have that many owners compared to flat PC and consoles.

    We need Microsoft to jump in and bring VR to their consoles before we start seeing widespread support for VR from developers and publishers.

    Developers have also been hampered by Sony's bizarre design decisions for the Move controllers too.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,844 Valuable Player
    edited November 24
    Not sure I follow your reasoning Snowdog that it's all on Microsoft and their next Xbox especially in light of PS4 sales compared to Xbox One. Are you suggesting that when both Sony & Microsoft have a VR headset available it then might become "profitable" for publishers to invest in VR projects because they can release on both platforms followed by PC like the 2D business model? 

    Unfortunately, adoption of PSVR whilst good in comparison to PC headsets is still very low in light of how many people own PS4 consoles. I believe this is what Microsoft are looking at when holding-off going all-in on VR for Xbox and to a lesser degree PC.

    Another sad thing is Sony doesn't seem in much hurry (at least publicly) to make a revised PSVR or PSVR 2 for PS5 next year (again probably due to cost). The Move+camera is cheap for them even if it's not ideal.  If Sony did make a new PSVR and adoption rates increased as a result then we might see some interest from Microsoft. If that was the case then it could be several years away though.

    I think the cost issue is really the stigma here even for console gamers.  If you recall how Microsoft bundled Kinect with the Xbox One initially, if that approach was used for the console market - an Xbox console that comes with a VR headset as standard - then we would see huge strides. Unfortunately we come back to my original point of companies not willing to take the risk and or financial hit. 


    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,153 Valuable Player
    There's less risk involved for a publisher developing for 3 platforms instead of 2 because development is cheaper.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • RedRizlaRedRizla Posts: 6,774 Valuable Player
    edited November 24
    Might help if VR games are produced for all VR headsets instead of having different stores and VR games like Resident Evil only been available for Sony VR etc. Just one great game can make someone purchase a VR headset, but games spread across different headsets is ridiculous if you want millions of people in VR.

    Edit: Just want to say devs are a bit daft for saying VR games make you sick. The only time they make you sick is when they are not made properly for VR. They should look at how games like Onward were made by a single dev before coming out with such ridiculous statements like VR makes you sick. The only part of VR that actually makes me really sick, is these devs not helping to move it forward :D
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,153 Valuable Player
    Developing for different REALLY isn't a problem for developers, you need to have different control schemes for different headsets (and that's only when you take PSVR into account due to Sony's terrible design decisions with the Move controllers) and with the Oculus Store you can't have SteamVR binaries in there for some reason but developing for different platforms (PS4, Xbox and PC) is as simple as building the project for different platforms. It's basically the click of a mouse.

    As far as testing is concerned it's also pretty easy because generally functional bugs are shared across multiple platforms, so if you have a bug in the PC SKU it's highly likely (unless it's a Standards bug or a bug associated with different control schemes in the case of VR games) that the very same bug is there for ALL platforms.

    When testing games that are multi-platform in the Alpha stage I used to see button prompts for the 360 controller on the PS3 which freaks you out the first time you see it, because the 360 was the lead platform. :D
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,813 Valuable Player
    Interesting conjecture, though @Shadowmask72 - I wonder if it is not the "ecosystem" engineered by the headset manufacturers which is not the greater burden on deployment?
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,153 Valuable Player
    kevinw729 said:
    Interesting conjecture, though @Shadowmask72 - I wonder if it is not the "ecosystem" engineered by the headset manufacturers which is not the greater burden on deployment?

    What do you mean by ecosystem? If you're referring to developing different SKUs to suit different headsets/hardware and different Stores it really isn't a problem. Developers have been doing it for decades. All you need to do is change the Build settings in whatever engine you're using, have separate controls schemes and ensure that the TRCs, TCRs, Lot Checks and VRCs (collectively known as Standards testing) are followed for each SKU. It's REALLY simple to do (although for some reason the vast majority of Lead Testers have a problem with Standards testing, I didn't have a problem with it when I got involved in it and got the PSP SKU of Championship Manager passed years ago. I still think I should have got a nice backhander for that, I saved Eidos THOUSANDS lol).
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,844 Valuable Player
    If that's the case then it's a massive shame SONY hasn't licensed its exclusives to other platforms. Surely this is money in the bag for them. I believe if their popular PSVR games were on PC the two sets of consumers are so far apart they wouldn't hinder any potential hardware sales. That's if its a reason to keep the software exclusive to its platform.


    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • LuciferousLuciferous Posts: 2,197 Valuable Player
    Playing Stormlands this week I am amazed at how far we have come since I was playing the dumpy elephant game on my Dk1.

    However I still think the hardware isn't good enough yet for a majority adoption. Once a quest model gets to HP resolution, natural focus, CV1 Audio, large FOV, wireless headsets, no blur, smear or SDE and index comfort (subjectively)  the majority are still going to see it as a technology just not quite there yet. I think we are getting closer though. 

    The moments are rare where I am not aware that I have the hot sweaty headset on. Funnily I was playing Stormland last night and I subconsciously lifted my headset to get a better view. :)

  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,813 Valuable Player
    snowdog said:
    .....
    What do you mean by ecosystem? If you're referring to developing different SKUs to suit different headsets/hardware and different Stores it really isn't a problem.
    ....

    That you don't see this as a problem is one perspective, but I think we know that there is much more to the closed off ecosystems created than just some code changes. Its the need by the different manufacturers to control their environments and the restraints (even timed exclusives) that impacted adoption across the whole rather than the few. The need for Revive a great example of the confusion that was generated. And an issue that excluded some and put off others. Hopes to just brush this under the carpet as a non issue - reveals a lot about the criticism leveled at the myopic attitude of VR community at times. But as always thanks for your unique opinion. 


    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 3,926 Valuable Player
    edited November 25
    I found this article interesting, at least it confirms many thoughts I've had about developing VR content - and associated challenges:

    https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2019-11-21-vr-would-be-a-really-dark-space-right-now-without-facebooks-money
    Intel i7 7700K (4.5 GHz); MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100 MHz gpu boost, 11 GHz mem speed); 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 MHz; MSI Z270I Gaming Pro Carbon AC (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 960 Evo M.2 SSD + Toshiba P300 HD; Windows 10 OS; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 - the latter nearly always using super sampling 2.0. 

    "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,153 Valuable Player
    kevinw729 said:
    snowdog said:
    .....
    What do you mean by ecosystem? If you're referring to developing different SKUs to suit different headsets/hardware and different Stores it really isn't a problem.
    ....

    That you don't see this as a problem is one perspective, but I think we know that there is much more to the closed off ecosystems created than just some code changes. Its the need by the different manufacturers to control their environments and the restraints (even timed exclusives) that impacted adoption across the whole rather than the few. The need for Revive a great example of the confusion that was generated. And an issue that excluded some and put off others. Hopes to just brush this under the carpet as a non issue - reveals a lot about the criticism leveled at the myopic attitude of VR community at times. But as always thanks for your unique opinion. 



    It is a non-issue. The only restraints have been either self-imposed by developers themselves (there are a good few (including my good self) that have chosen to only release their games on one platform) or contractual obligations such as receiving funding in return for exclusivity.

    If a developer wants to release a game for the Rift, the Index and PSVR there aren't any insurmountable problems doing so. They need to do a bit of extra work with the code changes, they need to perform decent functional and Standards testing, they need to ensure that the game they're releasing isn't a pile of steaming crap unless it's only being released on Steam and if they're releasing the game on the PlayStation Store they need to buy a devkit and either have a lockable office with some sort of security like an alarm or a night watchman or a safe if they're working from home to keep the devkit secure. If I had the cash handy I could port my game to the PlayStation without much of a problem, there's nothing in Sony's 'ecosystem' that's stopping me from doing so.

    The problem that big name developers have (and will continue to have until Microsoft get their arses in gear) is the one I mentioned earlier. There simply aren't enough platforms available or enough headsets out there in homes to make it worth their while to bring their big name franchises to VR. The reason why we're seeing so many indie developers jumping into VR development is because they have MUCH lower budgets so need to sell A LOT less to make any sort of profit. It's all about sales at the end of the day.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • MradrMradr Posts: 3,549 Valuable Player
    edited November 25
    As much as you can blame the other company - there are still limits to VR that most games we play today can't not fill for/in VR at all. Either because the actions are too fast/inhuman or simply they would be just like playing on a screen that sits in front of you making it still only a hybrid or not that much better than playing the game on a 2nd screen. The problem over all it REALLY does take a whole new point of view on how we create games for VR thus we are starting ALL over again where todays games have had YEARS of experience running and playing with everyone already. The fact we're starting to see games like Boneworks and Half Life goes to show how HARD it can be to really start creating things from scratch at the same time - adding all the little things that brings a player into VR. VR still very young compare to almost anything else out there - and that I am sure - will both hurt it and help it try to find more use for it while creating a whole new market for software sells. Those two titles alone I feel like will be the starting ground for new things to come in the next few years and then the story will change into how VR was always going to grow and that it wasn't a problem.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,813 Valuable Player
    A very nuanced point @Mradr - yes, VR offers only a snapshot of possible genres to be supported - and we have seen a number of profitable streams of business not able to get a foot hold. Though equivalents can be shoehorned into VR, the reality is that many genres do not work - while others work really well. It is a split, and those that thought VR was going to be all things to all men have had a hard time defending this.

    But for me, as one that works with game developers as well as operators, the walls that are placed in developers faces to stop or control their business are the biggest issues to support. Also seeing unfair incitements, or even the use of "wallet" development. this also comes with the issue of "transparency". Many developers complain that they can not get any idea of "expected sales margins" because the manufacturers (all) are fudging the numbers to try and hide the pain. 

    Dependent on how Quest actually does before January - I get the feeling that the next phase of VR investment will be done from a straight wicket. That developers and manufacturers will open the doors and avoid private ecosystems just to maximize impact. The groups we are seeing forming round the new 5G standards a case in point - just a shame some manufacturers have already blocked being involved with this!

    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,844 Valuable Player
    edited November 26
    @snowdog 

    This is a quote from head of Team Xbox Phil Spencer from X019 last week. Not sure I get his comment that games are a communal together experience when single-player gaming is a massive driving force in the industry. The rest though follows exactly the point I am making with this thread. Not sure why Kevin thinks it's conjecture when the evidence is right there.
    “I have some issues with VR — it’s isolating and I think of games as a communal, kind of together experience. We’re responding to what our customers are asking for and… nobody’s asking for VR,” Spencer said. “The vast majority of our customers know if they want a VR experience, there’s places to go get those. We see the volumes of those on PC and other places.”
    Spencer admitted that some of the decision was based on cold hard cash, as “nobody’s selling millions and millions” of VR units.
    “I think we might get there [eventually],” Spencer concluded. “But yeah, that’s not where our focus is.”


    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,813 Valuable Player
    I made the point some time ago that we were aware that MS had no more interest in VR, and had broken involvement. This is why we doubted heavily the claims from some sources that OculusVR would have headsets on the current and next consoles form the corporation. These most recent interview comments underlines that "for the time being" this is the case.

    I understand it can be difficult to separate "wishful thinking" with "accurate speculation" - many had hoped the rumors were true regarding XBoneVR. While Samsung or Microsoft may still have dealings with OculusVR (displays and coding plans), the possibility of greater partnerships have now passed. 
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • RuneSR2RuneSR2 Posts: 3,926 Valuable Player
    When talking about Microsoft and VR - article published today:

    VR is a 'very high' priority for the Microsoft Flight Simulator team

    (Image credit: Microsoft)

    I've noticed plenty of people saying that they'll finally jump on the VR bandwagon because of Half-Life: Alyx, but there's another game that makes strapping a big ol' headset to your face an incredibly seductive prospective: Microsoft Flight Simulator

    Last month, head of Microsoft Flight Simulator Jörg Neumann said that VR hadn't originally been part of the plan, but the reaction to the E3 reveal and the assumption that it would support VR straight away made Asobo Studio and Microsoft reconsider things. In a new interview with Der Standard (cheers, AVSIM), Neumann has now confirmed that it's a "very high" priority for the team. 

    "Asobo and I have years of experience with VR," Neumann told Der Standard. "We know what a lazy and a good implementation look like. We want to bring a good solution, for example by cutting off the cockpit from the rest of the world. Then you can move freely in it, and the world in the background does not start to shimmer. We have started with VR, but we want to do it right."

    Source: https://www.pcgamer.com/vr-is-a-very-high-priority-for-the-microsoft-flight-simulator-team/#article-comments


    Intel i7 7700K (4.5 GHz); MSI GeForce GTX 1080 8GB Gaming X (oc 2100 MHz gpu boost, 11 GHz mem speed); 16GB Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 3200 MHz; MSI Z270I Gaming Pro Carbon AC (VR-Ready) mainboard; Samsung 960 Evo M.2 SSD + Toshiba P300 HD; Windows 10 OS; Valve Index and Oculus Rift CV1 - the latter nearly always using super sampling 2.0. 

    "Ask not what VR can do for you – ask what you can do for VR"
  • snowdogsnowdog Posts: 7,153 Valuable Player
    Well those comments from Spencer means we'll have to wait longer for mainstream gamers to collectively adopt VR.

    However they may still decide to implement a VR headset for the NextBox at a later date. Consoles these days in terms of hardware are pretty close to PCs. We won't see it happening for a while though because they're not going to make this happen without decent exclusive launch titles.

    We won't see big name publishers bringing big name mainstream franchises to VR until they have three platforms and over 15-20 million headsets out there to sell them to unless they're funded by one of the headset manufacturers the way that Skyrim VR, Fallout 4 VR and Resident Evil 7 have been.
    "This you have to understand. There's only one way to hurt a man who's lost everything. Give him back something broken."

    Thomas Covenant, Unbeliever
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,844 Valuable Player
    edited November 29
    Microsoft does not need to make its own Xbox VR headset merely make the console compatible with VR. Not sure how much investment that would require. If it took on one of the current PC ecosystems  (cough Oculus) or even its own WMR platform which people feel they have abandoned aside from Hololens then half the work is done surely.

    Spencer seems to think VR is too solitary an experience though. So really he's gunning for more lucrative Multi-player gaming. 

    FFS. I hate how short-sighted the gaming industry has become.


    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • WildtWildt Posts: 2,109 Valuable Player
    I'm not so sure that Valve's Half Life Alyx announcement is going to increase sales of the Valve Index dramatically.
    Told you so ;)
    PCVR: CV1 || 4 sensors || TPcast wireless adapter || MamutVR Gun stock V3
    PSVR: PS4 Pro || Move Controllers || Aim controller
    WMR: HP Reverb
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,844 Valuable Player
    edited November 28
    Meh well sales have increased so I'll eat my words. But in the grand scheme what sort of numbers are we looking at here?

    SONY is probably looking at 5 million+ PSVRs sold after this Holiday season (Current RRP with Camera £179).
    Valve Index numbers?

    Sadly SONY is still selling the Move controllers for around £75 for a pair rather than making a proper bundle. Now would be a good time to Bundle the complete package for £250. Headset, camera, two move controllers and 2 Games. People are still asking does the PSVR come with controllers and does it need a PS4.

    When you start adding the complete bundle (PSVR+ PS4+Controllers) it's heading to over £500 territory. This then makes the Quest attractive aside from not playing any PS4 games!

    It's all fooked-up right now imo. Companies not willing to push-the-boat-out further for mass adoption.  It's all small drops in a very large ocean where consumer confidence and knowledge is unsurprisingly low. I think consumer interest could be there right now, but it's not helped by a massively fragmented commercial floor-space.

    Just imagine Oculus would be killing it this holiday with Oculus Quest at £199. That's cheaper than a PSVR and no need for a CPU or PS4. I suppose this time next year will be quite interesting.


    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • Protocol7Protocol7 Posts: 317
    Trinity
    At the end of the article the gaming editors at wccftech give their opinions about VR. They are very negative.

  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,844 Valuable Player
    edited November 29
    I'm generalising here a bit but...I believe it's because they cannot afford the VR headsets and PCs to run them. A lot of these websites are all in the same boat. Some that I spoke to who are listed on Metacritic.com don't even own a VR headset. They simply lack the resources to focus on VR - just do a search "VR" on their website and see how much coverage they have given it. I am pretty sure had they all been given a Rift or Quest from Oculus and had a capable PC they would sing a different tune.  This is gaming enthusiast writers (I refuse to use the word "journalist" because they certainly aren't that) ignorance 101. I feel sick in VR therefore it must suck mentality after trying it once or twice for 10 minutes.  I mean, you have to be pretty ignorant and moronic to publicly state you're not spending $1000 on a VR headset for just 1 game. I think a person can be justified in not gelling with VR but at the same time understand its merits for those who do like it. Their poll suggest  ~60% of people polled are interested. Speaks volumes how out of touch their attitudes are with their readers.

    Fook-off!

     :p 


    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • MaxxgoldMaxxgold Posts: 375
    Trinity
    Wildt said:
    I'm not so sure that Valve's Half Life Alyx announcement is going to increase sales of the Valve Index dramatically.
    Told you so ;)
    That’s funny because now Steam has sold out of all their stock of the Valve Index, and they are still taking orders. Might want to rethink those statements. 
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,844 Valuable Player
    Until you can provide some numbers then don't be so sure it's going to catch-up any time soon with PSVR's 4-5 million. Sales have increased but I am going to focus on the key word "dramatically". Running out of stock might be because the inventory was low to begin with. When Valve announces one gazillion new sales since the announcement then I will humbly eat my words even more.  :p

    In the UK here I can still order an Index from Steam and have it delivered in 4 days. It was only the NA store that sold out iirc.


    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
  • kevinw729kevinw729 Posts: 4,813 Valuable Player
    Until you can provide some numbers then don't be so sure it's going to catch-up any time soon with PSVR's 4-5 million. Sales have increased but I am going to focus on the key word "dramatically". 
    ....

    Understand your point - though I dont think anyone was alluding to INDEX racing towards PSVR numbers...yet!

    To be frank, none of the VR manufacturers have revealed numbers, and some have overtly tried to confuse any attempt (even obscuring sales to game devs). The only reason we have PSVR and GearVR numbers is because of investor disclosure.

    We are getting very close to seriously needing authorized sales numbers from the pack in order to gain any authority / credibility. Avoiding this just adds weight to the questions on the validity of claims ("...selling faster than we can make...!" etc.,). Especially as we are aware that OVR has set a 1m sales by end of year target on Quest.

    Note - the Steam survey data is not real data, especially considering the number of headsets in circulation not using Steam, and the validity of the survey gathering.
    P6ftmuw.jpg
    ** New Book **
    "The Out-of-Home Immersive Entertainment Frontier: Expanding Interactive Boundaries in Leisure Facilities"
    https://www.amazon.co.uk/Out-Home-Immersive-Entertainment-Frontier/dp/1472426959
  • Shadowmask72Shadowmask72 Posts: 3,844 Valuable Player
    edited December 2
    I was deliberately being obstinate Kevin. Not that it will help in this instance. You are right in some ways, real numbers would validate quite a lot, but it would also highlight how fragmented the VR space is right now. Real numbers would also feed into the poor mindset not only from the consumer naysayers but the developers and publishers. I can just see CDPR et al. reinforcing their positions once the real numbers became public. 

    "we absolutely love VR"

    BUT...

    "it's not profitable enough",
    "it's nowhere near mainstream"
    "way too solitary"
    "not the direction we're focusing on right now".

    Yadda yadda.


    System Specs: RTX 2080 ti , i9 9900K CPU, 16 GB DDR 4 RAM, Win 10 64 Bit OS.
Sign In or Register to comment.