Slashdot Mirror
Valve 'Comfortable' If Virtual Reality Headsets Fail (bbc.com)
VR headset developer Valve is "comfortable" with the idea that the technology could turn out to be a complete failure. Gabe Newell, head of the game studio, made the statement in an interview with news site Polygon. From a report: Valve is co-developer of the Vive VR headset with phone firm HTC. Mr Newell said, so far, interest in the technology was in line with its expectations and that some VR games had already sold well. In the rare and wide-ranging interview, Mr Newell said the advent of VR had much in common with the development of PCs in the 1980s. In both cases, he said, people bought technology without knowing why and discovered afterwards what they were good for. For the PC, he said, it was spreadsheets and businesses that drove the initial success. With VR, people were only starting to discover compelling uses as they experimented and took risks with the technology.Mr Newell said there were now about 1,300 VR-based applications on its Steam gaming service and about 30 of those had made more than $250,000 in revenue.
Out of curiosity, may I ask why? Do you work for Microsoft?
Valve failed.
I never really dug PC games, I've always enjoyed playing casually on console more. However, with Steam creating a pretty good, bonafide controller experience, I've gotten myself a little set-top machine. With Steam you pay more for hardware and less for software. I really like the Steam platform. I hope they can make the transition to SteamOS someday, and I could ditch windows.
I'd wager all that statement means is that they're making plenty of money via the Steam store, and don't see VR as a big moneymaker either way. Hell, they apparently don't even need to release games anymore.
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
Couldn't this article and the question asked to Newell be slightly rephrased along the lines of, "Is Valve relying on the success of its VR headset as its primary driver of growth?" The answer appears to be "no," which seems like the prudent business strategy to me.
Honestly, I don't see how VR could fail. It's a incredible feature for a lot of game (Try Elite Dangerous with a X52 joystick and I dare you to tell me otherwise).
Right now (and I emphasize on that), the only drawback is, well, money for both the consumer and the developer.
The specs needed to support VR is insane right now. Top that the +1000$ bucks for the VR and you'll scare more than a few. The cost for AAA game too is problematic as cannot use fixed cam to render only a part of the games. Top that the small number of people that can afford the VR and it's already unprofitable unless you're making a game that can play with or without VR.
I say, give it some time and, sooner or later, the VR will boom.
Elok
No, what he's saying is they make a tidy profit on every single one of those 700$ face-huggers. It makes no difference whatsoever if not a single more were ever sold. It was already a success.
I think a lot of the commenters here are speculating a little too hard. As someone who's met him, Newell isn't one to go ceo-marketspeak on everyone. It seems to me that he is simply stating that they want to innovate for innovations sake, and innovation fails sometimes. We all know they are raking in the money with steam, so they don't NEED this to be successful. Outside of that, they are turning a profit on a high ticket item where most of their target audience cant afford it. Gotta give them props for that. And anyone who knows a thing or two about how development of a new product goes (I'm sure most on this site have a decent idea), the early adopters are there to get the train moving so the next version can be cheaper. And because most of their target audience cant afford it until its cheaper, once it gets there sales will go up with it (vive sales in november were 140,000 Msrp $799, PSVR sales were around 2 million Msrp $399). Its unlikely to be anything as big as the home computer, but it will certainly have staying power, and definitely has a demand.
Gabe never 'positions' himself. You are confusing him with normal 'people in high positions'. He is not a spokesman, or a mouthpiece, or even a manager. He built the entire company of Valve in a way so he doesn't have to be the decider. He's just a smart dude at a company on the forefront of VR, and like any new and risky technology, it could fail. Like John Carmack, he pulls no punches... if something sucks, he says it sucks. If he fires someone, he publicly calls them an ass (not necessarily his best moment).
He is not in Marketing, and he doesn't really care what consumers think about his verbiage. In fact, his lack of a filter is part of why Valve as a company is so reticent to talk to the consumers directly, as his quotes have been used against him many times in the past.
So I'm not saying your options are false, I'm just saying that you ascribe too much forethought into his choice of wording.
"I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
They probably went into VR because if VR became the dominant way of playing games, it would eat their existing business. It's similar to why they made SteamOS as an insurance policy against Microsoft locking them out of the Windows platform.
I think it's safe to say now that VR won't replace PC gaming on a monitor, certainly not any time soon. But since their existing business is doing fine and they didn't invest more than they could afford, it doesn't matter for them if VR fails or becomes a niche product.
Personally, I think VR becoming a niche product is the most likely outcome. People buy expensive steering wheels or flight sticks to get more immersed in their favorite games and, for certain genres, VR can do the same.
If you read the Valve employee handbook, failure is an accepted part of trying. They are not afraid to fail.
http://www.valvesoftware.com/c...
VR can "fail", and will, because people don't stick with games where the main challenge is "keep from barfing".
To clarify: today's VR will fail, as did VR from the 1990s and 2000s. We might get there in the 2020s, with tracking cameras operating at kilohertz frame rates, displays refreshing at 300Hz or better, and a graphics pipeline that doesn't introduce more than a frame or two of latency -- IF game designers put some serious thought into maintaining consistent motion perception among all modes (visual-field, inner-ear, proprioceptive).
And then what? Origin and Windows store taking over?
Please kill me when that happens. Because then I might actually have to switch to consoles to play games, and even though I hate them with a passion that would be the lesser evil.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The experience is ready, the price isn't.
It'll likely be what it is, an expensive niche product that some people will enjoy but will never catch on with widespread adoption and the occasional developer adding support.
Too right, just like those newfangled "GUI desktops" and mousie-things, or those Aye-Phone thingamabobs. Who's gonna write software for these things? Real Developers (TM) only work on proven technologies where they can make money today.
</sarcasm>
OK, maybe you're right, but I would be less surprised if some form of VR/AR that nobody is quite predicting yet grows up to be a very desirable and commonly used interface to humans. Time will tell.
WALSTIB!
I think the main issue is that it requires a high end computer that most of us build ourselves, but which joe sixpack has to buy from some systems company and figure out what he needs. In theory one might sell "Oculus Rift/Vive Ready Game Machine", but I don't think the marketing has got there yet.
Your technical issues I agree with, but honestly every time I put the thing on I forget my gripes about all the bugs and issues, everything that was promised in the 90s is being delivered, I really don't see this going away. I suspect Joe Sixpack will see it that way too and the things will fly off the shelves and fund the evolution of design improvements. It's just hard to put them in people's hands if they have to be computer geeks to understand the hardware requirements.
You can see the quote in context here: https://youtu.be/kMpQWSqQFK0?t...
He's simply saying he VR is interesting and worth an attempt even if it fails. He also announces in the same interview that Valve is currently developing 3 distinct VR games. Not small "The Lab" experiences but full games. That doesn't sound like the actions of a company who believes VR is dead.
The Vive/Rift and even PSVR have shown that it's possible to make a pretty darn good VR experience for the consumer market. Sure, there are problems but to say they are no different than the 90s VR headsets is just silly. A game for VR isn't drastically different than any typical high end PC game. VR simply requires hardware a bit more towards bleeding edge end of the spectrum is all.
A multi modern setup is simply not capable of giving you the same experience as room scale VR with motion controls. VR in it's current form can't replace a multi monitor desktop environment either. It's simply too low resolution for anything other than gaming. The difference is VR can and will catch up but multi monitor desktop environments won't.
If VR fails it will be because there isn't software out there to justify it's existence, not technical limitations or even cost. Early personal computers were insanely expensive and I'm sure the same arguments were made back then too...
The software is coming. Value has announced they are making three VR games themselves. The market is small so you'll just have to give it some time for other studios not quite as invested as Valve to catch up.