Slashdot Mirror
'We Expected VR To Be Two To Three Times as Big', Says CCP Games CEO (roadtovr.com)
CCP Games, the Icelandic studio known for their long-running MMO Eve: Online (2003), shuttered their VR production studios in a surprise move last year, selling off their Newcastle-based branch behind their multiplayer space dogfighter EVE: Valkyrie (2016), and completely shutting down their Atlanta studio behind sports game Sparc (2017). Now, CEO Hilmar Veigar Petursson speaks out in an interview with Destructoid about the studio's return to traditional desktop gaming, and his thoughts about the VR landscape. From a report: In short, he thought VR would be bigger by now, and more capable of supporting a healthy multiplayer userbase. EVE: Valkyrie, the company's flagship VR game, was the result of over three years of development before becoming a day-one launch title on Oculus Rift and PSVR, arriving shortly afterwards on HTC Vive via Steam in 2016 -- a seemingly best-case scenario for any multiplayer-only game.
Under CCP direction, EVE: Valkyrie saw a number of updates designed to entice players back, including new ships, maps, and weekly events; CCP even pushed a major update to the game last year that brought support for desktop and console players, a move to help boost sales and revive the ailing VR-only playerbase. Still, the multiplayer game just didn't perform as CCP ultimately expected, and the company officially stepped back from VR shortly thereafter. "We expected VR to be two to three times as big as it was, period," Petursson tells Destructoid. "You can't build a business on that."
Under CCP direction, EVE: Valkyrie saw a number of updates designed to entice players back, including new ships, maps, and weekly events; CCP even pushed a major update to the game last year that brought support for desktop and console players, a move to help boost sales and revive the ailing VR-only playerbase. Still, the multiplayer game just didn't perform as CCP ultimately expected, and the company officially stepped back from VR shortly thereafter. "We expected VR to be two to three times as big as it was, period," Petursson tells Destructoid. "You can't build a business on that."
VR won't catch on...again. What is this, like the 3rd or 4th time it's been tried?
I never expected VR to be bigger.
It always seemed like a no-go for me. At least for now. Most people play games to relax and de-stress. When playing VR is as simple as sitting on the settee and wearing something as light and simple as a pair of sunglasses, people will play VR in numbers. When the sights looks lifelike and not uncanny valley, and don't leave you nauseous... people will like it.
VR probably will rebound in the future but for now it's a dying fad for a niche market. As long as you have to wear bulky contraptions with head straps and fit into awkward devices I'd much rather just have a keyboard, mouse and a monitor- you can keep your VR.
Someday in the future VR will take off- but today's generation is not good enough to warrant a big market. All the best gaming experience is still to be found on a flat screen. VR is a curiosity for those willing to spend money on unproven tech but not what most people want.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
None of the big VR headset makers want pron on their store so noone buys $400 headsets and $1000 rigs when there is no content.
Dust 514 would probably also have been much more successful if they had launched it on the PC and not just PS4.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
'We Expected VR To Be Two To Three Times as Big', Says CCP Games CEO
I expected your VR games to have content, not juse EVE label slapped onto them.
I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one.
Given all the previous questionable moves they made they're pretty bad at anticipating how technology will play out for them.
Their main game EVE Online runs on Python, which requires them to use specialized server hardware that emulates single-core behaviour on multi-cores systems.
They made deals with Sony to develop their Dust 514 for the PS3, a console whose feature was already superseded by the PS4 when the game finally released. And also while all of their consumer base was using the PC platform.
Their investment in White Wolf and the development of the World of Darkness MMO didn't go too well either.
I'm not too surprised that they miscalculated once again.
They should use the "zoom" feature
Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
I lost interest in VR once Oculus was bought by Facebook.
http://progressquest.com/spoltog.php?name=Son+Of+Son+Of+DarkRookie
Remember 3D movies? Remember how Avatar was promoted relentlessly? 3D was a solution in search of a problem. While it allowed for a nifty new feature that could be sold for more money, it didn't solve a problem. It also had some nasty side effects that bother a lot of people. It didn't take long for 3D to be effectively abandoned. It simply isn't worth the cost to make something in 3D.
VR is the modern 3D. It's a solution in search of a problem, nasty side effects still included. If anything, VR is even worse than 3D. There is no Avator for people to relate to. Instead of buying one piece of technology you are buying one for each person. This makes 3D an expensive experience that can't be shared with anyone else. 3D is destined as a niche product that will never gain widespread consumer acceptance.
Let me save future would be technology investors a lot of money with two simple questions.
Are you solving your problem or the consumers? E.G. Amazon phone solved Amazons problems and failed, whereas 3D printing solves consumer problems and will succeed.
Can someone use your technology without looking like an idiot? Bluetooth earpieces, 3D and VR come to mind off the top of my head.
They should use the "zoom" feature
When the project was first proposed to them they thought it was VR for ants.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Some people thought there would be 100 million (!!!) headsets in use by now... LOL. The same people probably thought we'd be flying to our 3D printed skyscrapers in 3D printed personal spacecraft by now...
LOL
As delusional as creimer's retirement strategies.
I never understood the logic of introducing a massively multiplayer to a platform without a massive number of players. I think the game was also introduced as an Oculus exclusive at first: basically, half the market. I have about 100 VR titles in my library and Eve: Online was never even a consideration...for other reasons.
EVE: Valkyrie didn't take off because it is an fast arcade-style game that most people can only stomach in VR for short periods and gets old very quickly. It's also competing with Elite: Dangerous, while not quite the same style of game, is the most immersive space VR experience you can get.
For all intensive porpoises your a bunch of rediculous loosers
VR isn't good enough. I've played with some of the best VR equipment available and after a couple of hours, I'm done. As in feeling motion sick and tired of heavy shit on my head.
I can play video games on my TV for as long as I want, there's really no limit except for personal responsibilities and natural requirements. They simply don't slowly make me feel sick just because I'm playing them.
If the motion sickness issue is ever 100% solved (I don't think it can be without the equivalent of a holodeck) and the headset (if required) doesn't weigh more than a set of headphones, a pair of glasses, and a baseball hat it will be a serious hit.
Until then, the best it can experience is what the Wii experienced for motion controls. A big surge in popularity that waned as time went on and people realized swinging your arm to play golf/tennis/baseball becomes tiring and far less exacting than mashing some buttons.
and miners. For the last 18 months you couldn't get a VR capable graphics card for less than $500 and the PS4 Pro just isn't powerful enough.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Expensive hardware, bulky headsets, weird controls, motion sickness and most damning of all; no killer apps.
Without software to sell it VR has no chance
Current VR setups are awesome, if you are into simulators.
A force feedback setup, VR, and i-racing is phenominal. It feels pretty much the same as being on track and you can judge depth and speed far better than through a screen. It's similarly good for flight sims.
Of course few people are into simulators, so its a small market.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
VR growth may be slow, but it isn’t stopping. I have a Lenovo Microsoft Mixed Reality set and it can be very immersive. That said, it was balky to set up at first with unanticipated bluetooth problems. Even though the Headset is affordable, you still need a serious rig to run it. There is a very noticeable screen door effect that makes it impractical for watching movies or reading fine print (so don’t expect to replace your monitor for day to day tasks). That said, true 360 degree videos can be quite engaging, and games can also be knock your socks off experiences (you don’t really notice the screen door effect when your are really in a game or 360 video).
3D never caught on for many reasons, but VR will only improve with time. Screen door effects will go away especially once foveated rendering becomes common. Hardware costs will come down, eventually it will replace your desktop in many cases. Viewing 3D movies at home will probably make a resurgence once VR headset become better (as in watch in VR).
Yes adoption is not what was expected, but that is not a death knell, there is too much potential for what can be done in VR and AR. Right now you need to be somewhat technically inclined to know what you need or tweak things to work – that will change. What will always disappoint and be expensive going forward is haptics – that will be one very hard nut to crack. Another problem is motion sickness in games with motion not tied to your actual body position (driving games for instance). Walking around in VR is a blast, riding around in VR is a vomit inducing nightmare. So, as with any technology, there are places where it shines and places where it doesn’t.
Letter To Iran
will never "Take Off". It's a novelty every few years for young kids that hadn't seen it yet. Once they do, they universally go, "Meh?"
VR *HAS BEEN* (for decades) and always will be a niche. On what basis did he think it was gonna go big? It's a very cool concept, sure, but your average players are never going to strap a helmet to their heads to play a game that you still have to use a joystick with.
In fact that's not even really "VR" - just a 360 degree view with head control.
Now - you make a thought control interface (ala Sword Art Online... without the microwave frier...) or a full suit interface (ala Ready Player One) where the player's entire body can be engaged and receive feedback - THAT would take off.
VR as it stands right now is nothing more than 3D or where voice control was about 10 years ago.
It's a novelty.
Today's VR presents our eyes and brain with an uncanny valley that is different enough from reality that the brain strains and rejects the result. I know a lot of smart people are working on this. But some pieces of the puzzle are still missing.
That said, the perfect is the enemy of the good. VR is plenty good enough to be fun and even useful and products can be successful.
I think Hollywood reality with its portrayals of VR and even the name "Virtual Reality" itself have been artificially constraining enthusiasm for these products. And setting the bar so high that to be considered successful we apparently need to see products and a VR ecosystem that matches the fiction.
1. You can buy the $800 package that works. or
2. You can buy a $20 piece of cardboard & strap an old cellphone to your face.
Very few people bought the $800 package, most went the $20 route, had a terrible experience & wrote off VR as a silly fad.
3D/VR content will never be popular with present technologies, as simply as 3D is not popular (well at least in my country - over 200 Million people). Remember buying 3D TVs? I purchased a TV without 3D on purpose simply because I thought it was BS. And I was not wrong, it does not make any sense to spend more money for a thing that is not really useful or have any content, PLUS having to find and use glasses to be able to see 3D. BS!
When you have to wear any kind of equipment, be a Glass or a VR box in your face, plus costs, that is a deterrent on get it popular.
3D would only be popular if we were able to see it without our own eyes. Until that happens, 3D and VR will remains as solutions for a small Niche only. My PV.
There is a lack of content and lack of utility. Period. The few games there are, many are the same re-skinned or barely tech demo. Even if there was porn , so what ? There is available VR porn by the way. Does not seem to make VR boom. It just is that some *lower* quality tech (2D flat screen) is actually still better and less costly than the 3D VR one. And THAT is why people don't buy in drove.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
I'm not discounting the possibility that in the future, tech will advance far enough so virtual reality becomes attractive to people again (probably at the stage where we can inexpensively generate 3D holograms of things floating in front of people). But this constant incremental churn of VR headsets and gear is stale and not getting much traction.
Among other things, I think some people in the industry aren't willing to accept that when it comes to gaming, a whole lot of people don't WANT that level of immersion! Picture your typical teenage console or PC gamer at home, already constantly dealing with getting yelled at by parents for not hearing what they're telling them because they're sucked into their "stupid video game". There's still a need to be able to hear when the "real world" is trying to get your attention, even if that jest means the doorbell ringing because your pizza delivery arrived. It's enough of a problem when you wear headphones or use earbuds, without a big, chunky pair of glasses immersing your whole field of vision in the game too.
Even as an adult, I like playing video games to unwind in the evening after work .... but I don't want to block out everything happening around me. If my wife needs to tell me something important, or the kids have an emergency - they should be able to interrupt my game and communicate with me. VR would make that too difficult.
And we're not even talking about the motion sickness problems some people experience. Gaming isn't much fun if it gets your stomach upset or gives you headaches. VR just amplifies those issues and makes them unbearable for some people.
But even if the whole experience was ideal in other perspectives, the cost is still a problem. I work for a marketing company where they toyed around with the idea of setting up VR experiences for clients. It was soundly rejected as not being financially feasible, each time it was presented as a possibility. (Imagine scenarios like universities doing fundraiser events where alumni are invited back to their schools. Theoretically, you could put on a show where everyone in a room puts on a VR headset and has a shared experience of taking a virtual tour of what the campus used to look like when it was new .... time-warping to the days they attended, and again to the present or even envisioned future that their donations could make possible. Cool, right? Except the computer hardware and expense building that whole 3D VR world runs the cost up way beyond the ROI.)
Even for a fixed, limited market like Playstation 4 owners, their VR solution just isn't compelling because again, the content creation for it seems to be hugely intensive. You wind up with a few basic, simplistic VR specific titles that feel more like product demos, and a few major game titles that use SOME VR in limited parts of the game. That's really not enough to sell most people on it.
When playing VR is as simple as sitting on the settee and wearing something as light and simple as a pair of sunglasses
This to me is the real problem - it's just not simple. Every VR setup, even PSVR, has quite a lot of cables going on, and then you have to find space to play in.
I think AR is where the future will be because it offers more of a choice between full VR and partial VR, along with more practical uses. Plus to date they have been more as you say - like a pair of glasses, even if over-large and goofy glasses at the moment.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'll wait for a Holodeck. That might actually get content.
Too many gamers wear glasses.
You cannot use these things for too long, then you have to wretch.
There will be no Holodeck either.
If you want 100% accurate similarity, that will require neurological devices plugged directly into your brain. They are already working on that, sadly.
is a gimmick amd nothing more. Maybe in 100 years or whenever fully interactive holodecks are invented but not until then
And lay off staff with no warning like we dif Vampire the Masquerade.
Really. We swear. Work for us. You can trust us.
Really.
In addition to needing some fairly substantial upgrades to a two year old computer (video card, mostly) and having to sink hundreds of dollars on a bulky headset with multiple wires, there is another problem for me.
My eyes are terrible. VR headsets don't fit over my glasses very well. And since I'm farsighted, I can't use it without them.
The VR industry has basically completely ignored people who don't have perfect vision.
The problem with a title like Eve Valkrie is that it was all in on VR. For a multiplayer experience, this is a challenge as the experience isn't compelling without other people, and other people won't join until it is compelling.
Contrast with, for example, Elite Dangerous where VR is core to the development, but it is but a *mode* of experiencing the game.
VR-only titles are going to be a problem, as a financial endeavor development has to stick to game that only optionally requires VR for now.
It is much the same way a game can support an RTX2080 for fancy graphics, but it better not *mandate* an RTX 2080.
In terms of people saying 'the technology isn't ready yet', frankly it's close enough to go. People go on about eye tracking, foveated rendering, and varifocal display, but far more critical would be more boring stuff, like better humidity management, optics that don't produce godrays, and perhaps some slightly high res, with emphasis on high resolution of textual elements even if the horsepower isn't there for general rendering (sure, eye tracking would facilitate foveated rendering which would be a big help, but we don't need to declare higher res is useless until we have eye tracking).
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Vampires sucked life - complains no life left.
No shit most people can't afford hundreds of dollars in VR gear on top of the high-end gaming PC required to use it. If companies don't like it, they should try paying their employees more, it worked for the Ford Model T...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
EVE is like CQC portion of Elite but worse and very few Elite players bother with CQC.
I gave my EVE license that came with Rift to someone else. Wasn't interested in trying after seeing videos of gameplay. That and would have had to un-firewall Oculus malware just to play. Not worth it.
Every successful tech goes through a phase of garage development. This hasn't happened with VR.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
while video cards that can support VR cost more the whole computer - I don't see it happening...
When 3D accelerators first came out, you had a clear improvement in the quality of the visuals as well as an improvement in framerates. In addition to that, there were more than a handful of games that were actually good. The move to VR has a lot of amazing chances, you look at a game like Rise of the Tomb Raider, and I mean the full game, not just some DLC, and that would have been an amazing experience if it were fully VR. Hell, in 4k, Rise of the Tomb Raider was stunning on a 27+ inch display. So, VR...one DLC that could almost be seen as a tech demo. What other content out there gives you that feeling of amazing visuals that VR would also enhance? Games themselves, since most are already 3D, would probably benefit a lot from going VR, but the games are NOT being released with VR in mind, and that is why it is not taking off. The game developers as a whole, need to either have a good API, or for the VR headsets to just accept DirectX 12 and make it a better way to display/render the content.
If VR headsets were actually treated like a simple monitor, then every game should just work without a lot of special coding being needed, and people would want to use them to enhance the experience. Instead, what do you see, special controllers, and trying to treat them as something "special". News flash, keep it simple, and people might just go for it. Add support for extras then, like vibration, or whatever, and again, it makes it simple for game developers to adopt. The more work you need the game developers to do to support YOUR special VR device, the less likely they will do it.
Most consumers DON'T want to wear some bulky, fugly VR glasses.
Furthermore people who wear glasses find it annoying having to wrangle with headsets and glasses.
Second, the lack of haptic feedback along with contradictory MIXED messages your brain is receiving (eyes tells your brain you are moving, your ears tells your brain you aren't) is one of the reasons of nausea. Not extactly a great selling point.
Third, good VR required high end GPUs. Most consumers don't care about having the latest and greatest GPU.
Fourth, there is no "killer app" that everyone must have.
Fifth, it is hard to demo VR. Chicken and egg problem that dovetails with point 4.
There are always exceptions. While Google Earth is a great VR experience there are more gimmicky / novelty apps then anything serious / productive.
VR will *always* be a niche market until these are addressed. These have been true for the past 20 - 40+ years and I don't see that changing *anytime* soon.
In a lot of ways VR is like 3D movies or hi fi audio. Most people don't care, they need to have a good experience to understand what it brings to the table before they are convinced. VR has as much a marketing problem as it does a hardware problem.
It was by the months before they canned the WoD project that you could see marked shift in design and balance decisions (and the quality of thought behind those) that screwed up the game and alienated many players. As evidenced by the many threadnaughts in the forums. It was clear to me the game was in the wrong hands and I voted with my feet.
Someone who actual calls it like it is without being a PC faggot.
I get motion sick pretty easy in VR, especially with any sliding motions, I can game for 8 hours straight on a monitor if I wanted to, but in VR I top out after about 30 minutes
Waggling is shit and the games are simplistic. It was always a gimmick.
Other than EVE Online CCP hasn't done anything to innovate on gaming. So really they don't have much room to talk about how to judge the market. Hell the only reason EVE Online does as well as it does is because there are rich whales that fund the giant armies. It's not massed of players and never has been. So them saying the market is small is pretty funny.
I tried Valkarie and other than being a space shooter there was almost no depth to it. They didn't even really try to pull you into the experience. CCP was never going to be the company to innovate in this space like they never have been in anything other than a niche MMO.
Maybe if the games weren't microtransaction filled turds they would have doen better. Blaming the market instead of yourselves seems to the par for the course for them. . .
Look, many of us tried to tell you this whole VR immersive environment and overuse of video on web and media platforms was a bad idea, but you bought into the sales pitches of those who made money from selling high end graphics hardware and software.
Now stop making videos of everything - provide a link to the video, but stop trying to show it when I really don't care, and neither does anyone except teens who have no real jobs.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"We expected $60 monocles to be three times as big." -- Also CCP.
1. Your entire target audience lives on PC....so genius move to put it on PS4.
2. No one could have predicted that crypto would swoop in and steal all the next gen graphics cards needed to make this all work. (Because again a PS4 is a boring piece of tech to the PC crowd.) We are finally seeing advanced GPUs returning to more sane pricing levels and availability in 2018.
3. Your EVE core audience wanted EVE online to look like this, so a small stand alone shooter separate from the main game, and again on the PS4, was not going to get your EVE pilots to do more than some drooling over some trailers. Same thing with EVE DUST
4. Two words "Star Citizen" was out to eat your lunch. They seem to be firing on all cylinders now, and if they don't do anything too stupid will be printing money in the online space ships game market for the next decade or so. (The latest videos are incredible check them out if you haven't seen them lately.)
VR much like 3D has to be for a purpose other than just itself. When used in conjunction and to enhance a good story or function it will catch on. Up until now it has been just a one trick pony used for just a lark, in no way contributing to a story or function.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
When a omnidirectional treadmill for VR gets to a reasonable price range and functions seamlessly then VR will be amazing.
Right now it's pretty stupid to stand in place and move your thumbs around.. it's uncomfortable to stand in one place without moving, but walking is awesome exercise and people will love it if they can walk and game.
I've seen CCP try and mostly fail at all their apparently super dooper exclusive new games since 2005. They're obviously bored with EVE so go out and fail at other projects while EVE keeps them afloat and never spend the effort in expanding the abilities of the EVE universe noticeably enough to provide better immersion to bring in new players wanting to play a different way than fly around and be randomly destroyed in 'high security' space. I'm very bored myself with it tbf so don't care where CCP go.
I would say another example are the original BlackBerry pager devices. They're a sad joke compared to what the mobile phone industry would become after the iPhone and Android phones hit the market but the use case - sending email from anywhere - was so compelling that people used them despite the fact that they were primitive. Heck they got the nick name CrackBerries as a result. Now we have an entire world of people staring at their phones sending messages with any number of devices when they're not playing Fortnite.
The tech maturity argument is valid. The cost concerns are valid. The logistical concerns are valid. But I think the real thing is that at the end of the day, most people don't care a damn thing about VR and even if all of those things get sorted out the number of people who want to strap a thing to their face and be in that world for anything more than a few minutes a couple of times to see what's the big deal is nowhere near where it would need to be to make something like that viable.
And I'm saying this as someone who got a Virtual Boy Emulator using Google Cardboard VR running on the iPhone.
Schnapple
Where the fuck is Star Wars X-Wing VR? The VR Demo from Battlefront is the only great VR experience and at 15 minutes long is pathetically short. Hell at least a FreeSpace 2 Port to VR should have happened by now. Dickhead obsession with "presence" and high framerate content is what's killed VR. Sony nailed it. Use a hardware framerate doubler, so devs just have to get 60FPS to the hardware. All the other VR systems require crazy spec computers and don't really work properly. Sony should have thrown $20 million at EA/Disney to get Star Wars VR made.
Yes I've seen that but you still have to have a safe play space set aside.
Of all the VR systems I've tried (and I've had or tried all of the commercial ones) I liked the Vive the best. But it still is too complex even with things like that, to really be mass market.
Vive is compelling enough though (moving within a space for real) that I was hoping it would grow enough of a niche to survive, maybe what needs to happen though is some other VR systems die off so more Vive specific content can me made that takes advantage of that real movement, and gain a solid sustainable niche that it can live within before we all migrate to AR systems. Vive seems a much better stepping stone in that direction than any other VR system.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I love my VR setup, the vive. It gets me extra exercise each day, keeps it from being boring, and makes it happen regardless of the weather. Fallout, Skyrim are amazing in it, even if they aren't designed for it.
EVE Valkyrie was a Rift exclusive, so I pretty much ignored it. I didn't even know it came over the Vive until I read this, 2 years later. Meh, no thanks. I know studios love doing exclusives, but the VR ecosystem is far too small for that.
The list goes on, it's a chicken or egg problem... you need the NES as well as Mario.
Blizzard doesn't want to invest in VR because the market demographic is too small and fragmented.
Releasing their VR title as an Oculus exclusive, shutting out the majority of overall VR users, would just be another item on this list.
It was a timed exclusive, but reviews weren't great so when it did become available there was no hype for it.
Developers don't want to go all in because of small user base.
Small user base exists because of so few games.
Add the relatively high cost ( for most people ) of a Vive or Occulus setup complete with gaming rig level hardware to run it, plus the bullshit infighting between hardware makers to become the " standard " and it's easy to see why it hasn't taken off.
It really never stood a chance.
Given all the previous questionable moves they made they're pretty bad at anticipating how technology will play out for them.
I'm sure their lack of success has also nothing to do with their game, at all.
It has lackluster ratings on Steam (58%) and is a multiplayer only game. I could be the target market for their game - I love space sims and own a VR headset - but I couldn't care less about a multiplayer only game. I'm pretty certain that applies to the vast majority of people who enjoy a space sim.
That old X-Wing / TIE Fighter / Wing Commander / Freespace crowd? All singleplayer gamers in their 30's and 40's with jobs and cash to spend on an expensive VR outfit. But multiplayer? Nope. That is for the 14-24 year old Call of Duty crowd who have perhaps never played a space sim in their life.
You've got to spend hundreds of dollars just to find out:
1.) Do you have enough room to move around while wearing a VR headset?
2.) Is your computer close enough to the space where you presumably have room?
3.) Is your computer powerful enough to run the games in VR?
4.) Will the headset fit your head?
5.) Will the headset fit over your glasses?
6.) Will you be able to see the image clearly enough without glasses?
7.) Will it trigger seizures in people with a history of epilepsy?
Sony has done well since their device is really intended for use while sitting, doesn't cost an insane amount, and works on a console mainly owned by kids that don't think before throwing money at something. I would love to see a usage statistic that shows how often people that actually bought headset even use them.
Well maybe it's not VR, but the fact that it's a VR MMO game in Space for hardcore players?
It's not really a super large player base there to begin with, and most people are probably still playing the old Eve Online, why move over to this?
You underestimate those older Millennial and younger GenX gamers. There's a good chunk that is interested in multi-player which is reflected in the crowd funding base of Star Citizen for example. The average age of players in EVE Online also happens to be within that range. CCP even had the means to evaluate the hardware of their player base and see whether they'd be a possible target audience for the game. Other than that, Valkyrie also has a single player campaign as far as I know.
Other than, yes, their game not being good didn't help it either. From what I know the single player was bad as well.
However, if they just released it for the PC without all the additional requirements it could have done a lot better in filling that action-gameplay gap from which their EVE Online has been suffering for a long time.
Pretty much the same applies to Dust 514, which was a mediocre shooter at best. And since the crowd that is mostly attracted to consoles wasn't really interested in the link with EVE Online, Dust 514 had to stand on its own legs. And there it had to compete with other shooters like Call of Duty, Battlefield and the likes. I believe it would have fared a lot better on the PC with its direct link to EVE Online. There its mediocrity could have easily been overshadowed by it offering its complementary gameplay to existing EVE Online players.
That's a lot of EVE players wanted at that time anyway. But CCP knew better.
I am reading some of the silliest excuses in this thread. That VR has to be perfect, there's no porn in VR, there's no haptic feedback, it's not dirt cheap, it can't be developed incrementally.
VR doesn't have to be perfect, it has to be good enough which it is. The resolution is starting a bit slow but there is more than one serious product on the market in competition with each other. Higher resolution VR headsets are being developed, and incremental VR development is underway which someone else here said was impossible.
There are a good amount of games for VR, especially considering how new the platform is.
The manufacturers won't allow porn? Do you really think they can keep porn off their headsets? My dick is virtually raw (see what I did there?)
"VR isn't easy to do unlike watching TV". OK, nothing else on a computer or game console is. When I play VR, here's what I do: Start the game, turn on each controller, put on the headset. That's it, it's easy.
"There's no haptic feedback" that's a lie, there is haptic feedback. You have a crappy system if you don't have that.
"VR isn't cheap" it's relatively cheap, especially for what's basically 1st gen new technology.
"You can't see the controllers" what?! Firstly, yes you can sometimes. Secondly, a well-designed controller doesn't need to be seen. Do you look at your keyboard while you type? Do console gamers look to make sure they're hitting the right button?
There are however 2 points that I'll concede: Some people to get motion sickness and that's a serious problem that devs and engineers can only do so much to fix. Hopefully there will be better drugs developed to combat this so we can move into a badass cyberpunk reality. The other one is that (sometimes) people play games to chill and don't want to be active. That's fair enough, I'm even too lazy for VR sometimes even though it's rarely a real workout.
Wow didn't know the Chinese Communist Party made those games
I think VR people got it wrong.... I want immersive but it cannot be too real.
I want to have fun but I don't want to get tired holding my hand up like holding a real gun for hours. I don't want to run on threadmills so I can feel like I'm really running.... in fact I want to run faster without actually straining my muscles. The VR people just keep wanting to make things too real.
Seriously it just need to be responsive, high resolution and hours of sustainable fun
Correction, it's Market not marked. Okay the word Market is the correct word, market.
I think a major blocker in many cases is not the fact that the VR equipment is expensive, but rather the fact that you need to dedicate an entire room to your VR setup in order to get the full VR experience, and rooms certainly don't come cheap these days.
Well the game wasn't doing well on VR, they released a desktop version and it still wasn't doing well.
MUST BE A PROBLEM WITH VR!!
I would rather think it is a problem with the game if it also fails on the desktop.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
...just not his!! Just because his game has been totally and utterly trounced by ELITE DANGEROUS, (which for Vive/Rift is a bit of a "killer app" for VR), doesn't mean VR not selling. That's like saying PC gaming is dying because the Duke Nukem remake didn't sell. VR is going great - yes as some people have said there's "too many cables"... but the technology is moving along at breakneck speed at the moment.. For example , the "cable" problem has just been resolved ... this week! HTC specifially have brought out a vive wireless adapter which does away with the cables.
The Samsung GEAR VR and the (equivalent) Oculous GO are just pick-up-and-play self-contained VR which have a surprising amount of fantastic space games for them - such as Project Charon, End Space and Anshar 2.
Project Charon specifically is a sight to behold, considering it can be run from a cheap mobile phone getup (GEAR VR) and silences most VR crtitics after a demonstration.