6 ms·

> We are talking about 3/4 of games, easily. Games where you are a character and you run around in virtual space. Then don't make those games for VR. This mig

> We are talking about 3/4 of games, easily. Games where you are a character and you run around in virtual space. Then don't make those games for VR. This might be cliche, but VR is not just a new accessory for an existing platform. It's a completely new platform. It needs new content that fits it -- shoehorning existing content into it will generally suck. Wandering around Skyrim sounds cool but will not work. Sorry. As an example I've tried a lot, sim games (car, plane) work really well with VR. If there clearly is a cockpit around you and a seat you are sitting in inside the virtual world, your brain is fine with you sitting in your comfy chair. Of course, not everyone will enjoy sim games. However, I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that there are and will be more new games that fit VR well. These will probably include entirely new genres of content that are not compelling or interesting on a monitor but work well on VR. Conversely, some genres will never translate well into VR.

Alupis 11y ago
> Then don't make those games for VR. We're talking about big-budget "AAA" games, which drive console and pc sales alike. Excluding them, immediately destroys any notion that VR may become anything more than a niche product and go fully "mainstream". > As an example I've tried a lot, sim games I enjoy these games as well, but recognize their market appeal is very narrow. These games don't drive sales of consoles or PC's. > I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that there are and will be more new games that fit VR well Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen until VR becomes mainstream, which it probably will not for the reasons listed in the GP post. In order for a studio to take the enormous risk of developing something entirely new, they need as close to a guarantee as possible to get back at least their investment. With VR poised to be nothing more than a niche product, this becomes a huge risk. Now, maybe Facebook and their deep pockets could subsidize development of these games (effectively pay "AAA" studios to natively support VR), but that doesn't appear to be happening... otherwise they would have done that before the flagship product launched, and "AAA" studios are not in a "release cycle" at the moment (which tends to be October-November for the really big "AAA" projects).
- TillE 11y ago
  Again, you're looking at this from the perspective of what the industry looks like now, not what VR enables. AAA games are generally of a certain type now, but that is not a universal law which will remain true forever.
  - Alupis 11y ago
    > you're looking at this from the perspective of what the industry looks like now, not what VR enables VR has been around a long, long time. I know, most folks say "but this time it's different", but in reality it's plagued today by the exact same issues it has been plagued with all along. No "AAA" support, too few games, too expensive of devices, motion sickness, and more! > AAA games are generally of a certain type now, but that is not a universal law which will remain true forever Essentially, it is. These are the games that grab people's attention, have grabbed their attention, and will continue to grab their attention. Nobody is going to spend $600+ to play Bejeweled in VR... but they might to play CoD, Fallout, Battlefield, GTA, Skyrim, etc. All are "AAA" titles, and all could offer a new level of immersion with VR - but none support VR natively (and they had plenty of opportunity to do so before launch).
    - ricardobeat 11y ago
      What hardware was there "all along" for consumers? As I understand the latency and tracking problems have just now been solved with the latest revisions of oculus/vive. You can't say it failed in the past because of X and Y external factors when the product itself wasn't even a thing.
- ansible 11y ago
  I enjoy these games as well, but recognize their market appeal is very narrow. These games don't drive sales of consoles or PC's. Well, they don't drive PC and console sales, perhaps in part due to the limitations of the existing platforms. Driving and especially flying games suffer more from the limited point-of-view. I'm often switching to the 3rd-person view to get a better handle on how my car is placed on the track. For combat flight sims, one of the UI staples for the last 20 years has been showing markers on the edge of the screen to indicate the current target. You spend a lot of the time in those games without your enemy in view, which, frankly, stinks. But that's the limitation of the current platforms based around a monitor / TV. There have been hacks to help with this, but they aren't that great IMHO. VR could really help these types of games have a much broader appeal, because of the immersion.
Namrog84 11y ago
As an indie gamedev myself. I can think of dozens of potentialial games that'd likely work well in be and not on monitor. And don't require physical movement and can be done sitting with swivel chair. Having the limit of not being able to run around may be disappointing to some. But any limit just forces us to innovate and achieve greatness thru new paths. There are several instances in last 150 years where a patent or some other restriction caused others to innovate around a restriction and the end result was far superior because of it. I definitely see that happening with vr.
- hanniabu 11y ago
  > And don't require physical movement and can be done sitting with swivel chair Remake of N64's Pokémon Snap
supernintendo 11y ago
This 100%. From my experiences with VR, the "character moving freely in the world" paradigm never works. As you point out, developers need to rethink the type of software they're putting out for these platforms. I think games where the player is static is a good place to start. In addition to simulators, I could see god games, rail shooters and puzzle games all working well in VR. Even a game with restrained movement like a slow-paced mech shooter or old-school first person RPG (think Ultima Underworld) could turn out great. Making the player aware of the dissonance between the virtual and physical worlds is the immersion-killing poison that VR game developers must avoid. Finally, I'd like to make note of the many non-gaming applications of VR that could turn it into a compelling platform. The platform has tons of potential in fields such as art [1], manufacturing [2], education [3][4], health care [5] and the list goes on. VR can be used to enhance these applications but not if it's treated like a cheap gimmick. If VR flounders it will be because developers failed to tap into the vast market of VR software waiting to be unlocked. The key is imagination. [1] http://www.tiltbrush.com/ http://www.tiltbrush.com/ [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/leoking/2014/05/03/ford-where-virtual-reality-is-already-manufacturing-reality/#8aa0bd2417d1 http://www.forbes.com/sites/leoking/2014/05/03/ford-where-vi... [3] http://www.roadtovr.com/it-time-we-started-talking-specifics-about-virtual-realitys-future-in-education/ http://www.roadtovr.com/it-time-we-started-talking-specifics... [4] http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/17/museum-collections-enter-vr-with-the-launch-of-the-woofbert-vr-app-for-samsung-gear/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/17/museum-collections-enter-vr... [5] http://ict.usc.edu/prototypes/pts http://ict.usc.edu/prototypes/pts
- Alupis 11y ago
  > VR software waiting to be unlocked VR has been around since the 60's, and has not "unlocked" anything noteworthy. Sure, this "round" of VR might be the best yet graphically, but it still hasn't solved any of the problems that prevented the original 1960's implementations from taking over in storm. These being: No "AAA" support, too few games, too expensive of devices, motion sickness, and more! It's almost like folks think this is the first time VR has come to market... "imagine all the possibilities!" - the same promises time after time after time again. What makes this iteration anything different? Maybe some folks have high hopes due to the Facebook stewardship - I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but Facebook has been anything but a good steward of Oculus. They have not used their size or bank accounts to convince "AAA" studios to embrace VR, nor have they subsidized Oculus purchases to lower cost-of-entry for consumers. About the only thing they have done is go against all of their initial promises to not "Facebook-ify" VR[1] and turn the thing into yet another extension of the Facebook Social machine. > The platform has tons of potential in fields such as art [1], manufacturing [2], education [3][4], health care [5] and the list goes on VR will ultimately do nothing for these fields. AR advances will ultimately be what these industries end up embracing. You lose far too much environmental awareness when both eyes are staring at a narrow-focus screen without peripheral visibility, etc. AR allows the user to work and behave like normal, only their vision is augmented with additional useful information. It's less intrusive and disruptive, and has very few of the issues that plague VR. AR is already widely deployed and in mass use. Any HUD is a form of AR (this covers everything from airplanes to cars to robots to google glass, camera viewfinders, etc...). [1] http://www.wired.com/2016/02/mark-zuckerberg-plays-zero-gravity-ping-pong-president-indonesia/ http://www.wired.com/2016/02/mark-zuckerberg-plays-zero-grav...
doubles 11y ago
I think the game Chronos has a good take on this with the "player" as a fixed camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u47uN544HYQ&t=1m23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u47uN544HYQ&t=1m23s
- hello_there 11y ago
  I would imagine that Command & Conquer-like games could be a good fit for VR as it requires overview where you'll usually have to scroll in cases where you'd otherwise just lift and eyebrow. I could also imagine a Window Manager where every window is placed in a large (huge) sphere that surrounds you and your chair (you are stationary in the middle). You could turn you head to see and interact with windows that are nearby or you could zoom out and rotate the whole sphere by using some shortcut or other device (maybe an ergonomic mouse with a ball on top of it [1], such that the sphere around you rotates in the same direction as the ball of the mouse). You could still map virtual desktops to a zone on the sphere (or perhaps just create virtual spheres). With some handy keyboard shortcuts I could imagine this to became quite awesome. Especially for programmers that use many windows at the same time. 1: http://www.ergodirect.com/images/Logitech/16728/large/Logitech_910_000806_Trackman_Marble_Comfortable_Ambidextrous_Flexible_Trackball_Mouse_400.jpg http://www.ergodirect.com/images/Logitech/16728/large/Logite...
  - MrPatan 11y ago
    I want that
  - andreapaiola 11y ago
    I don't understand if your head or your entire body rotates: if it's your head I can tell you that is not e good idea. I have bad neck just with 3 monitors...
  - brianwawok 11y ago
    Sounds like I could do all this with 2 or 3 nice big monitors. Then I can turn my real head and see new things, and not have to wear a giant headset.

Alupis 11y ago

> Then don't make those games for VR. We're talking about big-budget "AAA" games, which drive console and pc sales alike. Excluding them, immediately destroys any notion that VR may become anything more than a niche product and go fully "mainstream". > As an example I've tried a lot, sim games I enjoy these games as well, but recognize their market appeal is very narrow. These games don't drive sales of consoles or PC's. > I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that there are and will be more new games that fit VR well Unfortunately this is unlikely to happen until VR becomes mainstream, which it probably will not for the reasons listed in the GP post. In order for a studio to take the enormous risk of developing something entirely new, they need as close to a guarantee as possible to get back at least their investment. With VR poised to be nothing more than a niche product, this becomes a huge risk. Now, maybe Facebook and their deep pockets could subsidize development of these games (effectively pay "AAA" studios to natively support VR), but that doesn't appear to be happening... otherwise they would have done that before the flagship product launched, and "AAA" studios are not in a "release cycle" at the moment (which tends to be October-November for the really big "AAA" projects).

TillE 11y ago
Again, you're looking at this from the perspective of what the industry looks like now, not what VR enables. AAA games are generally of a certain type now, but that is not a universal law which will remain true forever.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > you're looking at this from the perspective of what the industry looks like now, not what VR enables VR has been around a long, long time. I know, most folks say "but this time it's different", but in reality it's plagued today by the exact same issues it has been plagued with all along. No "AAA" support, too few games, too expensive of devices, motion sickness, and more! > AAA games are generally of a certain type now, but that is not a universal law which will remain true forever Essentially, it is. These are the games that grab people's attention, have grabbed their attention, and will continue to grab their attention. Nobody is going to spend $600+ to play Bejeweled in VR... but they might to play CoD, Fallout, Battlefield, GTA, Skyrim, etc. All are "AAA" titles, and all could offer a new level of immersion with VR - but none support VR natively (and they had plenty of opportunity to do so before launch).
  - ricardobeat 11y ago
    What hardware was there "all along" for consumers? As I understand the latency and tracking problems have just now been solved with the latest revisions of oculus/vive. You can't say it failed in the past because of X and Y external factors when the product itself wasn't even a thing.
ansible 11y ago
I enjoy these games as well, but recognize their market appeal is very narrow. These games don't drive sales of consoles or PC's. Well, they don't drive PC and console sales, perhaps in part due to the limitations of the existing platforms. Driving and especially flying games suffer more from the limited point-of-view. I'm often switching to the 3rd-person view to get a better handle on how my car is placed on the track. For combat flight sims, one of the UI staples for the last 20 years has been showing markers on the edge of the screen to indicate the current target. You spend a lot of the time in those games without your enemy in view, which, frankly, stinks. But that's the limitation of the current platforms based around a monitor / TV. There have been hacks to help with this, but they aren't that great IMHO. VR could really help these types of games have a much broader appeal, because of the immersion.

Namrog84 11y ago

As an indie gamedev myself. I can think of dozens of potentialial games that'd likely work well in be and not on monitor. And don't require physical movement and can be done sitting with swivel chair. Having the limit of not being able to run around may be disappointing to some. But any limit just forces us to innovate and achieve greatness thru new paths. There are several instances in last 150 years where a patent or some other restriction caused others to innovate around a restriction and the end result was far superior because of it. I definitely see that happening with vr.

hanniabu 11y ago
> And don't require physical movement and can be done sitting with swivel chair Remake of N64's Pokémon Snap

supernintendo 11y ago

This 100%. From my experiences with VR, the "character moving freely in the world" paradigm never works. As you point out, developers need to rethink the type of software they're putting out for these platforms. I think games where the player is static is a good place to start. In addition to simulators, I could see god games, rail shooters and puzzle games all working well in VR. Even a game with restrained movement like a slow-paced mech shooter or old-school first person RPG (think Ultima Underworld) could turn out great. Making the player aware of the dissonance between the virtual and physical worlds is the immersion-killing poison that VR game developers must avoid. Finally, I'd like to make note of the many non-gaming applications of VR that could turn it into a compelling platform. The platform has tons of potential in fields such as art [1], manufacturing [2], education [3][4], health care [5] and the list goes on. VR can be used to enhance these applications but not if it's treated like a cheap gimmick. If VR flounders it will be because developers failed to tap into the vast market of VR software waiting to be unlocked. The key is imagination. [1] http://www.tiltbrush.com/ http://www.tiltbrush.com/ [2] http://www.forbes.com/sites/leoking/2014/05/03/ford-where-virtual-reality-is-already-manufacturing-reality/#8aa0bd2417d1 http://www.forbes.com/sites/leoking/2014/05/03/ford-where-vi... [3] http://www.roadtovr.com/it-time-we-started-talking-specifics-about-virtual-realitys-future-in-education/ http://www.roadtovr.com/it-time-we-started-talking-specifics... [4] http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/17/museum-collections-enter-vr-with-the-launch-of-the-woofbert-vr-app-for-samsung-gear/ http://techcrunch.com/2015/11/17/museum-collections-enter-vr... [5] http://ict.usc.edu/prototypes/pts http://ict.usc.edu/prototypes/pts

Alupis 11y ago
> VR software waiting to be unlocked VR has been around since the 60's, and has not "unlocked" anything noteworthy. Sure, this "round" of VR might be the best yet graphically, but it still hasn't solved any of the problems that prevented the original 1960's implementations from taking over in storm. These being: No "AAA" support, too few games, too expensive of devices, motion sickness, and more! It's almost like folks think this is the first time VR has come to market... "imagine all the possibilities!" - the same promises time after time after time again. What makes this iteration anything different? Maybe some folks have high hopes due to the Facebook stewardship - I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble, but Facebook has been anything but a good steward of Oculus. They have not used their size or bank accounts to convince "AAA" studios to embrace VR, nor have they subsidized Oculus purchases to lower cost-of-entry for consumers. About the only thing they have done is go against all of their initial promises to not "Facebook-ify" VR[1] and turn the thing into yet another extension of the Facebook Social machine. > The platform has tons of potential in fields such as art [1], manufacturing [2], education [3][4], health care [5] and the list goes on VR will ultimately do nothing for these fields. AR advances will ultimately be what these industries end up embracing. You lose far too much environmental awareness when both eyes are staring at a narrow-focus screen without peripheral visibility, etc. AR allows the user to work and behave like normal, only their vision is augmented with additional useful information. It's less intrusive and disruptive, and has very few of the issues that plague VR. AR is already widely deployed and in mass use. Any HUD is a form of AR (this covers everything from airplanes to cars to robots to google glass, camera viewfinders, etc...). [1] http://www.wired.com/2016/02/mark-zuckerberg-plays-zero-gravity-ping-pong-president-indonesia/ http://www.wired.com/2016/02/mark-zuckerberg-plays-zero-grav...

doubles 11y ago

I think the game Chronos has a good take on this with the "player" as a fixed camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u47uN544HYQ&t=1m23s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u47uN544HYQ&t=1m23s

hello_there 11y ago
I would imagine that Command & Conquer-like games could be a good fit for VR as it requires overview where you'll usually have to scroll in cases where you'd otherwise just lift and eyebrow. I could also imagine a Window Manager where every window is placed in a large (huge) sphere that surrounds you and your chair (you are stationary in the middle). You could turn you head to see and interact with windows that are nearby or you could zoom out and rotate the whole sphere by using some shortcut or other device (maybe an ergonomic mouse with a ball on top of it [1], such that the sphere around you rotates in the same direction as the ball of the mouse). You could still map virtual desktops to a zone on the sphere (or perhaps just create virtual spheres). With some handy keyboard shortcuts I could imagine this to became quite awesome. Especially for programmers that use many windows at the same time. 1: http://www.ergodirect.com/images/Logitech/16728/large/Logitech_910_000806_Trackman_Marble_Comfortable_Ambidextrous_Flexible_Trackball_Mouse_400.jpg http://www.ergodirect.com/images/Logitech/16728/large/Logite...
- MrPatan 11y ago
  I want that
- andreapaiola 11y ago
  I don't understand if your head or your entire body rotates: if it's your head I can tell you that is not e good idea. I have bad neck just with 3 monitors...
- brianwawok 11y ago
  Sounds like I could do all this with 2 or 3 nice big monitors. Then I can turn my real head and see new things, and not have to wear a giant headset.