-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Develop: PC VR sales has almost ground to a halt
- Thread starter Wollan
- Start date
lowhighkang_LHK
Member
Driveclub has sold over well over 2 million units. There are only 150,000 GAF members.
The big one is Chronos. That game on Hard difficulty hit all the right buttons for me, and while I can't just assume others will love it to the same degree I did, it does check those boxes that you'd expect for "GOTY" discussions: it's a long (took me somewhere around 25 hours) and polished single-player game with a decent budget behind it.
I think the talk denigrating the visuals in the current headsets is a bit hyperbolic. Now I only have a Gear VR but it gives you a great insight into the disparity of what is possible compared to what some apps manage. And this is in arguably the worst of the headsets available or soon to be available (PSVR has slightly lower res but full RGB pixels, much higher frame rates and positional tracking).
There's some stuff in Gear VR that frankly, looks awful. Terribly pixelated visuals, blurry as fuck, honestly stuff that should not have been allowed on the device. At first you think maybe this is it... then you try some different stuff. The 360 photos app has some amazing 3D rendered 360 degree 'photos'. They're very clear and smooth versus that other crap. Theres an Obama video that looks incredible versus most of the other 360 videos they've allowed on there. it's much higher res, recorded in smooth 60fps versus 30 for most of them, it makes a world of difference. Ocean Rift (only tried the demo) is another one. Really crisp visuals. Sure there's the screen door and ultimately it's fairly low res, BUT it still looks good, and shows that the current level of the tech is perfectly fine when the right content is made the right way.
It's why I know what to expect with PSVR and I know it can only improve upon the experience of Gear VR. That combined with proper positional tracking and tracked controllers in-game makes it a huge leap beyond, combined with a good slate of decent software and AAA experiences (Star Wars/Batman) and I know it's gonna blow me away.
Fair enough, to the average consumer the clarity in the headset might seem at odds with what they're used to, but it's hardly as bad as people make out. Not all apps and games are made equal however, and poorly made ones make the hardware feel like something you'd have expected from VR in the mid 90s (seriously how most of the 360 videos were allowed is beyond me, like watching compressed FMV from the PS1!).
There's some stuff in Gear VR that frankly, looks awful. Terribly pixelated visuals, blurry as fuck, honestly stuff that should not have been allowed on the device. At first you think maybe this is it... then you try some different stuff. The 360 photos app has some amazing 3D rendered 360 degree 'photos'. They're very clear and smooth versus that other crap. Theres an Obama video that looks incredible versus most of the other 360 videos they've allowed on there. it's much higher res, recorded in smooth 60fps versus 30 for most of them, it makes a world of difference. Ocean Rift (only tried the demo) is another one. Really crisp visuals. Sure there's the screen door and ultimately it's fairly low res, BUT it still looks good, and shows that the current level of the tech is perfectly fine when the right content is made the right way.
It's why I know what to expect with PSVR and I know it can only improve upon the experience of Gear VR. That combined with proper positional tracking and tracked controllers in-game makes it a huge leap beyond, combined with a good slate of decent software and AAA experiences (Star Wars/Batman) and I know it's gonna blow me away.
Fair enough, to the average consumer the clarity in the headset might seem at odds with what they're used to, but it's hardly as bad as people make out. Not all apps and games are made equal however, and poorly made ones make the hardware feel like something you'd have expected from VR in the mid 90s (seriously how most of the 360 videos were allowed is beyond me, like watching compressed FMV from the PS1!).
StrategyFan
Member
"Speculation suggests that were seeing the end of the early adoption for VR. Anyone willing to splash out full price hundreds of dollars for a headset, thousands for a compatible PC or laptop is expected to have done so"
waiting for software is not the same as unwillingness to pay for hardware
waiting for software is not the same as unwillingness to pay for hardware
GuitarAtomik
Member
VR is still a little while off from being mainstream if you ask me.
ArmA would need to run at an actual framerate for that to be possible. God knows when that'll happen.
ArmA would need to run at an actual framerate for that to be possible. God knows when that'll happen.
Wowfunhappy
Member
Has anyone tried to do a minimum-spec VR build now that the RX480 is a thing? I bet you could get it down to $450.
AMD did a promotional build that was $600, but for some reason they used an SSD and an expensive case and motherboard.
Patrick S.
Banned
It runs at between 45 and 80 fps in King of the Hill for me. It's very acceptable, but not good enough for VR, of course.
That Onward game could be interesting.
Kssio_Aug
Member
The problem with PSVR is that it's not compatible with PC. So, you never know how much support it will have on PS4 and if that's really worth it, specially cause such as most consoles accessories it may not even support the next gen.
That said, I still haven't bought any VR accessory. I hope the PC versions drops down in price and that we get more options. But I won't get a VR that's exclusive to any console...
That said, I still haven't bought any VR accessory. I hope the PC versions drops down in price and that we get more options. But I won't get a VR that's exclusive to any console...
Wowfunhappy
Member
In this case, I would be boarder-line shocked if the PS5 didn't support PSVR. It has Sony's backing and it's too expensive to expect everyone to repurchase. The PS Move and Camera both work on PS3 and PS4.
I could be wrong, of course, but I just can't see Sony cutting off support.
Dreams-Visions
Member
They are expensive, boys and girls. And they really need 980+ grade GPUs for now. It's no surprise that sales would slow. This is gaming for the 1%.
Loving mine every day. Looking forward to Gen 2 and 3.
Loving mine every day. Looking forward to Gen 2 and 3.
That's assuming GAF members only bought one copy each though.
GuitarAtomik
Member
I think you're right though I wonder how they'd handle a gen 2 PSVR. If a gen 2 can do roomscale, do they just make sure they have a mode that's back compat with gen 1? Do they leave it behind and/or just treat it like the separation between Move and controller games? Or do they even bother with a gen 2 and just focus on making gen 1 cheaper? Nothing insurmountable there, but I'm curious how it would go down.
randomengine
Banned
This is falling in line with my expectations. I've been saying it for months, VR is going nowhere. It doesn't exhibit any of the signs a successful product would.
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
All Sony needs to do to get people buy into VR is: release Killzone II VR Remake, WipeOut 4K VR, GT VR and do it fast.
Leatherface
Member
I think VR will gain more ground when devs figure out a way to keep people from wanting to puke on themselves while playing games with motion. SO many people get headaches and feel sick from motion in VR games. That has to be a major detractor from buying into the tech. Once this riddle is solved and that cost comes down, it's on!
EventHorizon
Member
This was easy to see coming. The barrier to entry is too high for PCVR. Probably due to the expected small install base, it also doesn't have much high end development going which further limits its appeal. PSVR has always been the only real entry into full motion tracking VR due to not having those limitations.
To the people saying that PSVR's console like price is too is too much, I'll counter by saying it is like a new console. It has its own different set of games with an entirely new experience. In that respect it is even more like a new console than an actual other console would be since the console platforms have grown very similar to one another. If you think the PSVR won't sell due to being new console priced then you must think that any new console would fail for the same reason.
To the people saying that PSVR's console like price is too is too much, I'll counter by saying it is like a new console. It has its own different set of games with an entirely new experience. In that respect it is even more like a new console than an actual other console would be since the console platforms have grown very similar to one another. If you think the PSVR won't sell due to being new console priced then you must think that any new console would fail for the same reason.
Patrick S.
Banned
Now that you say that, I was looking at Steam hardware surveys the other day, and was really surprised at the low percentage of gaming PCs that have a 970 (or better), while that card was always considered the most common GPU here on GAF.
I mean, it's logical, with its price being higher than a month's salary in most countries of the world. You really do forget how well off you are living in "the first world" sometimes.
Azure Dream
Member
We're barely scratching the surface of software, I mean barely. It's taken years for people just to hash out basic development principles for widespread VR. Military simulators are one thing, enjoyable games are another.
The fact that it's been this cool, this early on, is promising. Hardware costs need to come down, and further rendering tricks such as foveated rendering and blended pixels will lower the hardware requirements.
Most of the people who have VR don't seem disappointed with it, to me, they just crave something compelling to do with it. They want their Sword Art Online. They want deep, compelling experiences. And those aren't made overnight. Not when we've barely just figured out the building blocks to a decent experience.
The fact that it's been this cool, this early on, is promising. Hardware costs need to come down, and further rendering tricks such as foveated rendering and blended pixels will lower the hardware requirements.
Most of the people who have VR don't seem disappointed with it, to me, they just crave something compelling to do with it. They want their Sword Art Online. They want deep, compelling experiences. And those aren't made overnight. Not when we've barely just figured out the building blocks to a decent experience.
chromatic9
Member
Steam does have over a 125 million users
If we look at every 970/980/290/290x etc it looks like around 8-15 million have the required GPU.
Also the 970 is the most common GPU on Steam at 5%, ahead of even intel graphics
I feel like a lot of the people here would have also said the internet would be a fad back in the early 90's. VR isn't on the level of the internet, of course, but there is a strange anti-VR sentiment among people who have never even tried it.
The experiences possible with VR are not possible with anything else. We're just scratching the surface. The price point simply isn't at mass adoption levels.
The experiences possible with VR are not possible with anything else. We're just scratching the surface. The price point simply isn't at mass adoption levels.
Have you read anything about VR yet? Because games can't just be "ported to VR" just like that. A lot of traditional games are just straight up unplayable in VR, and need to be rethought from the ground up.
Wipeout in VR would probably kill you.
I know thats how I would want to go, but if 75% of people physically can't handle a game, you cannot hope for it to be marketable software.
Patrick S.
Banned
Wow, 125 million users :O
To think that in user submitted game reviews on the German Amazon site I still often see one star reviews for games where they write lenghty paragraphs about how Steam is evil spyware that's taking away your freedom, it's just ridiculous.
They says as they indulge in his own armchair economics.
mugurumakensei
Member
VR gaming is not really ready for primetime. there's some issues with movement in a lot of games that still need to be resolved. unfortunately, AAA publishers mostly focused on gimmicky stuff for motion control last gen so no real valuable lessons that would have been very applicable for VR were learned.
unfortunately, without releasing titles and getting customer feedback , it's hard to tailor new games so it's essentially ground zero with the current PC and console VR headsets. V2 HW plus dev learning exp should make it much better in 3-5 years.
unfortunately, without releasing titles and getting customer feedback , it's hard to tailor new games so it's essentially ground zero with the current PC and console VR headsets. V2 HW plus dev learning exp should make it much better in 3-5 years.
Wowfunhappy
Member
Roomscale games don't support gen 1, seated games do. Easy.
I don't think this would take any effort. Seated/standing is just roomscale but with a smaller tracking range.
Zalusithix
Member
I didn't bother reading more than about a third of the way through the thread considering the glut of VR fad this, PSVR savior that... Makes my head hurt from all the face-palming. Honestly this slowdown was expected by anybody with an iota of common sense, and it doesn't point to anything in regards to the viability of VR.
Expensive first generation hardware is quite obviously going to see an enthusiast surge at the beginning and then plateau for general consumers. This goes doubly for the summer months when all hardware sales slow. The holidays will see an uptick, but gen one will never capture a majority market share or anything close to it. It is a niche item, and will remain that way until the price drops, the tech improves, and the content library increases in scope and size. IE: Like every other piece of new technology. This should be self evident, but I guess some people are too young to have lived through the birth of a new technology. (Hint: cellphones - not smart phones - cellphones would be considered a "fad" by this odd need for massive numbers. They were expensive, clunky devices that few could afford or justify when they first hit the scene. Now you'd be hard pressed to find somebody without one.)
It'll be a slow burn, but VR is not going to die. VR and AR have too much future potential both in and beyond gaming to die. At worst it'll take a more professional turn for a bit before it pivots back to consumer land.
Expensive first generation hardware is quite obviously going to see an enthusiast surge at the beginning and then plateau for general consumers. This goes doubly for the summer months when all hardware sales slow. The holidays will see an uptick, but gen one will never capture a majority market share or anything close to it. It is a niche item, and will remain that way until the price drops, the tech improves, and the content library increases in scope and size. IE: Like every other piece of new technology. This should be self evident, but I guess some people are too young to have lived through the birth of a new technology. (Hint: cellphones - not smart phones - cellphones would be considered a "fad" by this odd need for massive numbers. They were expensive, clunky devices that few could afford or justify when they first hit the scene. Now you'd be hard pressed to find somebody without one.)
It'll be a slow burn, but VR is not going to die. VR and AR have too much future potential both in and beyond gaming to die. At worst it'll take a more professional turn for a bit before it pivots back to consumer land.
qa_engineer
Member
Tech is definitely not too primitive, but a majority of the games definitely are simply because most are developed by first time game developers or small indie studios.
Paracelsus
Member
There's two major problems surrounding it: entry price and software, mainly the latter.
Something you have to make games for, while it should work on literally every 3D game you own, sounds fatally flawed to me, and ultimately bound to fail.
Kinda the reason why the wiimote and nunchuck and kinect itself sound appealing as concept on pc for multipurpose, yet faded away in oblivion.
Something you have to make games for, while it should work on literally every 3D game you own, sounds fatally flawed to me, and ultimately bound to fail.
Kinda the reason why the wiimote and nunchuck and kinect itself sound appealing as concept on pc for multipurpose, yet faded away in oblivion.
sankt-Antonio
:^)--?-<
I said nothing about analog, have it control like Rigs, its a FPS after all, just have it be a complete Game with AAA production values.
DC VR first reactions are very good, so racing games do work, wipe out would be crazy, but thats the actual appeal
Googledotcom666
Banned
It's just for me I know what I did with the Wii, I know what I did with 3D
I use it a few times and that's it I'm done, I'm honestly just too lazy lol
This is the reason I haven't bought VR and cancelled my PSVR preorder, I honestly wouldn't use it more than a handful of times
I use it a few times and that's it I'm done, I'm honestly just too lazy lol
This is the reason I haven't bought VR and cancelled my PSVR preorder, I honestly wouldn't use it more than a handful of times
D1renegade
Member
For mainstream success,VR needs either a significantly lower entry point or a Matrix like level of experience.
I agree that those early adopters that want an HMD already have an HMD at this point. I still love my Vive, but it has gotten less and less use over time due to my current setup (HDMI is shared between Vive and TV right now).
I've also been thankful to see some great early pieces of software for it. While Valve software is leaps and bounds above what the Indy devs are producing right now, all the tools are available for them and it's only a matter of time before we see real AAA titles for VR. Plus I feel like experiences or tools such as PaintBrush will have a very lasting effect on the VR community that we have yet to realize.
There are still some VR games that extremely excited for in the future including FO4, Rick and Morty, and the possibility of a Doom VR release (early impressions look good)
I've also been thankful to see some great early pieces of software for it. While Valve software is leaps and bounds above what the Indy devs are producing right now, all the tools are available for them and it's only a matter of time before we see real AAA titles for VR. Plus I feel like experiences or tools such as PaintBrush will have a very lasting effect on the VR community that we have yet to realize.
There are still some VR games that extremely excited for in the future including FO4, Rick and Morty, and the possibility of a Doom VR release (early impressions look good)
Zalusithix
Member
No, it really shouldn't. Traditional 3D games are developed for one camera, not two. Traditional games aren't designed for low latency. Traditional games aren't designed to limit nausea inducing camera movements/restrictions. The list goes on. There is no reason VR should work with anything other than games made for it. It is a new medium and should be treated as such. The most you can reliably do is virtual cinema, and that's not really playing traditional games in VR so much as playing games on a virtual screen.
You want traditional games in VR? Use VorpX and enjoy the gamble for a halfway decent experience after lots of fussing with settings.
The HMDs on the market are too expensive and the tech isn't much impressive. It has potential, but we are not there yet. When we have a larger FOV, faster screens and with much higher resolution, better sensor and faster PCs, it will be really mind-blowing. For now, it simply isn't worth it, only for the ones who want to follow the evolution of the tech closely.
gamechanger87
Member
From who? What major developer is going to a AAA budget behind a project you have no chance of ever making money on? Let's assume a AAA game has a break even point at 3M units. What headset gets you to that point without a 1000% attach rate?
I can't figure out why people think that AAA developers are really going to spend the required capital to develop a VR only game? They are concerned with making money, not just lighting it on fire. Even Sony isn't pushing its internal major studios 100% VR.
Megatron
Member
Driveclub has had extremely aggressive sales to move those units though.
In my opinion VR needs to have non-gaming applications before it'll be more mainstream. For people like myself, gaming is enough. For the average person, VR needs to offer something beyond that in order to be compelling.
If VR can establish itself, for example, as a productivity tool then we will start to see it take off. Something beyond "cool, spreadsheets in 3d" and more something like -- better at information processing because of X.
Once it gets established, the games will follow. It'll be quite a while though, in my estimation.
If VR can establish itself, for example, as a productivity tool then we will start to see it take off. Something beyond "cool, spreadsheets in 3d" and more something like -- better at information processing because of X.
Once it gets established, the games will follow. It'll be quite a while though, in my estimation.
Juxo
Member
I agree with this completely. If PSVR isn't excellent, with engaging, entertaining software right out of the box, then word of mouth will sink it like one of those ever-so-sinkable battleships.
New King's Field from FS using PSVR would get me to buy it.
MR ARCADE FOREVER
Member
Biggest problem with vr is putting on a helmet and being completely disconnected from your surroundings. Also using your head to aim or look around will destroy your neck playing for prolonged hours. Sony better include a list of chiropractors with each PSVR or your local news will have a plate full of reports from kids flooding the doctors from excessive neck repeated motions or exhaustion....