Starbreeze - HQ has been raided

Yeah it don't really cost more to develop than any other game but it is a real niche market still as the cost's for the end user are rather high. So quite some risk taking when their whole company pretty much goes under from a single game release that don't do well.

It's hard to say at this point. VR is in a strange place.

However, it's certainly not something I would personally mess with until it's more established.

That said, I fully expect to see VR improved tremendously over the next few years.

I'm "almost" certain it will be mainstream in 5 years or so.

Darth Tagnan said:

VR is actually very easy to implement.

Click to expand...

six said:

Yeah it don't really cost more to develop than any other game but ...

Click to expand...

Darth Tagnan said:

VR is in a strange place. ...
I'm "almost" certain it will be mainstream in 5 years or so.

Click to expand...

Must disagree.
Been in a few VR developments in the past, VR is...
- Extremely hard to master
- Expensive to develop
- Very limited, thus will never be mainstream.

Starbreeze's VR endeavor was based on exactly the same three premises (easy, cheap, mass market), and they failed among many other game devs, once they realized the exact opposite.

duerer said:

Must disagree.
Been in a few VR developments in the past, VR is…
- Extremely hard to master
- Expensive to develop
- Very limited, thus will never be mainstream.

Starbreeze's VR endeavor was based on exactly the same three premises (easy, cheap, mass market), and they failed among many other game devs, once they realized the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

This is probably a semantic issue.

VR is essentially just another screen output with motion control.

To implement most of the (key) functionality in, say, Unity or Unreal engine-based games - it's literally a matter of a few button clicks and simple scripting.

Well, that will get you to replace mouse look with VR controls.

From there, it's a matter of UI and how sophisticated you want your VR implementation to be.

There's a reason software like VorpX can even work.

However, as for the semantic issue - you're probably talking about developing a full-on VR game from the ground-up - which is an entirely different matter.

In terms of mainstream - it's a simple matter of waiting a few years and see who was right.

For clarification, I use the word mainstream as "normal" - and not "everyone in the entire world".

If VR gear isn't a normal and widespread thing in 2023-2024 - I will come back here and declare that I was wrong.

duerer said:

Must disagree.
Been in a few VR developments in the past, VR is…
- Extremely hard to master
- Expensive to develop
- Very limited, thus will never be mainstream.

Starbreeze's VR endeavor was based on exactly the same three premises (easy, cheap, mass market), and they failed among many other game devs, once they realized the exact opposite.

Click to expand...

Darth Tagnan said:

This is probably a semantic issue.
VR is essentially just another screen output with motion control.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately no. What you said is the implementation in theory.
In practice, VR (and stereoscopic gaming in general) requires a totally different design, mindset, asset specification and production, etc, etc.

Three simple examples:

FPS is great for VR, yes?
NO. A bog-standard FPS game in VR will make you literally sick. You must totally re-design the movement in your game, because, paradoxically, fluid movement in VR will make you seasick in about 10 seconds. Now if you cannot move fluidly in an FPS game, you will develop something veeery different.

Realtime stereo 3D graphics is just two cameras, yes?
NO. Many of those clever tricks of today's realtime 3d games are useless in VR, because the clever tricks are based on this cheat: how to fool your eye in 2D to RESEMBLE a 3D look? Normal mapping, anyone?
Problem is, these tricks won't apply in 3D, because your brain immediately detect the cheat (something is supposed to be 3D but in fact is 2D), and immediately trigger a "something is not right"-discomfort feeling.
To counter this, you must develop totally different tricks, techniques, etc.

VR is photo-realistic, yes?
NO. VR is a curious beast. The headset's resolution is extremely low (perceptively, about 400x400 pixels - yes, you've read right. THAT LOW.)
To counter this, there is actually no fail-safe method right now: paradoxically, to create truly photo-realistic graphics in such low resolution, today's consumer video hardware is simply not enough. Hence, many VR developers are doing low-poly and/or stylized graphics instead.

Hope this small rant helps to understand what is the problem with VR.

I certainly understand that you refuse to accept established reality of how easy it is to implement VR

As for the problems associated with VR games - that's an entirely different topic. I think you have some good points - but they're not relevant to my point.

I mean, a disturbing percentage of the current gaming population already suffer from motion sickness when playing non-VR games. Does that mean those 3D games are "harder" to make, somehow? That makes zero sense to me.

But anyway, I think we must agree to disagree about how easy it is to implement VR on a basic level.

Darth Tagnan said:

I certainly understand that you refuse to accept established reality of how easy it is to implement VR

Click to expand...

Well, me and my team did many times, and I saw what you didn't: top executive persons tearing down the headset after 5 minutes of play and asking for a bucket to vomit. True story - we were able to work on a prototype PSVR headset, and pitched a game idea to a major publisher. Guess what happened with the project ).

Darth Tagnan said:

As for the problems associated with VR games - that's an entirely different topic. I think you have some good points - but they're not relevant to my point.

Click to expand...

Well if making a game that won't make you sick is "not the point" in VR development, then frankly, I don't know what it is Just look at all VR game reviews - everybody is talking about "comfort". That's the buzzword for VR quality.

Darth Tagnan said:

Does that mean those 3D games are "harder" to make, somehow? That makes zero sense to me.

But anyway, I think we must agree to disagree about how easy it is to implement VR on a basic level.

Click to expand...

Again, implementing VR is easy. Mastering it and creating a pleasing experience is extremely hard and very expensive.

I do remember that you are quite stubborn, and I'm fine with that.
So, just try to make a VR game, and you'll see it for yourself. (And have a vomit bucket ready)

Again, implementing VR is easy. Mastering it and creating a pleasing experience is extremely hard and very expensive.

Click to expand...

Which is exactly what I said. I didn't mention a single word about "mastering it or creating a pleasing experience" being easy. In fact, I said pretty much the opposite.

So we probably agree, except for the fact that I think VR WILL be mainstream - inevitably so.

Well, not necessarily VR as we know it right now - but some iteration of VR. Sooner rather than later.

But I don't really feel like arguing about the unknowable. Let's let the future show us