VR support 'not at launch' for Odyssey
- Thread starter Lordxenu
- Start date
![[VR]m335](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/156/156512.jpg?1592093295){kind=avatar}
That would have been better said as 'presumes to know my thoughts'.
And I am basing my response on your public claim that accommodations made for VR come significant cost to the remaining playerbase. Anyone with knowledge of the VR dev tools knows the impact and development time of one is incomparable to the other.
And I am basing my response on your public claim that accommodations made for VR come significant cost to the remaining playerbase. Anyone with knowledge of the VR dev tools knows the impact and development time of one is incomparable to the other.
I realise that my opinion won't change anything.
Elite Dangerous (and Horizons) are the only reason for me to even own any of the VR hardware I've used. Including graphics cards and VR head sets. I've spent hundreds of euros simply to enjoy the immersion of VR. It was always said that Elite Dangerous was made with VR in mind. Saying that it's only keyboard and mouse based is bending the truth. Spending all that money on VR has been worth it. Before the announcement of Odyssey I was even on the cusp of paying an additional amount of up to 550 euros for a new Oculus Rift S headset. Now, I've abandoned that idea. Unless I can convince myself to keep playing Elite
angerous Horizons, but I'm sure it will go the way of Eliteangerous. It will work, but it will become increasingly obsolete. So I have to choose between VR and Odyssey and its "space legs".
I understand that VR in an FPS-like environment is a whole different beast and would most likely not work for me. But I feel it's a bit unfair removing VR support altogether. Because when I'm not using my space legs, I could still be enjoying my VR flying in space. I would still have a justification for having spent so much money on my VR hardware. Switching between VR and non-VR would save the game for me. "Not supported at launch" is understandable but not enough to build on.
It seems like Frontier is afraid to make promises. For fear of making a false promise they offer a lack of information. No information is no promise and no false hope. But I've spent more money on Elite and VR than I care to admit. I've pledged. I've promised. My money is my pledge. Now it's your turn Frontier. Please tell my I spent my money wisely and my promise wasn't in vain.
Thank you.
Elite Dangerous (and Horizons) are the only reason for me to even own any of the VR hardware I've used. Including graphics cards and VR head sets. I've spent hundreds of euros simply to enjoy the immersion of VR. It was always said that Elite Dangerous was made with VR in mind. Saying that it's only keyboard and mouse based is bending the truth. Spending all that money on VR has been worth it. Before the announcement of Odyssey I was even on the cusp of paying an additional amount of up to 550 euros for a new Oculus Rift S headset. Now, I've abandoned that idea. Unless I can convince myself to keep playing Elite
angerous Horizons, but I'm sure it will go the way of Eliteangerous. It will work, but it will become increasingly obsolete. So I have to choose between VR and Odyssey and its "space legs".I understand that VR in an FPS-like environment is a whole different beast and would most likely not work for me. But I feel it's a bit unfair removing VR support altogether. Because when I'm not using my space legs, I could still be enjoying my VR flying in space. I would still have a justification for having spent so much money on my VR hardware. Switching between VR and non-VR would save the game for me. "Not supported at launch" is understandable but not enough to build on.
It seems like Frontier is afraid to make promises. For fear of making a false promise they offer a lack of information. No information is no promise and no false hope. But I've spent more money on Elite and VR than I care to admit. I've pledged. I've promised. My money is my pledge. Now it's your turn Frontier. Please tell my I spent my money wisely and my promise wasn't in vain.
Thank you.
this is why it's not going to be a thing: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/opinion-vr-in-odyssey-is-harder-than-you-think.546835/
How do YOU know Frontier don't want to try to make VR work in Odyssey? HOW DO YOU KNOW?
Because the simple answer is YOU DON'T KNOW
You have to be blinded by loyalty, or completely unaware of how easy it is to keep existing VR headlook support, or both, to believe FDev is willing to make even the slightest accommodation for VR, but somehow, by some weird magic, somehow can't .
It's what's called not credible.
To be clear, we are talking Frontier, the company, not the possibility some specific dev wants to do something and is getting shut down by management. Frontier, the company, doesn't want to try to support VR, or they wouldn't announce 'no VR at launch', considering how easy the task is.
You seem like a smart enough person to see this for yourself.
Last edited:
It’s a good post.
It doesn’t mean VR legs definitely won’t be a thing, but it does highlight some challenges for a multiplayer game with flatscreen+VR support.
Gamers saying "actually that’s really easy" doesn’t really constitute debunking.
The OP's list is also non-exhaustive. There are a ton of genuine design & performance issues to be ironed out if FDev want to add VR Legs to current industry standards (IE motion controllers support etc), all hitting some form of visual & technical parity with flatscreen design.
And Legs are clearly the core flagship addition of Odyssey
They are the focus of essentially every feature mentioned in the launch PR.
Anyone who thinks FDev would launch this glossy product with VR support for ambulation that falls short of industry standards is dreaming.
So that’s the conundrum. How does FDev get to the point where they see ROI on the required dev (and/or feel they can spare the capacity from their general push to make Odyssey a flatscreen success)?
Does it need launch sales? Further growth in VR? A VR community prepared to pay above the odds? Massive negative PR from VR’s absence? 3rd party solutions becoming available?
Dunno. Quite possibly a spread of the above.
Last edited:
Smart enough to know you have no idea whether Frontier do or don't want to support VR.
Given Frontier's CEO doesn't think VR has much of a future, the balance of probability points in one direction...
Link?
Also, I think a lot of people don't realize just how much of HL Alyx is cool 3d modeling and scripting everything . The basic teleport/thumbstick locomotion mechanic has been around a long time. Granted, because FDev has their own engine, they might have to do some of it from scratch, but this does not take a lot of code.
Had to go looking, but here: https://gamedaily.biz/article/194/david-braben-why-the-industry-needs-the-return-of-the-publisher
Edit for those who don't want to read the whole article:
David Braben: “I have never believed [VR] would take off. Right from day one, I said it would be niche,” he noted. “And it's a great niche, but it's still quite niche. We were, I think, the first people to support [VR] with a AAA game, with Elite: Dangerous in December 2013. It's a wonderful experience, it is really wonderful. But it puts quite a high bar on the hardware, so my personal view is you can't run any slower than about 90 frames a second, and the resolution you really want to be 4K per eye. [Currently] it is a bit blurry, it's quite hard on the eyes for a long time. And the other problem is, trying to use it in a family environment, it's really divisive. Because no one can see or hear what you're seeing.” "
There are also a couple of threads worth a quick skim that are related here:
David Braben comments on VR [gamedaily.biz article]
Some comments which might raise a few eyebrows... Braben has seen the evolution of computing and gaming technologies over nearly four decades in the industry. He’s still not a big believer in VR... “I have never believed [VR] would take off. Right from day one, I said it would be niche,” he...
Bad news ahead?
Hi VR fellows, as you may have noticed, FD have recently updated their ED site (elitedangerous.com). While the new site looks much more professional and flashy (optimized for generations who prefer visuals over text and have a short attention span, possibly), two things struck me: 1. All the...
Last edited:
He didn't say that precisely. He said it would remain niche for the foreseeable.
That is currently the state of affairs.
Despite record PCVR growth after HL:Alyx, headset ownership amongst Steam is only just nearing 2%, IE approx 2 million of 100 million users. (Not all PC gamers or VR users are on Steam, but it's clearly a useful baseline).
PSVR has sold approx 5m units, compared to the approx 108m PS4 units out there.
VR is growing. And it's great. But it is still absolutely, categorically, niche.
And that means low unit sales and ROI for anyone making VR games (who isn't being funded by an invested entity like Oculus / Valve etc).
Last edited:
So about 2% - that's got be roughly the same percentage that are getting a whole bucket load of coding and asset development work thrown at them today with Fleet Carriers then...
Whilst I don't disagree that the VR user base is still a small percentage overall, I think comparing the user base to the overall number of Steam accounts is quite misleading.
How many of those 100 million accounts have been used in the last year? How many of those accounts are used by machines capable of 1080p gaming and above? How many of those 100 million accounts are used by core gamers with reasonable gaming PC's? 2 million of 100 million users is kind of a somewhat useless stat in this context if, lets say for arguments sake, that 75 million of them are incapable of running games like Elite anyway.
Like I say, I don't disagree that VR is still relatively niche, but I would say that the uptake among core PC gamers is probably a bit better than those stats would suggest. I would also disagree that it makes a useful baseline. I would say that the amount of PC gamers with good gaming rigs is probably a small percentage of those 100 million too, but that hasn't stopped developers from developing games targeted specifically at that market.
Undoubtedly a far larger proportion of the ED userbase is VR than Steam generally.
Also, I find it very interesting that David Braben specifically called out a need to have 4k per eye. While I don't think it is a necessity for ED, it is nice, and having finally reached that milestone, only to lose VR support, is deeply unfortunate.
Also, I find it very interesting that David Braben specifically called out a need to have 4k per eye. While I don't think it is a necessity for ED, it is nice, and having finally reached that milestone, only to lose VR support, is deeply unfortunate.
Psvr would probably be a closer representation of what the overall is. There are a ton of VR only games (as well as games that support VR) available on PS4 with a fairly low market percentage. Developer support is there.
Sure, but that's just one tiny element. It's not that recreating those movement techniques is particularly arduous. It's all the other elements that follow on from them.
Just a few quick considerations off the top of my head:
- Are VR handguns and headlook straight-forward to implement in flatscreen multiplayer PvP environment? Probably not...
- Do you want other players to see where a VR player is shooting / aiming? Yes, because otherwise lasers will just fire randomly out of their shoulders etc instead of their gun barrel. That means some form of inverse kinematic arms potentially (more dev / headroom)? Or just swivelling the character model around to represent where they're aiming at all times (which would look absurdly bad)?
- VR players can blindfire around corners. Should flatscreen players be able to too? (If so, that's more animation work / design balancing / AI behaviour dev for the game as a whole).
- VR players can peak around corners in quick flashes, gaining intel on opponents safely. Should flatscreen players be able to lean too? (If so... etc etc )
- Would they even want to use teleport in their pseudo-realistic spaceman game? Probably not...
- Can you imagine Cmdrs zapping around the place in multiplayer? (Unless used for 'telepresence' Cmdrs etc). It would look daft.
- Teleport vs smooth motion PvP balancing is not ideal. (They've been used in conjunction, but only in one game, Rec Room, for cartoony paintball / Laserquest PvP arenas. But I can attest to the fact that shooting someone who's teleporting around is a distinct game format to a classic shooter, and would immediately provoke balancing issues and gripes from flatscreen players who couldn't teleport etc.)
- Is walking the only locomotion system that needs a VR solution? Nope...
- We've seen jetpacks in the trailer. They too will need to be tailored regarding nausea (acceleration speeds etc)
- Are their behaviours used as part of PvP gunplay / environmental puzzles? If so
- (If space EVA is a component, how will that work for both flatscreen & VR Cmdrs? Again issues may arise regarding acceleration / rotation for nausea. Handholds locomotion parity / balancing if deployed for PvP).
All of these problems have obvious solutions. VR guns? Separate implementation. Not very complicated either. Put whatever HUD you want in place of the holographic sight, add a pair of grips, map some things to buttons. Ziping around teleporting in multiplayer? HL Alyx has the correct compromise here - teleport as a motion mechanic. Not great, but it's not like any experienced VR user is going to use that unless it confers an unfair advantage. Especially not likely to be used in PvP. Thumbstick motion is just too vastly superior for competitive players to use anything else unless they have a stadium sized room or treadmill. Jetpacks should just be thumbstick only.
All this assumes that such control schemes are even needed. VR headlook is probably all we really need anyway.
All this assumes that such control schemes are even needed. VR headlook is probably all we really need anyway.