I think there are plenty of ways to mitigate VR motion sickness (like adding some sort of “cockpit” like certain design choices to the first person helmet based view, which would give CMDRs stationary imagery to focus on as they move about in VR, helping the brain adjust. And getting one’s VR legs takes a bit of time regardless.
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}
Possibly
. But a freebie Carriers release doesn't cause nausea if done to a shoddy standard. A flagship paid release that did the same would be something FDev would wish to avoid Sure. But Odyssey is being developed for the mass market as well. The clear issue at hand is that:
A) A decent, industry standard, VR implementation of Legs (+ FPS) requires significant dev.
B) The ROI is not necessarily there for that dev, due to the VR market being relatively small. (See a broad guesstimate about possible costs here)
The solution I'm leaning towards is that FDev charge a higher asking price for a Odyssey VR version (just as most VR titles charge a premium to represent the ROI shortfall).
Yes this does seem to be the case. We could guess maybe even as high as a third of the dedicated player base.
But Odyssey is clearly targeting new players as much as old. (See FDev's statements regarding Odyssey pre-launch, unit sales being their main earner, and the clear shift in focus that Odyssey generally entails towards a new genre). So the broader market is still key.
I don't think financial incentive explains FDev's behavior. The cost of excluding an entire market, compared to the development effort, is a hugely negative cost/benefits ratio. To say nothing of the many opportunities they have had to trivially properly support other markets (eg. switching Power Play open-only).
Disinterest is the word for it.
Disinterest is the word for it.
You've engaged with literally none of the issues I raised. The topics, yes. But not one of the issues
How does having a 'separate implementation' for VR guns solve the issues I raised, for example? Regarding PvP parity with blindfiring / headlook etc. (Unless you mean separate servers for VR, in which case welcome to a very empty galaxy....
)On the other stuff, I get that you're seeing this as a VR vet (and so am I). But you have to understand that a developer has to accommodate VR noobs and mitigate nausea. The fact that veterans will use stick motion or comparable is immaterial. There have to be stepping-stone locomotion mechanics that get them to that point. And if those stepping-stone mechanics have PvP / balancing issues, then those balancing issues remain. (It's notable that Rec Room teleport players can zip around annoyingly and avoid fire, by rarely appearing in a solid state out of cover. This is considered OP by many who don't use, or don't want to use, that system).
Acceleration is a nausea trigger, whether you acknowledge that or not, and jetpack design would need to accommodate that. (In a way that doesn't feel crap to flatscreen users, or is deployed as a distinct system that works in parallel. Discovering what works is still all dev time...)
VR headlook would not be industry standard. Almost all successful VR character + FPS titles to date have had some form free locomotion + motion controller support for hand interaction.
Just look at the VR top sellers list on Steam, and what they accommodate (filter by motion controller support etc). That's what FDev will want to aim for. Anything less, getting launched as a high profile title in 2021, would get pilloried, and review poorly.
Last edited:
How do you explain almost all VR games being exorbitantly priced then? (IE 2 hour experiences for £20. AA, and even indie games, selling at AAA prices. Port re-releases at full AAA pricing etc).
It's not just some wildly inappropriate greed from the developers purely because it's a luxury market. The ROI issue is very real for VR dev, because the market is so small. They have to try and get more out of each player because fewer players will buy their product.
Games take more dev than people realise. Dev costs more than people realise. (Using the rule of thumb for US dev you're looking at $120,000 per dev per year [1],[2],[3]). A team of ten devs is setting you back $1.2mil a year in costs. Making profit in those circumstances, to make making VR games a going concern, is not easy.
This is clearly an issue for FDev too. Classing it as just 'disinterest' ignores these realities.
Last edited:
I'm not quite sure why we have a massive threadnaught on this subject...
I play E : D with a Rift S.
If there is no VR support for Odyssey, I probably won't buy Odyssey - simple. Others will. Each to their own.
However, we are a year (at least!) away from launch, and we have next to zero concrete information, so I will reserve all comments, except this one, until we know more.
o7
I play E : D with a Rift S.
If there is no VR support for Odyssey, I probably won't buy Odyssey - simple. Others will. Each to their own.
However, we are a year (at least!) away from launch, and we have next to zero concrete information, so I will reserve all comments, except this one, until we know more.
o7
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
That may be true of VR only titles (tho I have picked up some pretty amazing vr bargains over the years)
But more and more games are getting VR modes now (usually for free but sometimes paid)
The information we have to date suggests there will be no meaningful VR support at launch, and that there is no firm plan to add them afterwards.
Given that PS4VR also only had vague plans for later addition post PS4 launch, and that never arrived, there are reasonable grounds to suspect VR support hangs in the balance somewhat. (Especially given the potential technical difficulties, and attendant dev costs, of supporting a flatscreen+VR multiplayer FPS)
These threads are just a happy way for grumpy VR heads to keep VR on FDev's radar
I think it's possible that we could tip the balance of probability that FDev will take on VR via advocacy here and elsewhere. (A surprising percentage of ED players seem to have a headset).
But I suspect it would come more via finding a way to flash the cash. Such as the VR community telegraphing a willingness to pay a higher price tag for a VR-ready version of Odyssey.
They're still the exception though M, and almost always for pre-existing games (to attract more unit sales from previously uninterested players, as sales start to slow down), not for launch titles.
Which examples are you thinking of? NMS has unique circumstances for example (tiny team + massive initial earnings = luxury to do what they want).
I've also enjoyed free ports such as Payday 2 etc. (It's worth noting that P2's parent company went to the wall due to over-investing in VR though
)But I'd struggle to name many AAA games that have added meaningful VR support for free overall. A lot of the racing & flight sims, for sure. (Simlarly to Elite, doing a 'cockpit only' conversion is a lot easier than supporting FPS etc). And there's stuff like Minecraft (although it's not the best, the mod is way superior
), Prey (although it's reviewed pretty poorly, and is just for a sub-mode, which is the more normal format for freebie ports). The Forest did it, and for multiplayer, which is impressive.I don't think there's a single example out there of a new FPS / RPG launch arriving with a decent VR version at no extra cost though. And that's the scenario Odyssey would be in.
Last edited:
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:
andDavid 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...forums.frontier.co.uk
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...
Generally I have a lot of respect for what DBOBE says. But his take on VR is so disjointed from reality it beggars belief.
So I did mention some free some paid
But of top of head
(Not all fpsers)
Hellblade
Borderlands VR
Skyrim VR
FalloutVR
Serious Sam games (also number 3 VR (not tried it yet it's one of many bought but not installed but I believe this has full PvP with flat screen and vr too)
Resident Evil 7 (PSVR)
Doom 3vr (fan made but incredible)
Halo reach vr (not out yet also fan made
Granted of those serious Sam is the only one directly comparable with pvp but even so I am not sure FD should be throwing one (even niche) core feature to the wall because of another niche feature (niche within ED not in general - confirmed by Devs)
It wouldn't be ideal but I would.take vr even only in PGs if PvP balance was that much a concern if it were that or nothing
But of top of head
(Not all fpsers)
Hellblade
Borderlands VR
Skyrim VR
FalloutVR
Serious Sam games (also number 3 VR (not tried it yet it's one of many bought but not installed but I believe this has full PvP with flat screen and vr too)
Resident Evil 7 (PSVR)
Doom 3vr (fan made but incredible)
Halo reach vr (not out yet also fan made
Granted of those serious Sam is the only one directly comparable with pvp but even so I am not sure FD should be throwing one (even niche) core feature to the wall because of another niche feature (niche within ED not in general - confirmed by Devs)
It wouldn't be ideal but I would.take vr even only in PGs if PvP balance was that much a concern if it were that or nothing
So I did mention some free some paid
But of top of head
(Not all fpsers)
Hellblade
Borderlands VR
Skyrim VR
FalloutVR
Serious Sam games (also number 3 VR (not tried it yet it's one of many bought but not installed but I believe this has full PvP with flat screen and vr too)
Resident Evil 7 (PSVR)
Doom 3vr (fan made but incredible)
Halo reach vr (not out yet also fan made
Haha, you said 'usually for free' man
Most of those are AAA priced ports of existing games (Borderlands / Skyrim / Fallout / Serious Sam), or free mods
I think it's fair to say the premium pricing is pretty much still the norm for VR access.
Personally I'd be happy with an unbalanced PvP experience, which didn't favour VR heads, too. But it's more a question of what FDev might want from the product. (And I'm pretty convinced they would want to ensure that VR wasn't OP via aspects like headlook / blindfire / teleport etc etc. As the salt, and poor reviews, that would result from the majority flatscreen players would be epic....)
FPS isn't the only aspect though, there's the broader locomotion / interaction / UI aspects too which come with the Legs territory. And I think it's pretty clear that the DLC is majoring on Legs as a flagship addition. I just don't see how they could launch a VR 'Legs' title without supporting that aspect sufficiently in VR. (Other than doing the sneaky post-launch 'experimental branch' option).
Can you be more specific on the 'niche within ED / confirmed by devs' bit by the way? (Got a link?
)No link sorry it was a lively discussion a bit like this thread - I can't remember exactly what started it or details but I think it was a concern about PvP players having a louder voice to the developers ears than others (honestly can't remember for sure)Haha, you said 'usually for free' man
Most of those are AAA priced ports of existing games (Borderlands / Skyrim / Fallout / Serious Sam), or free mods
I think it's fair to say the premium pricing is pretty much still the norm for VR access.
Can you be more specific on the 'niche within ED / confirmed by devs' bit by the way? (Got a link?
But the reply was along the lines of don't worry we are well aware the majority of players in ED don't do PvP they are just more vocal (which is kind of familiar of what is going on now)
Btw I did say usually free but I was including the ones you already mentioned so NMS all the cockpit games such as flight Sims and racing games etc
Last edited:
Cool, was it a recent thread on the forums? (Or discord / steam etc?) I’ll try and track it down
(I think there’s probably still a distinction to be made between: 'Is ED now primarily a PvP FPS game?' [No]. And: 'Is FPS a key pillar of Odyssey?' [seemingly yes])
I know .... To be fair I fully admit I am hugely biased because I have no interest what so ever in PvP so cutting content potentially because of it sucks.
It was a while back, at least a year ago
It was a while back, at least a year ago
I don't think these aspects are going to come into play for the vast majority of engagements. If I had to guess most PVP and PVE FPS engagements are going to be long range affairs, more akin to ARMA2's Takistan map/campaign vs. COD/Battlefield short range play. Players are going to have whole planets to roam around on and just let that sink in for a bit ------- even if there is a concentration of players say around an engineer's base, you have to be a little tactically deficient to go rolo'ing in there before a. scouting it out with optics b. taking out hostiles at range with sniper/rail/beam weapons (avoids all that nasty bullet drop/wind stuff) or c. just razing the site to the ground from the air and then sifting through the wreckage for the loot.
VR isn't going to really factor into that apart from if "teleport" movement was implemented in which case I can guarantee the KB/Mouse player will win every time.
I also hope Frontier have thought about some of this and maybe done a bit of research by playing on a public ARMA server - its normally a sniper fest, with instant kills from players you don't often even see.
My 2 cents on that...
Yep, on the ranged combat & disparate spaces, that’s very possible.
I would note they’ve discussed combat in internal spaces in the past too though. The old DLC description Odyssey most resembles is this, for example:
Alongside the PR phrasing about multiple roles / teamwork / missions (that seem to take place in internal spaces, or at least originate there), plus some of the concept art, I think internal space firefights, and closer range combat around infrastructure, are decent possibilities:
Which would put us back closer to that PvP conundrum. (Headlook / blind firing / movement styles requiring some level of balancing etc)
(And hell, trying to snipe someone who can teleport would still be annoying
)
The other problem is how many VR players have LEP, so basically this is zero cost for them and zero revenue for FD. I know 2 of my accounts have LEP. Maybe a new KS for integrating VR into Odyssey is justified to see what the take up would be, that would give FD an insight into the interest and a financial commitment from us. At the end of the day regardless of my LEP I would happily pay for Odyssey VR for the flying if it meant I got the new planets. I am not so bothered about the FPS side, but once it was in I would guess it would stay in, so I would pay for that piece as well, just to make the game full VR. Why would I pay when I have LEP, simply because the VR experience currently is so good, its better to cough up than not have it.
Yep LEP is definitely one of the wrinkles here. (I know some people even think it contains a pledge to include VR in perpetuity, although that's not my reading of it).
Charging extra for a VR version, to LEPers, would definitely cause a bad PR storm for a bit. I think the only way FDev might even tip-toe into the subject is if some kind of LEPer poll of reasonable size was put together, signalling a high level of willingness to pay more on top (from VR heads).
It's such a slim demographic that it's one of the few times a poll might hit reasonably representative numbers
Last edited: