Can you provide a citation Max, if anyone has made threats?
Most people I've seen have been voicing their dissatisfaction and are just saying they're going to vote with their wallets. Wouldn't you agree that this is their prerogative?
VR support 'not at launch' for Odyssey
- Thread starter Lordxenu
- Start date
Most people I've seen have been voicing their dissatisfaction and are just saying they're going to vote with their wallets. Wouldn't you agree that this is their prerogative?
That's an absurd conclusion. Flight sims are niche. Does that mean they have no industry standards which they try and meet?
(If anything niches accessed via exclusive, expensive equipment tend to have more exacting fans, not the opposite
)Sure. But if you've experience in the area you'll know that sometimes the solutions include regrettably cutting something, or pushing them down the line. It's true of artistic projects, it's true of business projects. ED is both.
Hopefully what has happened is a deferment (pushing to a future budget), not a cutting room floor job...
Ok yep, it's not the known fact you were stating it as. Glad we agree
The broader point was that FDev were trying to give long-term veterans something distracting during the wait for Odyssey. I notice you haven't addressed that key issue
You mentioned 3 weeks
. I said it was an arbitrary period of time you've pulled out of the air. Because it is.Aside from anything else, the example you're using is about an engine conversion. It's not a direct parallel, as FDev would clearly have to do more than just support VR rendering. They'd almost certainly have to support bespoke VR input systems and gameplay solutions. (As discussed ad nauseum in the thread). Industry standards old boy
Putting a timeframe on that would be pure conjecture without knowing more details. (And yet you're still using it as some kind of known entity in this post, IE 'given there's maybe a few man weeks of effort being saved'....)
I can understand the decision. (VR is niche, VR 'FPS' done to industry standards is non-trivial in a multiplayer / crossplay open world game). I was prepared for it on those grounds.
That doesn't mean I'm happy about it, or that I'll ever stop canvasing for VR to be properly supported.
Just for the record I do
But both those notes in the annals of time are entirely irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that the DLC has a major Legs focus. And that will have to be tackled on the VR front in a professional product release.
I've never said it's not an issue but as far as I know there are no surefire ways to prevent it altogether so do what you can to mitigate and accept that for some it still won't be enough.
Also, and I've mentioned this before, even if you are one of the people who get motion sickness,even if you are one of the people for whom the mitigation doesn't work you can get used to it. There are ways to train your VR-legs and there will probably always be people who need to do that.
Nausea is definitely an issue (I know this from experience) not just for FPS gameplay but that isn't a reason not to do it, if it were VR would be DOA.
I want buy it if they don't give me VR. It's all over the forums.
As far as "threats" go its not all that threatening now is it and I'm assuming you mean the "No VR, no buy" slogan because as far as I know no one threatened to buy if they don't give them VR.
Besides voting with our wallets is the only leverage we have and it's not like we threaten to key Davids Jag... or would he have a BMW?
![[VR]HaywirePhoenix](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/235/235721.jpg?1591611117){kind=avatar}
*Key his Anaconda
Yeah but your first response was to dismiss it as a potential issue. (It's worth noting that the CM also mumbled about 'all that other stuff' too, which I took to be more tech-y aspects that he couldn't articulate in that moment
)You also keep bringing up this 'can't remove it completely' angle like it wipes the slate clean on the dev front. But it's a non-point in that area. They still have to attempt some forms of mitigation.
(And given performance is one of the things that can affect nausea, as you've mentioned previously, that remit can spread pretty far...)
![[VR] Enexemander](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/119/119036.jpg?1621636716){kind=avatar}
It's an unfortunate fact that people in the game community (developers, players, publishers, etc) get actual threats from time to time. Death threats, etc. Please don't conflate "If your product isn't good, I won't buy it." with actual threats.
That's absolutely correct - flight sims do not adhere to or meet industry standards (they probably define them). If that was the case DCS should not exist, because for the best part of 2 decades Matt has been unable to implement the standard (benchmark is a better term) set by Falcon 4 of having a dynamic realtime campaign, running a proper multi-threaded engine, capable of modelling tens of thousands of persistent AI entities in a multiplayer environmentThat's an absurd conclusion. Flight sims are niche. Does that mean they have no industry standards which they try and meet?
(If anything niches accessed via exclusive, expensive equipment tend to have more exacting fans, not the opposite
I agree about the exacting fans of flight sims - I have first hand experience of how exacting they are and the real threats, not just the imagined ones Max is alluding to.
100% agree with this.
I think you've kind of proved my point there and I will try and address it for clarity. Frontier have given an entire 18 month dev cycle for nothing major in return, because FC owners are not paying for that feature, but are now willing to throw away the revenue of VR players by dropping at the least a port of the VR seated experience for the Odyssey release. Does that not strike you as an odd decision and a strange way of making development budget decisions?The broader point was that FDev were trying to give long-term veterans something distracting during the wait for Odyssey. I notice you haven't addressed that key issue
I can also understand that the decision was made and why it may have been made. I just don't agree it's justified and hope to present the reasons why I think that.
That's absolutely correct - flight sims do not adhere to or meet industry standards (they probably define them). If that was the case DCS should not exist, because for the best part of 2 decades Matt has been unable to implement the standard (benchmark is a better term) set by Falcon 4 of having a dynamic realtime campaign, running a proper multi-threaded engine, capable of modelling tens of thousands of persistent AI entities in a multiplayer environment
I agree about the exacting fans of flight sims - I have first hand experience of how exacting they are and the real threats, not just the imagined ones Max is alluding to.
A comparable example to a VR FPS / RPG / Walking Sim launching now without motion controllers and free locomotion etc would be a flight sim launching without HOTAS control
That's the type of baseline industry standards I'm talking about. Not feature sets per se, which always vary between games.
You still haven't addressed how FDev could have done this differently. Are you genuinely suggesting they should have deployed those dev efforts into Odyssey VR, and provided zero feature updates to the core game in 2020? (Having spent 2019 only adding feature updates for noobs, and bug fixes).
Because that sounds like a bad plan
For all the sniping around Carriers, they've at minimum given the community something unifying the complain about
. (And more practically, have coincided with player numbers hitting record levels, going by Steam).Pragmatically speaking FDev had to retain interest in the game during the big Odyssey lull. I don't see how you're addressing this bit.
EDIT: And no, it doesn't strike me as hugely odd, or surprising. The obvious intent of Carriers was to provide an 'end game' target, and attract the attention of veteran players more broadly (with a bonus bit of press coverage, and messaging to new players that 'game not dead'). That target audience encompasses a ton of flatscreen players, even if not all of them end up getting a Carrier. And by extension, is once again a group that probably outnumbers VR Cmdrs in total. (Which may become more of note when the time comes for existing players to pony up for the new DLC).
Last edited:
I'd be ok with that, but I'm betting you'd find all the VR heads playing it, even unoptimised (FalloutVR runs terribly even on 1080TI's and it's still selling), with people putting the graphics down to be able to play it in VR. We're a hardy bunch and we know what we like (hint: It's VR).
Maybe you should look up what threat means. There are many different meanings, choose the correct one. I wasn't talking about death threats obviously.
There are ENB's for SkyrimVR try getting consistent frame rates with that installed on top of 100+ other mods
I'm not going to have a definition & connotation debate with you. I'm not interested in forum PvP. I'm trying to simply politely ask that you don't charge the discussion in such a way, because (if your name is any indication) we're both on the same side here.
It's not a threat if I say I will not buy Odessy if there isn't Vr support. It's a fact. Example I played Elite since launch in Vr and never in 2 d, now they expect me to continue to play in 2d . Not gonna happen. It's like playing call of duty and then forced to play farmville as a DLC.
Farmville, LOL
I'd love to be a fly on the wall in FD towers as they decide where the line falls between Horizons and EDO....