Odyssey Alpha - let us try VR 3D stereoscopic headlook on foot and alpha test its nausea trigger / gameplay
- Thread starter VR Jay Le Chardon
- Start date
Bud, the scary thing is that no matter how ridiculous you make the analogy, this forum's probably got it covered...
...Do you remember the headlook hack? Or the Optical computer? Or those folks who wanted to remove the interplanetary spaceship flight element out of elite?
I think it's more about them not having designed the on foot gameplay with VR in mind. It's entirely different to design something with VR headsets and controls in mind than to design a none VR version (unless you're doing some crappy hack like some mods for games)
I`m genuinely fascinated to understand why you think you have any choice at all on this topic. Is it that you think you are an equal partner in a negotiation for the outcome you seek? Or is it just a bit of hyperbole to try and inject some urgency into proceedings?
In fairness the VR issue has played out in an unusual way:
- Announcement that popular feature won’t be supported in DLC
- Large community backlash
- Announcement of partial support for said feature in DLC
It might be the illusion of influence (FDev might have used the classic technique of: Announce bad news, wait for rage, announce 'less bad news' plan to community approval
). But there do seem to be grounds for pushing FDev on this front, from a VR fan’s perspective. (This suggestion thread was the second-most-upvoted in forum history, and advocated exactly the solution they opted for).It’s possible that they are genuinely torn on how to make the DLC a flatscreen success without losing big chunks of the EDVR veterans. It’s possibly an unusual scenario in that sense.
As such I’d say it’s still worth a punt. If we can find solutions that are both low dev, and 'less bad news' for VR heads, it’s possible they’ll be open to them.
For sure. Shout for what you want. More power to you.
A friend of mine once said that "if you don't ask for something, you know what the answer will be". And if it's reasonably practicable, we want head look rather than virtual flat screen, so we are asking for it. We are also explaining why we think it is possible, and acknowledging that the bare ones be headlook we are asking for may well be less than perfect. We are also starting that we can probably live with the rough edges.
We can also see reasons why they may have decided be virtual flatscreen was better than headlook. One example was cited by senseimatty, a vr supporter, who thinks vr headlook combat might be a bit too intense for headlook, however, later on the same post he said it would be OK for exploring or other slower paced activities. That's like the perfect illustration of why, in the opening post, I suggested that VR headlook be an option, with the players able to switch between vr headlook and virtual flat screen in graphics settings. Because my VR legs are stout enough for constant headlook mode, and as such I'd feel anything other than "real vr" would be a diminished and gimmicky experience. Matty seems to be in the middle and would enjoy be headlook in the less intense moments, but need to switch out of headlook in more intense moments, such as combat. Others may not be able to handle headlook on foot regardless of the context. However, all levels of VR legs / tolerance are covered by making it optional.
We can also see reasons why they may have decided be virtual flatscreen was better than headlook. One example was cited by senseimatty, a vr supporter, who thinks vr headlook combat might be a bit too intense for headlook, however, later on the same post he said it would be OK for exploring or other slower paced activities. That's like the perfect illustration of why, in the opening post, I suggested that VR headlook be an option, with the players able to switch between vr headlook and virtual flat screen in graphics settings. Because my VR legs are stout enough for constant headlook mode, and as such I'd feel anything other than "real vr" would be a diminished and gimmicky experience. Matty seems to be in the middle and would enjoy be headlook in the less intense moments, but need to switch out of headlook in more intense moments, such as combat. Others may not be able to handle headlook on foot regardless of the context. However, all levels of VR legs / tolerance are covered by making it optional.
Yes, as my mother says if you don't ask you don't get.
But you're pushing credibility asking at the end of development for something that you claim must be simple, but which others have pointed out may seem simple to you but will involve actual development time (as everything does), and presumably design and spec work before that. You've asked, okay, but I wouldn't hold your breath.
Also - it's somewhat cheeky to ask for something and claim if it doesn't get added then something has been taken away.
Yea, you need to stop doing that, becuase the thing is, you don't actually know. By pretending that you do, it serves to undermine the valid nature of what you are asking for.
Yeah, we don't actually know if adding in the VR headlook is possible, or as simple as I suggest it would be in the opening post. But conversely we don't actually know that it is impossible. However, as we have said a few times, there are a few pointers to suggest it could be done while there are also things that suggest it cannot be done.
There are a few things we can use as evidence for suggesting it can theoretically be relatively easily done. I am of course referring to things like the fact VR headlook is going to be in the cockpit mode of the game, VorpX works at making non VR games into VR ones, the "Gred did it in a day" comment, and the fact that owing to the wide support for VR development some very talented players have made VR mods for other games like Alien Isolation and the GTA-VR mod. All of those facts are suggesting that the basic VR headlook we are asking for theoretically isn't all that hard. But it's all suggestion rather than assertion, as people who what VR headlook will subjectively to see reasons for it to be done. Although those speculations are to a fair extent based on logical deductions and extrapolations derived from other "knowns".
On the other hand, there are valid considerations that have been raised in this thread, which are suggesting VR headlook cannot/should not be done, with things like potentially tanking frame rates in VR on planets, or adding any new feature to software often has unintentional consequences which means the VR headlook could potentially derail the Odyssey development by adding new bugs and or delays, or VR headlook could potentially clash with certain graphics elements like the on foot HUD, or the fact that at least a portion of Odyssey is seemingly destined to be a fairly fast paced shooter it could potentially be a nausea trigger. And again, all these potential considerations are based on logical deductions and extrapolations derived from other "knowns".
From the two sides in this debate, comprising of those who want VR headlook, and those opposed to or concerned about the implications of pursuing its implementation, neither side is emphatically right, as neither side is in full possession of all the facts.
I'm obviously very keen to see VR headlook on foot, as are some other people, in general between this thread and its corresponding suggestion that Golgot posted, there has been more proponents than opponents to its implementation, or more support than opposition to it. But I don't want to railroad my wishes over other peoples interests... Which is why even in the opening post I was saying things like give us the option of VR headlook on foot, rather than mandating it be the only VR mode. I realise that Frontier will have made a decision that VR virtual flatscreen was best for on foot gameplay. But that was an internal discussion that led to that decision, and we don't know the reasoning behind it. We do however know that virtual flatscreen is a new addition to the game, and there will thus have been development resources spent on its creation. We therefore know that it was an informed decision to go down that route, albeit we don't know why. But real world "life experience" tells us that one solution does very rarely really "fit all".
There are a few things we can use as evidence for suggesting it can theoretically be relatively easily done. I am of course referring to things like the fact VR headlook is going to be in the cockpit mode of the game, VorpX works at making non VR games into VR ones, the "Gred did it in a day" comment, and the fact that owing to the wide support for VR development some very talented players have made VR mods for other games like Alien Isolation and the GTA-VR mod. All of those facts are suggesting that the basic VR headlook we are asking for theoretically isn't all that hard. But it's all suggestion rather than assertion, as people who what VR headlook will subjectively to see reasons for it to be done. Although those speculations are to a fair extent based on logical deductions and extrapolations derived from other "knowns".
On the other hand, there are valid considerations that have been raised in this thread, which are suggesting VR headlook cannot/should not be done, with things like potentially tanking frame rates in VR on planets, or adding any new feature to software often has unintentional consequences which means the VR headlook could potentially derail the Odyssey development by adding new bugs and or delays, or VR headlook could potentially clash with certain graphics elements like the on foot HUD, or the fact that at least a portion of Odyssey is seemingly destined to be a fairly fast paced shooter it could potentially be a nausea trigger. And again, all these potential considerations are based on logical deductions and extrapolations derived from other "knowns".
From the two sides in this debate, comprising of those who want VR headlook, and those opposed to or concerned about the implications of pursuing its implementation, neither side is emphatically right, as neither side is in full possession of all the facts.
I'm obviously very keen to see VR headlook on foot, as are some other people, in general between this thread and its corresponding suggestion that Golgot posted, there has been more proponents than opponents to its implementation, or more support than opposition to it. But I don't want to railroad my wishes over other peoples interests... Which is why even in the opening post I was saying things like give us the option of VR headlook on foot, rather than mandating it be the only VR mode. I realise that Frontier will have made a decision that VR virtual flatscreen was best for on foot gameplay. But that was an internal discussion that led to that decision, and we don't know the reasoning behind it. We do however know that virtual flatscreen is a new addition to the game, and there will thus have been development resources spent on its creation. We therefore know that it was an informed decision to go down that route, albeit we don't know why. But real world "life experience" tells us that one solution does very rarely really "fit all".
See, nobody is "against" what you want. Any sensible person would accept that the Addition of VR to Odyssey would be fantastic.
Neither are we concerned - Frontier will manage their own affairs to their own standards. I`ve simply been pointing out that you are overstepping the mark in terms of what you, as a customer, can speak about with any authority.
This is really the best course... Let the player choose. If it makes him sick or whatever, he can choose virtual flatscreen.
Deleted member 110222
D
This. Nobody without VR gives a damn if you do or don't get to play with a brick strapped to your head, OP.
Thing is though, that works both ways. If you do get it, great. We are not going to be throwing a street party though, as again, we have no reason to care.
If you don't get what you want, again, us lowly flatscreen peasants have no reason to care.
It's a good thing that FD is putting the majority before a minority, and no, you don't put any more money into this game than flatscreen peasants, OP. (Insert tag here)
Not to mention that money spent on the game doesn't give you a say. If you want that, go invest in STONKS.
Frontier sees nothing from your hardware purchases, nothing from your simpit or whatever... That has nothing to do with Frontier.
They do not care. Not the people making the decisions, anyway.
Backer maybe? Sure. But having VR is nothing to do with being a backer. It's an irrelevant point. And those VR players who aren't backers? Well they really are no different to us flatscreen peasants as far as FD is concerned.
I await the inevitable "You must care because you wrote stuff" rebuttal.
I don't know why you don't see how this is indeed a negotiation? It's almost a reverse randsom demand, I'm holding my debit card hostage, if they want my money, they have to acquiesce to my requested feature, if they add VR headlook on foot, I'll release my hostages, namely the scheckles used for buying the game. It might sound a bit narcisstic or grandiose to think that I, as one bearded imperial renegade boxhead, could make a hundred million pound company change their mind, but if you follow the numbers, and remember that I'm not the only nutter who wants this feature, and apply some deductive reasoning, you'll see that it could happen.
Even if Virtual flatscreen when on foot actually is the best solution for 80% of VR players, given a reddit survey suggested around a third of Elite players, slightly more than a third IIRC, (who also use that subreddit, and took part in that survey) use VR. Rounding numbers to simplify the verbal arithmetic that is about to follow, leaves approximately 24% of all Elite players satisfied with the virtual flatscreen solution, with ~10% of the player base not completely satisfied by it. I don't think its worth interrupting the flow of the conversation for a couple of percentage points one way or the other, but if you want to indulge in pedantry it is 26.4% and 6.66% satisfied/dissatisfied by virtual flatscreen.
Circa 10% of the player base, is a big number, it's a lot of people to leave dissatisfied. But how many actual people is that? With the game having around 4 million copies sold, to more accurately calculate the customer base, lets half the copies sold are alts to arbitrarily compensate for some players with multiple alt accounts, and average that against those who don't have any alts, again, for easiness of working with round numbers let's call it 2 a nice round million customers? Ten percent of those two million customers who would be dissatisfied with a version of Odyssey that has only a virtual flatscreen view mode when on foot, is two hundred thousand customers who, at £30 a copy, represent a large amount of potential revenue, £6m to be exact. Surely that's six million reasons to pursue implementing VR headlook on foot?
Even if a half of the dissatisfied / not completely satisfied players still buy Odyssey despite their grumblings about virtual flatscreen, or had already bought it as part of a lifetime pass, and "only" the other half of the people who resent the lack of VR headlook on foot take my standpoint that "no VR headlook on foot Frontier means no purchase from me", based on the numbers used in this paragraph, that's still three million pounds of lost Odyssey sales.
Even tweaking those numbers further to "support the case against" the commercial need for implementing VR headlook on foot, let's say it wasn't a third, but a quarter of respondents who said they play in VR, and 90% of them were happy with virtual flatscreen. If VR players represent a quarter of the two million customers, that gives us half a million "boxheads". From that half million, 10% of them are taking my stance and "voting with their wallet" regarding VR headlook on foot in Odyssey, that's fifty thousand customers, at £30 a copy, ergo we still represent one and a half million pounds of lost revenue.
Now, how expensive did we say it would be to add VR headlook when on foot? To my mind at least, even if some, or all of the potential technical hurdles of implementing VR headlook that have been raised in this thread need to be addressed and overcome, it's still unlikely that it would not be a worthwhile undertaking from the company's point of view.
The whole premise of your post is wrong. We do know it's possible, of course it's possible. They're not idiots. Nobody is even suggesting it might not be possible, certainly not me.
Asking them to just throw it in, when they clearly haven't planned for it, taking finite resource and existing time constraints - that's the problem.
Forgive me, but if I search back through your posts will I find one that actually THANKS fdev for doing what most of us VR players asked for? ie VR for flight/srv in EDO? Something you asked them to do I believe?
You know, like your signature?
So the "future" you referred to was ... a month before the alpha?
Hey mods, can you disable the swearing filter for me for a few moments? I need something fruity to go with "What the actual .."
Yep you will, but I'll save you hunting...
Lets take stock for a minute and say cheers for the good things that came this week...
Just a thought, and I'm aware I'm probably gonna get branded a white knight* for posting this; but there's obviously been a lot of behind the scenes work that's went into bringing us all the good things that came to the game this week, such as Galnet, Narrative, Odyssey VR, Station Interiors...
And that was also the first post to feature the current signature that you've quoted...
Better to start campaining before alpha, whcih is before beta, which is before launch, than a month before launch. And by throwing it in as a bonus feature in alpha, expectations would be low and or tolerances would be high, so if VR headlook alpha'd and flopped, it wouldn't be the publicity disaster that it could be if it flopped at launch.
Could we make a new forum game, see how close to the original meaning we can get without getting snagged by the swear filter, frack/fracked seems to sneak through.
My understanding was that the numbers on Steam showed that 30% of the Steam players were using VR. And I'd like to point out that those VR players that were satisfied with virtual flatscreen, are generally satisfied with it as a stop-gap until full VR headlook is implemented, not as and end solution.
I’m extremely happy at the level of VR implementation we’re getting in Odyssey - it is, after all, 100% more VR than what we were originally getting at launch
That said, if the OP’s suggestion of an experimental mode was included for Alpha I’d be even more chuffed. The big thing for me will be whether the camera suite will continue to work for ships/SRVs - on a gamepad and it’s basically FPS controls in the freecam mode, so if that’s allowed in VR why not let us try something similar in the actual running-around bit?