Things that piss me off about people that want to make FPS games

It will be mass adoption, it will just take time.
Look at the car, it was only wealthy people that used it in the beggining

 

Only if you look at the ones that were handmade and were little more than experiments. The Benz Patent-Motorwagen which is considered to be the first production automobile had a cost of $150.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benz_Patent-Motorwagen

A basic carriage would have cost between $25 and $50. A basic horse would have been around the same price but then you have the associated costs for the horse and if you wanted more than just a basic horse (ie you wanted one that was trained to allow riding) you would have paid the same amount as that car above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_and_buggy
https://www.quora.com/How-much-did-it-cost-to-own-and-travel-with-a-horse-back-in-the-1850s-or-1860s

Once again the horse versus car analogy doesn't work for VR.

 

Car analogies in general don't really work for things aside from vehicles. Even the SomethingAwful forums had this figured back before 2010.

 

This device will be popular too.

 

Yesterday, you posted "I would say Valve Index is the first headset that is kind of ready for mass adoption." I literally copied and pasted that quote from one of your posts in this thread from yesterday. Several people including myself do not believe a thousand dollar VR kit that requires a high end gaming PC is "ready for mass adoption". It is perfectly fine as a niche luxury item, but that is the opposite of mass adoption.

Mass adoption in the car industry was not based on designing a capable car. It was based on finding a way to build cars inexpensive enough that the masses could afford them. The Ford Model T and the assembly line were innovative enough to bring cars to the masses. There is nothing in the Valve Index that brings it to the masses.

The only VR tech right now that really brings VR to the masses would be the Oculus Go and the Oculus Quest. The feature set of the Go is subpar compared to desktop solutions. The Quest is actually surprisingly close to some desktop VR experiences, though. In terms of innovation that leads to mass adoption, the Quest is actually strong contender.

 

You guys didnt thought 8 cores would be the norm either a year back.

I didnt mean the price tag I ment the tech.

 

Its an exponential trend, so its just a matter of time

 

There is also saturation point.
And there is also, what graph does not includes, how long each set been used for, other than just being "connected" to Steam, whatever it means?
And what head set is classified as? What is share market between each type of device.

Just link to the article from post above.
https://www.roadtovr.com/monthly-connected-vr-headsets-steam-1-million-milestone/

Also


https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

 

Also, monthly connected headsets could very likely mean that people who already have headsets are just using them more. That doesn't mean there has been a notable uptick in sales. They even admit their own projection is just drawing an exponential curve and not accounting for anything else.

 

And it continues to not be the norm. Two cores is ~25%, four cores is ~50%, and six cores is ~20%. That leaves only the remaining 5% which is where eight cores (as well as 12 and 16 cores) occupies.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

 

8 cores still isn't the norm. Most people don't have 8 core desktop PCs yet.

Mass adoption has to include price in the overall approach. With cars, the Ford Model T was not the best car or the first car. It was simply the first one that was massively affordable, and that is a key factor when evaluating innovations. The Valve Index is no Model T.

 

Study the Steam hardware stats:
https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/

The percentage of VR adoption is tiny, especially the number for the Valve Index. The Valve Index is currently at 0.05% according to Steam's own reporting. I expect that number will increase by the time Half Life Alyx launches, though.

 

For the record, I didn't actually call anyone "peasants", but was simply pointing out how you seem to view people who lack the physical, social, and economically elevated status you so often gauchely remind us that you possess.

 

It's a shame we don't know the total number of participants. Best case scenario Valve could have millions of monthly active users with the Valve Index, but the actual number is very likely only in the tens to hundreds of thousands.

https://www.pcgamer.com/steam-now-has-90-million-monthly-users/

 

Valve's public numbers will always, always lean in Valve's favour as much as they can get away with. It's like how Valve products always get put at the top of top sellers for a while even when they're not really outselling things.

 

Yeah, I really wish Valve was more transparent about the numbers. We all want Steam to succeed, so there is no good reason to hide important parts of the metrics from everybody.

One ironic thing I strongly suspect will happen is that over the next several months Steam's total number of VR users will dramatically increase. However, I actually think it will come from a sudden influx of Oculus Quest users. The Quest sales have been very impressive. I have heard the Quest is selling about ten times as fast as the Valve Index.

And just last week, Oculus released the Quest Link feature, which lets users connect their Quest to their PC over a USB3 cable and use it like a Rift to play PC VR titles. I suspect a lot of Quest users will connect their Quests using the Quest Link feature, and then that will show up as a PC VR device in Steam. So the irony in all of this is that I suspect the Quest Link feature will quickly increase the number of Steam VR devices in the stats, even though the Quest was originally envisioned as a mobile VR device.

 

6-8 is the norm for our games survey. VR game. Its soon norm for flatscreen too

 

Thats your words not mine. I see a place for these people. For now atleast. Automation will remove the need of service and low entry level jobs. So in the future we will see a new kind of class, those that are no longer needed.

 

The chart i linked includes all headsets connected to SteamVR in one month. Included VMR, Rift, etc Not just Index.

 

I really wanna get a VR desktop tbh. Sounds like fun.

 

With Index the resolution finally is so good that you can use the Windows dekstop in VR. But I only do it for smaller tasks. Classic monitors will be best for desktop for a long time to come

 

2020, year of Linux on the desktop! This time for sure!

 

Why are linux geeks very introvertish ?

Spoiler

Because they never get out of their shell Ba dum tssss.

 

I have read all posts now. You guys dont understand how statistics work. It doesnt really matter what the metric is. It could have been number of farts a player does while playing VR in a month.

If we look at one individual player it just means that he could have a bad enchilada that month. But if we look at the entire user base it can be used as a metric to see a VR trend, granted using a very strange metric.

So its irrelevant how they measure number of connected headsets, as long as they keep the metric the same over time its a trend indication. And in this case the trend is exponential.

 

What does "connected" mean? Does it count as "connected" when it gets used to view VR porn videos but not play VR games? If yes, that means the collective numbers of hours of vr games played per month could actually be regressing while the total "connects" are still exponentially increasing.

 

I guess it needs to be connected and also that SteamVR needs to be turned on. I dont think Steam query VR hardware outside of SteamVR.

"and headsets aren’t counted if they aren’t powered on and recognized by Steam at the moment that the data is collected."

 

omg, this explains everything

 

Haha, they were pretty affordable in the 80s

 

Look what we got here

 

We also see a exponential adoption rate to SteamVR as a whole. But its a bit suprising a 1000 USD system would be number one.

 

That's because it isn't number one. Valve products always get top billing in the charts. The same thing happened with that game they released you didn't know about.

 

The Valve Index is only the number one in that list because Valve manually placed it there in that list they directly control. The rumor I heard is the Valve Index sold about 40k units so far. So I highly doubt it outsold Star Wars.

 

I feel like the overall Steam wide hardware survey carries more weight that the hardware stats for just one niche indie title. The Steam wide stats paint a completely different picture of the current hardware being used by Steam gamers. Steam gamers have not embraced 6-8 cores yet.

 

I do not agree, whole of steam includes people that play angry bird clones etc. Though it would have been better to see the hardware stats for a major desktop title, I predict a bit more quad core for those games.

 

40k world wide. No way it's that low.
Edit: maybe and just maybe if you count whole systems, I know many including myself that only bought the headset

 

Lets do simple calculations, because some people really struggle here with statistics.
90 Million active users.
1% of VR devices = 900k devices at best.
but in fact for valve index VR Kit is 0.05% according to statistics, so = approx 45k.

 

Monthly users are not same as sold units though

 

Last time I check steam stats like half the users were running on integrated graphics.

Low end market is a huge under serviced market and a big part of the reason for a lot of success in pixel art indies and other low requirement games (imo).

I think people put too much stock in fancy graphics partially because of this - half the market knows that fancy screenshots mean they can't run the game.

 

How many people do you think would buy a $1,000 VR experience and then never use it?

 

I dont deal with guessing. What we know is that Index sold out on day 1.

 

Stop hating so much because you guys cant afford the tech, its here to stay. It will drop in price too.

 

Selling out is as simple as making an estimate of how many you will likely sell based off of previous devices. I'd be very surprised if they had more than a hundred thousand of them manufactured.

We'll stop telling you you're wrong the day you stop being a biased jerk. When you make a post about "the norm" only to be referring to a very specific subset you need to specify that is the case. Statistics are important but what's equally important is knowing the facts behind them and a game that was completely destroyed by it's competition is not "the norm".

 

Irony to see so much technophobia on a tech forum

 

Is that your defending case response, you brought up?
Or simply can not accept hard fact numbers, based on statistics, you really want to rely on?
To make your more happy, yes they are not the same. But even less will buy a game.
So for you number to be any sensible, you need further divide.

I don't hate facts. But is annoying when someone none stop represent small sample from the void and generalize it to whole lot.

 

That's funny when you assume that the only reason people don't have a Valve Index is because they cannot afford one. In my case, I bought two RTX 2080ti cards directly from Nvidia the day they announced them. I currently already own three VR systems, including the Rift, Quest, and Go. If I wanted a Valve Index, I would already have one.

 

Instead of buying overpriced gfx you could buy a proper headset

 

The pushback against your claims that VR will "go mainstream" has to do with the fact that the absolute vast majority of people with VR headsets aren't longterm engaged by them. That goes for all the people I know personally that own VR headsets, and all the youtubers/reviewers that I follow. They all think it's a neat gimmick to pull out when they have friends or relatives over, that haven't tried VR yet, but most of the time the headset is collecting dust. VR just didn't fulfill the hype promise it made. It's not more immersive than a propper screen game. I wanted VR to succeed really badly, because I dreamed of a super immersive VR shooter since the 90's, but it just doesn't hold up, the tech isn't there to "beat" a good ol' game on a flat screen experience. You are literally the only person that I know that is hyped about VR for gaming. Even friends of mine that were super euphoric in the beginning after buying into it no longer regularly use it (I believe her words were "Most impressive thing I've seen in years!", and now when I ask here if they're still as hyped for VR it's "No, we only dig it out when we have friends or family over that haven't tried it yet".). It's not the price, it's that neither the tech nor the content is good enough. The price just makes all issues worse.
I neither hope nor think VR as a class of devices, field of research and target of corporate investment is gonna go away entirely, but it just has no chance to become remotely as common as screen gaming. None! The horse vs car analogy is just bad. VR currently is to a screen game more like a 90's era CGI animation to a book. There's some novelty appeal, but it's still janky as fvck and on some level inherantly unimmersive.
And like the CGI animations VR is gonna get visually more impressive and the hardware to enjoy that content is gonna get cheaper, but the thought of books getting replaced by CGI animations is just as ludicrous as VR replacing screen gaming imho.


Now the tone you receive that pushback in... that has to do with your total lack of effort to have amicable conversations with people here. You don't just act like you don't give a flying fvck what people think of you, you act like you want to make sure to burn through every bit of good will and respect people had for you, and going by the reactions you're getting from people, I'd say you're pretty damn successful on that road...

 

Its mainly a problem with content. There is too little of it. It will change, for example valve have 3 triple a titles in the works were half life is one of them.

Feelings don't have a place in business.