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

Yet every single post you make about it leaves us with the impression that you're investing in virtual reality because of the feelings you have for it and not the actual business potential of the technology.

 

That's passion to my product. Not the same thing. I don't feel anything towards you guys, except zombieape but thats because he is missusing his moderator position.

 

No, I don't agree that it's "passion". What you're showing us is far more than just that. You're fanboying over the technology to the point that it's completely overriding any business sense you may have.

 

You do, you even said so yourself just a few posts back.

You also engage in willfully ignoring data that you don't like, so you've got a massive bias in your perspective.

That's perfectly fine for a passion project. The mixed messaging is a different story.

If someone was genuinely aiming for mainstream VR success they wouldn't be targeting the high-end of an already enthusiast niche. Debating whether 40k units is accurate for Index headsets is completely missing the point when Oculus Go passed 2 million headsets earlier in the year, and Quest recently passed 400k while also boasting Oculus' highest retention rates. If you're thirsty you go to the watering hole.

 

Oh, and how can I forget PlayStation VR, which is also well into the millions of units sold and is specifically targeting gamers?

 

Which is fine and I am happy for you. By all means, please be successful.

But in fact, way how you convey about it, is more like obsession. Which again is fine. But not from business perspective, as if you want to be in my opinion.

All falls in the way, how you trying introduce your "business product" to us. They way how you talk about VR as superiority. And way how referencing higher earning group of people, or people who are starting learning, completely discriminating rest, like if not exists. Not individuals however, but collectively.

It appears, you completely missing the fact, most people don't earn, or can not afford some random expensive tech. Which again is fine, if that is your target audience. But don't try act, like if everyone can, or will buy some random toys for $1k, or $0.5k. Who want to buy will buy.

The results of that, you had chance to experience while ago, on external forum in one of your post, when tried ask us, to help you defend. Things can backfire in least expected form and time.

You not introducing some consulting service anymore to unaware clients, in some random remote place, which is willing to pay any price. You target potential customers, which are conscious and can use search tools, to dig out for more information.

EDIT:
Dear @AndersMalmgren. One thing is beyond my thinking, if considering business with a game. Why you didn't make dedicated thread. Or even use signature, to link thread / website with your game? WIP, if you ask me.

 

I just don't like the type of games that are on VR headsets. I once played a Star Wars VR game with a gun and a pad you could actually run in at a studio in Hollywood, until that's a setup anyone can buy I wont touch VR. Many gamers just can't justify the purchase, it's not that they can't afford it (though some can't).

 

The quest uses a android which you can get around by a link cable connecting it to a PC. But then you need to deal with the subpar in side out tracking. Which is a big problem in our game were your hands often are not seen by the headset cameras for example when throwing grenades and similar.

Makes no sense to focus on subpar hardware first that limits your vision you have set out. We can focus on that when we leave early access and we are happy with the game for our target audience which is high end desktop VR.

 

No you are just being neophobia. But it's nothing uncommon.

 

To the contrary, it makes no sense from a business perspective to heavily invest in a vision where you've established that audiences do not readily have access to the required equipment.*

Furthermore, in this industry the majority of successful games specifically target mid-range or low-end hardware. I'm not even going to list examples because any game released on a console fits the bill.

*Well... unless you've in a position such as Valve's, and have a number of overlapping interests that an individual project can build towards, market power to back it, and plenty of income to sustain you through commercial failure if required.

 

You don't need that, you only need as small room as 1.5x1.5 meters. You move about with joystick/touchpad for larger distances. For more precise movements like lean around corners etc you do it were you stand

 

Don't give out stupid business advices, it's as dangerous as legal advice.

When desktop VR takes off we will have a mature product ready for mass adoption.

 

Reading this whole thread made by head hurt

 

Passion is a feeling, you goober.

 

Is it a time machine or a crystall ball you've got?

 

Assuming that was something I actually cared to do. My point is that I could easily buy a Valve Index and chose not to, so your blanket generalization about "hating so much because you guys cant afford the tech" is inaccurate.

 

Everything you said is technically true, but probably not relevant in terms of mass adoption. The imperfect inside out tracking in the Quest means there are no base stations (towers) to set up, and that is a huge win in terms of ease of use for many users.

From a mass adoption point of view, the Quest nails it. The Quest features are good enough, the price is low enough, and the device is very easy to use.

What this probably means is that the Quest will achieve mass adoption, and the Quest feature set will likely become the so called standard for many VR titles. That will also mean that certain games will thrive and others won't. Games that let the player grab an object will thrive. Games that require the player to carefully and precisely thread a needle while looking away from their hands will not thrive. Developers can use this prediction to decide what types of games to design for that mass market.

 

Neophobia is the fear of anything new. Some of the people who disagree with your opinion already own VR hardware, so they are not scared to try VR. Maybe that was the wrong name to call other game developers.

 

I disagree with his opinions and I currently have a headset resting on my head.

 

Its like "Goldwin's law" but with calling someone "-ist" or "-phobe" instead of Hitler

 

it's predictable behavior. You can observe in many other animals too. at some point the things forget why they started the fight. all they know is they are fighting, and of course in fighting the only goal is to win. You run out of ammo, you start slinging rocks. If it went on long enough, you'd see the teeth and nails and then it be really good entertainment.

what I want is for some adult to put murg and anders in a potato sack together and force them to make a game. heh. that would make great tv.

 

I hope inside out tracking will get better. For example if each controller has it too so they can track anywhere. Because like you say the base station is keeping people back. I would say getting rid of the bas stations is more important than the tethered cable actually.

But right now we are stuck with lighthouse tech if we want premium experience.

 

Yeah, the lighthouse style solution is currently still the premium route. The inside out tracking is actually pretty good, though. In fact, it exceeded my expectations. The only edge case where inside out tracking stumbles is when the user looks away from their hands. For example, if it is a pilot simulation where a user grabs a virtual joystick to fly a plane or spaceship, inside out tracking stumbles when the player looks over their shoulder to see something outside of the cockpit.

For VR experiences where the user is looking toward their hands, the inside out tracking is basically on par with lighthouse style solutions. For example, Beat Saber plays the same on native Quest with inside out tracking as it does with the Rift using lighthouse style tracking.

 

It works bad in our game, for example you don't need to look down to grab a fresh mag, or when you throw a grenade the hand is not visible all the time, etc, etc. But yeah, some titles it can work ok in.

 

1.1 millions view in 2 days, VR is trending like never befor

 

It's not uncommon for VR videos to get more that many views, that's how it's been for ages. Hell, just look up Beat Saber gameplay videos. Your selection bias is showing.

 

Only one entry in the following list is related to VR, and it's the announcement trailer for the game.

https://www.youtube.com/feed/trending

Asking YouTube to show what's trending in gaming is only one entry too, but it's some oddball thing about facing fears.

 

Yeah, the commoners still like to watch kids unbox toys. Humanity

Edit: we got a much better name for the general population in Swedish, it's called Pöbel, it's like a mob but without the pitchforks

 

Problem with VR is that it isn't new actually. There were attempts at making this kind of equipment back in 90's (I think?).

And they failed for the same reason current VR doesn't have mass popularity (or mass adoption).
Because its clunky, has wires and production cost.

All of those things aren't that easy to solve. Well maybe last one is, but then quality of product will suffer.

That's why most of people are sceptical about VR. Its a HW gimmick for a problem that doesn't exist.

I've tried HTC and Oculus btw, and they both suffering from the above.
That's why I dislike current gen VR. If HW advances though, I might change my opinion.
But that's just not likely in somewhere 10 - 20 years or so.

 

No 90's VR failed because hardware and software was available at the time.

I do not agree that HTC or Rift was gimmick hardware, it was gen 1 hardware for early adopters. But the Valve Index is better in every way. Though we need about twice the resultion and foveated rendering until image quality hit sweet spot. And then we need to get rid of those base stations. I do not think the cable is a hinder for mass adoption.

 

Since we sit on VR subject, anyone knows what is current typical durability of VR devices?
I have seen people loving throwing game pads in past, due to their temper, or simply because they have fallen out of shelf / chair / table etc., of clumsiness, of being mishandled. But game pads are quite durable anyway, with little to brake in them, so they most cases work on.
But would be my skepticism in right place, if I would say, that I am worry about actually VR durability, for average consumer? No mechanical parts, but mini screens insides and any related electronics.

Also, are there any potential eye / head / neck strains, form long wearing such devices?
I have never wear VR for longer than an hour, so unable to personally conclude.

 

I know that HTC Vive have had problems with sweat. Also the Vive Wands have had some issues. Havent heard about Rift problems as much, probably better built.
There are some mechanical parts on VR headsets, most often related to IDP and FOV/distance to eyes settings.

Personally I havent had any problems (I own Rift, Vive and Index with dev kit Knuckles controllers), they most often outlive their lifespan from what I have heard on reddit etc.

 

Pure anecdotal evidence here, but we have had about a dozen or so headsets here for a few years. Over the course of those years (with daily use for multiple hours) we've had a lot of accidental drops, sliding off desks, thrown controllers and the like. To my knowledge only one has 'broken', a Rift CV1. And that was still mostly functional (I think it was a loose connection to the screens, we had colour banding across both eyes). So at least anecdotally, they've been very durable.

On the health side, employers in my country are required to pay for yearly eye tests for employees who use a visual display unit (i.e. a monitor, so virtually everyone). I don't have access to everyones' test results, but a strawpoll of the people sitting near me says they haven't had any degradation. I've personally had a bit of neck strain from repeat testing a game mechanic that had a lot of head movement in one section, but that was 8+ hours doing something that would take the players a few minutes.

I'd imagine the health detriment from sitting/bad posture for long periods would have a more significant impact than the use of the headset itself.

 

Thank you for input guys.
Interesting findings.

There are some mechanical parts on VR headsets, most often related to IDP and FOV/distance to eyes settings.

I completely overlooked this aspect.

 

The real health impact is mental. Sitting indoors all day playing games is one thing, I can't imagine doing so with complete sensory blocking headset is making matters any better.

I think AR that gets people outdoors and doing things together is probably a better way to take games. Democracies won't last another generation if too many people are locked in their house with headset on, seeking "immersive experience." Current generation is already seriously socially impaired thanks to social media and cell phones.

 

Totaly agree, VR is getting lazy gamers to move around. That can't be a bad thing.

 

I don't think VR is any worse on that part, than typical PC gamer.
If someone gets locked in the room playing, programming, or watching cats, is same mental health issue.

Sure, AR can be more social, like playing hot seats next to each other. But still, also can be played alone.

 

That's just neophobia. VR will not make people sicker. But sure, people should get out more, physical outdoor activities is very important in all stages of life from kids to elders.

 

It's one more layer of disconnection from reality. You get accustomed to that, it makes you one more layer of S***ty person.

 

Anders, if you don't want to consider opinion of others, just ignore it. I can just as easily say your reaction to my opinion is weak, fragile, soft little rich boy ego defending your passion hobby.

 

No difference from sitting by a computer screen. If anything VR is more social. Check out rec room and other social games. Heck even in our COMBAT game the players socialsze. Just look at these two new players learning to arm the bomb for the first time in our game

And our game has zero design thoughts around socialization. Yoy get it for free in VR

 

I'm genuinely curious about this, Anders.

From what I can gather, you think that anyone who can't afford a relatively expensive piece of hardware is below you. You call people "commoners". That's a totally understandable position if you are offering something that caters to the "elite". There are plenty of high end companies that don't concern themselves with the so-called commoners, and instead only make products for the people who can afford them.

So far, if I understand correctly, that idea of beling "elite" is where you position yourself and your company. I can respect that. You know the audience you want to have, and you couldn't care less about the "common" gamers who don't appreciate/can't afford higher quality/prices. You understand that your audience will be much smaller, but more "elite".

Where I am thrown off is that your game costs $24.99. I'm confused. If your audience is small, yet your game costs so little, where is the financial benefit to you and your company? A company like McLaren makes cars that only a small percentage of people can own, yet they charge accordingly. You can't purchase a P1 for $35,000 (roughly the price for a consumer level car these days in the US). It's an elite car at an elite price (whether you like McLarens or not - I do). The price of the car reflects the balance between a much lower number of users and the financial benefit to the company.

You talk about the games business, but you also seem to totally disparage "common" game players. The vast majority of game players are "common" game players. I don't like it anymore than a lot of other people, but hey, that's the reality of business. The vast majority of movie goers enjoy Marvel movies. For me, though, I just don't get it. I can't get into them. But I understand that they get made because that's where the money is. I collect Silver and Bronze Age comic books, and I love Marvel, but I still don't like the movies. So I understand your ideas about the mainstream. I do.

But that's my confusion with your posts. You want to have an elite audience. By its very nature, "elite" implies "small". You openly disparage "common" users. But what are you offering to the "elite" audience that's above and beyond, and why are you charging "common" prices for something with such a limited audience? What is your long term strategy with your company? Just like with the popularity of Marvel movies, I don't get it. Am I just misunderstanding your posts? What am I missing?

 

I think the missing key, @Ony , is honesty. Anders is not in the game business. He is a hobbyist. If he was earning living from games, he'd be broke and have to get serious, not play pretend. This is why all the people here who do actually earn their bread from games constantly arguing against him.

Anders is in the exact same boat as me. Has bills taken care of by other means, and makes games for fun (with hopes to make it more serious but no necessity to). The difference is, Anders is not honest about that.

And how easy he could have his viewpoint without making it a thing to piss everybody off. How easy to just be like, "yeah maybe VR goes big, maybe not. Who can say? As for me, I love it and want to keep making games for the platform." So simple.

 

Yes, I think you may be right. When he mentions "business" I assume he is talking about owning and running a game development business, not just working for someone else and enjoying a game development hobby. @AndersMalmgren , is this correct? That would explain it, actually. I've been in this particular business for a long time, so when people start talking about "the business" as if they understand it, I guess I take them at their word.

 

I'm not a hobbyist, the companies I own make alot of money but not in gaming.

I'm just a vivid gamer that believe in true gaming which is VR (granted my own opinion) and I just want to make the best shooter for that medium.

At the same time I'm a alt-right activist in a socialist country. And it's hard to stop being that even those this is the totally wrong forum for that.

And with alt right I do not mean nazi, nazis are left, I'm alt right In a socialist country, I belive in each person's own right to choose. Not possible in socialist Sweden because of the power of the commoners.

So that's that, sorry that it spills over here

 

Ok, that makes sense. I was talking with my wife recently about an article we read regarding Swedes and the concept of Jantelagen. It mentioned how some younger, successful Swedes are becoming more and more opposed to it, and they want to talk about their wealth. Since the concept seems to be related mostly to socialist ideals, with you being alt-right your posts make more sense now. Thanks for clarifying where you're coming from.

 

I've seen a couple boneworks videos in the past, they were fun to watch. Don't think it's a sound business decision to extrapolate anything from those viewstats...

Are you going to try to get polygon and kotaku to write rage-bait articles about you, so that alt-right gaming channels will report about it and you get get some free marketing to other alt-right elitists with high-end VR rigs in their mancaves?

Maybe you should call those commoners that you despise so much... commies. x]

 

Yeah, in Sweden in the past that have been a no go. Jante is a curse. F*** that S***, pardon my French

 

BTW, I have even mentioned the law of jante in this very thread