Unity CEO On VR/AR: ‘In My Mind We Haven’t Seen A Consumer Launch Yet’

https://uploadvr.com/unity-ceo-on-vr-ar-in-my-mind-we-havent-seen-a-consumer-launch-yet/

Dont know if I agree, sure consumer VR has a long way togo before its accesible to everyone, but saying it hasnt launch yet is stretching it

 

He's correct that it hasn't launched according to his requirements.

The Oculus Go is affordable but it's limited to only 3DOF and has the same performance and battery limitations as a mobile phone. The HTC Vive and Oculus Rift have good features but they lose the affordability in the process both because the headset is expensive and because you need a good computer to drive it ideally.

 

It's not launched because the offerings to market have been low yield so far - a bit like when Sony does a new projector that costs 10k - it's about giving more expensive tech to a nich market. These products are never advertised in mainstream press you see? they're not "launched".

Same for VR, you see it in enthusiast press (like the projectors) but you don't have every store on every corner stock a large range of VR stuff with advertising everywhere, every day. That's a real launch and it costs as much as the R&D is right now, probably more so it doesn't make sense to "launch" in terms of putting it in front of 3 billion people.

5 million or so total, is not quite there yet (estimated active VR users is way less).

And let's be honest... the software is nowhere near ready or mature for serious uptake yet. I mean VR enabled operating systems would have to be default way before anyone with clout will spend billions on a true launch.

Even Unity lacks the tools for it. You know this. You have to work most of the time researching and developing VR boilerplate.

 

Hm, the PSVR would be the closest you can get to an actual consumer kit. However, he's right in the sense that the PSVR has (to be honest) S*** tracking compared to the Rift or Vive.

Don't get me wrong, I love the PSVR and had amazing experiences (playing RE7 in VR... hoo boy...), but the headset comes with last-gen Move controllers and camera. So as a whole, the kit does have a certain beta feeling to it.

Can't wait for the PSVR v2.0, though. Hopefully that will have an actual tracking solution instead of one that's been cobbled from spare parts.

 

Problem will have to wait a while until we can get affordable tracking, though the Rift is getting close to the PSVR with much better tracking, though Vive is a bit better still.

I think we need to get headsets were placing the base stations isnt as crucial, I think that stops many from buying. For example using magnetic fields like the STEM tracker means you can place the base station on the floor

 

Rift has become a lot more affordable though. I cant wait for next gen and see what it brings.

 

Btw, with that logic you could also say that electric cars have not yet been launched to consumers. It doesn't matter in what volumes a product have sold, if its available to consumers its launched.

 

VR needs more dedicated AAA titles I think. I feel like it’s mostly low budget mobile quality content. Steve Jobs was right, it’s about the software, not the hardware. Don’t sell VR headstets... with no desirable content they’re useless to most people.

Maybe when averaging video cards can easily handle VR at steady high framerate, plus improvement here and there. Maybe some console will ship with VR in the future.

 

It's really strange since the biggest PC headset is sponsored by Valve, you thought they would atlests have one title out. Though personally I don't think AAA studios have what it takes to make a good VR title, we have Doom, fallout 4 and Skyrim as examples. Very rudamentary VR mechanics in all 3. Though good VR mechinic tale time to develop and the ROI is not there yet. It's a vicious cycle, one can wonder how new tech ever get a foothold. Like when 3D accelerators, why did the companies take a leap back then? I guess one difference is that they still supported software rendering and could still target the vast majority that was on software rendering.

 

I'm not sure we'll ever see VR leave become something common and not a niche. I think there's a limit to how cheap some things can get depending on their hardware. Good VR is composed of a headset with two high res screens, two controllers with motion sensors and head\body tracking. Add that to the fact you need a PC that can render 90 frames per second and it kind of gets hard to get under 300-400$ without making the experience a lot worse.
And the thing is... VR equipment can only be used for VR. It's not something essential that every consumer needs like a mouse and a keyboard. This greatly limits the market potential of VR.

 

Personally I would rather see high-resolution, foveated enabled, high FOV and high quality optics headsets than lower prices

 

I'll count VR as officially consumer launched when apple releases iReality.

 

Less VR for four times the money

 

PSVR is by far the most successful VR device with a captive paying audience and reliable fixed hardware with Sony TRCs preventing abuse. That actually leads to a much better and consistent experience for the everyday (majority) gamers and families.

That's why it's so successful. Vive, Rift etc all remain enthusiast while there is no policing. People can buy a VR headset and even buy the steam recommended hardware and still get a S***ty experience even if the VR headset tech is AMAZING.

Right now that's why Sony wins regardless of tech, because it's controlled tightly and the rules are not optional. This is why rules are a good thing if you want to make something work on big scales.

MS are also playing the long game with captive audiences, all of this stuff isn't a true launch but groundwork, preparation. The software and the hardware are two parts that need to be mature then finally you need a way to control the quality because any Unity developer can ruin the best hardware and software, and flood the market with garbage.

Your hardware and software isn't the most important factor for VR at the moment, which is why there cannot be no true launch yet. Unless someone wants to risk billions on the next betamax.

 

I agree that VR has not succeeded yet as a consumer product. VR is still stuck in the tech enthusiast early adopter stage. Current VR headsets are too expensive and too clunky for most people to consider. Even if somebody was considering buying a VR headset, they would often also need to consider upgrading their PC in order to run VR properly. For example, if somebody currently has a GTX 970 or GTX 1060, they are going to be a bit unsure about buying a VR headset, even though their PC runs most non-VR games well enough at 1080p. For many of those people, VR would be the only reason they would consider upgrading their video card and that is not a good enough reason to justify the cost.

The lack of a must have VR game is also holding things back. One of the main driving forces behind the adoption of 3D video cards was Quake 2. Prior to Quake 2, there were a few games with optional 3D card support. With Quake 2, there was a requirement of a 3D video card, and it was a game everybody wanted to play at the time. There is no equivalent VR-only must have title to force adoption at this time. Most VR-only games are just tech demos.

For VR to really take off with consumers, a must have game would need to be released VR-only. For example, if Half-Life 3 was released as VR-only, then maybe consumers would jump on it.

 

Quake 2 had software mode

 

Even if VR was as effortless as putting on sunglasses and it cost $25, I don't think that is the main issue.

The main issue is that consumers like me say, "so what? Regular screens are fine. "

Whoever is trying to market VR needs to find a way to convince consumers that it really delivers something worthwhile.

 

With that attitude you cant have played any real VR.

edit: And thats also a big problem, like Morpheus said, Unfortunately, no one can be told what the Matrix is....

 

If you want to sell people the matrix, you got to find a way. This is what I am talking about.

Side-related : that Amazon Alexa thing. How is that selling? Is that a flop? Seems in the same boat as VR. A novelty item that maybe has some potential to enlighten my life, but I haven't heard a single convincing reason to even look it up further.

 

I remember Quake II requiring a 3D card at launch time and then the software mode being patched in later.

 

Has it occurred to you that most humans don't... in fact like VR more than regular (even mobile) games? it's a sensory overload. A lot of people love the experience but prefer to keep it at that: just an experience because real life is actually more important and more fun for most people in the world. It's how we're made.

For example as I type this, I can see out into my garden, see the cat messing about, I peeped at my coffee cup. I honestly can't imagine any reason why I would want a headset on. I don't want to be overwhelmed by content that isn't real life.

And, if I'm gaming, say I'm playing Cyberpunk? I would prefer that on a normal screen, not VR, so I can not be strained or pressured, or overwhelmed, as gaming for me, is much less important than what is going on around me. That's true for most people, and VR cannot and should not solve that.

It's also why it's not going to be dominant ever, until you get to matrix like fidelity at low cost, and possibly that would not happen visually, but neurologically.

 

Sure, some inexpensive goggles can deliver a 3D view using a regular screen, but a 3D view is only one part of what VR offers. With VR, the player can look around by turning their head.

But having said that, I definitely understand why many people would content with inexpensive goggles and a regular screen. One is price. The other is that regular screens look better than VR. VR looks like a grainy screen door. And a regular screen plays better with games players are already familiar with. For most FPS games, I would strongly prefer mouse looking and a regular screen instead of anything VR based. (I say that as somebody who does own VR hardware)

 

This is all well beyond my original point. My point is simply that -- whatever VR is right now -- it has not been marketed in a way to raise my interest enough to even check it out.

Granted, I'm one dude, and pretty salty at that. But that's my opinion. Failure of VR to gain traction is as much a marketing issue as a product quality issue.

That's all I had to say about this subject as I don't know anything more about it.

 

According to analyst estimates the Amazon Echo sold 20 million units in the first two years (2016 and 2017).

https://voicebot.ai/2017/10/27/bezos-says-20-million-amazon-alexa-devices-sold/

Google's own equivalent sold about 6.7 million units as of Jan 2018 (release date was Nov 2016).

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/5/16855982/google-home-sales-figures-holidays-2017

Just to put these into perspective the Nintendo Switch sold 20 million units as of June 2018 (release date was Mar 2017).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch

 

No, software was there day one, can't speak for opengl but I think it was there from day one too

 

It was.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quake_II#Development

 

Granted I have always loved the games I'm playing even before VR i always walked around and look at the details and really let the atmosphere sink in. When wicked 3D released the first stereoscopic glasses for 3DFX I was one of the first to play half life 1 and quake 2 with them, I even bought a extra voodoo vard to be able to play at high framerates. Later I even bought the 1000 USD z800 headset from emagin and when the Sony HMZ came out in 2012 I quickly jumped aboard.

I guess most people don't care about the game as much as I do and just want to spend some quick minutes and don't care much about the world that is rendered before them.

 

This is a bad way to think. Will lead to arguments and fighting.

Try to understand the other persons perspective without bashing it against your own. You like immersive gaming, so do I. But there is degrees. I don't want to block out the outside world. I can get a full immersive experience from the screen. It's what is happening in my mind -- blocking out everything else isn't necessary.

 

I don't know if it's possible to sell it without actually testing it. Maybe mixed reality is one way

 

Without a HMD you will not get the full immersion, it's just not possible. But it does not need to be the FOV VR delivers, I was pretty happy with the Sony HMD at only 45 degrees FOV. And I still use it to play none VR titles with Nvidia stereo vision

 

I can sit and meditate and be fully immersed in the meditation.

 

Gaming is a material sport, and a TN screen is a cheap wine, a Eizo IPS is a fine wine and a VR HMD is a vintage

 

You are talking to a guy who spent years living in Italy, carefully trying all of the finest wines and the cheapest wines as well, and who left with the impression that it's all "much ado over nothing." More pretensions in the tasters mind than any objective value.

So, yeah, you've got to attack from a different angle. Convince the consumer that they are MAJORLY missing out by not getting involved with VR -- rather than telling them they aren't staying up to date with the highest luxury novelties.

 

I don't drink much Italien myself, french wines mostly but you must have missed the vintage barolos etc if you cant taste a difference or the sommelier did a bad matching, a fine vintage is not better than the food it's matched too.

I agree but I don't know if it's possible to show them without letting them try. VR looks lame on a screen. For example this video was recorded by one of our beta testers, I was in that match, it was complete mayhem but it does not translate into 2D

 

I don't know enough about the product or VR in general, but from what I've seen I'd consider marketing it from an angle of "this is the most realistic, skill-based approach to gun fighting ever. This is like legit military training without leaving the comfort of your living room." Spend time explaining how natural and fluid the hand controls are, how they work, etc.

"Once you try this, mouse and keyboard will drive you insane. This is just so much more fluid and natural."

"If you like heart-pounding gameplay, this is it. Nothing else can compare. Make sure you keep a towel nearby, because your palms are going to get sweaty."

"The breadth of natural, intuitive actions you can do in VR alone takes shooter-gameplay to unparalleled heights. If you can think of doing it, you can do it. No restrictions."

Etc etc. See, I am convincing myself. Though I don't know if any of that is true or not.

So far, what few review type videos I've seen of VR could be summed up as "meh." There needs to be more videos made more prominent on the search engines with people metaphorically grabbing consumer by the shoulders, shaking them, and shouting "this S*** is insane!!!! How have you not tried it?!?"

and do that in a way that is curated to many different audience types.

 

Good points, we try to do that actually, like the first clip in our trailer showing how you interact with your gear, dont know how well its translates to screen though.

 

I don't know that the game is strong enough visually to just outright convince a person that they need to stop what they are doing, buy a VR headset, and get the game. Nothing against the game, this is just due to the fact that 200 million dollar AAA games have drastically raised gamer expectations.

So the key things I wonder about VR are still left untouched. I feel like a video with a lively youtuber excitedly but thoroughly showcasing how the controls work and why it's so much better (doing this in game in real time) would be more likely something that would convince me to give it all a shot.

Like, imagine a guy sitting there and just happily showing how awesome it is to perform a magazine change. "It's jjust like real life. Awesome! Watch, it works perfectly. It's different for each weapon type. Isn't this S*** insane?!? You've got to try this. It's so much fun to perform a smooth mag change when an enemy is running up on you. So intense!"

 

Thats also a problem with VR, becasue of 90 fps min at all times you cant use realtiem lights etc. Only game I know how that looks remotely similar to the desktop version is Doom (2016). Once you are inside VR it does not matter, but its hader to sell on screen

 

Exactly. So you got to play to your strengths. Don't make videos that try the same approach as others who can do it better.

It's like the army ant. I just learned, watching "The Hunt" on netflix, that the army ant is the worlds most successful hunter. Who knew? But the army ant has a very unique way of hunting. If the army ant tried to hunt like a tiger, or like a spider, or like anything else, it would be extinct overnight. The army ant uses it's unique strengths, and despite it's pitiful size and sensory organs, it crushes everything in it's path. Very inspiring, that such a small and dumb creature has developed a few powerful ways to become the only hunter in the world with 100% success rating.

So, don't puff the chest and say, "I will stand with the tigers." Be the army ant.

 

Well aren't you special.

 

Oculus and Vive scared people away and damaged the industry with their initial cost which was unnecessary high, and unnecessarily increased hardware requirements.

Windows "Mixed Reality" came to fix all that. It solved the affordability issue not only because itself cost $400-450 but because it forced everyone to decrease their inflated prices. You can use it even on your old GTX 960-880 card. It's compatible with Steam VR, and that is huge thing. They require less space and less wires too and function even with a mouse. Especially the second generation headsets from Samsung, and upcoming Acer, OJO 500 are as good as the Vive and close to Pro with 120Hz support and increased resolution.

Sadly the loud marketing of Oculus and Vive and the negative publicity VR got because of them, have smothered any attempt to bring out these benefits to consumers.

But I feel he is right. VR is doing great in the industry and LB stuff, but when it comes to consumers it is.. virtually dead. Pun intended. I have yet to meet any serious amount of consumers who own or say they want to a VR headset. Most of the people I have heard owning a headset are either developers, or investors or from agencies etc.

What he says about not having a proper consumer launch meant that there was not a launch with consumers in mind. a device that costs that much only to show you things is not consumer friendly. It is not a mobile phone, or a tablet. It's just a viewer. It should be lighter, autonomous, and easier to use. Oculus Go and Vive Focus are steps towards the right direction but still under-powered. Oh well. Until then I will stick to making content for arcades and organizations with the occasional VR toy for fun.

 

That's a good one.

 

It's not at all a problem of them not having what it takes. It's that they can't justify it at this point in time. Where VR falls short is that you need to build the entire game around it to have a good experience. Anything else just hasn't worked.

For a AAA studio to do that though there needs to be good market saturation of the technology as otherwise it's only going to lead to them losing money and if they start losing money on it it will only discourage studios in general from trying it.

 

Well what can I say, accurate trackers and optics are not cheap, its not a gaming monitor we are talking about. So yeah, the early adopters will pay the price. Nothing unusual or new. Doesnt change the fact it still did launch to consumers.

 

Maybe you are right im not so sure. For example, Doom port could have included artificial locomotion, but it did not, only teleport. Things like that shows the AAA companies does not understand VR. Its too early to say if the AAA companies will embrace VR in the right way though.

Looking at ultra realistic FPS games on desktop its an indie exclusive business. If you want to embrace VR you need to leave some of that casual game attitude behind, regardless of genre.

 

On the contrary I would argue that it shows they understand the limitations. Teleporting results in far less motion sickness than artificial locomotion. That said I would love to have the option to use either and just let the individual choose the one they can handle.

 

Not true at all, it's a very common missbelif though. 95 procent adept in a few hours

 

AAA studios aren't a bunch of nincompoops who make lame casual games because they aren't "tough" enough to make real games. They are the best people in the industry making the smart decisions to yield the most profit. When VR is viable enough, AAA will take that market over and crush the competition.

 

Also, IMO Vive effed it up. Rift had been pushing VR hype for a long time, perhaps too long. HTC could have stepped in much sooner, or much later. But that's not how you steal a slice of the pie, so they released the Vive in a few months before Oculus Rift.
Didn't even have the decency of releasing a cheap knock-off, they made a very competitive product, arguably better than rift.

That did the birth of VR no favors. Now the few content makers are divided, because the Vive had the great idea that you should be able to play standing. So now VR, a tiny niche market... further limited by being expensive... is divided in 2 headsets... and 2 types of gameplay.

 

Who the F*** would play a game for a few hours if it gives them motion sickness?