Steam'i Yükleyin
giriş
|
dil
简体中文 (Basitleştirilmiş Çince)
繁體中文 (Geleneksel Çince)
日本語 (Japonca)
한국어 (Korece)
ไทย (Tayca)
Български (Bulgarca)
Čeština (Çekçe)
Dansk (Danca)
Deutsch (Almanca)
English (İngilizce)
Español - España (İspanyolca - İspanya)
Español - Latinoamérica (İspanyolca - Latin Amerika)
Ελληνικά (Yunanca)
Français (Fransızca)
Italiano (İtalyanca)
Bahasa Indonesia (Endonezce)
Magyar (Macarca)
Nederlands (Hollandaca)
Norsk (Norveççe)
Polski (Lehçe)
Português (Portekizce - Portekiz)
Português - Brasil (Portekizce - Brezilya)
Română (Rumence)
Русский (Rusça)
Suomi (Fince)
Svenska (İsveççe)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamca)
Українська (Ukraynaca)
Bir çeviri sorunu bildirin
Bu konu kilitlenmiştir. 
Bu uygulamanın bir geliştiricisi bir gönderiyi yukarıdaki konuya yanıt olarak işaretledi.
Tartışma Kuralları ve Yönergeleri
Bu iletiyi bildir
Ultimately it's up to the devs but they should just say they don't want to rather than blame it on the first games performace or the VR landscape. The first games VR implementation was very poor and the VR user base has doubled since then.
Beat Saber would like a word.
Alyx isn't the most popular VR title of all time, it's just the most AAA.
Beat Saber topped the charts for consecutive year AND you're completely forgetting Oculus store sales on both Rift and Quest devices.
a) Gatekeeping because they don't use VR, so it shouldn't be in the game for anyone else.
b) People saying they're unhappy there won't be a VR mode at all.
c) Going full "you live with your mom in a basement hur-dur" attack because someone doesn't agree with them
Rockfish have already stated, very clearly, that VR isn't in the game now and they haven't decided yet as to whether they will develop it for the game, but they may add it as a feature later
Now I'm not a massive fan of the "We decided not to do it now because its such a small audience" explanation, especially considering that TrackIR is/is going to be supported (and I bet the %age of ownership for TrackIR is 1/1000th of VR) but the mudslinging has to stop, you're only hurting your own argument.
I'm all for civil discourse, extolling virtues of VR or arguing why it shouldn't be in the game right now this second, but this has devolved in to a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ of armchair generals firing weak ass shots at each other. Even though I don't agree with how Michael responded I can understand his frustrations and I can tell you with almost absolute certainty now that the only reason this thread hasn't been locked by RockFish is because they don't want to be accused of trying to censor any discussion surrounding VR, because if you look around they've locked many other threads for far less.
If you want to keep the discussion around VR going, lets be civll, shall we?
As we live in a capitalist culture, economic returns will always be the focus - a focus over artistic concerns, a focus greater than other factors such as loyalty to the purchaser (as we have seen in the latest response from RFG here).
I think it is erroneous to think that *any* company with financial aims is 'our friend' who is lead by a desire to please us, or put artistic endeavour over financial returns. When a company (such as Sony) says 'for the player', it should be read as 'for the investor', or 'for the profit margin'.
If you accept the capitalist culture, then there really is no grounds for complaint, as companies are not your friend - you are just a potential revenue stream. I am not intending to turn this into a political debate, but it is just a fact of life, and the context we are in (as demonstrated quiet clearly in RFG own responses here).
In this context, RFG's original statement makes sense. It is foolish of anyone here to expect them to implement VR because they have an inner drive to 'be nice' to us. It is clear that they will only implement VR *only* when they can see substantial profits for this investment.
My attitude after the first post was 'fair enough' - I have many more VR games to play (including ES1) - sure, I am disappointed that ES2 is not getting VR - and yes, I will not be buying it - not out of spite, but I did try the demo and just could not connect with the game on a flat screen; with vastly reduced immersion.
However, I (like others here) am disappointed by RFG latest disparaging shot at a section of its own user base, and has turned my 'well, I still have ES1' into something more soured.
It should be expected that a overwhelming majority of a user-base is not a coder with inside experience of the financial aspects of launching a game into an increasingly toxic community.
In my view, this should not lead to such a succinct put-down of people who have been supportive and appreciative of that companies previous work.
I am not a developer, yet (like many) I have dabbled with (in my case) the Unreal engine, and therefor know that the barrier to VR is not as high at it was in the technology's infancy... And yes, we have all seen lone coders make a good job of injecting VR into existing flat games. Finally, many of us are in communication with Indie developers, and therefore have an insight into game development We *may* have an opinion that *may* be more informed than RFG assume.
Additionally, as many have pointed out - we simply do not have any reliable data regarding VR attachment. To keep bringing up Steam user data makes people sound more ridiculous than they realise. [the great proportion of VR users will comprise of people using the Quest - people who think that steam is something that comes out of a kettle. A proportion of these will be connecting wirelessly to PC to play games - i.e. 'not connected'. Additionally, not everyone connects to the Steam platform to play games - most of the games I play are on Viveport, some on Epic, and one (alas) on EA. How many people eat ice-cream - well lets take a vertical slice of how many people eat Ben and Jerry at one particular time].
Yet, even with this negate view of it's own user-base. The problem should not be laid at the door of this particular developer. Sadly, PCVR has been left on a island at the moment. It is clear that FB's dominance is detrimental to the evolution of VR - as the lifeblood is being transfused from more complex (i.e. more fulfilling) gaming, into a mobile app level of gaming. This should concern us all (yes, even those who do not own a VR HMD at the moment). This is great for developers producing the thin gruel of mobile VR gaming, as their profits are going through the roof. At the same time, this lack of investment in PCVR bleeds out the potential profit for any company working in this space. Again, another fact for us to face.
Hopefully, this is a transitory problem. Anyone who has experienced VR (rather than flirted with it, or stated that they have experience; when they clearly have not) *knows* that VR is *a* future of gaming, and that it must be a matter of time. This 'matter of time' is directly related to some company coming in and directly competing against the financial behemoth of FB (who will eventually abandon mobile VR, as they have abandoned PCVR - in favour of AR; which is their end-game). At the moment, I do not see anyone on the horizon prepared to invest in *both* hardware and the software infrastructure. This is worrying. This is *not* VR is dead.
Please dont do these hardcore texts. I would rather preferr you to be having a VR transitory text of any kind to us.
...also, not entirely sure of the meaning of 'I would rather preferr you to be having a VR transitory text of any kind to us.'
Yep.
And all the sapps that got tossed over with the rift s all jumped on quest like it was some sort of saviour. I just don't get why people are so tribalist when it comes to facebook product.
After buying a Rift S and getting annoyed with the drivers bugging out every 5 minutes I'm glad I tried a Quest 2 and realised it was a better PCVR headset than a Rift S.
Facebook sucks, but I'm glad I was able to afford to get in to VR because of it. There's no way I could justify paying 1k+ for a headset from HP, HTC or Valve when game developers hold the opinion of "you will be out of business or weakened your position in your core market position that you have to go through a fire sale before you run out of cash" when considering making VR content.
When I look through Steam's VR tag and see that besides high-profile VR releases like Alyx, Superhot, Saints and Sinners etc. that a large amount of VR games are low-effort hot garbage with 15 minutes worth of content, I see why anyone would look at the mobile market for VR instead, where low-effort hot garbage is usually a lot more widely accepted.
It means when you hear things like the above, where an actually good developer of a previously VR-enabled game say they aren't going to continue to actually provide content so all we are left with is the hot garbage, it gets a little frustrating. People who are in to PC VR cry out for content like this, but being told something which sounds like "you're demographic might not be profitable enough for us to bother" understandable annoys some people.
If people are lamenting that Facebook are the only ones offering affordable VR and how it is steering it in the wrong direction, then they should be advocating for a viable alternative to compete, not that Facebook shouldn't be making VR at all. I would have bought any other VR headset if it was comparable to a Quest 2 for the same or slightly more just because I hate Facebook as a company, but I'm not paying over double the price for a Vive Cosmos, which I've heard barely functions as a VR headset anyway.
What were we talking about again? Think I went off on a tangent for a moment there.
Well yes, exactly that - although that is not the responsibility of people here (the consumer). Competition leads to innovation and choice. Monopolies lead to something far less healthy.
A competing VR HMD needs two essential qualities - affordability and the dual ability to be stand-alone / connected (preferably wirelessly) to a PC.
Equally important, there needs to be quality software to drive a competing ecosystem (as you point out).
The big problem is - I simply do not see where this is coming from.
Totally agree.
Surely the same metric applies to: 'Don't like what people are saying - don't read it.'
?
Beat saber is popular, no doubt about that but Half-Life Alyx had way more players at launch than Beat Saber did. 10 times higher.
During the release and even before the Index was sold out for months.
https://steamdb.info/app/620980/graphs/
https://steamdb.info/app/546560/graphs/
These two links show quite a bit of stats of those two games. Including player numbers.
As it is, I see 2 options:
(1) Wait for VR support from the developer (the primary risk there being something else can come along in the meantime, and by the time RFG feels VR is worth their effort, nobody may care. As an example, Eve: Valkyrie, aside from not having the Star Wars brand behind, was Star Wars: Squadrons, in some significant ways, long before Squadrons came out).
I don't see a choice but to wait until 2022, unless RFG decides to Kickstart a VR effort.
(2) Hope somebody creates an unofficial patch, which has happened in the past. The downside to this is whenever the game gets updated, the VR mod could be broken. This happened on a previous flatscreen game, GTFO. It had a wonderful VR mod that seamlessly let you play the game alongside your non-VR counterparts. Unfortunately, in one of the updates by the developers, the VR mod got severely crippled. The VR modder even tried to reach out to the developers to get help, but no go.
In this case, I can't really blame the GTFO developers, as it is their game, despite for a while GTFO was the best unofficial VR game around for myself. Since GTFO lost unofficial VR support, I have stopped playing the game. The game itself is good all on its own, but VR added a 'special sauce' that makes going back to the flatscreen version very difficult.