Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
What have you developed in VR that even remotely compares in scope or complexity to Sons of the Forest? Genuinely curious, because I’m a programmer with over a decade of experience, and I can confidently tell you that while VR is technically possible for Sons of the Forest—as it is for any game—it’s nowhere near as quick or easy as you’re posturing it to be.
Claiming it’s ‘not difficult’ reeks of either naivety or outright dishonesty. VR mods for games like Alien: Isolation or Resident Evil 2/3 Remakes weren’t done overnight. Those projects required extensive work, including reworking mechanics, optimizing performance, and redesigning UI, all of which are resource-intensive. And that’s for mods, not native VR integration! Lol.
Let’s get real: What VR projects have you delivered at this scale in under two years, let alone the one-year window you’re implying? How big was the team? The timeline? Because unless you can back up your claims with actual proof of delivering something of this caliber, I’m going to call you out as a phony.
You’re barking up the wrong tree trying to convince someone with first-hand development experience that you’re a VR expert when your arguments don’t hold up. It’s not okay to lie about your expertise to push a narrative. If you’re an actual developer, prove it—or stop pretending.
If a PC can run a VR game. It will run on a VR headset via Steam link.
It doesn't matter what it takes to run that game.
You're getting caught up in all the details about what it takes to develop a VR game.
I'm not talking about ANY OF THAT.
I'm simply saying that if a PC can run a VR game, it can stream that game to a headset.
Literally everything else you are saying is irrelevant and beside the point of the original post. You're so far off topic and lost in the details that you can't understand the VERY BASIC CONCEPT OF
"IF A PC CAN RUN A VR GAME, IT CAN STREAM THAT GAME TO A VR HEADSET.
Read it again.
Try hard to understand what that means in it's entirety.
If water is wet. Water will be wet.
If the color red is red. Then the color red is red.
I'm saying:
If the hardware is capable of running a VR game.
Then the game will run on that hardware.
You're saying I'm somehow wrong and it's honestly hilarious to read the walls of text you're trying to use to derail, over-complicate and attempt to make a simple concept like this seem like it's silly, or outrageous.
Get off your high horses, and learn to read.
Stop being so contrary. Not everything needs to be an argument.
If a PC can run a VR game. No matter how complex that game is, or how demanding that game is, the game will run.
Again I'm simply saying:
IF A PC CAN RUN THAT GAME. THE PC CAN RUN THAT GAME.
If it couldn't it wouldn't. But it can, because I just told you it can. So it does. Because If it couldn't, it wouldn't.
Everything else you're talking about falls under the context of THE ABILITY FOR A PC TO RUN THE VR GAME.
Which is a moot point to argue, since I've already defined the PC in question as being able to run the VR game.
You're all so caught up in your own off topic VR Development prattle that you can't even comprehend simple concepts like if something can, it does.
Let's get back on topic by saying that VR could be applied to Sons of the Forest immediately, and it would run on current hardware. Because there's no technical reason why it shouldn't or couldn't run just fine. It's not that SotF is too graphical or the engine isn't designed for VR development.
It's simply that the game is not in VR right now because it is not currently in VR right now.
That's the answer.
When will it be in VR?
When the developers decide to release it in VR.
You can close the thread now.
Then the game will run on that hardware."
No ♥♥♥♥ Sherlock
I will say it again...You can't make this crap up...
Right? Talk about a masterclass in oversimplification and deflection.
He's intentionally dodging the actual discussion by spinning this into an oversimplified tautology: ‘If a PC can run a VR game, it can run a VR game.’
Their whole 'argument' only works if they assume the game is already VR-compatible, which it isn’t. The development process is relevant? Oh, when it suits him. Okay... But, let's pretend we are all missing the point and that they didn't just Google and realize they're wrong and are now trying to deflect.
Dear Chill, you’re trying to dismiss these complexities as ‘off-topic prattle’ because they expose how hollow your argument really is. Your claim that VR could be ‘applied immediately’ to Sons of the Forest is laughably naive. Unity’s tools don’t just snap VR onto a game like a sticker. So no, you can’t just say, ‘If a PC can run a VR game, it’ll work.’ That’s a meaningless statement in the context of Sons of the Forest because the game isn’t in VR to begin with. You’re confusing the hardware’s ability to run VR with the effort required to make the game VR-ready. The thread shouldn’t be closed because you’ve declared yourself right; it should stay open to keep exposing how little you understand about what you’re trying to argue.
You're welcome to leave anytime you feel like you're done, though. But I think your reality check has bounced a while ago already.
Source: https://docs.unity3d.com/540/Documentation/Manual/VROverview.html
Enabling Unity VR support
To enable VR for your game builds and the editor, open the Player Settings (menu: Edit > Project Settings > Player). Select Other Settings and check the Virtual Reality Supported checkbox. Set this for each build target.
What happens when VR is enabled
When VR is enabled in Unity, a few things happen automatically:
Automatic rendering to a head-mounted display
All cameras in your scene are able to render directly to the head-mounted display (HMD). View and Projection matrices are automatically adjusted to account for head tracking, positional tracking and field of view.
It is possible to disable rendering to the HMD using the camera component’s stereoTargetEye property. Alternatively, you can set the camera to render to a render texture using the Target Texture property.
Using the stereoTargetEye property, you can also set the camera to only render a specific eye to the HMD. This can be useful for special effects such as a sniper scope or stereoscopic videos. To achieve this, add two cameras to the scene: one targeting the left eye, the other targeting the right eye. Set layer masks to tweak what is sent to each eye.
Automatic head-tracked input
Head tracking and the appropriate Field of View (FOV) is automatically applied to the camera if your device is head-mounted. You can manually set the FOV to a specific value, but you will not be able to set the Camera’s transform values directly. See the Understanding the Camera section below to learn more.
Head tracking and positional tracking are automatically applied, so that the position and orientation most closely matches the user’s position and orientation before the frame is rendered. This gives a good VR experience, and prevents the user from experiencing nausea.
The manual goes on in great detail. Detailing how Unity is very VR friendly.
It's really not a huge transition. We do it all the time.
The problem is, no one asked.
The topic of this thread is "When is VR going to be Applied ?"
The best answer to that question is: It will be applied, when it is applied.
Endnight is a perfectly capable studio that can transition this game into VR the very second they make the decision to do so. Just tick the checkbox, and watch the magic. You'll need to QA the process and there will be hiccups, but it's not like they need to write hundreds of thousands of lines of code or spend years building the engine from scratch to handle VR. It's all very straightforward, and with the lessons they learned with The Forest VR development, it all could be applied quite easily to Sons of the Forest. But realistically Endnight Games is a 4-person indie studio based in Vancouver, Canada. So of course it's gonna take them time if they make that decision.
I tried my best to explain to you that nothing else matters, because no one asked.
It's not oversimplification when it's to help you understand that everything you've typed here is off topic and meaningless in context to the topic of the discussion.
No one asked what it takes to make a VR game.
No one asked if the engine was compatible.
No one asked how difficult it would be to convert the game.
The only on-topic answers should be answering the question "When is VR going to be Applied ?" Everything else is worthless off-topic prattle that wastes the time of everyone who clicks this discussion topic in hopes of getting an answer to the question it asks.
No one is gonna click on this discussion with the intent of reading about what makes a game VR compatible, of how demanding it is on hardware, or anything else you've been on about.
You're just trolling with purely off-topic discussions made entirely of poorly constructed straw-man arguments. Then when I point this out, you start in with the ad-hominem attacks on me personally saying I'm out of touch with reality. When you can't even see how far off topic you've already derailed this discussion.
Why are you so insistent on having an argument you're clearly not equipped to engage in?
What do you gain from this?
You're obviously just trolling. Trying desperately to "win" an argument you created for yourself here.
Stop it. Get some help.
Why not answer the question that was asked instead?
"When is VR going to be Applied ?"
The answer is:
It will be applied when the developers decide to apply it.
If they ever decide to apply it.
Everything else is over-complication and adding additional details outside the scope of the question.
You're attempting to answer questions no one asked, and lashing out at anyone in reach.
The answers I've given really are as simple as they are, because the question is a simple question.
A machine that runs a vr game will run a vr game.
The game will be VR, when it is released in VR.
No other discussion is needed.
If that upsets you so much you need to construct and entire argument about it, and get mad at me over trying to help you understand what being on topic means, then I'm here for you.
We can get through this together. I'm just suggesting maybe we continue the discussion elsewhere so we can talk about it in a setting that is on-topic, instead of continuing to derail this discussion with a conversation that has nothing to do with the original question.
I really have no interest in participating in any further discussion here on any topic outside those which answer the question "When is VR going to be Applied ?"
If that means "You win" then here's your trophy.
You've earned it.
It's true that Unity makes it relatively straightforward to start adding VR support, but that's the tip of the iceberg. Adding VR support and initializing your XR Toolkit in Unity isn't even 1% of the workload yet that has to happen to make this game VR-ready.
You have to still redesign the UI, menu systems, interaction models, make camera adjustments, work on locomotion, positional tracking, optimize the assets due to higher processing requirements, reduce latency, redevelop combat, calibrate the physics for object interactions, adjust the FOV settings, configure the controller and gesture support, bug test the new 3D space XR dynamics, and that's just explicitly given a list. The tacit workload is significantly more.
In a traditional game, bugs and unexpected behavior are usually confined to flat-screen, predictable user inputs. In VR, things can get weird very quickly, especially when you add in the complexity of spatial interactions.
But, what do I know... My original answer to this question is to wait until the game releases to consoles first, like PS5, before you expect them to launch VR support. So, focusing on a stable console launch first is what I believe they are focusing on, first, to build a solid foundation. They will most likely then, later, focus on launching the VR version.
Anyone with real experience in VR knows this... because VR is still a very niche market even though it is growing, compared to other audiences. It's poised for further growth, but that's why developers like Endnight will most likely typically focus on getting the funds from the larger audience base (consoles) before launching VR.
It's less risk and provides financing relief as VR development is expensive. If you are really in VR development, you will know how expensive it still is even though that's improving, it has a long way to go still.
The obstinate oversimplification on 1% of things is called the Illusion of Explanatory Depth, and it's typical of keyboard warriors who think they can ALL CAPS their way around the holes in their arguments and the fallacies on which they base their assumptions.
Self-proclaimed graduates from a university called Google... Fml... Lol...
We are all still eagerly awaiting the evidence of VR projects you've pioneered, btw...
I just had to highlight this to be clear where all this BS started. "... without any extra requirements." And then the cherry on top, "VR controllers function the same as any other controller as far as Steam Link is concerned." You want us to believe you're a VR developer? Damn, and I'm Young Wheezy F Baby, on my way to ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Mars.
Yes. You still have to develop the game. It's what developers do. All day everyday.
You making it seem like it's some insurmountable task is why I have a hard time believing you're actually in the industry. You're like a supposed soccer player who's caught up in trying to explain to me how tough it is running around kicking a ball. No one who plays soccer even thinks about those details, their head is in the game.
We do what we do, everyday, because it's what we do.
Pretending like VR is something hugely outside the scope of the everyday mundane slog that is the task of developing a game is not something anyone who seriously works in the industry even talks about. You go to work, you solve the problems in front of you. Whatever they may be. If it's a VR project, you do what is necessary, and try to meet your deadlines. If it's not a VR project, you do what is necessary, and try to meet your deadlines.
It's the same either way, so the point is moot.
My personal experience has been that most people will jump at the chance to do something new, and work with something like VR in Unity. If for no other reason than to have a change of pace, or a new challenge. I don't know a single person outside of finance who cares about what the profits for any particular project is going to be. We care if it's fun to play, and how it will be received by the players. We want our hard work to be more than just the bottom line. Sure it's great to sell 10 million copies, but it's not because of the money.
As far as your idea about console ports. I struggle to understand how you can dismiss VR as being too complex, while also holding the idea of using something like the PS5 Player Network SDK as a comparison. If i had to choose between the two, I'd take the VR job.
(Have you seen the "Notable Improvements" to PSSR Upscaling in the Latest PS5 Pro SDK Update? Yeah. Good luck with that. You can borrow my drawing board.)
I don't have anything to prove to you, and for all I care you could think I'm the pope.
What I can tell you though is my steam profile is open and public. Packed with records of tens of thousands of hours of gameplay. Publicly displaying my yearly replays which are consistently in the top 3% of steam users. Which could possibly either be an indication of how entirely forever alone I am, or just maybe a clue that I just might work in the gaming industry. (Probably both to be fair)
It's not clear evidence of anything either way. So your call.
But, I can tell you this. I personally don't know any developer who hides themselves behind a level 0 steam account set to private, who makes claims like developing video games in VR is overly difficult and unlike anything else they do on a daily basis. Or that it takes some measure of extra effort outside the regular everyday challenge of standard game development to make a game in VR.
I don't know you. You could be Gabe Newell himself. I'm just pointing out what I can see.
Simply speaking.
Lmfao... Okay.
Okay, this isn't even a conversation... I literally can't make this ♥♥♥♥ up.
Ask for receipts and instead get weasel-words...
"Simply speaking." Objection, Your Honor: Lack of clarity...
"It's not clear evidence of anything either way." Objection, Your Honor: Ambiguity...
"Could possibly either be an indication." Objection, Your Honor: Hedging and speculation!
"I don't have anything to prove to you." Objection, Your Honor: Admission of avoidance!
"If I had to choose between the two." Objection, Your Honor: Hypothetical, speculative, and irrelevant!
"It's not because of the money." Objection, Your Honor: Statement made without sufficient proof of personal motivation, and is irrelevant.
"My personal experience has been." Objection, Your Honor: The witness is attempting to introduce anecdotal evidence without proper foundation or relevance.
"I don't know a single person outside of finance who cares." Objection, Your Honor: Speculation and personal knowledge limitation.
"Most people will jump at the chance." Objection, Your Honor: Lack of evidence and definitive reference to the class of "most people."
"It's what developers do. All day everyday." - Objection, Your Honor: Vagueness...
"I don't know you. You could be Gabe Newell himself." - Objection, Your Honor: Relevance?
With these objections likely sustained by anyone with half a brain, let this comment kindly steer the discussion back to relevance:
Nice to meet you, Young Wheezy.
Let me oversimplify some things for you.
Controllers go input/output.
Headset goes input/output.
Steam Link goes input/output.
Game engine goes input/output.
Steam VR API goes BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT and blocks input while it outputs a bunch of unhandled exception errors with a message in your vrserver.txt log file that says something like "Kill process UE4Editor (<pid>) because it didn't quit in time, which has you spending three days digging into it only to find out it's a Unity 4.11.1(2?) legacy issue and not anything you ever had the ability to fix but that's just fine because you weren't already behind on everything else you were working on at the time and now years later that same issue is rearing it's ugly head again in 2025 in Unity 5.5.1 and above and you're finding yourself spending more and more time laying wake at night wondering what the heck those guys over at UT are doing with their time...
But that's neither here nor there.
I suppose you're gonna lecture me on controller I/O and 3DOF vs 6DOF and bandwidth and all that cool stuff. Let me save you the time and remind you that I'm an overly simple kinda guy, and I'm just simply gonna say I/O is I/O is I/O and a NES controller works the same as the Meta Quest 3 controller and any attempt to saddle me with technical details on the minutia of how they work will be met with yet another oversimplification like I/O is I/O is I/O and one controller is as good as any other when you're writing the code to make it work.
I'd say VR is as easy to implement as any other implementation.
Which likely means we'll see a VR release right about the time they release the game in VR. If not a bit sooner, what with open beta testing being what it is these days.
Are you okay? Seriously. Reading that was very odd.
Are you mad bro? You seem mad for some reason.
I struck a nerve with the whole hiding behind a level 0 steam account thing didn't I?
I apologize. Truly.
I was simply pointing out how your anonymity makes everything you claim to be seem dubious at best.
I'm here for you. You could get to know me. We could be friends. I don't like it, but it seems you'd rather continue this personal assault against me.
Why?
I don't want that. I want to talk about VR development with a peer in the industry.
But you can see how that prospect grows more and more faint with each interaction we have. You don't HAVE to be "that guy" in this discussion.
It's a simple matter of choice.
Lol
"... we'll see a VR release right about the time they release the game in VR. If not a bit sooner, ..."
Like... I'm ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ dead, lololololololol...
Just saying... Lol... These updates add functionality and fixes for in-app purchases, but they don’t correspond to Unity Editor versions directly. Which makes your claim about it being a legacy issue totally invalid.
Lmao... So, I'm trying to wrap my head around why you're trying to convince everyone here that you are some kind of VR developer who wields authority? Misrepresenting technical knoweldge, that's something I find offensive...
Here's the changelog (https://docs.unity3d.com/Packages/com.unity.purchasing@4.11/changelog/CHANGELOG.html#470---2023-02-09), go and learn some respect for this work.
To clear this up once and for all: Unity Editor versions for Unity 4 capped at 4.7.x—anything beyond that, like '4.11.1,' refers to modular package versions, such as the Unity IAP package, which is a completely different beast. Those package updates have nothing to do with Unity Editor bugs or VR API quirks.
If the SteamVR API is going 'BRRRRRRRRT,' as you say, it's more likely tied to plugin compatibility or legacy Unreal Engine workflows (since, y'know, your log referenced UE4Editor). So, throwing Unity into the blame game feels... misplaced, at best.
It just all seems so phony, what you're saying.
That's some top level Sherlock Holmes level deductive reasoning right there.
Crem de la crem mon ami