Pacific Drive VR? A note to the devs

[Code-Snake]

Just throwing this out there for the Devs. This game would be an amazing concept for a VR game, be it a sequel to this current title or added VR support, being able to drive and repair your car while out exploring your world in VR. I think would be amazing for VR users as we don’t really have anything on the market like this.

[Ottomic]

I don't think the devs should waste any time with VR implementation, but you can use mods to play it if that's your thing.

https://github.com/praydog/UEVR

[UCEY]

Originally posted by Ottomic:

I don't think the devs should waste any time with VR implementation, but you can use mods to play it if that's your thing.

https://github.com/praydog/UEVR

They wouldn't be wasting their time. The game is practically built for VR and would scratch an itch for a lot of people

[ShockedHearts]

VR playerbase for this game is probably about 20 ppl. you have to have a VR headset, have the game, have a computer that can run the game well enough IN VR and the desire to play a high motion game like this in VR to begin with.

Id rather them focus on a DLC or new game or more content for this, than vr personally.

[UCEY]

Originally posted by ShockedHearts:

VR playerbase for this game is probably about 20 ppl. you have to have a VR headset, have the game, have a computer that can run the game well enough IN VR and the desire to play a high motion game like this in VR to begin with.

Id rather them focus on a DLC or new game or more content for this, than vr personally.

This is the most braindead take against VR I've ever seen.

[ShockedHearts]

Originally posted by Doxhot:

Originally posted by ShockedHearts:

VR playerbase for this game is probably about 20 ppl. you have to have a VR headset, have the game, have a computer that can run the game well enough IN VR and the desire to play a high motion game like this in VR to begin with.

Id rather them focus on a DLC or new game or more content for this, than vr personally.

This is the most braindead take against VR I've ever seen.

how so? care to explain?

game has massively low demand for VR, there are many requirements to even play it in VR that majority of gamers do not have, and ontop of it all, the game has a ton of motion and visual effects that will negatively impact many vr players.

there is little to no good reason for developers to add it aside from appeasing the 1%

sorry but thems the breaks.

and I think most players would agree more content is a lot more desirable than vr compatability

[Lionheartwolf]

That logic just doesn't track. You can call VR niche, but it still exists, and those who do have it (myself included) have a strong interest for it.

VR or any peripheral in general will always be a minority, but that doesnt mean games should avoid it. The benefit here is that people without VR can still play it, and those who might not have had an interest in it might now that it appeals to their preferences in VR. I'm not sure why you felt the current player following represents the entire pool of potential players. People who don't own this game, but might try it if it was VR capable can potentially also exist.

Either way, no matter how niche VR is, your numbers can only increase, even if ideally that increase is the 1% that you feel represents the entire VR community.

I'd like to further add that its cheaper, and less resource intensive for a small studio to consider options like this on games that are doing well than spend money and resources on a new project, and assuming a new risk.

No Man's Sky is an example of this. (And they had one of, if not the worst start possible.) They knew improving their game would not decrease the number of active followers. If Hello Games opted to just distance themselves from NMS and try a new game the risks and costs would have been far greater than the risks and costs in just making improvements to their current game, and that is even in the WORST case scenario. Even if VR is niche it still was less of a risk, even on a failed game. It's not going to be a risk on a more accepted game (at least at its initial launch) It's not rare to see smaller studios spend more money on their successes than spent elsewhere. Pacific Drive is not an exception.

The best argument you could have is that a more generalized DLC would have a greater impact, but I don't feel anybody is raising the potential argument that VR people would not also like DLC, and it's entirely possible to have both. The only problem VR provides in this discussion is from those who cannot benefit from it, and that is not a studio problem. That is a personal issue. Those who can benefit from the technology should not be held back because there are those who are unwilling or unable to utilize it, no matter how much of a majority they are.

[Neon]

Let's take one of the most popular games ever made. Skyrim.

People still playing Skyrim today as I write this. 30,000
People still playing Skyrim VR today as I write this. 300.

Some quick math says .01%

Pacific Drive has 2,500 players currently.
A VR Update would benefit 25 people.

Let's also bear in mind that Pacific Drive is not likely to have the longevity that Skyrim has, as great as it is. So that number will decrease significantly in the coming months.

.01% of your player base is not who you spend time and resources pleasing. I'm sorry bud. I have a VR setup and I would love it too, but you gotta face facts. It's a niche.

[UCEY]

Originally posted by Neon:

Let's take one of the most popular games ever made. Skyrim.

People still playing Skyrim today as I write this. 30,000
People still playing Skyrim VR today as I write this. 300.

Some quick math says .01%

Pacific Drive has 2,500 players currently.
A VR Update would benefit 25 people.

Let's also bear in mind that Pacific Drive is not likely to have the longevity that Skyrim has, as great as it is. So that number will decrease significantly in the coming months.

.01% of your player base is not who you spend time and resources pleasing. I'm sorry bud. I have a VR setup and I would love it too, but you gotta face facts. It's a niche.

"It only benefits a few people" is still the weakest anti-vr argument I've seen in years.

[Neon]

Either it's difficult to do and because of the very small playerbase for it, it's not worth the time and dev resources that are better spent in other updates or DLC's.

Or it's easy to do and you should just mod it in yourself.

Can't have it both ways.

[0Dd1]

Originally posted by Neon:

Let's take one of the most popular games ever made. Skyrim.

People still playing Skyrim today as I write this. 30,000
People still playing Skyrim VR today as I write this. 300.

Some quick math says .01%

Pacific Drive has 2,500 players currently.
A VR Update would benefit 25 people.

Let's also bear in mind that Pacific Drive is not likely to have the longevity that Skyrim has, as great as it is. So that number will decrease significantly in the coming months.

.01% of your player base is not who you spend time and resources pleasing. I'm sorry bud. I have a VR setup and I would love it too, but you gotta face facts. It's a niche.

Can't compare as Skyrim doesn't translate well to VR.

There are very successful VR games on the other hand. Quest systems and games sell like hot cake.
With the very simple graphics it would certainly also run very well on the Quest.

But I also don't think this game would be great in VR, as it would introduce heavy simulation sickness to many players. And that's the main and maybe only point why a VR version wouldn't make much sense.

[ShockedHearts]

Originally posted by Lionheartwolf:

That logic just doesn't track. You can call VR niche, but it still exists, and those who do have it (myself included) have a strong interest for it.

VR or any peripheral in general will always be a minority, but that doesnt mean games should avoid it. The benefit here is that people without VR can still play it, and those who might not have had an interest in it might now that it appeals to their preferences in VR. I'm not sure why you felt the current player following represents the entire pool of potential players. People who don't own this game, but might try it if it was VR capable can potentially also exist.

Either way, no matter how niche VR is, your numbers can only increase, even if ideally that increase is the 1% that you feel represents the entire VR community.

I'd like to further add that its cheaper, and less resource intensive for a small studio to consider options like this on games that are doing well than spend money and resources on a new project, and assuming a new risk.

No Man's Sky is an example of this. (And they had one of, if not the worst start possible.) They knew improving their game would not decrease the number of active followers. If Hello Games opted to just distance themselves from NMS and try a new game the risks and costs would have been far greater than the risks and costs in just making improvements to their current game, and that is even in the WORST case scenario. Even if VR is niche it still was less of a risk, even on a failed game. It's not going to be a risk on a more accepted game (at least at its initial launch) It's not rare to see smaller studios spend more money on their successes than spent elsewhere. Pacific Drive is not an exception.

The best argument you could have is that a more generalized DLC would have a greater impact, but I don't feel anybody is raising the potential argument that VR people would not also like DLC, and it's entirely possible to have both. The only problem VR provides in this discussion is from those who cannot benefit from it, and that is not a studio problem. That is a personal issue. Those who can benefit from the technology should not be held back because there are those who are unwilling or unable to utilize it, no matter how much of a majority they are.

well all im gonna say is you completely misunderstand and put words in my mouth.

not once did I ever say VR is niche.

I said the people who would buy this game for VR or desire VR for this game is probably less than 1% of the playerbase.

massive difference my dude.

now otherwise I can only speak for myself here, but if I could have a VR version, or a content DLC. I would triple down on more content. VR means nothing to me compared to having more of something great, more story, more gameplay, more items, are all things that ADD to the game.

VR doesnt add anything, its just viewing the game through a headset. thats it. my point being that more content or DLC would benefit the game and playerbase tenfold in comparison to a VR version.

also fun fact. I didnt once say they shouldnt do it. I just said Id prefer DLC or more content first.

so maybe chill on the extreme overly defensive responses.

[Zeroes]

Originally posted by ShockedHearts:

VR doesnt add anything, its just viewing the game through a headset. thats it. my point being that more content or DLC would benefit the game and playerbase tenfold in comparison to a VR version.

You've clearly never played VR if this is your take.

[ShockedHearts]

Originally posted by Sev:

Originally posted by ShockedHearts:

VR doesnt add anything, its just viewing the game through a headset. thats it. my point being that more content or DLC would benefit the game and playerbase tenfold in comparison to a VR version.

You've clearly never played VR if this is your take.

what an ignorant and assumptious response. very defensive people here. also imagine completely ignoring my entire point to point out an irrelavent thing in order to put down my argument

[ShockedHearts]

Originally posted by zen:

I hope the devs take a nice long break and soak in some much deserved money before taking another whack at this game making business. It's clear to me they had a lot of different ideas as the game was made and left some cruft in the code which indicate as much they had toyed with different concepts of gameplay. The worst thing they could do right now is immediately try to reinvent the wheel after they launched. At best they'd burn out and worst case scenario they make the game unplayable.

I do have to lol at the concept that VR is just a monitor on your head, though. I mean, I would totally think that too if I had never seen what depth of field that VR provides which no monitor can ever match. Being able to quickly use your eyes to determine how far away things are is pretty stunning to experience for the first time. It's hard to not come to expect that all games should be played this way as opposed to relying on set focal distances which feel unnatural and jarring in comparison.

again I never said that, my statement was saying it doesnt ADD to the game, just that it changes the game.

i think most people would want more of something great, not the same thing but played differently, atleast in a general sense.

[CMDRZOD]

+1 for VR support