VR Devs Approaching FPS Games In Very Different Ways

[kcarbotte]

First person shooters seem like they would be perfect for VR, but they present some difficult issues to overcome. We saw three different approaches to solve the problem for HTC Vive games.

VR Devs Approaching FPS Games In Very Different Ways : Read more

 

[zambutu]

I have no problem with a vr fps where you can move around like any other game

 

[kcarbotte]

I have no problem with a vr fps where you can move around like any other game

You may be the exception, but that is certainly not the case for most people. That kind of locomotion was quickly found to be very unsettling for most people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGVrvBszHhc&ab_channel=BrandonJLa

 

[irish_adam]

Surely then the solution is head tracking and a game pad where you only use one analog stick to move forward, back and strafe while head tracking lets you look around, you could have it so if your head moves past a certain point it also moves your character round.

Because actually moving around all the time seems a bit shit and will mean you only use your vr headset for vr only games and who's going to be making awesome high budget games for such a small amount of users? even if you did get big budget games you'll always be stuck in your little movable box and no matter how you come up with tricks, you'll never get the real free to roam games and maps we get these days

 

[zambutu]

I have no problem with a vr fps where you can move around like any other game

You may be the exception, but that is certainly not the case for most people. That kind of locomotion was quickly found to be very unsettling for most people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGVrvBszHhc&ab_channel=BrandonJLa

that would be disappointing as the whole point of 90fps and low persistence is to minimise simulator sickness. I played hl2 and both episodes through on dk1 and half way on dk2. I had no issues, but I can see how others would. However, I don't understand why cv1 cant solve the motion issues for most others, unless running around in vr while standing still in real life is psychologically disturbing.

hover junkers creates a 1:1 movement experience, but fast motion is fast motion...its still there

 

[zambutu]

Surely then the solution is head tracking and a game pad where you only use one analog stick to move forward, back and strafe while head tracking lets you look around, you could have it so if your head moves past a certain point it also moves your character round.

Because actually moving around all the time seems a bit shit and will mean you only use your vr headset for vr only games and who's going to be making awesome high budget games for such a small amount of users? even if you did get big budget games you'll always be stuck in your little movable box and no matter how you come up with tricks, you'll never get the real free to roam games and maps we get these days

I have no problem with a vr fps where you can move around like any other game

You may be the exception, but that is certainly not the case for most people. That kind of locomotion was quickly found to be very unsettling for most people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGVrvBszHhc&ab_channel=BrandonJLa

that would be disappointing as the whole point of 90fps and low persistence is to minimise simulator sickness. I played hl2 and both episodes through on dk1 and half way on dk2. I had no issues, but I can see how others would. However, I don't understand why cv1 cant solve the motion issues for most others, unless running around in vr while standing still in real life is psychologically disturbing.

hover junkers creates a 1:1 movement experience, but fast motion is fast motion...its still there

sounds fine to me, question is, do the vive controllers have a game pad like movement ability? or are they for object manipulation only

 

[kcarbotte]

Surely then the solution is head tracking and a game pad where you only use one analog stick to move forward, back and strafe while head tracking lets you look around, you could have it so if your head moves past a certain point it also moves your character round.

Because actually moving around all the time seems a bit shit and will mean you only use your vr headset for vr only games and who's going to be making awesome high budget games for such a small amount of users? even if you did get big budget games you'll always be stuck in your little movable box and no matter how you come up with tricks, you'll never get the real free to roam games and maps we get these days

You're right, you won't get the free roam high-budget games, at least not for a while.
If you wan't a controller that moves you around, look to Oculus Rift, but you likely won't see any FPS games using that setup.
Certain game will work great with a game pad, others will need hand tracking, Vive games will often use a space you move around in.

VR games aren't going to replace standard games in the short term. They will mostly be very different experiences, developed solely for VR.

 

[zambutu]

Surely then the solution is head tracking and a game pad where you only use one analog stick to move forward, back and strafe while head tracking lets you look around, you could have it so if your head moves past a certain point it also moves your character round.

Because actually moving around all the time seems a bit shit and will mean you only use your vr headset for vr only games and who's going to be making awesome high budget games for such a small amount of users? even if you did get big budget games you'll always be stuck in your little movable box and no matter how you come up with tricks, you'll never get the real free to roam games and maps we get these days

You're right, you won't get the free roam high-budget games, at least not for a while.
If you wan't a controller that moves you around, look to Oculus Rift, but you likely won't see any FPS games using that setup.
Certain game will work great with a game pad, others will need hand tracking, Vive games will often use a space you move around in.

VR games aren't going to replace standard games in the short term. They will mostly be very different experiences, developed solely for VR.

This makes me happy to sit and wait for the vr dust to settle before investing in one of these systems. the DK2 will be supported by many developers for at least a while.

I just feel that a 1440p version of dk2 released last year as a cv1 (for 400$) would have been the perfect transition into the high end kits they're bring out this year. Get the headset into more hands for the price, hard working developers could be selling their games already and Oculus could take their time perfecting their premium unit and releasing the touch controllers at the same time as "cv2."

I dunno, maybe wasn't feasible, but feels like a missed opportunity to me.

 

[LuxZg]

+1 for waiting for the dust to settle. Still too many ifs and whats, still too much $$$ and too little content, still a huge fragmentation of hardware vs content, etc.

Let them figure it all out and than we can buy into this, let early adopters iron it out 😛

As for the FPS, to have the freedom, gameplay and storyline of todays first person games (be it shooters, adventures or role playing games) in VR - we'll need to wait a long while. Otherwise you have gameplay regression just to have it in VR. It would be like using VR to read a book, and than having to suffer through bad ones after you "got used to" (or got spoiled) by the masterpieces of the past. Simply... Needs refining before much $$$ is spent by masses.

 

[Durandul]

Surely then the solution is head tracking and a game pad where you only use one analog stick to move forward, back and strafe while head tracking lets you look around, you could have it so if your head moves past a certain point it also moves your character round.

Because actually moving around all the time seems a bit shit and will mean you only use your vr headset for vr only games and who's going to be making awesome high budget games for such a small amount of users? even if you did get big budget games you'll always be stuck in your little movable box and no matter how you come up with tricks, you'll never get the real free to roam games and maps we get these days

With my DK1, the games that did that were worse actually even worse. Having keyholing in VR made me almost instantly sick while playing Half-Life 2. That was the only time I actually got a headache using the Rift.

I think we'll see a few solutions emerge, but I'm guessing something like Arma's solution with TrackIR will catch on for games that stick with a more traditional FPS format.

 

[thor220]

Man, if only we knew how to intercept nerve signals and covert them into digital data. That'd really solve so many issues.

 

[shark0311]

I have no problem with a vr fps where you can move around like any other game

I agree, they just need to slow it down to mimic real world movements. You move a lot slower and a lot less in combat than you would think that you do.

 

[shark0311]

I have no problem with a vr fps where you can move around like any other game

I agree, they just need to slow it down to mimic real world movements. You move a lot slower and a lot less in combat than you would think that you do.

 

[kcarbotte]

Surely then the solution is head tracking and a game pad where you only use one analog stick to move forward, back and strafe while head tracking lets you look around, you could have it so if your head moves past a certain point it also moves your character round.

Because actually moving around all the time seems a bit shit and will mean you only use your vr headset for vr only games and who's going to be making awesome high budget games for such a small amount of users? even if you did get big budget games you'll always be stuck in your little movable box and no matter how you come up with tricks, you'll never get the real free to roam games and maps we get these days

You're right, you won't get the free roam high-budget games, at least not for a while.
If you wan't a controller that moves you around, look to Oculus Rift, but you likely won't see any FPS games using that setup.
Certain game will work great with a game pad, others will need hand tracking, Vive games will often use a space you move around in.

VR games aren't going to replace standard games in the short term. They will mostly be very different experiences, developed solely for VR.

This makes me happy to sit and wait for the vr dust to settle before investing in one of these systems. the DK2 will be supported by many developers for at least a while.

I just feel that a 1440p version of dk2 released last year as a cv1 (for 400$) would have been the perfect transition into the high end kits they're bring out this year. Get the headset into more hands for the price, hard working developers could be selling their games already and Oculus could take their time perfecting their premium unit and releasing the touch controllers at the same time as "cv2."

I dunno, maybe wasn't feasible, but feels like a missed opportunity to me.

the retail release doesn't even have a 1440p screen. Those don't exist with 90Hs refresh rates, so that alone make your idea infeasable.
Also, the DK2 was nowhere near ready for primetime. If they released that as a final product, even with a higher resolution screen it would have fallen flat on its face.

Game develepers couldn't have released thier games already because they weren't ready. Software is one of the main reasons the hardware wasn't released at the tail end of last year. Games weren't ready yet. they needed more work.

What you see coming out in the coming months is the best that current technology can deliver at a price that consumers can actually afford if they want to. The better stuff will come.

Also, there's no need for Touch to come with the Rift. Not all experiences will need it, and most of the early ones don't take advantage of it. If people are complaining about Xbox One controllers, that would have set them right off. Not to mention it will raise the price of the kit by a quite a bit. I expect to see them priced at $200 or more just for the Touch controllers.

 

[kcarbotte]

+1 for waiting for the dust to settle. Still too many ifs and whats, still too much $$$ and too little content, still a huge fragmentation of hardware vs content, etc.

Let them figure it all out and than we can buy into this, let early adopters iron it out 😛

As for the FPS, to have the freedom, gameplay and storyline of todays first person games (be it shooters, adventures or role playing games) in VR - we'll need to wait a long while. Otherwise you have gameplay regression just to have it in VR. It would be like using VR to read a book, and than having to suffer through bad ones after you "got used to" (or got spoiled) by the masterpieces of the past. Simply... Needs refining before much $$$ is spent by masses.

VR is a brand new experience for the vast majority of people. A full scale game at the same level we're used to for consoles and PC would be overwhelming for nearly everyone.
VR games are about having fun in the moment. Developers are figuring out what works and what doesn't (and have been for 3 years now) and building on what they find does work. The result is that the games I've had a chance to test are all very compelling, even when they offer limited depth compared to a typical AAA title.

Waiting for the dust to settle is never a bad idea. Early adopters always pay more, and often have to deal with issues, but don't write off the medium just because you expect more. Try out a Vive when you get a chance and you'll understand what I mean.

 

[kcarbotte]

I have no problem with a vr fps where you can move around like any other game

I agree, they just need to slow it down to mimic real world movements. You move a lot slower and a lot less in combat than you would think that you do.

a game built for VR will always be far superior.
No develpers, aside from those working on racing and space simulator games, are even considering porting games that weren't made from the ground up for VR to VR. It doesn't work well for most people.

"just need to slow your movements"
This is inherently a sacrifice that you have to make to play the game. That's why no one is supporting this way of playing.
Movement with a controller doesn't work well because it breaks the presence of being there, and it messes with your brain. It give a lot of people motion sickness.

 

[shark0311]

I have no problem with a vr fps where you can move around like any other game

I agree, they just need to slow it down to mimic real world movements. You move a lot slower and a lot less in combat than you would think that you do.

a game built for VR will always be far superior.
No develpers, aside from those working on racing and space simulator games, are even considering porting games that weren't made from the ground up for VR to VR. It doesn't work well for most people.

"just need to slow your movements"
This is inherently a sacrifice that you have to make to play the game. That's why no one is supporting this way of playing.
Movement with a controller doesn't work well because it breaks the presence of being there, and it messes with your brain. It give a lot of people motion sickness.

I envision FPS in VR to be more like The Division than COD. Move to cover and shoot.

 

[kcarbotte]

I have no problem with a vr fps where you can move around like any other game

I agree, they just need to slow it down to mimic real world movements. You move a lot slower and a lot less in combat than you would think that you do.

a game built for VR will always be far superior.
No develpers, aside from those working on racing and space simulator games, are even considering porting games that weren't made from the ground up for VR to VR. It doesn't work well for most people.

"just need to slow your movements"
This is inherently a sacrifice that you have to make to play the game. That's why no one is supporting this way of playing.
Movement with a controller doesn't work well because it breaks the presence of being there, and it messes with your brain. It give a lot of people motion sickness.

I envision FPS in VR to be more like The Division than COD. Move to cover and shoot.

I haven't played the Division yet, but definitely more cover and shoot movement, less traveling around.

 

[shark0311]

I have no problem with a vr fps where you can move around like any other game

I agree, they just need to slow it down to mimic real world movements. You move a lot slower and a lot less in combat than you would think that you do.

a game built for VR will always be far superior.
No develpers, aside from those working on racing and space simulator games, are even considering porting games that weren't made from the ground up for VR to VR. It doesn't work well for most people.

"just need to slow your movements"
This is inherently a sacrifice that you have to make to play the game. That's why no one is supporting this way of playing.
Movement with a controller doesn't work well because it breaks the presence of being there, and it messes with your brain. It give a lot of people motion sickness.

I envision FPS in VR to be more like The Division than COD. Move to cover and shoot.

 

[zambutu]

Surely then the solution is head tracking and a game pad where you only use one analog stick to move forward, back and strafe while head tracking lets you look around, you could have it so if your head moves past a certain point it also moves your character round.

Because actually moving around all the time seems a bit shit and will mean you only use your vr headset for vr only games and who's going to be making awesome high budget games for such a small amount of users? even if you did get big budget games you'll always be stuck in your little movable box and no matter how you come up with tricks, you'll never get the real free to roam games and maps we get these days

You're right, you won't get the free roam high-budget games, at least not for a while.
If you wan't a controller that moves you around, look to Oculus Rift, but you likely won't see any FPS games using that setup.
Certain game will work great with a game pad, others will need hand tracking, Vive games will often use a space you move around in.

VR games aren't going to replace standard games in the short term. They will mostly be very different experiences, developed solely for VR.

This makes me happy to sit and wait for the vr dust to settle before investing in one of these systems. the DK2 will be supported by many developers for at least a while.

I just feel that a 1440p version of dk2 released last year as a cv1 (for 400$) would have been the perfect transition into the high end kits they're bring out this year. Get the headset into more hands for the price, hard working developers could be selling their games already and Oculus could take their time perfecting their premium unit and releasing the touch controllers at the same time as "cv2."

I dunno, maybe wasn't feasible, but feels like a missed opportunity to me.

the retail release doesn't even have a 1440p screen. Those don't exist with 90Hs refresh rates, so that alone make your idea infeasable.
Also, the DK2 was nowhere near ready for primetime. If they released that as a final product, even with a higher resolution screen it would have fallen flat on its face.

Game develepers couldn't have released thier games already because they weren't ready. Software is one of the main reasons the hardware wasn't released at the tail end of last year. Games weren't ready yet. they needed more work.

What you see coming out in the coming months is the best that current technology can deliver at a price that consumers can actually afford if they want to. The better stuff will come.

Also, there's no need for Touch to come with the Rift. Not all experiences will need it, and most of the early ones don't take advantage of it. If people are complaining about Xbox One controllers, that would have set them right off. Not to mention it will raise the price of the kit by a quite a bit. I expect to see them priced at $200 or more just for the Touch controllers.

"the retail release doesn't even have a 1440p screen. Those don't exist with 90Hs refresh rates, so that alone make your idea infeasable."

It's of the opinion of many that DK2 or something close to it was the cv1 plan prior to the Facebook acquisition. upcoming CV1 specs are irrelevant to what we could have had released a year ago with off the shelf parts. A 1440p screen was in the note 4 just like the dk2 used the note 3 screen, glass face an all. 75hz and low persistence works great on DK2, 90hz is NOT REQUIRED, it's simply better. I do not know however, if the note 4 screen was offered to Oculus or could handle 75hz, who knows, they never said, but it would have been great.

"Game develepers couldn't have released thier games already because they weren't ready"

You don't know that as a rule. A developer has no incentive to release a game, or even a pre-release if the platform isn't even available yet. The lack of a cv1 is a principal reason for lack of content.

"Also, the DK2 was nowhere near ready for primetime. If they released that as a final product, even with a higher resolution screen it would have fallen flat on its face."

I completely disagree, providing a 400$ max cost, and for reasons already expressed. But, it's all moot now

 

[kcarbotte]

Surely then the solution is head tracking and a game pad where you only use one analog stick to move forward, back and strafe while head tracking lets you look around, you could have it so if your head moves past a certain point it also moves your character round.

Because actually moving around all the time seems a bit shit and will mean you only use your vr headset for vr only games and who's going to be making awesome high budget games for such a small amount of users? even if you did get big budget games you'll always be stuck in your little movable box and no matter how you come up with tricks, you'll never get the real free to roam games and maps we get these days

You're right, you won't get the free roam high-budget games, at least not for a while.
If you wan't a controller that moves you around, look to Oculus Rift, but you likely won't see any FPS games using that setup.
Certain game will work great with a game pad, others will need hand tracking, Vive games will often use a space you move around in.

VR games aren't going to replace standard games in the short term. They will mostly be very different experiences, developed solely for VR.

This makes me happy to sit and wait for the vr dust to settle before investing in one of these systems. the DK2 will be supported by many developers for at least a while.

I just feel that a 1440p version of dk2 released last year as a cv1 (for 400$) would have been the perfect transition into the high end kits they're bring out this year. Get the headset into more hands for the price, hard working developers could be selling their games already and Oculus could take their time perfecting their premium unit and releasing the touch controllers at the same time as "cv2."

I dunno, maybe wasn't feasible, but feels like a missed opportunity to me.

the retail release doesn't even have a 1440p screen. Those don't exist with 90Hs refresh rates, so that alone make your idea infeasable.
Also, the DK2 was nowhere near ready for primetime. If they released that as a final product, even with a higher resolution screen it would have fallen flat on its face.

Game develepers couldn't have released thier games already because they weren't ready. Software is one of the main reasons the hardware wasn't released at the tail end of last year. Games weren't ready yet. they needed more work.

What you see coming out in the coming months is the best that current technology can deliver at a price that consumers can actually afford if they want to. The better stuff will come.

Also, there's no need for Touch to come with the Rift. Not all experiences will need it, and most of the early ones don't take advantage of it. If people are complaining about Xbox One controllers, that would have set them right off. Not to mention it will raise the price of the kit by a quite a bit. I expect to see them priced at $200 or more just for the Touch controllers.

"the retail release doesn't even have a 1440p screen. Those don't exist with 90Hs refresh rates, so that alone make your idea infeasable."

It's of the opinion of many that DK2 or something close to it was the cv1 plan prior to the Facebook acquisition. upcoming CV1 specs are irrelevant to what we could have had released a year ago with off the shelf parts. A 1440p screen was in the note 4 just like the dk2 used the note 3 screen, glass face an all. 75hz and low persistence works great on DK2, 90hz is NOT REQUIRED, it's simply better. I do not know however, if the note 4 screen was offered to Oculus or could handle 75hz, who knows, they never said, but it would have been great.

"Game develepers couldn't have released thier games already because they weren't ready"

You don't know that as a rule. A developer has no incentive to release a game, or even a pre-release if the platform isn't even available yet. The lack of a cv1 is a principal reason for lack of content.

"Also, the DK2 was nowhere near ready for primetime. If they released that as a final product, even with a higher resolution screen it would have fallen flat on its face."

I completely disagree, providing a 400$ max cost, and for reasons already expressed. But, it's all moot now

DK2 was apparently the original plan for CV1, but its a damn good thing they didn't do that. Enthusiasts (and you seem to be one) will live with problems, but the mass populace won't. DK2 was never ready to be a successful product. It would have remained a niche product that most people didn't care about.

VR will succeed by people being compelled by a really good expereince, and wanting it for themselves. A demo that is neat but isn't spectacular isn't going to make most people open thier wallets. Waiting to release a quality product was the best possible move.

I don't know that the games weren't ready as a rule, but I do know that Oculus stated that a major reason for the wait over the last 6 months is software. They didn't feel like there was enough out there, so there likely wasn't much ready. I've also heard from developers in person that have said more or less the same thing.
The software tools to make great games in VR are just now starting to surface. Anything before this year wasn't anything to get excited about.

Cost has absolutely no bearing on how well VR is doing. Oculus has already sold out 4 months worth of the supply it can produce. The Vive is just around the corner, and that will likely be more expensiive. Developers making content for that platform don't have any worries about low volumes.
At $600, the Rift, being brand new technology, a whole new medium of deliveriing entertainment and education, is DIRT CHEAP. There's never been anything this cutting edge that has launched at this attainable of a price.