During the pre-show of the 2017 Sony Paris Games Week Showcase, one game caught my eye. There was a short talking heads intro, and the words "cinematic adventure platformer" were said. My ears perked up, and I tabbed over. Star Child, the game in question, looked cute, colorful, and delightfully sci-fi flavored.
I understand that developing a game both in VR and out of VR is a difficult process, but I often donât see the reason for VR in a lot of these games. Stifled is a good example where I can certainly understand the horror inherent in being that close to a screen, but itâs just odd that it doesnât seem to do much withe the idea of virtual reality besides just using your arms as controllers. Although I suppose it could still come out that Stifled and these others arenât VR-exclusive.
VR isnât comfortable, that much is true.
That said, there exist some really neat VR games that wouldnât work as well on a rectangular screen. Who knows if itâll be true for these.
For many of these game they were deigned to work with VR, Moss is being made to work with VR in mind. Iâm afraid to say many of these wont move away from VR. The motion sickness problem may be with us for a while for VR till either we humans get use to it or VR get better.
The tough thing is that right now, they only mid-tier development games getting funded are through the current rush to get titles onto Oculus and PSVR (Valve doesnât care much because they have Steam so theyâll get most of those games for Vive through pure osmosis). Iâm working at a dev who needed the seed money from Oculus in order to accrue enough capital to start funding their own projects.
Youâve got studios like Twisted Pixel, Ready At Dawn, Owlchemy Labs, etc who wouldnât be able to put anything out at their current scale without this current infusion of major platform investments. Thatâs likely going to be the same story for almost all of the PSVR games that were presented today.
The point Iâm making isnât âbuck up and deal with itâ though, more that big publishers and platform holders should be willing to invest in small-to-mid tier development projects all the time, rather than when itâs convenient for whatever new device or console theyâre trying to push.
This is a bit of a silly article. Itâs like saying âMario Looks Cool, I Sure Wish It Wasnât on Switch.â
Platform exclusivity is a thing weâve always had to deal with. VR does offer unique elements that at least make those experiences different.
Also, the motion sickness that is an issue with some users in VR usually improves following a few hours of exposure.
I agree with Ping. I only bought my VR in a super-sale on Amazon (like, $200 off), but Iâm glad I did. I was surprised by how stuff like Thumper, Rez, or Polybius virtually become a new game while using VR. I donât view it any different as any other platform exclusive, most especially if the game is designed for VR.
Also, an aside on the business end of things to address a point from the article: didnât Sony say sales were much better than they expected and that VR support will continue pretty much indefinitely? I remember being surprised when I heard that because I also assumed it was a fad.
Itâs a display/medium thing, not just a platform thing.
That being said, plenty of games probably ought to rethink their display/medium of choice. Theyâre just less noticeable because âquasirealist 3D environmentâ is the done thing in triple-A games.
I donât follow why Danielle feels really bad for VR developers just because she doesnât want one. It also seems contradictory to list a few âinteresting, creative experiences in VRâ but then talk confidently about how VR will fail. I would think that someone would rather hope they get success, which leads to further iterations and improvements in VR technology.
Observably, VR has poor adoption and low return interest from those who have it. The barriers to entry and the those that disincentivize repeated use are the same: clunky, expensive, necessarily isolated, and it demands a large footprint in your home. I think itâs pretty safe to guess that the VR market will shrink or stagnate, not grow, for the foreseeable future, even if thatâs a bummer of a thing to say.
Danielle has given VR repeated attempts and has fielded this rebuttal dozens of times from developers and players alike, and it just isnât getting better for her. She, as an individual, doesnât want to and canât physically use VR.
Next year looks to be a really good test case of what VR will/could be.
The only amazing game thatâs come out has been RE7. Next year we get a Doom, Fallout 4, and Mechwarrior 5. We are getting to the point where things wonât feel like tech demos and thatâs going to be exciting.
Playing games in VR can be amazing - Iâm excited when we get to the point when game design
I havenât been disappointed with VR the way many seem to have been. For instance, Iâm currently enamored with The Invisible Hours which is wonderful for me as I enjoy as a piece of theatre. But Iâm unreasonably excited about Budget Cuts coming out. VR stealth seems to work exceptionally well.
I have the same concerns with the Switch.
Those RSI-inducing tiny controllers that no ergonomics expert ever took a pass at, the method of play that involves holding and even moving around the screen weâre meant to be looking at - itâs all very much designed to make lots of people sick or in pain.
Itâs another unnecessary console computing device that takes an existing tablet platform (eg iOS or Android, even with the same manufacturer in nVidia as one of the systems previously using this form factor for games - not to mention all those tablet/convertible PCs that play Steam games) and then ties some games down to only working on it (when so many of them would be simply fabulous on the standard consoles we currently have). How long before it gets the famous Nintendo dust that their recent consoles have all suffered from. How long before everyone other than Nintendo realises the console is only good for losing money and abandons it? What about the developers who specialise in using this hardware who are left with expertise publishers donât wish to pay for as the rest of the industry all move towards a similar performance level?
There are talented developers banging their heads against the problems and limitations of the Switch every day, and they are making rad things. Things I want to play! As long as I donât need to grab two ill-fitting mini half-controllers and put an underpowered and overpriced tablet (with an unusually low res screen, even for $150-200 7" tablet devices) between them.
I often see upcoming games and think âthat looks cool, I sure wish it was in VR tooâ. Itâs fine to dislike VR or not want to spend money on it, but please donât feel sad for developers who want to make games for it, or hope it dies so that those devs can go back to making things for you.
I also sincerely hope that Star Child eventually makes its way to the good old PS4, headset-less. But alongside VR, not instead.
Iâm not sure that the Switch and VR are equivalent other than the fact that they are perhaps prohibitively expensive to some (and even then, VR is more expensive).
The Switch has options â use a pro controller if you donât like the joy cons (which is, yes, more money but overall itâs still in the $300-400 range, just like any other console), game at home if you donât like the screen, etc. Iâve found the Switch is much better as a home console than a handheld â itâs too big to put in your pocket, the screen is both too large (physically) and too small (I found most games uncomfortable to play with the Switch placed on a desk in kickstand mode because the screen is a little too small/far away, but holding it up to my face is also uncomfortable), battery life is bad, etc. Iâm not saying that these arenât flaws; of course they are, but if you game at home, they either go away or you can make them go away by throwing extra money at Nintendo, so they arenât inherent and unfixable the way VRâs motion sickness issue is (as of right now). Which, okay, is possibly crippling a cool marketing point about the Switch, but itâs the console equivalent of the â17-inch gaming laptopâ â you CAN carry it around, but you probably donât want to. That said, the Switchâs value proposition stands as a home console anyway.
VR is a minimum $ 800-1000 investment from scratch (headset + VR-capable computer) and it locks out a significant portion of people because of physical pain. The Switch is $300 and the worst you can say is well, do we REALLY need another dedicated device, to which the most compelling answer is Nintendo first-party games, and it seems to be a plenty compelling answer all on its own. I donât think there are that many Switch exclusives that arenât tied to Nintendo in some way, and most multi-plats arenât developed specifically with the Switch in mind, so there shouldnât be a long list of âI wish this were coming to other consoles but itâs notâ (i.e., the equivalent of âI wish this were coming to not-VR but itâs notâ).
tl;dr: I donât get the comparison, because the Switch is just another console (if anything is locking people out itâs money). VR is something slightly different (money is a factor, but also human biology).
DOOM is actually out this year! I believe itâs 1st Dec.
Whilst I understand the general sentiment behind the article, as an owner of a PSVR I canât really agree with it. It would be a different case if these were arbitrarily locked platform exclusives, but in the case of these games they were designed ground-up for VR and (one would hope) take advantage of the unique benefits VR offers.
If this were a reverse situation there would certainly be people complaining there were no games for the expensive bit of gear they bought, so I do champion the release of more VR games and Sonyâs support, however small-scale it may be. Iâd obviously like to see more Resi 7s and AAA VR titles (ZoE is a step in the right direction, oh my god 
) but thereâs so much great stuff in the non-VR space lately I think having some interesting indie titles be VR-exclusive is not too much of an issue, and ensures thereâs some backing to keep the tech healthy and hopefully alive to the point where it can become cheaper and more accessible.
That is a passionate defence of the Switch, almost as if pointing out the flaws in a device and asking why there canât just be absolutely no exclusives for it is far from a neutral way to discuss exclusives.
Just to your point of cost: theyâre about the same price. You just costed up a Switch, plus memory card (as shipping games require it and itâs not included), plus non-stock controller, plus TV to play it on (to try to avoid nausea from looking down at a moving small screen youâre holding for extended periods). Thatâs easily the same ballpark as PS4 + PSVR bundle (which doesnât require a TV or anything else to play, itâs a complete experience).
As many of these VR games are funded by the hardware manufacturers (or their in-house studios) then I see no difference in that vs Nintendo first party. If weâre going to actually say exclusives are bad and I want to play them how I want to play them (as that seems to be the bigger picture message here - even involving building out completely different experiences as VR is not just non-VR with a second eye render) then Iâd like Zelda in 4K fidelity, 60fps smooth (no distracting aliasing, no low frame rate without sufficient motion markers to understand the scene correctly) with a standard, comfortable DS4 thanks. And as weâre going for âcomfort is not optionalâ then never forget the FoV setting, to avoid motion sickness with different output systems (size of screen vs distance from requiring different FoV to form a ânaturalâ portal).
Iâm reminded of when the Wii came out. The introduction of motion-controls locked some people out and increased accessibility for some folks who never played games before.
A lot of enthusiast press tends to be self-reinforcing; car fans will end up writing for car magazines. But here we have a radically different platform developing within the culture and production of computer-games, so computer-game enthusiasts find themselves writing about having products they lack the physical capability to enjoy, being marketed to them. It sucks having advertisements for something you physically canât enjoy be broadcast to you. In my opinion, a big part of Waypointâs appeal is the personalities who provide us with their knowledge, opinions, and humor. Having Danielle express her frustration seems like a strength of personality-based media because it is a reminder that people we feel like we know are being left out of something new and exciting.
Itâs just frustrating, a novel technology thatâs actually trying to address issues of nausea is being singled-out as not making progress fast enough (and so not deserving of the experiences being developed for it, âwhy donât they put all of these somewhere elseâ rather than âI canât wait until the tech improves and hopefully I can enjoy these experiences in a few years tooâ). Meanwhile, we can look at the almost casual disdain (in most enthusiast press, often jokes and painting it as some weird demand made by people who play on PC) for standard anti-nausea work like FoV options in 3D games with controllable cameras.
As soon as we widen the conversation to other platforms with exclusives, everyone quickly jumps up to defend the practice for the platforms they prefer (see recent WPR where it goes from being concerned about when funding for VR dries up and how developers will manage into talking about how everything needs to come to the Switch, despite the history of how Nintendo have not been a good platform for developers who wish to make their costs back). The headline âThese games look cool, I sure wish they werenât on the Switchâ would not fly with most.
Re: RSI-inducing controllers
Okay, so it wasnât just me. Borrowed my brotherâs Switch for a week and those controllers, especially when attached to the Switch in portable mode, just about destroyed my wrists.
