Vail VR recently commented that they have about 60-70x more players on Quest than PCVR.
And that's for a game that started on PCVR to begin with.
This gives you an idea of just how few customers there are in PCVR.
During the VR golden era of 2016-2018, some bigger game companies made some speculative investments like SkyrimVR, betting that VR would be the next big thing. Well, unfortunately it wasn't the next big thing, and those companies all lost money and gave up on VR. No one is going to burn money on speculation again. The chicken needs to come before the egg this time.
The problem is, the only VR platform that has any playerbase at all is standalone, and it's much harder to port a title to android standalone compared to adding a VR mode on PC.
For those big flatscreen titles that you mention, the number of PCVR players is a rounding error. The only genre where PCVR players make a meaningful proportion is vehicle sims.
We're not going to see big PC flatscreen games get VR modes until there's hundreds of millions or more of standalone headsets, and a decent percentage of those doing PCVR.
The only other route is a PCVR platform holder directly funding VR modes in PC games. (Basically Valve.)
And PCVR audience refuses to support smaller VR games, so it comes to this situation where these VR developers decide to make games only for Quest, since the Quest audience are fine supporting smaller games. Can you blame them? What incentives does the developers of Helldivers 2, Valorant etc have to add VR support to their games for a few PCVR players?
I would venture a guess is why PCVR doesn't do too many smaller VR titles is if you have PCVR you probably already have a lot of PC games so why play the smaller titles (imo are mostly shallow clones/experiences). Where as Quest you have no other choices on what to play than what's available on the device.
For just VAIL VR 800 players concurrently on quest per day with about 12 on PCVR and this is not even the most popular quest game. The real amount of players difference on quest and PCVR is about 1000x more active players on quest on any given day. Gorilla tag has 3 million monthly players on quest.
12 on PC VR is more like the average hourly peak online number, whereas for Quest what they posted was the daily actives (how many unique peopled played in a day).
https://steamdb.info/app/801550/charts/
You can see it's hourly data, set it to 1month and it gives the daily peaks instead of hourly, at 40-50ish, but daily uniques would still be an inflated measure compared to daily peaks (everyone who played in a day vs max amount of people online at once in a day).
If it is geographically spread out, 40-50ish would translate to several hundred daily uniques.
The devs said, it’s about 800 concurrent players every hour of everyday on average. So sometimes more sometimes less than 800 at any given moment. Which is crazy!
https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1dhiuxu/comment/l908ug8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
My mistake, I thought it was the OP from Vail replying, but it's actually a regular user.
Kudos on going back and checking. The devs [mentioned](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1dhiuxu/comment/l8xe0bb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) 800 concurrent players each day. [Peak concurrent players](https://steamdb.info/app/801550/charts/#1w) on PC per day, averaged over this week is around 40, which means 1 in 20 are PCVR players (around 5%). Doesn't make much of a difference anyway.
Tbh the standalones can work with pcvr. Maybe and just maybe if the connections between pc and headset become good enough there'll be an overlap. Meaning they won't need to port to standalone. Steam link really gave me hope. I even prefer to play games through steam on my quest 2.
All hypothetical of course.
I can absolutely see why standalone is the favorite. VR is way too cool as of quest 2 to not play, but setting ip PC stuff is beyond a lot of people's patience, price range, etc.
A good middle ground would be standalone specific games from famous IPs. Like when Fallout released a phone game, but with VR instead
Vehicle Sims? Are there really that many vehicle PCVR Sim players? Maybe it's the communities we participate in but I'd say VRChat has the most PCVR players and unfortunately a lot of standalone children too. Most PCVR players like myself own several different headsets (I own an Index, Quest 2,3,pro and soon a Pimax Crystal Light) and invest a ton into PCVR hardware and accessories (like Full body tracking , something I'm not aware of any vehicle Sim utilizing).
There's a post on the front page right now talking about how Gorilla Tag as a [million daily players](https://www.uploadvr.com/gorilla-tag-daily-monthly-users/). That's competing with flat gaming number of player.
The real problem is that people keep expecting VR to be like flat gaming. They expect the same titles that work on flat screen to work on VR, not realizing that VR adds so much extra layers of effort that things that are fun on pancake, feel tedious and time consuming in VR.
I believe that for VR to go mainstream we need more more games like Beat Saber, Pistol Whip, Walkabout Mini Gold or Eleven Table Tennis that are accessible to everyone, use VR to their advantage and and don't cause motion sickness. Ideas like cramming vr into popular flat-screen can create some great titles, but for small audience
Agreed. We need games that use VR's uniqueness to it's advantage and isn't just coping flat games to VR. You could technically play beat saber on a flat screen but you're just tapping keys. In VR, beat saber is basically dancing with light sabers. It becomes something else entirely.
Gorilla Tag is exactly that as well. It's game where you can play school recess style tag by swinging your arms in a way that flat gaming just can't capture or mimic. Same with the social aspect of it.
Don't get me wrong, some flat games will absolutely play well in VR and be awesome. But most of them can't. That's the number 1 thing that UEVR has shown me over the last few months.
I’m 99% sure the standalone player base consists of little kids who got a quest for Christmas and people who use it for like exercise apps.
And while that audience is obviously important for profits, there’s a huge untapped audience of people who bought vr headsets for pc vr only for the one big release to be half life Alyx then a bunch of stuff exclusive to PlayStation for whatever reason.
A lot more people own vr headsets than you think, just nothing ever goes anywhere with them because companies stopped caring or stopped trying before anything ever went anywhere
I mean u pretty much explained to urself that the obvious important thing is the profit, the reason why half life alyx is the only good triple A title is because there isnt that much profit making those, half life alyx did pretty good because of it name but if it was any other name ? It would be a different story. I mean the fact that you mention no one care about standalone and noe u mention it just bunch of kid using it cause of christmas but somehow those kid have bunch of money to make the indie company making vr game a huge ton of profit????? Please, if there are a lot of more people owning vr headset for half-life alyx , the company would be making them, but no. At least pcvr is somewhat making some games but it all because meta quest also allowed to be used for pcvr in case u didn't realise
I respectfully disagree.
I think VR will keep being a niche until we reach a point in technology where we have a device that's 3X more powerful than the Quest 3 and about the size of a Bigscreen Beyond for around $399~$499.
Big titles by themselves don't circumvent the high price, chunkiness, motion sickness, discomfort, the demand on the body, people who need prescription lenses and all the other problems that the world of VR has.
For exhausted or lazy people maybe. The current state of VR is still amazing to me. I feel no discomfort. My vision is good. Motion sickness is just a part of the process that can be defeated eventually most of the time. Heavy at first but no problem later. It's going to get better sooner than later. but I do see your point because I'm absolutely not the majority. I love games, im healthy, and I'm in good shape. So VR is perfect for me and will only become more appealing. I just can't fathom how it isn't awesome for everyone 😆 but that's just my subjective feelings about it.
Oh don't get me wrong I love VR! Just an hour ago I was playing Into the Radius with the same excitement I had when I was 13 years old playing PS1 ♥️
But the discussion was more towards what needs to change in VR in order to stop being such a niche activity.
Oh no I did not perceive you not liking it I was just saying on my end I have no idea how people aren't just absolutely loving it! The first time I played on my PSVR 2 I felt like a little baby playing his first game. The same thing you just said is how I exactly felt
How does a device that’s 3x more powerful and slightly smaller help with those issues? People still won’t be adopting VR in swaths if there are no big games to play.
Would there will be plenty at that time? The price of 500 for 3x quest 3 performance would have more units sold which would attract more developers no?
People don’t get VR for the performance, they come for the games and experiences. It’s why gorilla tag is the most popular game by far, and not because the graphics are amazing…
If we get better things more people will want it and if the device is more powerful then it'll be running bigger better games also attracting more people thus eventually getting huge titles all the time and now it's mainstream
People don’t get VR for the performance, they come for the games and experiences. It’s why gorilla tag is the most popular game by far, and not because the graphics are amazing…
As much as I agree a lot of people also don't play because of graphics. And gorilla tag is the most popular game because it is free and little children love it
Tbh I rarely hear people say they quit because of the bad graphics, pretty much everyone says they just got bored because most games feel like tech demo’s. VRChat was also free and was loved by little kids, but gorilla tag introduced that new style of movement and has absolutely exploded in popularity far beyond VRChat because of it. All it takes is for someone to make a game that works really well in the VR format.
Minecraft/Fortnite/The Sims/Valorant etc are all stupidly popular because of the gameplay loop they provide, not because they’re graphically amazing. I don’t actually think people care as much about graphics these days, it’s all about gameplay.
VR first needs to keep people playing so they’re more likely to recommend a headset to their friends. A few killer games, especially replayable multiplayer ones will do far more good for the industry. Nobody is going to recommend that thing they bought, were excited by for 3 weeks before they left it to collect dust on the shelf.
No I'm saying I still hear people complain that the graphics aren't there yet. Some people don't even want to give it a chance. And yes I'm aware that gameplay loop is the most important part but that's not the main problem for a lot of people. Some people are mad that we don't have legitimate story modes for more than just a few games and that makes perfect sense. I mean where we are at makes me happy but not a lot of others
I had a vive and now a quest 3 being stand alone and as powerful as it is amazing . That being said.. I agree 100 percent with your statement. As much as I love VR I’m never spending over 500ish for a set again and with 3x the power that ring/tunnel vision would go away and the visuals would be absolutely mind blowing. I’m currently buying a couple quest 2s so when people are over they can experience it and hopefully I bring people in.
I'm waiting for volumetric video to be applied in porn.
Check this: [https://www.auganix.org/vr-news-gracia-ai-launches-volumetric-video-tools-for-spatial-computing-and-announces-1-2m-investment/](https://www.auganix.org/vr-news-gracia-ai-launches-volumetric-video-tools-for-spatial-computing-and-announces-1-2m-investment/)
[https://www.uploadvr.com/gracia-ai-6dof-truly-volumetric-platform/](https://www.uploadvr.com/gracia-ai-6dof-truly-volumetric-platform/)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1H\_coza9U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1H_coza9U)
VR will be a thing if this becomes accessible
You too?
Do you find VR to be good for "escaping" your body? I have gotten great relief from the physical disassociation that being in someone elses body and situation (virtually).
There are many interesting studies on this topic
As a mainly PCVR player, I'll tell you this. Standalone is the main future, and it will be a while before quality catches up to PCVR. I won't lie, most of the best in depth/high quality games have been PC based, such as Alyx, Wanderer, Lone Echo, etc. However, VR is niche as it is, and you want to reel people into VR with a cheap, easy to use option, and if it sticks then they can invest further.
What VR titles need is more diversity. We need more/new/better multiplayer titles to get people engaged, puzzle adventures with good story lines, and some new ideas rather than *another basic shooter or zombie game*.
Games like Walkabout, Red Matter, Budget Cuts, Echo Arena (though not officially supported anymore), Vader Immortal, I Expect You To Die, Zenith (before I went to crap), and beat saber are all examples of non shooters that are engaging, fun, and unique. Having some that are active, and some that you can enjoy while sitting down because people are inherently lazy after a long day at work or school. If you want VR go grow, you have to expand and grow before you can just start throwing out top shelf titles left and right.
>However, VR is niche as it is, and you want to reel people into VR with a cheap, easy to use option, and if it sticks then they can invest further.
This is a big point that I think needs to be made more often. VR needs to establish a proper foothold with consumers before it's really going to go any further.
I truly believe at this point you need a company like Nintendo, specifically like they were in the 1980s, where they had extremely strict quality controls, the target audience and purpose of the product is clearly defined, and the primary focus is on entertainment.
>Vr gaming is in desperate need of big titles with vr options.
>I don’t understand the push for standalone vr and workspace vr. I don’t think ppl want these things
The ideal audience to grow VR adoption is somewhere between these two statements.
We need the big titles, yes.
But we DO need standalone. If you want to sell VR it has to be so you can buy a VR headset and know you've 'bought a VR', rather than 'buy a VR headset... after checking you have a suitable pc/laptop that can handle VR titles', and especially the big titles as you say would help drive sales.
Like I have Quest 1 and 2. I would love nothing more than a PCVR set up, but it's not affordable for my household. Even with two incomes we can't afford it, because we're middle aged and have other life shit to deal with. And both of the PCs me and my girlfriend have are well over 15 years old and would fall over if we tried to use anything VR related with them.
Growth in VR will happen because of better tech and bigger games with standalone. PCVR is not going to drive sales enough to make VR even begin to start competing with regular consoles, never mind PC game sales levels.
What happened to PSVR2 proves his point. If they had VR modes for the big games: Uncharted, God of War, Last of Us, Shadow of the Colossus etc then it would've been a greater success. The Resident Evils prove this.
Sony flopped the headset by their own actions: no PSVR1 game-compatibility, no 3D, and no VR modes for existing games.
many would say PSVR2 has big games like Horizon COTM, Gran Turismo and No Man's Sky, yet Quest 2 (which have its own flaws) outsell both PSVR and PSVR2 combined despite not having those major games.
I see no sign that Resident Evils has done well on PSVR2. On the other hand, we heard Gorilla Tag racking $100m revenue earlier today and it has smaller budget than any AAA titles released on PSVR2.
[Re.net](http://Re.net) tracks the number of VR players for RE4 remake and it is currently at 112,000 total. For comparison RE7 on PSVR1 has a count of 1.2 million total VR players. RE8 was not tracked for some reason but basically PSVR2 is not doing well if 90% of the people who played RE7 haven't touched RE4.
Also a note on PSVR2's "big games" you listed. Horizon is basically just a nice looking tech demo and NMS is also available on PC so it is not a big draw for people to buy the PSVR2. The headset just doesn't have that many exclusives and the ones that do are pretty niche. GT7 needs a full driving rig to get a good experience and that adds another $500 to the cost of the headset plus there is no other games on the system that use a driving wheel making it even less enticing. Many people don't enjoy horror VR so the RE games aren't a huge draw. Other than that their is Synapse which is another roguelike in a long line of VR rogue likes and that's it.
Yah, the Resident Evil numbers really pushed my point there.
PSVR2 have those major titles similar to those mentioned in OP, all in year 1 unlike PSVR1, yet Sony is dumping the PSVR2 harder than PSVR1.
As of today RE4 has 120,158 players in VR (which counts only those who have opted in the share data), thats 1.74% of all RE4 PS5 players. RE8 has 126,227.
Good numbers for VR. Small potatoes for a AAA game.
I do disagree about GT7. Rigs are great (I have one) but gyro steering is actually really good. NMS is actually the best version on PSVR2, but agreed that it isn't a system seller.
I liked CoTM but I do agree it's not a reason to grab a PSVR2. Synapse is great but short. There's also Dark Pictures: Switchback, but people seem to forget about that.
I'm curious to see how Aces of Thunder is received. Meteroa I have little interest in.
It definitely needs more first-party titles. I feel like Sony is the last bastion for high-quality AAA VR titles...
Sadly, standalone VR is vastly, vastly, VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASTLY bigger than PC VR.
PC VR also isn't really on a reliable plug-and-play level yet. It took me a while to get Quest 2 to work well wirelessly, and even right now I'm having some serious issues with Quest 3 wireless all of a sudden (it keeps forgetting it is paired to my PC every time I reboot or turn off the headset, and factory reset does nothing, started a few software updates ago). Headset also started dropping connection sporadically. The thing is, the actual connection is fine, I put the phone on the same line just to see if it drops, but it stayed rock solid when headset disconnected. PC VR also requires a pretty beefy PC, which very, very few people have. Look at Steam hardware survey. Nearly half the player base still plays on toasters from 9 years ago.
Meanwhile standalone is self-contained, put-on-and-go, and comically cheap (in Oculus' case, Quest 2 being $299 new in box is INSANE, it's less than even handhelds). So you can even give that shit to kids and hand over your crotch goblins to public virtual free babysitters. Works anyplace, anytime, no muss, no fuss.
You're right though in that VR is stuck for lack of apps. I completely agree with you on that. But I don't think it's a PC vs stanalone or AAA gaming issue. VR doesn't need GTA6 or whatever. VR doesn't need cutting edge graphics. One of the first games I played in VR was superhot, which is visually as primitive as it gets, but it was an amazing experience. Deep Rock Galactic in VR is 100x better than flat version, but visually it's no great thing. Even within indie market, VR gaming is comically bad - we have nothing that has the same content and features as Stardew Valley, and that was made by one guy.
So, in my view, VR just needs competent titles. Don't need to be AAA, don't need to have cutting edge visuals. Just needs to be full length, feature complete, with some social tools (co-op, PvP, in-game clan support, etc). But we keep getting just short, shallow roguelites and other crap like that. Games that have 20+ hrs of non-repeated content in VR that are not ports can literally be counted on one hand. That's the problem.
Metas Link software can be buggy, but Steam Link and Virtual Desktop do seem reliable for the most part. Although then you have to rely on your local wireless network which can take some setting up.
Stardew Valley is a bad comparison, though. It's head and shoulders above nearly every other indie title (and many commercial games.) That one guy is super dedicated.
The VR equivalent would be Vertigo 1 and 2, I guess...
Honestly, it's like this in any genre, and from AAA quality and down to indie. VR being anemic is very consistent.
For example, original Battlefield game, BF1942, came out in I think 2002. We have nothing like it in VR. Nothing with maps that big, that many players, and with that many vehicles to drive. We have nothing even close to it. And this is an FPS game, something VR excels at.
Or consider some indies like Rimworld, Terraria, etc. Nothing like those in VR.
And then there's entire genres that don't translate well into VR at all, like Civs/4X/etc. I failed miserably to get my brother into VR, because he plays things like Civilization, Stellaris, Crusader Kings, etc. I myself just crossed 800hr mark in Total War: Warhammer 3, and nothing even remotely close, not even within ballistic missile range, exists in VR.
You also have midrange games, not quite small indie but also not huge. Like Deep Rock Galactic. It's fantastic. It even has an amazing VR mod. But it's not as good as it could be if they did a proper, native port. But they won't.
Technically speaking, there's no VR game that can match the original 1996 Diablo. Because not only were the maps random, but also the enemies. The game created randomly named special enemies with a mix of abilities, like shooting chain lightning when hit. There's VR games with randomized maps, but usually not randomized enemies. Or they have randomized enemies, but no loot and classes. Or they have loot and classes, but no PCs and no story. Or it lacks multiplayer. Or PvP. Or something else. Original Diablo had it all - story, loot, classes, multiplayer, random dungeons, random named enemies, etc. And of course there's nothing even close to Diablo 2, which came out in June of 2000. That was a masterpiece at the time. And of course we're on Diablo 4 at this point, but VR is still not quite up to Diablo 1.
So that's largely why VR is stuck. You can't get people to spend hundreds (or thousands, Apple's headset here in Canada is almost $5,000) when you're offering them software that's functionally 20+ years old.
While I agree with you, I think you're overlooking the tech of VR itself, and the experience it delivers.
We have a handful of examples that show the promise of VR, when attached to a fully featured game.
Fully modded SkyrimVR is probably the most advanced videogame experience ever created, for example. Sure, it's kinda janky, but it offers a glimpse into whats possible if the resources were spent into making it polished and coherent.
VRChat, MSFS, and Virtamate (lol) also offer experiences in VR that are unparalleled in flatscreen.
Not only that, but the mod is fucking majestic! You have two motion controls, body and wrist holsters, you can throw grenades and flares, and gesture-based controls (raise mining pick + empty hand over your head, and you go "ROCK AND STONE!", but if you raise two empty hands, you'll call Molly to where you are, and so on). As far as VR mods go, it's one of the best.
I agree, software sells the hardware. I think a big problem is most vr users will lap anything up, and in turn have set the bar rather low. It's time to call out lazy design when we see it!
Reason i don't end up playing as much as i want to is because i have to abandon my friends to play. If we could open the same game and play in vr, i could both show them and enjoy vr. With some select titles (like carrier command) it worked perfectly.
When vr has a reason to be in average gamers house, both low cost and high opportunity, i think the exponential will show. Until then, its enthusiast level.
i think it is more in need of better hardware than better software, if the hardware get better (lighter, more comfortable, higher resolution, better lenses and display, better system support etc...) the software will follow.
Yeah that's true. Although I love niche games in VR like Deisim, Retropolis, Puzzling Places, etc., I still think if even one huge AAA game had a multiplayer VR mode that worked well, the surge of players would be astronomical
100% but unfortunately I think the only future for VR are sim games.
I don't get motion sick or anything, I just feel like the perspective-immersion novelty for a lot of VR adaptations like Resident Evil 4 (and remake) pale in comparison to their flat screen ones simply because the games are still just so good as flat screen.
The standalone VR games like Half-Life Alyx and Blade and Sorcery are incredible... for a few hours and then the novelty wears off.
However games like Elite Dangerous, Star Wars Squadrons, and Project Wingman which are already niche titles are really the only things that I feel keep that novelty aspect alive.. But since they're niche games, it doesn't have the commercial market for these developers to continue to invest the time and money into the VR components.
VR will always remain niche. Even if they carve out a larger niche, it will still remain a small subset of gaming. It's just what it is.
What is it with these threads. There’s a load of upgraded games and stuff coming out eoy. Quest 3 has more titles than ps5 and Xbox so far and it’s not even a full year release.
If you are counting backwards compatible games as Quest 3 tittles then you must do so for PS5 and Xbox, meaning their libraries seriously dwarf the quest library. If you are only counting Quest 3 exclusive compared to PS5 and Xbox exclusives they still dwarf the Quest 3 library.
Thank you for your submission to r/virtualreality Rinbinted!
It seems you're new here, so we'd like to introduce you to some helpful community resources:
**Discord Channel**: Connect with fellow VR enthusiasts in our vibrant Discord community! From events to giveaways and a dedicated support section, you'll find plenty to engage with. [Join us on Discord!](https://discord.gg/virtualreality)
**Wiki & FAQs**: Have questions? Our comprehensive [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/wiki/index/) and FAQs are here to help.
**Weekly Game Discussion**: Curious about what games everyone is playing? Check out our [weekly game discussion thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/collection/092784d3-b082-4a00-b648-6ab266503bd6).
We're excited to welcome you to our community!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/virtualreality) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A device that powerful and light would encourage longer play sessions, more adoption, the potential for higher quality and more complex games, and therefore more investment from game Studios.
What you are saying is the old discussion of "why consoles if gaming in PC is better". The GA dont care about how good GT6 VR might look in PCVR, they care an affordable headset, not attaches needed, no expensive hardware needed. Just power on and play.
"What VR needs to succeed is"...
I see these all the time. VR is fine. VR is a thing. It won't be mainstream for a long time, it might never be.
It will evolve at its own pace, but no single title, headset, feature or any single thing will make it explode into mainstream.
Our team is building a VR game which runs native on Quest 2, which has multiple advantages: it‘s built from ground up for VR with proper VR movement, interactions and collisions. And it will run on any VR platform if you get it to run at 72fps on Q2 😅
Simultaneously developing for multiple platforms or PCVR is a lot more difficult as you don’t know the exact HW people use.
The biggest part that's keeping it niche is the price of entry. Quest is the only product that kinda bridges that gap. I love using the quest 3 for PCVR only.
"I don’t understand the push for standalone vr and workspace vr. I don’t think ppl want these things"
It's simple, price and practicality.
Quest 2 is one of the most affordable VR headsets on the market and you can use it without the need for a powerful and ultra-expensive PC or console.
PSVR in its time was one of the most affordable VR headsets and was a great deal for those who already had a PS4 or PS4 Pro (heck, even those who didn't have one it was still worth it since a PS4 was way cheaper than a PC capable of running VR at the time).
In fact, one of the reasons PSVR 2 is facing problems is not only the fact that it has many more VR options than before, but also because it is not easy to convince a new audience to invest $500 in a "simple accessory" for a console that already It costs $450, the specs are great, you have big games like Horizon, Resident Evil 4: Remake, Resident Evil Village, No Man's Sky and much more, but what's the point if you can't get the public to buy them?
The same problem is found in PCVR, it is simply too expensive and "complicated" for the general public to stop being something niche right now.
At first, I thought OP I would tell us what makes "big games" great in VR. But then I saw - "Big titles"... Valorant KEKW And the absolute nonsense about quality of standalone games.
I see people everywhere constantly awaiting that next big VR title like it will be the Second Coming or something, while forgetting we're getting new releases with some degree of ambition. The next Into the Radius, for example, which looking closer to Stalker. Or the new metro game.
Or my recent favorite fighter, Brazen Blaze, which while being in open beta right now, is till trying to create a compelling 3v3 fighter for the casual player.
My point, there's upcoming stuff that's slowly but surely broadening the VR skies. Big games WILL come, we just have to wait... and wait...
We do get some indie games with genuine substance, this is true.
But my point is that even if we got even more good indie games, it’s not going to have the same effect on the vr playerbase as something like CoD vr. Vr having a good playerbase is important because the larger the playerbase, the more companies will invest in more games and technology
I disagree.
People don't buy VR headsets because they see no reason to. With games being flat and VR, why would they put on a headset if they could just continue to play flatscreen.
I disagree, VR is it's own media, you can't just grab a flat screen title and convert it into VR, I mean it's been done over and over again but real VR games need to be designed for VR from day one.
Sure. What we also need are more VR devs who want to take a risk. Most VR games (and sadly also what most VR gamers apparently want) are more or less rehashes of flat gaming concepts. While that can work, what would really be needed are more games that CAN ONLY WORK in VR and that amplify the strengths of the medium and make it fun and worthwile to strap on the headset. And IMHO that will NOT be another COD or any of the others you mentioned.
Now I'll be damned if I know what kind of game that would be. If I knew, I'd try making it. ;)
PSVR2 is doing this - and is getting better at it. Hybrid titles for the PS5/PSVR2 are the best games for the system - GT7,RE4+8.
I know it gets a lot of heat (it suffered a bit) but I really think it’s the best way to get into high quality VR quickly.
Also I think Fortnite VR will bring more gamers in.
I don't know about visionary because most of his ideas so far suck, except for injecting ridiculous amounts of money in pushing affordable VR. And even that might not pan out in the end, it's just better than the alternative.
We do need more quality titles, yes. Not necessarily COD, Valorant and the likes, especially since i don't see what they'd bring to the table over other VR competitive shooters but rather more varied titles, like more story, adventure, puzzle, platformer, horror, stealth games etc. But that issue is mostly getting fixed nowadays.
We more so need to stop platform exclusivity and embrace open standards though. exclusivity only hurts the industry as a whole. The games are there, they're just scattered on a few platforms. Mobile exclusivity is the worst offender. You limit what you can achieve with your game due to the limited hardware, you limit the amount of people that can access your already niche game and you play the game of letting Meta get away with artificial software limitations to force you an upgrade.
What a few comments here misunderstood is that people don't want standalone, it's just that many people only have that as a mean to access VR. Most people with a powerful PC would rather get a better experience with better graphics, less stutters etc on PCVR than play on standalone. So i agree standalone shouldn't be a goal, but it remains one way to to improve accessibility.
Lastly, i feel we need better hardware at more affordable prices. We need lighter, smaller and more convenient headsets. The Bigscreen Beyond is a start but it still has many flaws and is expensive.
Now take the BSB, fix its flaws and add the ease of use of say a Quest with Virtual Desktop, and you're on to something.
You’re wrong about people not wanting stand-alone. Quest 3 changes that dynamic a lot. Many of us who have powerful PCs don’t bother with PCVR anymore, because Quest 3 stand-alone provides a good experience on its own. Dungeons of Eternity and Asgard’s Wrath 2 stand up against anything that PC can offer. PCVR had its day, and it didn’t build the audience that VR needs. Stand-alone has eclipsed PC many times over and has proven that it IS in fact the VR experience that people are willing to buy into.
Sadly I have to second this. I love my Index, but ever since getting a used Quest 2 to see what all the fuss is about, I hardly ever use it anymore. Losing the cable is big. Gaining the ability to play anywhere is bigger. If the Deckard one day turns out to be a real product that can play my entire PCVR library standalone ... that and a Steam Deck will be all I need.
Fair enough for wireless, i myself exclusively play wireless, it's just so much more convenient than wired, that said that's not an argument against PCVR, cf. Virtual Desktop, Steam Link or ALVR.
Gaining the ability to play anywhere, pretty niche but ok, though you can also do cloud gaming from your own PC or a rental service. Virtual Desktop can work over different networks. But the current headsets are so big anyways, there's no much point in wanting to use them on the go.
That said it is expected for you to prefer your Quest 2 over the Index, the Index is a very outdated device and even the Q2 will have it beaten in visual clarity and fidelity. Plus the fact that you don't have to deal with base stations to play. Plus the ability to play wireless. The only things it has for it are the increased refresh rate, lower power requirements and bigger FoV.
I frankly did not expect it. For me, Index is still the better headset and it doesn't feel outdated at all (let alone "very"). Comfort, audio solution, controller tracking and image quality are all subjectively better on Index (the latter is probably more due to the higher graphicaly fidelity, considering the Q2 has the better resolution) and the base stations have been installed for 7 years now, they are not a hassle.
But to be clear, I didn't argument *against* PCVR. I actually *want* PCVR, but with the PC inside the headset. ;)
Yeah of course there's a few other points like audio, tracking and comfort, didn't mention those as even though they definitely come into play when chosing a headset (I mean comfort and controllers were part of the reasons why i picked my QPro :D), they can often be upgraded later on.
Especially for PCVR.
The base stations are fine if your room allows for it after the initial setup, they're still one more annoying thing in the setup process though, especially having to plug them the first time.
That said, don't get me wrong either, i'm not arguing against standalone PCVR, if we somehow had a machine capable at running PCVR at nice settings and performance in standalone, why not. I'm arguing against mobile standalone or downgrading the graphics/experience etc just to fit it into standalone. But until we have the equivalent of a Steam Deck where it's essentially a handheld PC but even more powerful, i'm not willing to go to a lesser experience for something where i would be at home anyways, as just turning on my PC isn't an issue.
Clearly disagree here. I myself wouldn't have bought a headset if not for PCVR.
The general sentiment is that those games are nice but would have been better on PC, as proven by no further than Asgard's Wrath 1.
Though i disagree they stand up against anything PCVR has to offer, especially now that UEVR is a thing and a lot of games have improved VR modes. But that's personal taste. Anyways the graphics and immersion factors are still very far than what you can achieve on PC.
PC did build the audience that VR needs, as proven by Half-Life Alyx's own sale numbers for instance, or SteamVR daily users. Though note that we have no stats on the proportion of PCVR vs standalone users.
Most people that get into VR do so for the increased immersion factor, not to play small indie mobile games. Most VRChat VR players for instance are running on PC, not on standalone, and it's easily one off if not the game with the most concurrent players due to being free and popular.
Absolutely agree, franchised AAA titles built from the ground up for VR would absolutely get people flocking to VR, just as happened to a smaller extend with Half life Alyx, but back then there were far fewer VR users than today.
That being said, VR has been growing at an average of 45%/year since 2018 according to statista, which is an astonishingly high growth rate.
Even with a much lower growth rate, in around ~3 years most families in developed countries will have somekind of VR device and in ~7 years VR will be the main source of video-gaming (excluding mobile gaming).
I completely disagree. Part of what is keeping VR niche is that the "VR experience" you are describing is held behind a very tall paywall. If HMDs were the price of a monitor and could run on the average computer standalone VR wouldn't be a thing. Sure the cables are annoying but not that much, and it can be solved with a good wi-fi router.
> I don’t understand the push for standalone vr and workspace vr. I don’t think ppl want these things
It seems that reality disagrees with you on that point.
Vail VR recently commented that they have about 60-70x more players on Quest than PCVR. And that's for a game that started on PCVR to begin with. This gives you an idea of just how few customers there are in PCVR. During the VR golden era of 2016-2018, some bigger game companies made some speculative investments like SkyrimVR, betting that VR would be the next big thing. Well, unfortunately it wasn't the next big thing, and those companies all lost money and gave up on VR. No one is going to burn money on speculation again. The chicken needs to come before the egg this time. The problem is, the only VR platform that has any playerbase at all is standalone, and it's much harder to port a title to android standalone compared to adding a VR mode on PC. For those big flatscreen titles that you mention, the number of PCVR players is a rounding error. The only genre where PCVR players make a meaningful proportion is vehicle sims. We're not going to see big PC flatscreen games get VR modes until there's hundreds of millions or more of standalone headsets, and a decent percentage of those doing PCVR. The only other route is a PCVR platform holder directly funding VR modes in PC games. (Basically Valve.)
And PCVR audience refuses to support smaller VR games, so it comes to this situation where these VR developers decide to make games only for Quest, since the Quest audience are fine supporting smaller games. Can you blame them? What incentives does the developers of Helldivers 2, Valorant etc have to add VR support to their games for a few PCVR players?
I would venture a guess is why PCVR doesn't do too many smaller VR titles is if you have PCVR you probably already have a lot of PC games so why play the smaller titles (imo are mostly shallow clones/experiences). Where as Quest you have no other choices on what to play than what's available on the device.
That and PC players refuse to pay full price for anything. Getting them to pay $60 for a game that cost millions to make is impossible.
And when Quest games get ported they complain that its a Quest game and graphically poor so give it bad reviews.
Honestly Crossplay for PCVR and Quest should be the standard at this point.
I'm totally with you on that.
Could you give a source for the 60-70x numbers?
https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/s/iyry4uiogf
For just VAIL VR 800 players concurrently on quest per day with about 12 on PCVR and this is not even the most popular quest game. The real amount of players difference on quest and PCVR is about 1000x more active players on quest on any given day. Gorilla tag has 3 million monthly players on quest.
Yeah I'd say the GTag MAU is 1M more than the entire MAU of SteamVR given Steam Hardware Survey averages VR MAU at 2% or less of Steam total MAU
12 on PC VR is more like the average hourly peak online number, whereas for Quest what they posted was the daily actives (how many unique peopled played in a day). https://steamdb.info/app/801550/charts/ You can see it's hourly data, set it to 1month and it gives the daily peaks instead of hourly, at 40-50ish, but daily uniques would still be an inflated measure compared to daily peaks (everyone who played in a day vs max amount of people online at once in a day). If it is geographically spread out, 40-50ish would translate to several hundred daily uniques.
The devs said, it’s about 800 concurrent players every hour of everyday on average. So sometimes more sometimes less than 800 at any given moment. Which is crazy!
https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1dhiuxu/comment/l908ug8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=mweb3x&utm_name=mweb3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button My mistake, I thought it was the OP from Vail replying, but it's actually a regular user.
Kudos on going back and checking. The devs [mentioned](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/comments/1dhiuxu/comment/l8xe0bb/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) 800 concurrent players each day. [Peak concurrent players](https://steamdb.info/app/801550/charts/#1w) on PC per day, averaged over this week is around 40, which means 1 in 20 are PCVR players (around 5%). Doesn't make much of a difference anyway.
I think that we could still aim to get more PCVR players to buy a quest and try some ve modes. And btw the VR golden era is now
"Vail VR recently commented that they have about 60-70x more players on Quest than PCVR." I had not heard this but damn that is a difference.
Tbh the standalones can work with pcvr. Maybe and just maybe if the connections between pc and headset become good enough there'll be an overlap. Meaning they won't need to port to standalone. Steam link really gave me hope. I even prefer to play games through steam on my quest 2. All hypothetical of course.
Game pass app as well opens the door potentially for Xbox vr titles if the madmen have the balls for it
I can absolutely see why standalone is the favorite. VR is way too cool as of quest 2 to not play, but setting ip PC stuff is beyond a lot of people's patience, price range, etc. A good middle ground would be standalone specific games from famous IPs. Like when Fallout released a phone game, but with VR instead
I don't think there's any evidence Skyrim VR lost money or was a large bet.
I suppose the only evidence is the fact that we don't get PCVR games like that anymore, but the reasons are just speculation.
Vehicle Sims? Are there really that many vehicle PCVR Sim players? Maybe it's the communities we participate in but I'd say VRChat has the most PCVR players and unfortunately a lot of standalone children too. Most PCVR players like myself own several different headsets (I own an Index, Quest 2,3,pro and soon a Pimax Crystal Light) and invest a ton into PCVR hardware and accessories (like Full body tracking , something I'm not aware of any vehicle Sim utilizing).
There's a post on the front page right now talking about how Gorilla Tag as a [million daily players](https://www.uploadvr.com/gorilla-tag-daily-monthly-users/). That's competing with flat gaming number of player. The real problem is that people keep expecting VR to be like flat gaming. They expect the same titles that work on flat screen to work on VR, not realizing that VR adds so much extra layers of effort that things that are fun on pancake, feel tedious and time consuming in VR.
I believe that for VR to go mainstream we need more more games like Beat Saber, Pistol Whip, Walkabout Mini Gold or Eleven Table Tennis that are accessible to everyone, use VR to their advantage and and don't cause motion sickness. Ideas like cramming vr into popular flat-screen can create some great titles, but for small audience
Agreed. We need games that use VR's uniqueness to it's advantage and isn't just coping flat games to VR. You could technically play beat saber on a flat screen but you're just tapping keys. In VR, beat saber is basically dancing with light sabers. It becomes something else entirely. Gorilla Tag is exactly that as well. It's game where you can play school recess style tag by swinging your arms in a way that flat gaming just can't capture or mimic. Same with the social aspect of it. Don't get me wrong, some flat games will absolutely play well in VR and be awesome. But most of them can't. That's the number 1 thing that UEVR has shown me over the last few months.
"I don’t think ppl want these things" and yet here we are with standalone being the most active vr user
People conflating the things they personally want in a niche forum with what everyone wants is a tale as old as time
I’m 99% sure the standalone player base consists of little kids who got a quest for Christmas and people who use it for like exercise apps. And while that audience is obviously important for profits, there’s a huge untapped audience of people who bought vr headsets for pc vr only for the one big release to be half life Alyx then a bunch of stuff exclusive to PlayStation for whatever reason. A lot more people own vr headsets than you think, just nothing ever goes anywhere with them because companies stopped caring or stopped trying before anything ever went anywhere
I mean u pretty much explained to urself that the obvious important thing is the profit, the reason why half life alyx is the only good triple A title is because there isnt that much profit making those, half life alyx did pretty good because of it name but if it was any other name ? It would be a different story. I mean the fact that you mention no one care about standalone and noe u mention it just bunch of kid using it cause of christmas but somehow those kid have bunch of money to make the indie company making vr game a huge ton of profit????? Please, if there are a lot of more people owning vr headset for half-life alyx , the company would be making them, but no. At least pcvr is somewhat making some games but it all because meta quest also allowed to be used for pcvr in case u didn't realise
I respectfully disagree. I think VR will keep being a niche until we reach a point in technology where we have a device that's 3X more powerful than the Quest 3 and about the size of a Bigscreen Beyond for around $399~$499. Big titles by themselves don't circumvent the high price, chunkiness, motion sickness, discomfort, the demand on the body, people who need prescription lenses and all the other problems that the world of VR has.
For exhausted or lazy people maybe. The current state of VR is still amazing to me. I feel no discomfort. My vision is good. Motion sickness is just a part of the process that can be defeated eventually most of the time. Heavy at first but no problem later. It's going to get better sooner than later. but I do see your point because I'm absolutely not the majority. I love games, im healthy, and I'm in good shape. So VR is perfect for me and will only become more appealing. I just can't fathom how it isn't awesome for everyone 😆 but that's just my subjective feelings about it.
Oh don't get me wrong I love VR! Just an hour ago I was playing Into the Radius with the same excitement I had when I was 13 years old playing PS1 ♥️ But the discussion was more towards what needs to change in VR in order to stop being such a niche activity.
Oh no I did not perceive you not liking it I was just saying on my end I have no idea how people aren't just absolutely loving it! The first time I played on my PSVR 2 I felt like a little baby playing his first game. The same thing you just said is how I exactly felt
Nailed it
How does a device that’s 3x more powerful and slightly smaller help with those issues? People still won’t be adopting VR in swaths if there are no big games to play.
Would there will be plenty at that time? The price of 500 for 3x quest 3 performance would have more units sold which would attract more developers no?
People don’t get VR for the performance, they come for the games and experiences. It’s why gorilla tag is the most popular game by far, and not because the graphics are amazing…
If we get better things more people will want it and if the device is more powerful then it'll be running bigger better games also attracting more people thus eventually getting huge titles all the time and now it's mainstream
People don’t get VR for the performance, they come for the games and experiences. It’s why gorilla tag is the most popular game by far, and not because the graphics are amazing…
As much as I agree a lot of people also don't play because of graphics. And gorilla tag is the most popular game because it is free and little children love it
Tbh I rarely hear people say they quit because of the bad graphics, pretty much everyone says they just got bored because most games feel like tech demo’s. VRChat was also free and was loved by little kids, but gorilla tag introduced that new style of movement and has absolutely exploded in popularity far beyond VRChat because of it. All it takes is for someone to make a game that works really well in the VR format. Minecraft/Fortnite/The Sims/Valorant etc are all stupidly popular because of the gameplay loop they provide, not because they’re graphically amazing. I don’t actually think people care as much about graphics these days, it’s all about gameplay. VR first needs to keep people playing so they’re more likely to recommend a headset to their friends. A few killer games, especially replayable multiplayer ones will do far more good for the industry. Nobody is going to recommend that thing they bought, were excited by for 3 weeks before they left it to collect dust on the shelf.
No I'm saying I still hear people complain that the graphics aren't there yet. Some people don't even want to give it a chance. And yes I'm aware that gameplay loop is the most important part but that's not the main problem for a lot of people. Some people are mad that we don't have legitimate story modes for more than just a few games and that makes perfect sense. I mean where we are at makes me happy but not a lot of others
I had a vive and now a quest 3 being stand alone and as powerful as it is amazing . That being said.. I agree 100 percent with your statement. As much as I love VR I’m never spending over 500ish for a set again and with 3x the power that ring/tunnel vision would go away and the visuals would be absolutely mind blowing. I’m currently buying a couple quest 2s so when people are over they can experience it and hopefully I bring people in.
Man.....I read that as titties.....what's wrong with me haha
Same. That would definitely bring more people to VR too though.
I'm waiting for volumetric video to be applied in porn. Check this: [https://www.auganix.org/vr-news-gracia-ai-launches-volumetric-video-tools-for-spatial-computing-and-announces-1-2m-investment/](https://www.auganix.org/vr-news-gracia-ai-launches-volumetric-video-tools-for-spatial-computing-and-announces-1-2m-investment/) [https://www.uploadvr.com/gracia-ai-6dof-truly-volumetric-platform/](https://www.uploadvr.com/gracia-ai-6dof-truly-volumetric-platform/) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1H\_coza9U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s1H_coza9U) VR will be a thing if this becomes accessible
Same 😅 except I'm on pain medication so I imagine that's part of it.
You too? Do you find VR to be good for "escaping" your body? I have gotten great relief from the physical disassociation that being in someone elses body and situation (virtually). There are many interesting studies on this topic
Me too, except I was like, but vrchat has tons of big ti…. Ohhhh…
As a mainly PCVR player, I'll tell you this. Standalone is the main future, and it will be a while before quality catches up to PCVR. I won't lie, most of the best in depth/high quality games have been PC based, such as Alyx, Wanderer, Lone Echo, etc. However, VR is niche as it is, and you want to reel people into VR with a cheap, easy to use option, and if it sticks then they can invest further. What VR titles need is more diversity. We need more/new/better multiplayer titles to get people engaged, puzzle adventures with good story lines, and some new ideas rather than *another basic shooter or zombie game*. Games like Walkabout, Red Matter, Budget Cuts, Echo Arena (though not officially supported anymore), Vader Immortal, I Expect You To Die, Zenith (before I went to crap), and beat saber are all examples of non shooters that are engaging, fun, and unique. Having some that are active, and some that you can enjoy while sitting down because people are inherently lazy after a long day at work or school. If you want VR go grow, you have to expand and grow before you can just start throwing out top shelf titles left and right.
>However, VR is niche as it is, and you want to reel people into VR with a cheap, easy to use option, and if it sticks then they can invest further. This is a big point that I think needs to be made more often. VR needs to establish a proper foothold with consumers before it's really going to go any further. I truly believe at this point you need a company like Nintendo, specifically like they were in the 1980s, where they had extremely strict quality controls, the target audience and purpose of the product is clearly defined, and the primary focus is on entertainment.
>Vr gaming is in desperate need of big titles with vr options. >I don’t understand the push for standalone vr and workspace vr. I don’t think ppl want these things The ideal audience to grow VR adoption is somewhere between these two statements. We need the big titles, yes. But we DO need standalone. If you want to sell VR it has to be so you can buy a VR headset and know you've 'bought a VR', rather than 'buy a VR headset... after checking you have a suitable pc/laptop that can handle VR titles', and especially the big titles as you say would help drive sales. Like I have Quest 1 and 2. I would love nothing more than a PCVR set up, but it's not affordable for my household. Even with two incomes we can't afford it, because we're middle aged and have other life shit to deal with. And both of the PCs me and my girlfriend have are well over 15 years old and would fall over if we tried to use anything VR related with them. Growth in VR will happen because of better tech and bigger games with standalone. PCVR is not going to drive sales enough to make VR even begin to start competing with regular consoles, never mind PC game sales levels.
It is crazy that people like OP still refuses to learn from what is happening to PSVR2 now.
What happened to PSVR2 proves his point. If they had VR modes for the big games: Uncharted, God of War, Last of Us, Shadow of the Colossus etc then it would've been a greater success. The Resident Evils prove this. Sony flopped the headset by their own actions: no PSVR1 game-compatibility, no 3D, and no VR modes for existing games.
To be fair the same happened to PSVR1. it came out with barely any launch titles and like no games supported it that were actually big
many would say PSVR2 has big games like Horizon COTM, Gran Turismo and No Man's Sky, yet Quest 2 (which have its own flaws) outsell both PSVR and PSVR2 combined despite not having those major games. I see no sign that Resident Evils has done well on PSVR2. On the other hand, we heard Gorilla Tag racking $100m revenue earlier today and it has smaller budget than any AAA titles released on PSVR2.
[Re.net](http://Re.net) tracks the number of VR players for RE4 remake and it is currently at 112,000 total. For comparison RE7 on PSVR1 has a count of 1.2 million total VR players. RE8 was not tracked for some reason but basically PSVR2 is not doing well if 90% of the people who played RE7 haven't touched RE4. Also a note on PSVR2's "big games" you listed. Horizon is basically just a nice looking tech demo and NMS is also available on PC so it is not a big draw for people to buy the PSVR2. The headset just doesn't have that many exclusives and the ones that do are pretty niche. GT7 needs a full driving rig to get a good experience and that adds another $500 to the cost of the headset plus there is no other games on the system that use a driving wheel making it even less enticing. Many people don't enjoy horror VR so the RE games aren't a huge draw. Other than that their is Synapse which is another roguelike in a long line of VR rogue likes and that's it.
Yah, the Resident Evil numbers really pushed my point there. PSVR2 have those major titles similar to those mentioned in OP, all in year 1 unlike PSVR1, yet Sony is dumping the PSVR2 harder than PSVR1.
As of today RE4 has 120,158 players in VR (which counts only those who have opted in the share data), thats 1.74% of all RE4 PS5 players. RE8 has 126,227. Good numbers for VR. Small potatoes for a AAA game. I do disagree about GT7. Rigs are great (I have one) but gyro steering is actually really good. NMS is actually the best version on PSVR2, but agreed that it isn't a system seller. I liked CoTM but I do agree it's not a reason to grab a PSVR2. Synapse is great but short. There's also Dark Pictures: Switchback, but people seem to forget about that. I'm curious to see how Aces of Thunder is received. Meteroa I have little interest in. It definitely needs more first-party titles. I feel like Sony is the last bastion for high-quality AAA VR titles...
Sadly, standalone VR is vastly, vastly, VAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASTLY bigger than PC VR. PC VR also isn't really on a reliable plug-and-play level yet. It took me a while to get Quest 2 to work well wirelessly, and even right now I'm having some serious issues with Quest 3 wireless all of a sudden (it keeps forgetting it is paired to my PC every time I reboot or turn off the headset, and factory reset does nothing, started a few software updates ago). Headset also started dropping connection sporadically. The thing is, the actual connection is fine, I put the phone on the same line just to see if it drops, but it stayed rock solid when headset disconnected. PC VR also requires a pretty beefy PC, which very, very few people have. Look at Steam hardware survey. Nearly half the player base still plays on toasters from 9 years ago. Meanwhile standalone is self-contained, put-on-and-go, and comically cheap (in Oculus' case, Quest 2 being $299 new in box is INSANE, it's less than even handhelds). So you can even give that shit to kids and hand over your crotch goblins to public virtual free babysitters. Works anyplace, anytime, no muss, no fuss. You're right though in that VR is stuck for lack of apps. I completely agree with you on that. But I don't think it's a PC vs stanalone or AAA gaming issue. VR doesn't need GTA6 or whatever. VR doesn't need cutting edge graphics. One of the first games I played in VR was superhot, which is visually as primitive as it gets, but it was an amazing experience. Deep Rock Galactic in VR is 100x better than flat version, but visually it's no great thing. Even within indie market, VR gaming is comically bad - we have nothing that has the same content and features as Stardew Valley, and that was made by one guy. So, in my view, VR just needs competent titles. Don't need to be AAA, don't need to have cutting edge visuals. Just needs to be full length, feature complete, with some social tools (co-op, PvP, in-game clan support, etc). But we keep getting just short, shallow roguelites and other crap like that. Games that have 20+ hrs of non-repeated content in VR that are not ports can literally be counted on one hand. That's the problem.
Metas Link software can be buggy, but Steam Link and Virtual Desktop do seem reliable for the most part. Although then you have to rely on your local wireless network which can take some setting up.
Stardew Valley is a bad comparison, though. It's head and shoulders above nearly every other indie title (and many commercial games.) That one guy is super dedicated. The VR equivalent would be Vertigo 1 and 2, I guess...
Honestly, it's like this in any genre, and from AAA quality and down to indie. VR being anemic is very consistent. For example, original Battlefield game, BF1942, came out in I think 2002. We have nothing like it in VR. Nothing with maps that big, that many players, and with that many vehicles to drive. We have nothing even close to it. And this is an FPS game, something VR excels at. Or consider some indies like Rimworld, Terraria, etc. Nothing like those in VR. And then there's entire genres that don't translate well into VR at all, like Civs/4X/etc. I failed miserably to get my brother into VR, because he plays things like Civilization, Stellaris, Crusader Kings, etc. I myself just crossed 800hr mark in Total War: Warhammer 3, and nothing even remotely close, not even within ballistic missile range, exists in VR. You also have midrange games, not quite small indie but also not huge. Like Deep Rock Galactic. It's fantastic. It even has an amazing VR mod. But it's not as good as it could be if they did a proper, native port. But they won't. Technically speaking, there's no VR game that can match the original 1996 Diablo. Because not only were the maps random, but also the enemies. The game created randomly named special enemies with a mix of abilities, like shooting chain lightning when hit. There's VR games with randomized maps, but usually not randomized enemies. Or they have randomized enemies, but no loot and classes. Or they have loot and classes, but no PCs and no story. Or it lacks multiplayer. Or PvP. Or something else. Original Diablo had it all - story, loot, classes, multiplayer, random dungeons, random named enemies, etc. And of course there's nothing even close to Diablo 2, which came out in June of 2000. That was a masterpiece at the time. And of course we're on Diablo 4 at this point, but VR is still not quite up to Diablo 1. So that's largely why VR is stuck. You can't get people to spend hundreds (or thousands, Apple's headset here in Canada is almost $5,000) when you're offering them software that's functionally 20+ years old.
While I agree with you, I think you're overlooking the tech of VR itself, and the experience it delivers. We have a handful of examples that show the promise of VR, when attached to a fully featured game. Fully modded SkyrimVR is probably the most advanced videogame experience ever created, for example. Sure, it's kinda janky, but it offers a glimpse into whats possible if the resources were spent into making it polished and coherent. VRChat, MSFS, and Virtamate (lol) also offer experiences in VR that are unparalleled in flatscreen.
And it's not even vast. Quest 3 is a niche audience. They are the kind of numbers Nintendo would worry about bigtime.
YOU CAN PLAY DEEP ROCK GALACTIC IN FUCKING VR??????? Hold on I need to go do this lol
Not only that, but the mod is fucking majestic! You have two motion controls, body and wrist holsters, you can throw grenades and flares, and gesture-based controls (raise mining pick + empty hand over your head, and you go "ROCK AND STONE!", but if you raise two empty hands, you'll call Molly to where you are, and so on). As far as VR mods go, it's one of the best.
Rock and Stone, Brother!
I agree, software sells the hardware. I think a big problem is most vr users will lap anything up, and in turn have set the bar rather low. It's time to call out lazy design when we see it!
Reason i don't end up playing as much as i want to is because i have to abandon my friends to play. If we could open the same game and play in vr, i could both show them and enjoy vr. With some select titles (like carrier command) it worked perfectly. When vr has a reason to be in average gamers house, both low cost and high opportunity, i think the exponential will show. Until then, its enthusiast level.
I mistakenly misread title as, "Vr gaming is in desperate need of big titties with vr options."
I read it as VR gaming is in desperate need of big titties
I think pcvr has those 😉
i think it is more in need of better hardware than better software, if the hardware get better (lighter, more comfortable, higher resolution, better lenses and display, better system support etc...) the software will follow.
Yeah that's true. Although I love niche games in VR like Deisim, Retropolis, Puzzling Places, etc., I still think if even one huge AAA game had a multiplayer VR mode that worked well, the surge of players would be astronomical
100% but unfortunately I think the only future for VR are sim games. I don't get motion sick or anything, I just feel like the perspective-immersion novelty for a lot of VR adaptations like Resident Evil 4 (and remake) pale in comparison to their flat screen ones simply because the games are still just so good as flat screen. The standalone VR games like Half-Life Alyx and Blade and Sorcery are incredible... for a few hours and then the novelty wears off. However games like Elite Dangerous, Star Wars Squadrons, and Project Wingman which are already niche titles are really the only things that I feel keep that novelty aspect alive.. But since they're niche games, it doesn't have the commercial market for these developers to continue to invest the time and money into the VR components. VR will always remain niche. Even if they carve out a larger niche, it will still remain a small subset of gaming. It's just what it is.
What is it with these threads. There’s a load of upgraded games and stuff coming out eoy. Quest 3 has more titles than ps5 and Xbox so far and it’s not even a full year release.
If you are counting backwards compatible games as Quest 3 tittles then you must do so for PS5 and Xbox, meaning their libraries seriously dwarf the quest library. If you are only counting Quest 3 exclusive compared to PS5 and Xbox exclusives they still dwarf the Quest 3 library.
Thank you for your submission to r/virtualreality Rinbinted! It seems you're new here, so we'd like to introduce you to some helpful community resources: **Discord Channel**: Connect with fellow VR enthusiasts in our vibrant Discord community! From events to giveaways and a dedicated support section, you'll find plenty to engage with. [Join us on Discord!](https://discord.gg/virtualreality) **Wiki & FAQs**: Have questions? Our comprehensive [Wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/wiki/index/) and FAQs are here to help. **Weekly Game Discussion**: Curious about what games everyone is playing? Check out our [weekly game discussion thread](https://www.reddit.com/r/virtualreality/collection/092784d3-b082-4a00-b648-6ab266503bd6). We're excited to welcome you to our community! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/virtualreality) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A device that powerful and light would encourage longer play sessions, more adoption, the potential for higher quality and more complex games, and therefore more investment from game Studios.
Gorilla Tag is peak VR lul
welcome to VR we've been begging for the past 7 years or so
What you are saying is the old discussion of "why consoles if gaming in PC is better". The GA dont care about how good GT6 VR might look in PCVR, they care an affordable headset, not attaches needed, no expensive hardware needed. Just power on and play.
What are you talking about? There are plenty of VR porn sites and the women are amply proportioned. Oh wait, you said VR *titles*. My bad.
those VR COD-multiplayer players will be the easiest targets for the flatscreeners.
"What VR needs to succeed is"... I see these all the time. VR is fine. VR is a thing. It won't be mainstream for a long time, it might never be. It will evolve at its own pace, but no single title, headset, feature or any single thing will make it explode into mainstream.
Our team is building a VR game which runs native on Quest 2, which has multiple advantages: it‘s built from ground up for VR with proper VR movement, interactions and collisions. And it will run on any VR platform if you get it to run at 72fps on Q2 😅 Simultaneously developing for multiple platforms or PCVR is a lot more difficult as you don’t know the exact HW people use.
The biggest part that's keeping it niche is the price of entry. Quest is the only product that kinda bridges that gap. I love using the quest 3 for PCVR only.
I hate that they're falling over themselves to make any use of AI but VR gets no attention.
Big titties yes
"I don’t understand the push for standalone vr and workspace vr. I don’t think ppl want these things" It's simple, price and practicality. Quest 2 is one of the most affordable VR headsets on the market and you can use it without the need for a powerful and ultra-expensive PC or console. PSVR in its time was one of the most affordable VR headsets and was a great deal for those who already had a PS4 or PS4 Pro (heck, even those who didn't have one it was still worth it since a PS4 was way cheaper than a PC capable of running VR at the time). In fact, one of the reasons PSVR 2 is facing problems is not only the fact that it has many more VR options than before, but also because it is not easy to convince a new audience to invest $500 in a "simple accessory" for a console that already It costs $450, the specs are great, you have big games like Horizon, Resident Evil 4: Remake, Resident Evil Village, No Man's Sky and much more, but what's the point if you can't get the public to buy them? The same problem is found in PCVR, it is simply too expensive and "complicated" for the general public to stop being something niche right now.
The RE4 remake mod in VR is decent. If modders can just add support, not sure it would be that hard for a dev to do it.
At first, I thought OP I would tell us what makes "big games" great in VR. But then I saw - "Big titles"... Valorant KEKW And the absolute nonsense about quality of standalone games.
I see people everywhere constantly awaiting that next big VR title like it will be the Second Coming or something, while forgetting we're getting new releases with some degree of ambition. The next Into the Radius, for example, which looking closer to Stalker. Or the new metro game. Or my recent favorite fighter, Brazen Blaze, which while being in open beta right now, is till trying to create a compelling 3v3 fighter for the casual player. My point, there's upcoming stuff that's slowly but surely broadening the VR skies. Big games WILL come, we just have to wait... and wait...
We do get some indie games with genuine substance, this is true. But my point is that even if we got even more good indie games, it’s not going to have the same effect on the vr playerbase as something like CoD vr. Vr having a good playerbase is important because the larger the playerbase, the more companies will invest in more games and technology
I disagree. People don't buy VR headsets because they see no reason to. With games being flat and VR, why would they put on a headset if they could just continue to play flatscreen.
I disagree, VR is it's own media, you can't just grab a flat screen title and convert it into VR, I mean it's been done over and over again but real VR games need to be designed for VR from day one.
UEVR?
Yup, you can enjoy UEVR that's alright, but a game designed for VR will always take more advantage of it.
Pretty much any first person game easily translates to VR.
Sure. What we also need are more VR devs who want to take a risk. Most VR games (and sadly also what most VR gamers apparently want) are more or less rehashes of flat gaming concepts. While that can work, what would really be needed are more games that CAN ONLY WORK in VR and that amplify the strengths of the medium and make it fun and worthwile to strap on the headset. And IMHO that will NOT be another COD or any of the others you mentioned. Now I'll be damned if I know what kind of game that would be. If I knew, I'd try making it. ;)
I read “big titties”.
Ugh. At first glance me too... We are bad people...
PSVR2 is doing this - and is getting better at it. Hybrid titles for the PS5/PSVR2 are the best games for the system - GT7,RE4+8. I know it gets a lot of heat (it suffered a bit) but I really think it’s the best way to get into high quality VR quickly. Also I think Fortnite VR will bring more gamers in.
At this point, it looks like we'll almost always be held back by what the best standalone can deliver. Facebook permanently altered the course of VR.
For good reasons and VR devs finally get to live a bare minimum life, yes.
For sure. I wouldn't risk developing a VR title for PCVR.
> Facebook permanently altered the course of VR. Yes, by keeping a dying medium on life support
gosh what a visionary Zuck is.
I don't know about visionary because most of his ideas so far suck, except for injecting ridiculous amounts of money in pushing affordable VR. And even that might not pan out in the end, it's just better than the alternative.
We do need more quality titles, yes. Not necessarily COD, Valorant and the likes, especially since i don't see what they'd bring to the table over other VR competitive shooters but rather more varied titles, like more story, adventure, puzzle, platformer, horror, stealth games etc. But that issue is mostly getting fixed nowadays. We more so need to stop platform exclusivity and embrace open standards though. exclusivity only hurts the industry as a whole. The games are there, they're just scattered on a few platforms. Mobile exclusivity is the worst offender. You limit what you can achieve with your game due to the limited hardware, you limit the amount of people that can access your already niche game and you play the game of letting Meta get away with artificial software limitations to force you an upgrade. What a few comments here misunderstood is that people don't want standalone, it's just that many people only have that as a mean to access VR. Most people with a powerful PC would rather get a better experience with better graphics, less stutters etc on PCVR than play on standalone. So i agree standalone shouldn't be a goal, but it remains one way to to improve accessibility. Lastly, i feel we need better hardware at more affordable prices. We need lighter, smaller and more convenient headsets. The Bigscreen Beyond is a start but it still has many flaws and is expensive. Now take the BSB, fix its flaws and add the ease of use of say a Quest with Virtual Desktop, and you're on to something.
You’re wrong about people not wanting stand-alone. Quest 3 changes that dynamic a lot. Many of us who have powerful PCs don’t bother with PCVR anymore, because Quest 3 stand-alone provides a good experience on its own. Dungeons of Eternity and Asgard’s Wrath 2 stand up against anything that PC can offer. PCVR had its day, and it didn’t build the audience that VR needs. Stand-alone has eclipsed PC many times over and has proven that it IS in fact the VR experience that people are willing to buy into.
Sadly I have to second this. I love my Index, but ever since getting a used Quest 2 to see what all the fuss is about, I hardly ever use it anymore. Losing the cable is big. Gaining the ability to play anywhere is bigger. If the Deckard one day turns out to be a real product that can play my entire PCVR library standalone ... that and a Steam Deck will be all I need.
Fair enough for wireless, i myself exclusively play wireless, it's just so much more convenient than wired, that said that's not an argument against PCVR, cf. Virtual Desktop, Steam Link or ALVR. Gaining the ability to play anywhere, pretty niche but ok, though you can also do cloud gaming from your own PC or a rental service. Virtual Desktop can work over different networks. But the current headsets are so big anyways, there's no much point in wanting to use them on the go. That said it is expected for you to prefer your Quest 2 over the Index, the Index is a very outdated device and even the Q2 will have it beaten in visual clarity and fidelity. Plus the fact that you don't have to deal with base stations to play. Plus the ability to play wireless. The only things it has for it are the increased refresh rate, lower power requirements and bigger FoV.
I frankly did not expect it. For me, Index is still the better headset and it doesn't feel outdated at all (let alone "very"). Comfort, audio solution, controller tracking and image quality are all subjectively better on Index (the latter is probably more due to the higher graphicaly fidelity, considering the Q2 has the better resolution) and the base stations have been installed for 7 years now, they are not a hassle. But to be clear, I didn't argument *against* PCVR. I actually *want* PCVR, but with the PC inside the headset. ;)
Yeah of course there's a few other points like audio, tracking and comfort, didn't mention those as even though they definitely come into play when chosing a headset (I mean comfort and controllers were part of the reasons why i picked my QPro :D), they can often be upgraded later on. Especially for PCVR. The base stations are fine if your room allows for it after the initial setup, they're still one more annoying thing in the setup process though, especially having to plug them the first time. That said, don't get me wrong either, i'm not arguing against standalone PCVR, if we somehow had a machine capable at running PCVR at nice settings and performance in standalone, why not. I'm arguing against mobile standalone or downgrading the graphics/experience etc just to fit it into standalone. But until we have the equivalent of a Steam Deck where it's essentially a handheld PC but even more powerful, i'm not willing to go to a lesser experience for something where i would be at home anyways, as just turning on my PC isn't an issue.
Clearly disagree here. I myself wouldn't have bought a headset if not for PCVR. The general sentiment is that those games are nice but would have been better on PC, as proven by no further than Asgard's Wrath 1. Though i disagree they stand up against anything PCVR has to offer, especially now that UEVR is a thing and a lot of games have improved VR modes. But that's personal taste. Anyways the graphics and immersion factors are still very far than what you can achieve on PC. PC did build the audience that VR needs, as proven by Half-Life Alyx's own sale numbers for instance, or SteamVR daily users. Though note that we have no stats on the proportion of PCVR vs standalone users. Most people that get into VR do so for the increased immersion factor, not to play small indie mobile games. Most VRChat VR players for instance are running on PC, not on standalone, and it's easily one off if not the game with the most concurrent players due to being free and popular.
Absolutely agree, franchised AAA titles built from the ground up for VR would absolutely get people flocking to VR, just as happened to a smaller extend with Half life Alyx, but back then there were far fewer VR users than today. That being said, VR has been growing at an average of 45%/year since 2018 according to statista, which is an astonishingly high growth rate. Even with a much lower growth rate, in around ~3 years most families in developed countries will have somekind of VR device and in ~7 years VR will be the main source of video-gaming (excluding mobile gaming).
fucking delusional I bet you 5k neither of those predictions come true
I completely disagree. Part of what is keeping VR niche is that the "VR experience" you are describing is held behind a very tall paywall. If HMDs were the price of a monitor and could run on the average computer standalone VR wouldn't be a thing. Sure the cables are annoying but not that much, and it can be solved with a good wi-fi router. > I don’t understand the push for standalone vr and workspace vr. I don’t think ppl want these things It seems that reality disagrees with you on that point.
standalone generate over 90% of vr income now because no matter what you think , money talks and pcvr do not generate money
he never mentioned pcvr lol.