Monday, October 22nd 2018
CCP Says They Expected the VR Market to Boom Much Sooner
CCP, makers of the legendary EVE Online, made quite a substantial push for VR in the coming of age of Oculus' Rift and HTC's Vive products in the form of EVE: Valkyrie. The game was fully developed by CCP's Newcastle studio with VR systems in mind (including the PS4's), but failed to... sound off quite as much as the developer wanted it to. During last weekend's EVE Vegas FanFest, CCP CEO Hilmar Veigar Pétursson told Destructoid that the company expected VR to become bigger, faster, than it ever did, with utilization rates being way below the marketed attachment rates and sales of VR headsets.
"We expected VR to be two to three times as big as it was, period. You can't build a business on that.", said Hilmar Veigar Pétursson "If it does take off, and I mean if, we'll re-assess. The important thing is we need to see the metrics for active users of VR. A lot of people bought headsets just to try it out. How many of those people are active? We found that in terms of our data, a lot of users weren't. May of last year (2017) is when we started to figure it out. Was it a surprise? Maybe. But the picture was filling in that there would not be a way to continue with VR as heavily as we were. No regrets. It was right to stop, and it was right to start. I remain a long-term believer of VR." Perhaps things will turn around with subsequent generations of more affordable VR headsets, such as Oculus' Quest, but... It might take some time and slow iteration.
Source:
Destructoid
"We expected VR to be two to three times as big as it was, period. You can't build a business on that.", said Hilmar Veigar Pétursson "If it does take off, and I mean if, we'll re-assess. The important thing is we need to see the metrics for active users of VR. A lot of people bought headsets just to try it out. How many of those people are active? We found that in terms of our data, a lot of users weren't. May of last year (2017) is when we started to figure it out. Was it a surprise? Maybe. But the picture was filling in that there would not be a way to continue with VR as heavily as we were. No regrets. It was right to stop, and it was right to start. I remain a long-term believer of VR." Perhaps things will turn around with subsequent generations of more affordable VR headsets, such as Oculus' Quest, but... It might take some time and slow iteration.
30 Comments on CCP Says They Expected the VR Market to Boom Much Sooner
For some there's always someone else to blame.
Valkyrie felt like a tech demo at its best.
Drop of CPU/GPU prices because of high requirements for VR.
Drop of actual headset prices.
Good games, even a single one, to play. One amazing triple A VR multiplayer game would be enough incentive to buy it.
For example... Contagion VR: Outbreak - Its like L4D but in VR. Ive watched some youtube letsplays and it looks pretty good... It has SP & MP features.
Yeah... the game is pretty much dead... Or people are too busy making memes in VRCHAT. but i thought that some of those people would of at least played this game. Something like this is a failed project.
I bought a PSVR primarily as a gift for my kids. I tried the "Eve Valkyrie" demo on PSVR many times. While I liked it the demo, it was too short to get enough of a feel for the game. The game was also expensive at the time at least for a game I was on the fence about. In the end I opted not to buy "Eve Valkyrie" but that doesn't mean I didn't buy other VR titles, which I did.
EVE Gunjack was a port from the Gear VR that was either free or dirt cheap. While not perfect I liked that enough to keep installed.
Anyway, my point is, either make a game I want to play at a reasonable price I will pay or I'll see you in the bargain bin years later for pennies on the dollar,.....your choice.
Crying about it after the fact wont change anything.
Edit:
And Micro trans on a ~$60 game is unforgivable.
I've seen new Windows Mixed Reality HMD's go for as little as ~$200 USD which should be about ~154 Pounds Sterling.
It could be "the grass is always greener effect".
That is to say that because the ~$1400 USD HTC Vive Pro may be seen as the best in the market they only have eye's for the top of the line (or PiMax 8K X or whatever). Or maybe they want to wait for prices to drop. Or they are just not interested.
Overall its a combination of price, performance, consumable media and expected gains (improvements) in the industry.
A lot of people aren't going to buy into the products and media if in a year or two there will be a cheaper and better performing replacement.
There is more that an HMD can do though beside playing games.This is a bit of a puzzling statment IMO because the Oculus Rift is now seemingly at a MSRP of ~$399 USD which is the same as the reported MSRP of the upcoming Oculus Quest.
Also WMR headsets are often cheaper then Oculus Rift.
So, the current alternatives are:
PSVR: ~$800 + games (PSVR + PS4 Pro). Easy entry, decent experience, not a lot of games or stuff to do. No cross-compatibility.
WMR: ~$1200 + games (entry-level gaming PC + WMR headset). Mostly poor headsets, low-end specs are barely passable, so a poor experience. Okay compatibility doesn't help.
Rift/Vive: >$2500 + games (headset, controllers, possibly trackers/beacons, mid-to-high-end gaming PC). Decent-plus experience (though still with plenty of room for improvement), good compatibility. Complex and very expensive. $2500 investment with low real-world utility due to the few and short high-quality experiences available.
Neither of these are even close to where they need to be for mass-market adoption. Either you spend $800-1200 for something that gives you a few fun times and is then shelved and forgotten (not realistic for >99% of people) or you pay >$2500 for something that might se a bit more use and give you a better experience, but the number of hours of entertainment you get in return are still in the low-to-mid double digits unless you enjoy repeating the same thing over and over. Not many people have that kind of money to burn.
We need the hardware minimum spec to stay put, and GPUs to drop back down to sensible price points. We really should be getting RX 480-like performance at ~$150 (or less!) at this point, considering it launched at $200 in 2016. We need good headsets at ~$400 or less, with internal 6DoF tracking. No lighthouses, external sensors, or other ridiculous setup requirements. With bundled controllers in that price. And we need more stuff to use this with. All of this also needs to come together roughly at the same time, as one before the other won't work. Facebook/Oculus should have the money to make this happen, but they need to be willing to make a gamble, which ... well, likely won't happen.
I don't necessarily agree with the calculations beyond that though.
As of 2017, the PS4 has supposedly sold 70+ Million units. Undoubtedly it has increased somewhat since then. This is called an installed base and while the PSVR can be sold in a bundle with the PS4, the target demographic would be those of whom already own a PS4. Therefore, you don't calculate the entry level cost of the PSVR by including the cost of the PS4 Pro anymore then you would the cost of an 80 inch OLED Samsung 8K TV. Its too specific and there is every reason to believe that those seriously considering the PSVR already own the requisite hardware.
Likewise most people seriously considering a Vive, Vive Pro, Rift, PiMax ect for gaming purposes likely already have a capable gaming PC.
The minimum specs Oculus cite are as follows:support.oculus.com/170128916778795/
I'm sure plenty will take issue with those specs and I would tend to agree but that is what they are citing.
The PSVR had more then one bundle but the lowest priced version was ~$399 USD back in late 2016. This was disingenuous because it didn't include the camera necessary for the PSVR's tracking system. The camera was about ~$45 USD at the time. The move controllers were never really necessary and if there is a game dependent on them it would be very rare. Today the PSVR can be had for an entry level price of something like ~$220 or ~$250 USD.
Back when the PSVR was introduced the Vive and the Rift were about ~$799 and $599 respectively. They have both received price reductions as well down to $499 and $399 respectively. In all likelihood they will see even more price cuts possibly as soon as this holiday season.
One of the reason I never bought a Vive was because of the price. IMO, it didn't matter how good of an experience it may have been, it just wasn't worth the ~$799 USD to me. Lowering the price to ~$599 is helpful but as that happens the product doesn't necessarily age well with newer products hitting the market (Vive Pro / PiMax 5K / 8K X ect).
So its very much a moving target.
My question to you, given that you bought a Vive, what price should it have been for you to keep it rather then return it. At what price did you buy it?
As for both the rift and the vive, you're right that they've come down in price, but it's also been quite thoroughly established that they're rather problematic. Both need additional tracking hardware, are difficult to install/use, and while they have okay display panels, they both have clear issues in that area and are starting to look quite dated. Not many PC enthusiasts are willing to spend that much money on 3-4-year-old hardware that they know is sub-par, particularly when the same money could instead replace that GTX 970 or Radeon 290 with a much better GPU that would work in all games, not just a few. And the Vive Pro with all accessories is well north of $1000.
I'm squarely in the latter group - I don't mind spending significant money on pc hardware, but I'd never consider spending $400+ on outdated, sub-par gear. $400 is still a lot of money, and not a sum i can afford to throw away on a short-term purchase that I know I won't get much value from. I can't afford $400 experiments, and neither can the mass market that VR needs to reach to attain critical mass where it won't fizzle out yet again. If the "value" proposition of VR is buying old, sub-par gear delivering a sub-par experience, it's never going to catch on. Which was my whole point: for it to be worth the premium, the premium has to be palatable, and the gains (i.e. stuff you can do with it) be tangible. Right now, neither are true, and you're better off spending your money on traditional hardware or saving it.
I thought you were talking about the Vive. My mistake.
Yeah, the first time I came across retail pricing for EVE: Valkyrie I think it was something like ~$60 USD. That was a no go. At ~$15.99 it would have been a maybe but then there are micro transactions in the game and I am not too keen on that.
I've passed on a few games because of the implementation of microtransactions.
Good on you then. Great to hear someone is happy with it because that is what brings the value of the product to the individual.
I'm happy with my Oculus Rift but I am keenly aware that the Vive is the better product IMO.
With respect to EVE: Valkyrie though it was not just the introductory price but rather the demo that killed it for me. While the demo was fun IMO once it got started, it was just too short. Sure you get some kind of feel for the game but it just wasn't enough of a taste of the game for me to commit to it with a purchase. To be fair I tried other VR demos and ended up buying full games because of the demo. With EVE: Valkyrie it was about the opposite.
They made mistakes with that game and they just aren't owning it.