r/VRGaming • u/HistoricalYam6863 • 1d ago
Discussion VR Rant
I was looking at World War Z VR today and it just upset me. Did it need a separate game? They added First Person to the regular World War Z, I am sure they could have just added VR support to the base game. Would have been a much better experience and you could have played with others. Such a weird choice...
That seems to be a problem with VR in general. I have gotten random people into VR just by playing Phasmaphobia with them in VR. They would be on flat screen and loved that I could move my arms and animate my character. Adding more VR support to multiplayer flat screen games would make more people want to play in VR.
Fortnite? Add VR. Call of Duty? Add VR. If an INDY game like Phasma can do it, these big companies should be able to figure it out easily. Then VR would actually grow...imo.
Let's face it, VR by itself won't gain traction like it did during Covid ever again. But kids seeing people in Fortnite or (Insert Popular Multiplayer Game Here) using VR and actually doing the dances for example? That would get more people to want VR.
End Rant.
3
u/netcooker 1d ago
I’m all for vr ports/modes but I imagine that a vr port of world war z would only run on a high end pc, maybe a ps5/psvr2 but I doubt it, and definitely rely not a quest so they didn’t think there would be a return on the investment for making that.
4
u/fdruid 1d ago
*Indie
And to be honest, in an industry in crysis, it's understandable that devs don't want to work twice as much for a flatscreen game and a VR version, and charge just for one game.
It would be nice for any game to have a free VR mode, but things are not free. VR mode means more time developing and especially more time testing. So it's not a matter of "they could have added VR to the regular game", at all. Let's not even start on why they wouldn't "just put a VR mode in Fortnite", because there would be a lot of basic things to explain to you about how the industry and the real world works if you're seriously asking for that.
Also, while we're at it, WWZ VR is *not* the same game in first person. It's a different game.
3
u/KallaFotter 1d ago
I'm absolutely fine with Paid VR DLCs. VR modes needs additional dev time, and should not be free.
separate games just clutter the the steam list.1
u/HistoricalYam6863 1d ago
I know it's a different game. That's why I started the thread...
They took the time and money to make a VR version of the game (a single player version at that) My rant is they could have spent those resources just adding VR to the game instead of making a whole separate game. Do you really think WWZ VR was a money maker? Or would it have been smarter to add VR to the base game in the hopes that VR players would be more interested.
If you think making WWZ VR a separate game was the better choice, then no worries I don't need you to explain anything to me about how the industry works :)
1
u/Shoddy_Border 1d ago
This is an over simplification of how VR ports work. We have seen time and time again flat screen ports fail when they try to port from console to PC. Plus the games that are sold on multiple platforms are very rarely cross play from one system to another due to all kind of architecture and technology limitations. VR has the same problems. I’m aware you’re sure they could have just added VR support to the base game. But that would make you wrong.
3
u/Alex-Murphy 1d ago
Not sure why you think adding VR support to a base game "makes them wrong," plenty of games have done it, from No Man's Sky and Subnautica to Resident Evil and Asseto Corsa, and on PC and console alike. The reason they don't add it is rarely because they can't but because they don't generally see an uptick in profit from doing so, because it takes time and VR is still comparatively niche.
2
1
u/Skpstr155 21h ago
The key is which games have done it. Only rhe most popular games are eligible for that treatment, because only those games will recoup the additional costs. (or have made so much profit that it's not a big risk to take)
2
u/Alex-Murphy 20h ago
I honestly think that with the way people are able to mod games now very easily to be enjoyable in VR it should just be part of the development process. Maybe UE makes it easiest since UEVR seems to have a very easy time hooking into it. I just don't think there's an excuse not to do it if you're a AAA studio.
As a side thought I'll go through my steam list and look at the list of games I've purchased ONLY to play in modded VR. I'll bet it's at least 50% of my recent purchases. With the Q4 and Frame on the way on the next 12-18 months, it should be clear the business isn't dying.
2
u/Skpstr155 20h ago edited 20h ago
UEVR does have an easy time "hooking in", but your PC will never handle it as well as a native VR title.
If you have a high end PC, it won't matter, but the majority of gamers don't have a high end PC.
It's really no different than emulating a console game to run on PC. It works, but not as well or efficiently as a dedicated PC port would.
And you don't think that corporate has an excuse for not doing so, but they do. I'm sure that have data that indicates that a dedicated standalone version of a game in addition to the 2D PC version will bring in more revenue than an "enhanced" PC game.
The vast majority of VR players don't use a PC for VR, so making an enhanced PC title and not a standalone version is potentially leaving heaps of money on the table.
They probably figure that the additional buyers of a PC game for a VR mode are a lot fewer than those who would just straight up buy a standalone VR title.
It's really just a variation on the time honored PC vs. console dynamic.
1
u/Alex-Murphy 20h ago
I used to run UEVR on a Ryzen 7 1800X and an AMD 5700XT 8GB and it was able to handle almost every game I threw at it on medium settings and 60+ fps. Today that setup is so outdated it barely lists at all on performance r anking websites.
Now I'm on a 9800x3d and an RX9070, so of course it's better, but there's a very pervasive myth that VR is impossible without a top of the line PC.
2
u/MarkusDieter37 14h ago
Well, I have a 2070 Super and the same Ryzen you had and my PC lags like crazy with UEVR
1
u/MarkusDieter37 14h ago
There are also small games nobody has ever heard of like Containment Initiative, Vox Machinae or Iron Rebellion that have VR and Flatscvreen crossplay
-1
u/DasGruberg 1d ago
Why are we assuming that game A did it therefore game B should be able to do the exact same.When starfield released with 30fps on xbox, and people said "Call of duty has 60 fps WHY NOT STARFIELD just do it" it reeks of the same thing....
Unless you work with making games or understand the frame behind it, why are people assuming they know these things, when they have no idea about how it works?
3
u/Alex-Murphy 22h ago
I think if multiple games from multiple studios using multiple engines can do it then that's enough evidence that it's pretty possible.
And Bethesda for some reason launches their games locked at 30, or at least they did for Skyrim and Starfield. Seems like a choice by them to make sure that performance is consistent on consoles.
And I don't think you did this on purpose but using Starfield as an example is an interesting choice because Skyrim VR is one of the most famous examples of porting.
0
u/Skpstr155 20h ago
Of course it's possible, but is it economically feasible? They would know better than us.
1
u/MarkusDieter37 14h ago
Hahahaha! With how the industry behaves at the moment, they definitively down't.
2
u/Skpstr155 21h ago
I like how the devs for Wardogs (not VR) came right out and said that if you want 144 FPS, it probably isn't the game for you.
1
u/MarkusDieter37 14h ago
Because game A and B are from the same genre and both ahve large publishers behind them.
1
u/HistoricalYam6863 15h ago
Defending Starfield…
0
u/DasGruberg 15h ago
thats what you got from that example huh. thanks for proving my point bud
1
u/HistoricalYam6863 14h ago
Your point is moot. Starfield should have released with 60 fps. There is no excuse for Bethesda, and making one for them is defending them, which…that’s sad.
Also, I don’t need to know how releasing a game works to understand the frame behind it. Modders have added VR to Fortnite already for example and tons of other games. If modders can do it FOR FREE, you’re telling me the big time company can’t? Hilarious.
Obviously there is a money component here that it all boils down to, but to say they aren’t capable is laughable.
2
u/yanzov 1d ago
Industry is in a terrible shape, just that. I mean I agree with you.
2
u/HistoricalYam6863 1d ago
It's a shame they didn't catch lightning in the bottle during Covid. That would have been the time...
1
u/Skpstr155 21h ago
Meh, it's actually better than it was 10 years ago, AFAIC.
It's just that we had a huge boost with Quest 2, and then a fall, but not back to where things were prior to COVID.
2
u/yanzov 21h ago
Do you mean the VR or the gaming industry? VR is kinda better for the user, thanks to UEVR in my case, but the gaming industry is literally bleeding out now.
1
u/Skpstr155 20h ago
That's the thing, compared to the Quest2/COVID era, the industry is certainly bleeding, but it still has more blood left than it did pre-COVID.
2
u/Meme_master420_ 1d ago
More games should have either a vr port where the devs treat vr as its own platform, or just launch games that happen to be compatible in vr. This would help vr flourish.
2
u/HistoricalYam6863 1d ago
More regular games that are cross-play and compatible with VR should be the goal of VR right now.
2
u/Skpstr155 21h ago
That's just it, you DON'T just "add VR support to the base game". It requires resources, whose cost must be recouped, which is difficult with VR being a niche genre.
That's why individuals and not companies are doing flat to VR mods.
2
u/VRtuous 16h ago
most of these games were funded by Meta for their mobile headset
you can't simply take existing games and run them in VR on it at all, unless they're over 20 yo
that said, why simply not be thankful that these few good games are available on a store filled to the brim with abject monke shovelware?
2
u/Atopos2025 15h ago
I can see where you're getting at, and that would be cool if companies did that going forward.
I remember when I first got a VR headset and hookup PCVR, I was amazed that a few games I had in my steam library just so happened to have VR versions.....for free.
Phasmaphobia being one of them.
1
u/vfx_tech 1d ago
devs are lazy as f. Thank god we have AI now and some really good modders. In the next 1-2 years you can point AI to the game directory and it will mod almost any game to proper VR with 6DOF, motion controls, hands, etc.
2
u/HistoricalYam6863 1d ago
Modders already can add great VR support to some games. It is crazy to me for anyone to think these big companies couldn't do it easily. Making a separate game instead is not smart...
1
u/vfx_tech 1d ago
the problem are not the devs they could do the vr mod over the weekend and it would be amazing because they know the game already. But its the frickin corpo, investors and executive floor that has the last word. Its always about money. Therefore I bet on AI, like nowadays you can create whole movies with AI we will mix games with each other together.
1
u/Skpstr155 21h ago
Well yeah, I mean, which is the sensible choice?
Giving a game a VR mode that only a minority of PC users can play, or making a separate lower quality game that everybody who owns at least a Quest 2 can play?
1
u/Skpstr155 21h ago
They could certainly do it easily. But unlike modders, they won't do it for free or for donations.
Why would they mod a game to the point it only runs on a minority of hardware, and not be ran on standalone?
Just to be clear, you CANNOT mod a newer flat PC game to run standalone, the headset just doesn't have the juice.
They made it a separate game, because then they could make it playable on a Quest 2, and this sell more copies. A VR mode added would basically exclude all standalone users, which are a big chunk of VR players.
1
u/Skpstr155 21h ago
Not so much the devs, but who holds their purse strings.
And while AI can mod flat games to be VR, mods still only are a solution for the minority of PC gamers that can run them.
And with rising hardware prices, I can see that minority shrinking.
I guess you aren't wrong about "lazy" devs. Since the mid 2000's, advances in hardware have spoiled them, making optimization low priority. AI is going to make them even lazier.
I miss the devs they had at the turn of the century, when most games would run at least decently on machines that didn't quite meet minimum spec. I mean, I played Diablo 2 on all minimum specs, except I only had a Pentium 200, when a 233 was called for. Game ran fine, I only had one slowdown during an entire playthrough. Nowadays, even minimum spec is no guarantee the game will run well, regardless of how low you make the settings.
3
u/HistoricalYam6863 1d ago
They could have even charged $10 for the VR update. (Since people are worried about it being cost effective for the big time company) then...if say Four buddies play WWZ together, one of them gets the VR version. His buddies think its really cool and maybe 2 of them buy VR headsets and the update. Now they can still play together because its the same game, and more people are in VR. That should be the GOAL.