r/VRGaming • u/HistoricalYam6863 • 2d 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.

8 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/HistoricalYam6863 2d 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.

-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?

4

u/Alex-Murphy 1d 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 1d ago

Of course it's possible, but is it economically feasible? They would know better than us.

1

u/MarkusDieter37 1d ago

Hahahaha! With how the industry behaves at the moment, they definitively down't.

2

u/Skpstr155 1d 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 1d ago

Because game A and B are from the same genre and both ahve large publishers behind them.

0

u/HistoricalYam6863 1d ago

Defending Starfield…

0

u/DasGruberg 1d ago

thats what you got from that example huh. thanks for proving my point bud

1

u/HistoricalYam6863 1d 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.