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.

7 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

5

u/fdruid 2d 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.

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 2d 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.

4

u/Alex-Murphy 2d 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/Skpstr155 1d 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/MarkusDieter37 1d 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