EVE Developers Pulling Out of VR

monkeymagick

[H]News
Joined
Jun 22, 2008
Messages
480
CCP, the developers behind EVE Online and EVE Valkryie, is scaling back on its VR development. EVE Valkryie was there day one with the launch of the Oculus Rift, but the company sees the market as still a niche, with an estimated base of about 2.4 million users on PC headsets. Its office in Atlanta will close and any remaining efforts will be from its other offices. "Our belief in the long-term transformative power of the technology remains strong," said CEO Hilmar Veigar Petursson.

About 30 jobs are being lost during the restructure, it added, saying that it had given staff "severance packages" and would help them find other work. A potential buyer had been found for the Newcastle office, said CCP, adding that negotiations over the sale were continuing.
 
Didn't a developer already say that there's no profit in VR yet? Hardware to drive the software needs to be better and cheaper. Entrance is still high for normal people. Hell, without that price drop I wouldn't have been able to afford it. ...and I do like shiny technology.

Yes. And I'm not surprised at all. It was always a niche market, expensive, and lets face it: How many of us have enough physical room for VR to be a thing?

I don't use VR in room scale.
 
Last edited:
Yes. And I'm not surprised at all. It was always a niche market, expensive, and lets face it: How many of us have enough physical room for VR to be a thing?

Yes, sit-down VR is one thing, but the space requirement for most games for example would rule it out for me until my house is built at least.
 
I have been an early adopter with tech many times. I spent lots of money when 3DFX was new - awesome when it first came out, but there were not that many games that supported it. It took until 3rd gen 3D hardware before there was lots of software, performance was improved, and likely development tools were caught up (we had the whole Glide, OpenGL, exclusive titles back then).
This time around - I want to dive right in but my life has changed. I'm married and have kids (queue the song from Married with Children). I've got bills, mortgage, and limited time to spend on my computer. Damn it to hell being having to be an adult. I'll miss out on the cool factor, but will probably have more software to choose from, cheaper hardware, and likely it will be better when I jump in.
Still sad to see a company bail. I think we need VR to costs to come down some more. Not sure what the magic price point is - $199 would be fantastic but realize companies won't be making much money on that. Maybe $299 would get more adopters with todays current hardware. I think the Rift is $399 now?
 
It was bad foresight really, they went all in too early. Honestly I think that with the slew of Microsoft vr headsets hitting the market now that now is the time to consider vr development. There's plenty of headsets at that magic $300 price point.
 
This should hardly be shocking. VR development is dead. It got a push far to early and as a result is going to die, simple as that.

I'm not saying some don't love the tech... but they had a push that involved dueling formats out of the game with hardware that wasn't compatible with a mainstream PC. Something fewer and fewer people are even buying (mainsteam PCs) never mind ones with the GPU HP to drive actual VR gaming.

2.4 million units in the wild that should tell you all you need to know about the future of VR.

There are over 11 million MORE Nintendo wiius in the wild today. Depending who you ask that console was one of the biggest flops ever. (Nintendo didn't loose money on the wiiu... but ya it didn't sell 100million+ units like the wii so it failed)

If I was a developer I would be spending money developing games for the switch instead... seriously there are 8 million of those out already, and good switch titles have amazing sell through. If Nintendo moves another 3-4 million before the end of the year for xmas. (as they plan) I mean really why would developers waste time and money developing complicated expensive games for VR when the switch has 10x the install bass, with 4-5x the sell through numbers.

Even if you develop the most incredible must have VR title going... even if you get a crazy sell through of 1/4 the install base that is still going to be a bit north of 500k copies at best. Assuming you are able to profit $20 bucks per copy which would be a very expensive VR game for end users... that is 10 million profit. To profit $20 per game you would have to sell your game at $50-60 and your development budget couldn't push 5 million or so tops. That is the simple hard facts for VR developers. VR titles are a massive risk, with only the absolute cream of the crop even being capable of turning a profit. Where as the same developer could easily pump out a Switch game that would almost be impossible to loose money on and likely translate into a very healthy margin.
 
Yes. And I'm not surprised at all. It was always a niche market, expensive, and lets face it: How many of us have enough physical room for VR to be a thing?
The only real viable gameplay VR makes perfect sense for is racing. You just sit and can look around. I am not too fond of the open world VR as teleporting just ruins it for me.
 
I tried both rift and Oculus and I would buy one if the screens were better.
Room scale games are in general as interesting as playing a Wii party game on your own.
I think they haven't released a version with a higher resolution, because only a small amount of people have PC's that can run these higher resolutions smoothly. Although these people are probably their target audience tbh.
The best solution would a higher resolution headset with good upscaling, allowing mid and high range PC's to run game smoothly.

On the games front. The only game I played that would warrant buying a vr headset would be elite. The other thing I tried were either not implemented very well or lame shovelware that you'd only play when you are really bored and had nothing else to do or very short tech demo's.

I understand that they claim that there are too little vr headsets out there to continue development, but that was already the case when they started.
And it's the same issue with any new platform, people will only buy the hardware if there are decent games on the platform and most game Devs will only make games for platforms that have sold a lot. That's why console companies like Sony and Microsoft pay studios for launch titles and exclusives.
Than it's also important how much extra work out is to port existing games. Moving a pc game that has controller support to PlayStation or Xbox is relatively easy. For vr you need to do a lot more effort to have a good experience.
 
The problem with higher resolution VR sets... is install base.

There is no business sense in developing software for a subset of a very small install base. Even if say 2 years from now there are 10 million VR headsets chances are the majority of them will be current generation or MS backed headsets which are = or lower res wise. That would mean the market of gamers capable of playing at the higher res would be very small... so developers would HAVE to target the lower spec hardware. Same issue you get with PC/Console developed games... sure you can make the PC version look better, but the artists and VFX guys are going to target the lower spec.

I don't know if there is a path to save VR on the PC or not, I really don't see MS as the savior. It was just far to early. Mobile AR perhaps in the next few years will help drive development tools, but high end PC only VR gaming... ya that isn't going to happen.
 
Only thing I want to try VR for is Resident Evil 7. I played a little bit of it, and feel like I would really enjoy it with a headset.

It’s a high buy-in price though especially for one game. Not much else interests me, maybe Doom VR?
 
The drive for VR has never changed. That is Immersion. That is why GPU processing has ramped up over the years, to get closer and closer to rendering photo realistic gaming environments. Though pretty photo realistic rendering is just a 2D image. VR is about to hit it's 2nd generation of products which will do it better building on the success of the first gen and adding what was missing.
First, higher resolution. 2nd, a wider field of view. I think eye tracking will be a huge boost to realism because the way the images are presented can mimic the way we naturally see the image depending on where we look. Newer generation of gear will be smaller and lighter. I think also the will be 3 types of VR that will shake out. 1 is a full VR, with room scale. That is the "jump around" VR which personally I'm not interested in. 2nd is the AR, this will become popular because the head gear promises to become more and more compact until it will resemble visor type sunglasses. Also this this promises a truly portable technology. Future iterations of smart phones will stream data to AR headsets. Combine this with tech like eye tracking to be mouse movement, point and click and also with voice recognition. The synergy of these technologies will let you walk around and take your office with you. And what I would buy is a 3rd type, a "sit down" VR like the Pimax 4K. I like flight sims so this would be more suited.
 
Oculus Go... jump in a lake :D

seriously, at $199 for an all-in-one solution it should sell like hotcakes giving a much higher incentive for devs to dabble a bit more in VR...

sure, the experience isn't going to be like Vive or Rift, but it doesn't have to be to generate enough money to continue funding those more niche products.
 
The drive for VR has never changed. That is Immersion. That is why GPU processing has ramped up over the years, to get closer and closer to rendering photo realistic gaming environments. Though pretty photo realistic rendering is just a 2D image. VR is about to hit it's 2nd generation of products which will do it better building on the success of the first gen and adding what was missing.
First, higher resolution. 2nd, a wider field of view. I think eye tracking will be a huge boost to realism because the way the images are presented can mimic the way we naturally see the image depending on where we look. Newer generation of gear will be smaller and lighter. I think also the will be 3 types of VR that will shake out. 1 is a full VR, with room scale. That is the "jump around" VR which personally I'm not interested in. 2nd is the AR, this will become popular because the head gear promises to become more and more compact until it will resemble visor type sunglasses. Also this this promises a truly portable technology. Future iterations of smart phones will stream data to AR headsets. Combine this with tech like eye tracking to be mouse movement, point and click and also with voice recognition. The synergy of these technologies will let you walk around and take your office with you. And what I would buy is a 3rd type, a "sit down" VR like the Pimax 4K. I like flight sims so this would be more suited.
Do you really need eye tracking if you have a large enough display? It seems to me if my vision constitutes 4" x 6" and the screen is 5" x 7", when I move my eye around, I'll just continue looking at the screen and be none the wiser.
 
Give it another 10 years (if we are still around) and I think third time will be the charm.

You'll still look a fool using it though. Some things can't be fixed.
 
Eve Valkyrie was a huge turd, like absolutely no SP mode or content.

I've put maybe 2 hours into PSVR, they need to figure out a way to stop motion sickness, all the fun games are fast and make me ill in about 10 minutes.

Rail shooters are fun-ish and don't have the motion sickness problem nearly as bad.
 
tbh as an eve player for many years i read about this yesterday. this has nothing to do with VR the big news yesterday was that they also let go of two of their most well known community managers CCP Logibro and CCP Manifest. looks like CCP is in trouble financially to me.
 
Do you really need eye tracking if you have a large enough display? It seems to me if my vision constitutes 4" x 6" and the screen is 5" x 7", when I move my eye around, I'll just continue looking at the screen and be none the wiser.

The eye tracking is to reduce rendering power needed - if you can track where the user looks, you only have to render that area photorealistically and can render the rest of the scene in lower quality without affecting the end user experience.

Right now it 's a race, gpu power is progressing at the rate that by the time eye tracking is consumer ready, there might be enough gpu power to not matter....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Youn
like this
I am seeing more VR investment at the corporate level. I know we rolled out a VR "training" for our customers that walks them through servicing our product. There are other implementations of the VR we are doing as well, to virtualize things for roadshows and customer visits. Hopefully investment by companies to roll this out will mature the solutions for consumer level VR.
 
Screens just aren't ready to make VR happen.

Still a VPM: virtual puke machine to me and many others.
 
Guys, it's also worth remembering that EVE Valkyrie is one of the most nauseating games anyone can play in VR, if the game were playing at half speed it would have made a lot more people comfortable with it.

The ships spin at absurd speeds and because you are (at least you were) limited to joypad-only controls, there was no way to tone-down the experience....sloppy with your thumbs and you're doing barrel-rolls and feeling your stomach in the back of your throat. I got it free and almost never played it because you, literally, had to train to play the game longer than 15 or 20 minutes...at least for me...before the dreaded hot face/sweats began, the entertaining precursor to hangovers favorite buddy, the Heave.
 
VR IS DEAD VR IS DEAD...

or you know, maybe its just gen 1 and we will see it pick up by gen 2/3?

Maybe, probably, likely.
 
VR IS DEAD VR IS DEAD...

or you know, maybe its just gen 1 and we will see it pick up by gen 2/3?

Maybe, probably, likely.
It's funny to hear people say that it is dying or a niche. Yeah, this is still Gen 1.
Lot's of new VR HMD's and wireless stuff for it coming out. Though I am not sure the resolution is Gen 2 or 1.5.
Lastly, how can people still play on flat 2D no dimension screen? It is so boring now that i have had the taste of how games should be played.
 
VR, for me, is a chance to escape. I can check Facebook from space, watch Netflix while on the beach. Never mind being able to portal myself into a new world of adventure with one of the many titles available.

For me, it's far more engrossing and immersive than looking at a standard computer monitor could ever be.

It's not perfect, far from. With new tech coming out, and new(er) tech being developed, I'm confident we'll be at an immersion level close to that of Ready Player One, by Ernest Cline, sooner than we think. But we need to invest in the technology now for the progress to be made.

But what do I know? I mean, I'm one of the few idiots that bought a Nintendo Virtual Boy....

Also, I was referring to the Ready Player One book, not the film adaptation coming out in March of next year. I'm not even sure it's the same story based on the previews :-/
 
I have an oculus and I think VR is awesome, but im still waiting on more "cockpit" simulators. I dont like teleporting either and my house is not configured for room scale.
 
No offense to these fine developers as theyve managed to actually deliver far more than the Star Citizen mess at a sliver of the cost, but this game was a niche of a niche to begin with.

Still, the anti-VR anklebiters reflexively foam at the mouth with any chance to proclaim VR isn't happening or "it suxx cuz it's nawt $89 and 4K in each eye". FOH.

I'm personally waiting for Fallout 4 VR next month and plan to spend many hours there.
 
The eye tracking is to reduce rendering power needed - if you can track where the user looks, you only have to render that area photorealistically and can render the rest of the scene in lower quality without affecting the end user experience.
Right now it 's a race, gpu power is progressing at the rate that by the time eye tracking is consumer ready, there might be enough gpu power to not matter....

Correct. It is really amazing how little we actually see while we are seeing. The actual area of our vision that we can focus on at any one time is small compared our entire field of vision. An interesting test is to hold your hand (left or right side) just to the outside of straight ahead field of view. Continue looking straight ahead and hold up 3 fingers. Without shifting your focus can you actually see 3 distinct finger? Probably not. We can tell it is our hand, we see fingers, but is it 2 or 3? Really hard to tell unless we look directly. Why display photo realistic details where we can't see them anyway at that moment? It will be interesting to see how this tech evolves.
 
I laughed, not sure if joking, but it is extremely amusing seeing this from 'that Linux guy'.

As a Linux guy I hate VR. ;) Seriously comapnies like Valve have been burning lots of money developing Linux VR tools when they should really be focusing on moving gaming to Linux >.< VR is a waste of development money... which is the conclusion CCP has come to.

After a serious 2 year push now there are barely more then 2 million VR headsets out there. Of those how many are sitting on shelves ?

And yes I have tried both PC VR solutions. As others have stated anything worth playing have serious issues for most players. Between having to figure out how to wear my glasses... I still can't play anything for more then 20 min without feeling seriously ill. I am hardly alone. The people I know personally that have invested, have had plenty of people try out their gear... and its a serious issue when 1 in 3 or 4 of the people that plug in want to puke after their first go. That does not sell headsets. (and yes they where powering their VR with a 1080 and plenty fast enough cpu... the issue is VR)

On the up side... cause I don't want to sound like a complete hater. I guess if the proper tools are in place in the major game engines to create VR versions of non-VR games. Perhaps VR can hang on for a few years with games like Res Evil... where most people will play the non-vr version. As long as developers can produce VR versions without having to reinvent their games and spend millions on seperate development perhaps VR can hang on as a niche product until someone finds a way to honestly solve the medical issues with VR. IMO (yes its an opinion) until they come up with a way to solve that so developers can produce one title for VR and Non-VR... VR is just not going to happen.
 
I laughed, not sure if joking, but it is extremely amusing seeing this from 'that Linux guy'.

What does the fact that Windows 10 is a steaming pile have to do with this discussion? I suppose it isn't helping improve VR sales...

Headset sales suck and the games are mostly shovelware. There are no must-have VR games and I do not have high hopes for Bethesda's attempts. The problem with VR is that while it expands gameplay visually, it comes at a huge cost of movement limitations and graphics fidelity.
 
What does the fact that Windows 10 is a steaming pile have to do with this discussion? I suppose it isn't helping improve VR sales...

Headset sales suck and the games are mostly shovelware. There are no must-have VR games and I do not have high hopes for Bethesda's attempts. The problem with VR is that while it expands gameplay visually, it comes at a huge cost of movement limitations and graphics fidelity.

... Seriously? It's dead, Jim.

VR is in its infancy, it would die if HTC and Oculus drop it, but I personally think it will really pick up with gen 2/3, unlike Linux, which is still a small piece of a very large market decades later.
 
All I want is stationary 3D gaming. Can't we just get 4K/60fps in 3D over HDMI already? With passive 3D? I don't need to look behind me but I'd love to look out the "window" in front of me.

I've avoided Vive/Oculus thus far primarily because of cost, but secondarily because I hear the pixel density just isn't there yet. I've tried Samsung Gear VR and Pixel Daydream and both are far too grainy for anything but cute demos and the odd virtual tour type thing. I've been hoping the interest in VR would at least pick up 3D displays by association but that hasn't happened either.
 
All I want is stationary 3D gaming. Can't we just get 4K/60fps in 3D over HDMI already? With passive 3D? I don't need to look behind me but I'd love to look out the "window" in front of me.

I've avoided Vive/Oculus thus far primarily because of cost, but secondarily because I hear the pixel density just isn't there yet. I've tried Samsung Gear VR and Pixel Daydream and both are far too grainy for anything but cute demos and the odd virtual tour type thing. I've been hoping the interest in VR would at least pick up 3D displays by association but that hasn't happened either.
People need to actually use the Rift/Vive to get a feel for it. Like I have said before, I can't stand 2D games anymore. I love the immersion and depth of the 3D world. Not knowing WTF is behind me.
 
Off Topic
... Seriously? It's dead, Jim.

VR is in its infancy, it would die if HTC and Oculus drop it, but I personally think it will really pick up with gen 2/3, unlike Linux, which is still a small piece of a very large market decades later.

Well its off topic but I don't think your really looking around very much... Linux dominates the computing world >.< Its in your pocket, its in your router, its in your set top box, its running the servers we are communicating though right now. Linux dominates everywhere, desktop computing is the last bastion of things non linux. I'm sure in your case though you have a windows phone, and only search the internet with Bing.... oh wait that is also powered by Linux. Linux as the desktop standard will happen organically, with Linux powering the vast majority of devices with a CPU at this point its only a matter of time.
 
Well its off topic but I don't think your really looking around very much... Linux dominates the computing world >.< Its in your pocket, its in your router, its in your set top box, its running the servers we are communicating though right now. Linux dominates everywhere, desktop computing is the last bastion of things non linux. I'm sure in your case though you have a windows phone, and only search the internet with Bing.... oh wait that is also powered by Linux. Linux as the desktop standard will happen organically, with Linux powering the vast majority of devices with a CPU at this point its only a matter of time.

You people.
 
I've avoided Vive/Oculus thus far primarily because of cost, but secondarily because I hear the pixel density just isn't there yet.

I think passing on the current crop of VR experiences because the headsets aren't "4K per eye" yet, is like if all your life you avoided playing 2D videogames until they had evolved to 1080p. Think of all the gameplay experiences you would have missed out on.. over pixels.

The first time I loaded up Vanishing Realms (still the high watermark for me in being able to demonstrate the promise of VR to friends) , I wasn't sitting there thinking "man I wish this had more pixel density". I was thinking "I can't believe how it actually feels like I'm in this dungeon" as I'm touching pieces of a stone pillar, or walking over a small, narrow walkway with a steep drop on both sides and actually feeling real anxiety not to misstep and fall.
 
And flight sims. VR in DCS and Prepar3d is amazing.

VR would be amazing, but the whole package was a real letdown (Oculus). Latency, resolution, and ungainly equipment. I still much prefer the TrackIR on a headset for now until latency because some kind of niche concern in a bigger industry.
 
Back
Top