Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 752119]

They are not saying VR doesn't need killer apps. They ARE saying that VR doesn't need a AAA killer app. That is the point of using the "app store" app as an example

I get that. But still disagree with them.

It needs a AAA killer app that gets skeptical people interested.

Phones didn't because people bought them just to have e-mail and internet on the go, and thus had the device and could dig into the app store.

People have no reason to buy a VR set if their isn't a killer app that gets them interested. Thus they won't have the device to just explore the app store and see what they find like they did with their smart phone.

 

[Greddleok]

Well the PS4/Xbox1 didn't need a killer app. Shit loads of people bought them at launch, and there was fuck all to play on them.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

So basically they're looking for customers with champagne money, but beer tastes? That's so backwards. If people are dropping serious money on VR, they expect the experience to reflect a similar "value". Imagine if the Wii launched at the same price as the PS3, but still retained the same type of games and hardware? It would have been ludicrous

 

[Nzyme32]

I get that. But still disagree with them.

It needs a AAA killer app that gets skeptical people interested.

Phones didn't because people bought them just to have e-mail and internet on the go, and thus had the device and could dig into the app store.

People have no reason to buy a VR set if their isn't a killer app that gets them interested. Thus they won't have the device to just explore the app store and see what they find like they did with their smart phone.

That isn't much of an explanation of why a specifically "AAA" (ie big budget) title is a requirement of the killer app. There is no certainty that a "AAA" game is that killer app, and only a "AAA" game.

 

[Kathian]

I don't look to Valve to lead any of this. Their too dysfunctional and the Steam Box has just been a waste of time.

 

[Jimbob Smalls]

Hold on, this is potentially the biggest gaming advancement since the invention of Pong and Valve are taking about, uhm, apps when they are allowing possibly one of the largest franchises in gaming whither and die with no conclusion?

Plot lost.

 

[Nzyme32]

So basically they're looking for customers with champagne money, but beer tastes? That's so backwards. If people are dropping serious money on VR, they expect the experience to reflect a similar "value". Imagine if the Wii launched at the same price as the PS3, but still retained the same type of games and hardware? It would have been ludicrous

Where are you getting this from? Are "AAA" titles the only games that could possible be an excellent experience in VR? This is the quote:

"Q: Too bad (about no HL3, Portal 3), but Vive needs a killer app. Save for Crytek no AAA studios are on board, not even Valve has unveiled anything, even though that Portal demo seemed like something almost complete.

A: What was the killer app for the iPhone. Its AppStore. Back then there weren't big creators on the platform, only lots of small ones, who today are bigger than classic AAA studios. We like smartphones and tablets because they offer us different experiences compared PCs and consoles. Same will happen with VR."

You say - "Imagine if the Wii launched at the same price as the PS3, but still retained the same type of games and hardware? It would have been ludicrous"; where have they suggested such a thing or even that AAA titles are not happening at all? All that is said is that different mediums offer different experiences, and VR will be no different. Indeed as the guy asking the questions has said, there are barely any AAA devs involved with VR right now. It simply won't be profitable enough to justify off the bat

 

[RPGam3r]

You are missing the point.

The comparison isn't of Valve to apple, but that the App Store - which is an app in and of itself, is the killer app of the iphone. ie A single "AAA" killer app, is not what is necessary for VR

The killer app of the phone is not the App Store. This is why the comparison fails as your phone is like a personal computer in your pocket. Without downloading a single app the phone and it's access to Internet is immediately useful in too many ways to count.

The didn't need a killer app bc it was too busy killing it with phone/text/internet.

 

[MUnited83]

Buying $599+ tax devices to play mobile games in VR with $1500 PC's. This is gonna go well.

Makes me believe why PlayStation VR will have some success because games like Horizon or No Man's Sky are going to eventually be on it and it'll work with PS4's which are much cheaper than gaming PC's needed to run oculus or vive.

I hope VR is successful, it's like an 80's and 90's kids dream come true.

*sigh* They didn't say shit about "playing mobile games in VR", come the fuck on. I swear, this is a record in lack of reading comprehension.

Such an arrogant answer. But I'm not surprised coming from Valve. They always seem to have their head stuck against their own ass.

Saying that VR will mainly benefit for a steady stream of quality and experimental experiences is being arrogant now. LOL

 

[Deleted member 752119]

That isn't much of an explanation of why a specifically "AAA" (ie big budget) title is a requirement of the killer app. There is no certainty that a "AAA" game is that killer app, and only a "AAA" game.

Fair enough. Ignore the AAA part.

It needs some type of specific killer app, regardless of budget.

It needs one (or a handful) of specific apps that catch on, go viral etc. and get people interested and wanting to try out VR.

Just having an App store without a few specific apps popping out and generating a ton of buzz will do no good. No one is going to buy expensive, new specialty hardware (that they're likely already skeptical about) without a specific reason.


But personally, I think it will probably take something with a fairly big budget to really wow the average Joe. I'd assume VR development is even more costly than making a regular game or app, and (using gaming as an example) it's the GTAs, CoDs etc. of the world that wow the average Joe and sell consoles. Not smaller budget games they're unlikely to ever even play, much less buy hardware for. That stuff tends to appeal to the enthusiasts.

Thus it will matter for early adopters, but it will probably take some super polished, big budget experience that those early adopters can show their skeptical friends to cause any mass market sales explosion.

 

[Chairmanchuck]

*sigh* They didn't say shit about "playing mobile games in VR", come the fuck on.

I am sure he didnt even check what games will be VR games.
Here are just some of the ones I made a list of:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1157231

Eve, Star Citizen, Elite, Project Cars, Adr1ft etc. to be confirmed mobile games...

It needs one (or a handful) of specific apps that catch on, go viral etc. and get people interested and wanting to try out VR.

Just having an App store without a few specific apps popping out and generating a ton of buzz will do no good. No one is going to buy expensive, new specialty hardware (that they're likely already skeptical about) without a specific reason.

But it already has some apps like that. There are VR concerts out there, driving in a Mars Rover with Matt Damon at your side, a Virtual Arcade and some things that might create some buzz.
I mean did you see some of the videos of "normal" people trying out small demos? A lot of them are surprised it even works that well.

 

[ashecitism]

Is my translation so bad that people think this was a literal comparison? I thought it was obvious he wasn't talking about $1 shovelware for VR.

 

[MUnited83]

Is my translation so bad that people think this was a literal comparison? I thought it was obvious he wasn't talking about $1 shovelware for VR.

People read "smartphones" and "appstore" in a comparison and suddenly they lose all capacity of rational thought.

 

[Nzyme32]

Fair enough. Ignore the AAA part.

It needs some type of specific killer app, regardless of budget.

It needs one (or a handful) of specific apps that catch on, go viral etc. and get people interested and wanting to try out VR.

Just having an App store without a few specific apps popping out and generating a ton of buzz will do no good. No one is going to buy expensive, new specialty hardware (that they're likely already skeptical about) without a specific reason.


But personally, I think it will probably take something with a fairly big budget to really wow the average Joe. I'd assume VR development is even more costly than making a regular game or app, and (using gaming as an example) it's the GTAs, CoDs etc. of the world that wow the average Joe and sell consoles. Not smaller budget games they're unlikely to ever even play, much less buy hardware for. That stuff tends to appeal to the enthusiasts.

Thus it will matter for early adopters, but it will probably take some super polished, big budget experience that those early adopters can show their skeptical friends to cause any mass market sales explosion.

Absolutely it needs a "killer app" to get going, and they don't say anything about that not being the case.

Budget is irrelevant though, and that becomes absurdly obvious if you have tried one of these as I have. What is immediately obvious is that it's all about the experience of the thing. Even the simple stuff is so much more engaging and meaningful than in another medium. The big point here being that what makes the "killer app" in VR is not the same as any other medium

Indeed as Chet said, the "App Store" app was one of the big things that kicked of smartphones / tablets, and it was the smaller devs that capitalised there initially with all kinds of new uses for the device, making them meaningful for different people. With VR it will be similar in that someone will make something specific to VR that starts to draw people in, and chances are it will be these smaller or completely unknown devs that do it. "Mass market" and "AAA" are years away, and that is utterly expected right now till there is a much bigger user base. Entertainment outside of games is what might be the bigger draw for most people, not demanding much power and easily available via things such as smartphone VR sets. That seems more likely to be what sparks VR than gaming on PCs or Consoles

Is my translation so bad that people think this was a literal comparison? I thought it was obvious he wasn't talking about $1 shovelware for VR.

In fairness, you translation is sound, it's just the usual folk bouncing off the title alone

 

[littlebigman]

VR is a very specialized bit of hardware. People aren't just going to buy it for kicks. It needs a killer app that will make people sit up and say "damn, that's tight!" All the indie support it has is a great plus, but the Vita has proven that that alone can't sell a platform. We need a VR megaton.

 

[Monger]

What AAA developer is going to put 10s of millions of dollars into a game when we have a current VR install base of zero? How often does Rockstar put out a new title on a brand new console or even Star Wars releasing on a new medium? Traditional gaming experiences just don't translate that well to VR outside of a cockpit and tacked on VR support isn't going to carry the market.

The killer app will come from the new experiences VR has to offer and bigger budget titles will come down the road when the market can support them.

 

[ashecitism]

Just to be clear I am disappointed that seemingly Valve doesn't have anything to show themselves. Fair enough if it's not for the launch, but I'd expect something within the first year of the Vive, otherwise that's just poor form. And no, I don't think the fabled Dota spectator will be enough, whenever that's ready.

 

[MDSLKTR]

It absolutely does Chet. I mean I have the gear vr, it's impressive but what's available right now is still shitty cell phone games you play and forget and go back to netflix or porn.
Gran turismo, elite, rez and ace combat are the killer aps for this tech needs, not underwater on rail 15 minutes experiences.

 

[Azih]

Is my translation so bad that people think this was a literal comparison? I thought it was obvious he wasn't talking about $1 shovelware for VR.

That's not relevant to the point that iPhone style smartphones were amazingly compelling devices in and of themselves. iPhones were phenomenally popular in the year before the AppStore even launched. Chet's analogy doesn't make sense.

 

[Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew]

They're right. VR just needs decent apps/games that work well for VR. A niche market with unique games that utilizes VR will make that game a hit. Even if the game isn't AAA and meets the minimum requirements, as long as you can experience it in VR will make that experience that well.

 

[Qassim]

Yep, checks out.

So much for "Half Life 3 will be the VR killer-app".

VALVe is such a useless company these days.

I don't get the 'so much for' statement... are you attacking Valve with claims they never made or even got close to hinting at?

 

[Nzyme32]

That's not relevant to the point that iPhone style smartphones were amazingly compelling devices in and of themselves. iPhones were phenomenally popular in the year before the AppStore even launched. Chet's analogy doesn't make sense.

This is debatable having a quick look at the figures and history a bit. Smartphones were indeed compelling devices regardless, but the app store update in 2008 is what looks like the tipping point

 

[Sky Chief]

Phones are phones. People need them. The apps are sulphurous.
Crazy they are so blinkered.

But then why do people need smart phones!?!?

 

[mrklaw]

The killer app is Apps.

I'd be relatively haooy with a wide variety of different smaller apps for VR rather than a few big ones. Especially as developers are still learning what works and what doesn't. Having more developers releasing smaller apps/games more quickly means rapid iteration and people can learn quickly from what works.

 

[Skulduggery]

Just to be clear I am disappointed that seemingly Valve doesn't have anything to show themselves.

They've got to have some kind of content hiding up their sleeves. BELIEVE

 

[Azih]

This is debatable having a quick look at the figures and history a bit. Smartphones were indeed compelling devices regardless, but the app store update in 2008 is what looks like the tipping point

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But VR hardware doesn't have the sleek sexiness, portability, and intuitiveness that the iPhone had going for it. These are all major factors. iPhones look amazing, can be taken anywhere, and had pretty much zero learning curve, VR headsets don't have any of that.

 

[Skulduggery]

Well I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But VR hardware doesn't have the sleek sexiness, portability, and intuitiveness that the iPhone had going for it. These are all major factors. iPhones look amazing, can be taken anywhere, and had pretty much zero learning curve, VR headsets don't have any of that.

I think you're looking at iphones now, not iphones when they were first created. They had a lot of growing pains to work through. Also Oculus has that level of "sleek sexiness" nailed down.

 

[Azih]

I think you're looking at iphones now, not iphones when they were first created. They had a lot of growing pains to work through. Also Oculus has that level of "sleek sexiness" nailed down.

In 2007 they were the most mindblowing looking things.

 

[cleveridea]

Shakes head. Half Life was the killer app that forced people onto Steam in the early days.

Good job that no ones wants or cares about Half Life 3 right? Steam doesnt have the money to make one I am sure

 

[Mobius and pet octopus]

Smartphones do have a killer app: they're fucking phones, everybody needs one.

Not every phone is a smart phone.

 

[collige]

That's not relevant to the point that iPhone style smartphones were amazingly compelling devices in and of themselves. iPhones were phenomenally popular in the year before the AppStore even launched. Chet's analogy doesn't make sense.

True, but a large part of their appeal was also due to the app ecosystem. Remember the "There's an App For That" ad campaign? This is what Valve is talking about as the selling point for VR.

 

[UnemployedVillain]

Where are you getting this from? Are "AAA" titles the only games that could possible be an excellent experience in VR? This is the quote:

"Q: Too bad (about no HL3, Portal 3), but Vive needs a killer app. Save for Crytek no AAA studios are on board, not even Valve has unveiled anything, even though that Portal demo seemed like something almost complete.

A: What was the killer app for the iPhone. Its AppStore. Back then there weren't big creators on the platform, only lots of small ones, who today are bigger than classic AAA studios. We like smartphones and tablets because they offer us different experiences compared PCs and consoles. Same will happen with VR."

You say - "Imagine if the Wii launched at the same price as the PS3, but still retained the same type of games and hardware? It would have been ludicrous"; where have they suggested such a thing or even that AAA titles are not happening at all? All that is said is that different mediums offer different experiences, and VR will be no different. Indeed as the guy asking the questions has said, there are barely any AAA devs involved with VR right now. It simply won't be profitable enough to justify off the bat

My point is that I don't agree and that it DOES need an AAA killer app if it's to do well in my opinion. I used the Wii as a comparison, because it's killer app (Wii Sports), while not AAA, fit the general perceived value of the console (as the less expensive, unique alternative to the PS3/360). With VR being more expensive than the alternatives, I feel like there's a higher expectation for the games released on it. Basically if you're paying significantly more for VR+VR capable PC than a standalone PC, there's the expectation of games being at least the same quality, which would include AAA games

 

[InaudibleWhispa]

Having had my mind blown time and time again in VR without once playing a AAA game, I'm inclined to agree.

 

[Mihos]

Porn is it's killer app.

Gaming is something it 'also' does.

 

[Mihos]

But then why do people need smart phones!?!?

To check facebook and cat videos

 

[Tain]

I want VR games with production values. Oculus is already backing a few larger games, and SteamVR support is surely coming for others.

Not too worried.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

But then why do people need smart phones!?!?

Plenty of people have jobs that expect them to be in constant email availability, have access to their online work calendar and various other web based things.

 

[10k]

Watch them make Half-Life 3 VR exclusive to sell the device. The meltdowns would be glorious.

 

[Cartman86]

I get that. But still disagree with them.

It needs a AAA killer app that gets skeptical people interested.

Phones didn't because people bought them just to have e-mail and internet on the go, and thus had the device and could dig into the app store.

People have no reason to buy a VR set if their isn't a killer app that gets them interested. Thus they won't have the device to just explore the app store and see what they find like they did with their smart phone.

VR won't play by the same rules AAA video games have played by for the past 20 or so years. It will have it's own pulls for people just like "phones" have. There will be killer apps. They have already been shown. Games that may be be simple, but allow you to interact in a fundamentally different way then anything you have seen. Games that aren't made to waste your time collecting bullshit. Games that aren't about how well you can press a button on a controller or rotate a stick. Nothing wrong that input method, but it is very different from VR.

Basically my whole point here is fuck traditional AAA development and games. A. Why would you want to play the same old shit again? B. What makes you think your corner of the video game space is the only one?

Plus VR isn't just video games. It has a real chance at being the first true multimedia platform. Films, toys, education, and yes some AAA video game ass video games.

Early smartphones analogy is fine. The vast majority of people who own them do so because they are cool devices with features they like but don't need. Just like VR.

 

[JaseC]

Watch them make Half-Life 3 VR exclusive to sell the device. The meltdowns would be glorious.

Valve doesn't need the Vive to be a stupendous success; it needs Steam to continue being a stupendous success and that means universal access. Valve will no doubt release a game that was developed with VR in mind, but just as you're never going to see a SteamOS exclusive from Valve, none of Valve's games are going to require the Vive to operate.

 

[robertlebrone]

Well as someone that has no experience with VR, but has interest I'm not buying a $600+ headset with no compelling software. Sorry, not happening, ever. So I will just have to disagree with Valve on this one.

 

[Sky Chief]

Plenty of people have jobs that expect them to be in constant email availability, have access to their online work calendar and various other web based things.

So basically you're making my point, just the fact that a smart phone is a phone isn't THE killer feature

 

[padlock]

I agree with him. The best VR titles will be specifically designed for VR.

VR should be seen as a new form of entertainment and not just an accessory for existing games. I highly doubt a new entry in an existing franchise will be what will eventually be the VR 'killer app'.

 

[bitbydeath]

Any phone before 2007 was a phone. Smart phones have taken off at extra cost to the consumer because of their extensible nature.

Phones before 2007 had apps and games too, that isn't the reason why smart phones took off.

They took off because they were the next evolutionary step like plasma/lcd were to crt.

Everything improved (except battery life).

 

[ForsakenLotus]

Smartphones are a near ubiquitous accessory that is almost an accepted necessity in society. Having a smartphone isn't viewed as a luxury now, but more just the norm. You can't really equate any product to smartphones, let alone something that will be the definition of a luxury item.

Now, maybe VR won't need high profile and budgeted games to be successful, but it would be for reasons completely separate from smartphones. Unless, that is, the thought is VR headsets will replace actual monitors which I don't think too many people would assert.

 

[Deleted member 752119]

VR won't play by the same rules AAA video games have played by for the past 20 or so years. It will have it's own pulls for people just like "phones" have. There will be killer apps. They have already been shown. Games that may be be simple, but allow you to interact in a fundamentally different way then anything you have seen. Games that aren't made to waste your time collecting bullshit. Games that aren't about how well you can press a button on a controller or rotate a stick. Nothing wrong that input method, but it is very different from VR.

Basically my whole point here is fuck traditional AAA development and games. A. Why would you want to play the same old shit again? B. What makes you think your corner of the video game space is the only one?

Plus VR isn't just video games. It has a real chance at being the first true multimedia platform. Films, toys, education, and yes some AAA video game ass video games.

Early smartphones analogy is fine. The vast majority of people who own them do so because they are cool devices with features they like but don't need. Just like VR.

Phones starts very differently. The smartphone wave (at least in the US) started in the corporate world with Blackberry company provide phones. That gradually expanded to personal use and exploded with the fjrst iPhone. VR won't have that work forces early adoption, so it will need killer apps quicker.

Personally I love traditional and current AAA games so I'm fine with more of the same. I also have zero interest whatsoever in VR so I'm just not the target for any of this anyway. I'm trying to spend less time online, playing games, reading, watching movies etc and be more involved in social things and outdoor stuff so even more immersive digital entertainment just holds zero appeal to me.

So basically you're making my point, just the fact that a smart phone is a phone isn't THE killer feature

Let me rephrase more broadly to get my point across. The killer feature of any phone is communication. Landlines was call anyone with a landline from your home. Cell phones was do the same, but from anywhere with reception. Smartphones initial killer feature was including all the modern communication formats (email, text and later social media and video calls) all on your cell phone. The games, non-communication apps etc were (and are) just the icing in the cake.

VR doesn't have something a lot of people NEED to be them to buy it the way smartphones were/are needed to modern daily communication.

 

[Just_myles]

In my opinion the killer app already exist. It's called tiltbrush.

Now, maybe VR won't need high profile and budgeted games to be successful, but it would be for reasons completely separate from smartphones. Unless, that is, the thought is VR headsets will replace actual monitors which I don't think too many people would assert.

This is going down. I recall there is a company who just received a rather large sum who are working on a comprehensive virtual desktop. In theory, this could be what the was mentioned above about enterprise being the early adopters. I can imagine doing my job in VR, I would be very productive if I had access to more than 2 screens.

 

[Monger]

Personally I love traditional and current AAA games so I'm fine with more of the same. I also have zero interest whatsoever in VR so I'm just not the target for any of this anyway. I'm trying to spend less time online, playing games, reading, watching movies etc and be more involved in social things and outdoor stuff so even more immersive digital entertainment just holds zero appeal to me.

If you want to get away from indoor entertainment in general nothing gaming related solves this, but I think the social aspect of VR is probably one of the more compelling things about it. The Node YouTube videos of the Vive do a great job of relaying this. Just sharing the Oculus dks with people was great. Add room scale and Vive parties will be a blast.

Then take a game like Wii sports bowling, put it online and add a fully interactive bowling alley around it where you can do whatever you want and it's a great way to interact with friends around the country. Play serious or cause mayhem while everyone laughs their asses off together.

 

[gafneo]

It needs killer apps. VR isn't used for candy crush. Short mini games would defeat the purpose of using vr. Vr is to immerse, which means it needs content that holds attention span for more than 4hrs.

 

[Funyarinpa]

HARDENED POLICE CAPTAIN: What kind of sicko creep could do something like this?

[*rookie cop throws up*]

Was that a Persona 4 reference?