Developed by Polish studio CD Projekt RED, 2015’s Witcher 3: Wild Hunt is surely one of the best regarded games to launch in recent memory. Studio co-founder Marcin Iwinski says the studio is watching VR carefully, but he’s still waiting to see what compelling made-for VR content looks like.

Speaking to Glixel in a recent interview, Marcin Iwinski spoke briefly about the studio’s interest in VR, focusing on CD Projekt RED’s story-driven approach to game development.

“We are observing [VR] with interest. We are telling stories. If VR can help us, we’ll definitely consider it,” he said.

marcin iwinski
CD Projekt RED co-founder Marcin Iwinski

It doesn’t sound like VR is out of the question for the studio, but also doesn’t sound like it’s being actively pursued. What might change Iwinski’s mind?

“Right now, I’m personally looking for something really substantial as an experience [in virtual reality].”

He hones in on, perhaps unconsciously, one of VR’s current challenges: the lack of a killer app; an experience that justifies the purchase of the hardware.

“Why did I pre-order the Switch? Not because I want the Switch. Because I want Zelda.”

An apt analogy for the present state of VR, where expensive startup costs mean that a killer app can’t just be great, it has to be exceptional.

I believe the ‘killer app’ can be understood as an economic function. The value of a killer app must exceed the cost to play it—it must justify the price of the hardware, just as Iwinski intuited. If he wants to play the latest Zelda, he has to purchase the Nintendo Switch for $300. Now, for Iwinski, that’s worth the price of admission. But what if the Switch cost $800 instead? Now it’s a different value assessment, one that might not agree with his wallet.

This is how many people view purchases when it comes to buying into a new platform. 10 decent games that each provide $30 worth of value to a player, do not ‘add up’ to the desire to buy the Switch. But one excellent experience can.

VR today is in the same boat. Yes, there’s early adopters (like me, and probably you) who say ‘I want VR in general, so I’m going to go get a headset’. But the mainstream is like Iwinski: they aren’t interested in a headset for the promise of ‘a handful of good games’. They’re interested in an excellent experience—a single tangible experience—which just happens to require a VR headset. There needs to be a single, compelling piece of content to install the desire of the headset, not the other way around. Just like Iwinski and the Nintendo Switch.

SEE ALSO
'Mage's Tale' Aims for 10 Hours of Hand-crafted VR Dungeon Crawling

The more expensive the upfront cost, the greater the burden on the killer app. Superhot (2016), for instance, is a great VR game. But is it alone worth the $600 minimum buy-in for an Oculus Rift + Touch? For some maybe, for most, not. But what if the buy-in was just $100? For many more people, the answer would change from no to yes.

So then, there’s two ways to get closer to a killer app: better content, or cheaper buy-in. The critical point where an app goes from just an app to a killer app is when the value provided by the app and the cost of the hardware intersect.

Will Iwinski and CD Projekt RED be the studio to dream up VR’s killer app? We can certainly hope. In the meantime, as the cost of VR hardware decreases, it becomes easier and easier to achieve killer app status.

– – — – –

As you might be able to tell, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about the concept of the ‘killer app’ and how it applies to VR. Interested in hearing what leading companies in the industry think? Check out our article series on the topic:

‘On the Hunt for VR’s Killer App’ Series:

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. See here for more information.


  • Pesi-kun

    Instead of waiting for someone else’s work he should actually make one. Seriously, aren’t you a developer? That said, his sentimental is not all that surprising. It’s very difficult to come up with something groundbreaking in a new medium. More likely than not you are going to fail. It’s much easier to wait for someone else to come up with something great and simply build on top of it.

    Still as a consumer I have to say I’m very disappointed by his view. If everyone thinks like him we would never have any progress.

    • Ricardo Gutierrez Iniguez

      Totally agree. I’m tired of statements of this kind.

    • Xilence

      I can’t understand… I mean if he was saying what you think he said, sure.

      But what he really is saying is that CDPR is considering making that killer app. They know how to make great games and he’s trying to say ‘we want to’ without actually saying they’re going to do it because they want to make no promises.

      I read the whole thing and that’s what I got from it.

  • Me

    We don’t need a killer app for the Vive, we just need to stop this flood of garbage games and experiences from developer wannabes. Steam’s VR section is literally crumbling under these crappy – and expensive ! – minigames. Dozens of “relaxing/meditation” worlds , hundreds of waves shooters, and some stuff are even cleary scams.

    • Xilence

      I fail to see the relation as this is unrelated. We want good content, if you mean that a simple list of games is going to hide the good ones, then obviously game journalism isn’t doing enough to bring the good games into the light so you can simply… *enter the game name in the search bar*. Oh and good games usually hit Best Seller status and so on.

      • Me

        The relation is this one: as a big studio, with good support, money, team talent, what platform will you choose to develop for ?

        The big guns are still in a waiting statte, watching who will will the battle. Oculus/FB ans their walled garden ? Or Valve with their open appraoch.

        Well, with prices kept high, public awareness being still very low and sometimes even negative (people mixing the Vive with the Rift, the only thing really advertised), and now with NO attractive content for the mainstream gamer, you probably know where this will go.

        With Facebook asphyxiating the market by buying all that’s shiny as exclusives, dragging down the overall price by selling at a loss and decreasing the PC requirements, and finally getting on par with features of the Vive, you tell me what’s left to be attractive for the Valve/HTC platform…

        I was first 100% behind Gabe’s strategy, but as the news continue to flow I not only feel the tide has turned, I think the battle is lost. The Vive will be a very limited consumer product and is more and more targeted at big arcades, leisure parks, max and stuff. A pay per use approach instead of a real consumer product the Rift and PSVR are.

        There’s your connection. Without working on these three topics, lower price, awareness, and quality content, the Vive will be a failure. On the other hand, a platform which has to be constantly infused with FB money is also not a viable option, until it becomes a bit less dependant. That’s what the big studios are looking. You don’t invest millions on a platform that is built on sand…

        • NooYawker

          Walled garden approach isn’t going to work with HMD VR. Unless they create stand alone systems. But as it stands, the Oculus is a peripherals that has to connect to a PC. They can’t approach it like Apple.
          Most gamers use steam, so right there Devs have an existing audience.

          • Me

            Yes, but the Steam audience is exactly that: gamers, and hardcore gamers, who know better than buying crappy half-baked concept demos. That’s my problem: the current situation is a lose-lose situation where both approaches are working against each other without profiting the end user.

          • AndyP

            Yes, gamers know better – and thank god for steam refunds!

        • What’s left for Vive? How about true room scale requiring two lighthouses offering greater tracking and room size and not eating up USB bandwidth or trailing USB cables to every sensor. Or how about trackers you can fit to your penis, breasts or any other body part? So oculus bribe developers not to release on Vive. So octopus have exclusive kiddy teleport games like robo Muppets. Lol. We’re only just starting out in 2017 so we have a whole bunch of OctopusVR scandals to get through.

          • JustNiz

            Dude I think you’re mixing up Vive and Rift. Vive always had true roomscale, 2 lighhouses and doesnt have usb cables going to them.

          • Not sure what you’re on about. I was replying to the Muppet above who declared Vive a failure.

        • JustNiz

          Vive can’t be a failure because it has already succeeded. Just because something not affordable by the mass-market doesn’t make it a failure. Look at Ferrari, Rolex, etc as just a few examples of the thousands of successful companies making exclusive products that most people won’t ever afford. Besides, Vive was the first real roomscale VR, so of course its not going to be cheap. As HTC/Valve recover their R&D costs, the tech gets cheaper/better, and the competition begins, the prices will inevitably come down a lot. You can buy Blu-ray players for like $50 now but the first ones were like $600.

          • Cl

            Blu ray players being cheap now is more because there is only so much you can do with that technology i think. Pricing for HMD will probably stay high like cell phones. Unless you get a used one or old model.

        • Cl

          Well, vive is getting fallout 4 vr and oculus is not. If that goes well the next elder scrolls will most likely be made with vive in mind from the ground up. Hopefully they will find a good way to move around. Also i hear that vive has sold more than oculus.

          No competition to the IOS platform? What about android? Ive never owned apple products other than ipod back in the day and i know plenty of people that dont buy apple either.

          Really though i hope they move away from creating HMD exclusive games for PC VR.

    • NooYawker

      I’d be happy to see some AAA games converted for VR. When Doom and Fallout is released hopefully they sell well enough to peak the interest of all the large studios.

      • J.C.

        They won’t work right without a massive overhaul of the game mechanics, which essentially changes the game. Sure, the setting is the same, but they’ll feel like an impostor. That’s not saying they’ll be BAD, but “just converting a game to VR” won’t sell VR. A game has to ONLY work in VR to sell it. Take the Switch analogy, and it actually works quite well:

        Want to play Zelda? Buy a Switch!
        …But it also works on the WiiU, so if you have one of those, EVEN IF the experience is a bit better on the Switch, it’s foolish to spend $360 for the game when you can spend $60 and get pretty much the same experience.

        People can already play DOOM and Fallout4. Saying “you can play that same game, but in a more immersive setting that has different drawbacks, like lower resolution and probably lower detail” isn’t going to sell much.

        The game that pushes people over the edge on buying into VR needs to ONLY work in VR (motion controls, specifically, would be the key there), and play to the strengths of VR while deftly avoiding the weaknesses or explaining them away sufficiently (teleportation, which is required for mass adoption, but “kills immersion”). Games that use the Xbox controller aren’t killer apps; there’s NO reason those games can’t be run without VR. Touch/Vive Wands/knuckles are what’s going to sell it, not the head tracking.

        Whiiiich brings us to the pile of junk on Steam, which is mostly proof-of-concept work from devs trying to figure out just what to DO with a completely new style of control. Something that feels meaningful, not just “oh, that’s neat”. Games where all the action is up close, because depth perception doesn’t matter at long distance, plus the headsets are too low res to make distant objects look good. There are a lot more issues to tackle as well, that are smaller but equally important.

        And once ONE dev has figured out that tasty magic formula, CDPR will probably run with it, if it helps them tell a story.

        • NooYawker

          That’s the point, Doom and Fallout is being overhauled specifically for VR. Full use of motion controllers, higher resolution needed for VR and everything. It’s been covered many many times on basically every VR site. It’s a beginning point because they’re not going to pour 100 million into a VR game, not with this small market. Overhaul a AAA game for VR is a big draw.
          But for anyone to say Steam is a proof of concept or even worse junk, makes me wonder… do you even play games? Or are you just here to argue about VR and it’s future? Because the vast majority of gamers are pretty happy with steam.

      • yag

        Let’s hope Fallout 4 VR will be well made (I don’t think it’s a great game but it’s huge and popular), and that it will stay highly moddable.

    • JustNiz

      Yep I totally agree. Steam allowing hundreds of wannabe hackers to put their unfinished dogfood up for sale is totally damaging the credibility of VR in general.

      • Tadd Seiff

        Nope, disagree, and I think that viewpoint is arrogant and entitled.

        If you are not a dev, then STFU.

        If you are a dev, then you are an asshole for insulting noobs.

        So which is it?

      • yag

        If you bought a bad game on Steam, just ask for a refund. Not a real problem.

  • iThinkMyCatIsAFlea

    “Right now, I’m personally looking for something really substantial as an experience [in virtual reality].””

    As is everyone else.

    Can you imagine playing The Witcher 3 in VR? Teleporting would be so much fun right?

    “If he wants to play the latest Zelda, he has to purchase the Nintendo Switch for $300”

    Or he could pick up a cheap Wii U to play it on.

    • Simplex

      “Can you imagine playing The Witcher 3 in VR? Teleporting would be so much fun right?”
      So you never played Lucky’s Tale, Chronos, or Edge of Nowhere?

      “Or he could pick up a cheap Wii U to play it on.”
      WiiU prices increased because of Zelda and limited supply (13 million console sold, production stopped).

      • iThinkMyCatIsAFlea

        You can pick up a cheap Wii U on a certain auction site for less than half the cost of a Switch.

        • dogtato

          Agreed. I thought VR would be great for third person games, mostly by solving camera issues, but in practice I haven’t found games like Herobound (gear vr) very compelling. VR only shines when the player is IN the world.

  • NooYawker

    He’s a AAA developer, he should be the one creating compelling content not waiting for some.

  • Every time I hear about this killer app bollocks I go mental and start smashing windows and tearing newspapers.

    Someone with a brain said recently on facebook that vr already has killer apps. For him it was elite, project cars, dcs world.

    I get tired of lazy developers declaring they’re gonna sit back and wait until someone else makes a “killer app”. And what the fuck is a killer app? Apparently it’s one game that is so fucking amazing that 98 year old grandpa is gonna go out and buy a vr system. So amazing that every teen is gonna drop their ps4 or Xbox and buy a PC just to play one fucking killer app game.

    No. Take a look at non-vr games. Is there a killer app for non vr that makes the world go mental and non gamers rush out and buy? No. Star citizen is a game that potentially reaches a new level of engineering complexity and game realism. It will persuade a percentage of non gamers (console users) to buy a PC but for the most part it won’t be a killer app that the world must have.

    CD projekt witcher developer would be better advised to shut up about vr if they’re too lazy to make the “killer app” themselves.

    • iThinkMyCatIsAFlea

      “And what the fuck is a killer app?”

      If Valve were to make Half-Life 3 VR only, then that would be a killer app.

      “Is there a killer app for non vr that makes the world go mental and non gamers rush out and buy?”

      Yes there is/was. That game was Half-Life 2. It wouldn’t run without Steam.

      • Wrong. HL was a seminal work and spawned many imitators. It’s only a killer app in that it appeals to a wider gaming audience. It does not make people who have no interest in gaming go out and buy a game system.

        So this nonsensical killer app cliche is just bollocks rhetoric for a “popular game”. Killer app has been inflated to mystical proportions by idiots who think there’s a game coming that will convert the world.

        If every developer was as lazy as cdprojekt with their declaration of waiting for someone else to make a killer app there would be no fucking vr games at all.

        • iThinkMyCatIsAFlea

          If Valve made HL3 VR only, you really can’t deny that that would be a killer app Raphael. Gamers would buy a Vive to play that game.

          • Yes agree. But only killer app in as much as it would encourage a percentage who love the half life series to embrace vr. The term killer app is thrown around so much by crusty Muppet journalists. HL3 vr would capture a percentage of non vr users. There is no capture all killer app waiting to happen anymore than there was for non vr. Vr already has some killer apps. When I say killer app I mean great vr games. Killer app is a brainless term and as we see its used by some developers as their excuse not to develop for vr. Whenever a short sighted lazy developer doesn’t want to embrace vr all they have to say is: “we’re waiting for the killer app before we can be bothered to move our lazy arses. ” or to put it another way: “we will wait until more forward thinking developers make groundbreaking vr games and clear the path for us. “

          • StarLightPL

            I can only take this much of shit posting today. Moving lazy developer arses requires a real money investment, and unless the market can recoup the investment there will be no moving the lazy arses to make a loss “for the glory of VR”. Publishers and studios are not charities you know.

          • So let’s see… Braben raised money to make elite dangerous vr how? The tiny market and tiny budget doesn’t wash.

            But nice that you find a cliche excuse for cdprojekt. I’m sure they will value your defense.

          • StarLightPL

            Lol, long time Elite player here, and the kickstarter fund drive you speak of was to show the investors that there is market demand for another Elite game. It accounted for around 20% of the initial financing.

          • So you’ve been in contact with cdprojekt developer and established they can’t afford to add vr? Interesting.

            Why do you assume that adding vr always requires billions of dollars?

          • StarLightPL

            Where on earth did you get that from? Maybe when rephrased it will help: with less than a million VR units sold (for what we know), you’re looking at a not very promising market, because it would require a very high market penetration to recoup the cost of production.
            As for adding support to the existing game, if it was that easy then Bethesda would bolt that on Fallout 4 and sell for huge cash with minimal effort right? And yet they are building it almost from the ground up for VR controls. It’s a new medium, and like in the interview, not without quirks. There are issues to tackle with the nausea, motion controls, interfaces etc. It’s not only switching the rendering to stereo, as recent Scam Citizen’s VR controversy shows.

          • Yar, we knows this. Bohemia interactive consider themselves to be a small developer but they have been working on a vr title for a long time. For such a small market and it being so difficult to add vr… How is it that nadeo did it for trackmania? How is it that metro 2033 developer have managed to put the time and money in for their first vr game? If it’s so difficult and costly for such a small market.. How is it that some of these developers are doing it?

            It’s funny you have that trendy cliche view that star citizen is a scam.

        • Tadd Seiff

          “If every developer was as lazy as cdprojekt with their declaration of waiting for someone else to make a killer app there would be no fucking vr games at all.”

          +1

          This is exactly how I read Marcin’s comments.

          • I seem to remember the no man’s pie developer making the same statement about vr. How it needed a killer app.

  • Lucidfer

    I’m laughing at the comments. “Hey we sold a mediocre amount of our mediocre device, what killer-app would sell more of these mediocre devices”?

    I also go mental when I see these articles from otherwise interesting people: what “killer-app” would have saved the Palm? What “killer-app” would have saved 3D TVs? What killer-app would’ve saved the Wii U or the Black-berry?

    Killer-apps doesn’t exist if killer-device doesn’t exist, and right-now, because as predicted time as passed since late 2016 hopes, I can just say that VR headset devices simply are mediocre, and it’s not just a question of raw specs but how they’re overly conceived…

    • JustNiz

      I can’t agree. A great VR experience, such as I’ve already experienced with my Vive many times, is in no way mediocre. Of course improvements can be made to the tech itself (personally I hate the Fresnel lenses and clearly the resolution/SDE/FOV and comfort could all be better), but its inevitable that will all improve in time. Sure the VR market didn’t explode as much as some people hoped for, but going back to playing on a monitor after being in a good VR game feels like going back to the stone age. VR has already got good/big enough now that there is no going back. The only real problem left is that not enough people have experienced VR themselves. You just can’t get even understand the same sense of immersion from reading about VR or just watching someone else try it on youtube. The more people that experience it themselves, the more will want it.

      • Lucidfer

        Well, I’m not so voluntarily exaggerating when I say mediocre. I’ve had lots of fun with VR, but the fact that I actually have to directly confront myself with the reality of both B2B and B2C VR markets makes me reassert the reality independently of my own feelings or experiences.

        And when looking at the bigger picture I realise many things, be it just on the surface: of all the people, about a few hundreds, I’ve had VR tried, the vast majority of them was amazed by their first experience which gives the glittery illusion that the VR market is set, then very few of them actually bought or want to buy a VR headset even they can afford it, which is the reality. Even worse for me, of all the people I know who bought a VR headset or another, most of them end-up stopping using it or barely from times to times as it’s taking the dust on the shelf. And it is the same for investors, brands, exhibitors or others institutions that are pondering about wether to invest in VR or not: when they’re not too skeptical they usually will invest in the production of a first experience which they are amazed with, and then right after that the reality of both the device and the market hits them.

        The reason why is, I think there’s a HUGE lack of practicality, conception and reflexion about VR. This is NOT remotely a matter of FOV (which is indeed way too low), resolution (which will quickly become okay) or tracking. It’s about the 80% of more or less important things that should be making-up what a basic acceptable consumer Virtual Headset is, that are not done and are very very slow to be implemented, not by technological challenge or restriction since every solutions for just a basic (not perfect, which comes only after) Virtual Headset already exists, but by money-hungry governance, unperceptive lack of conception, and maybe typical unpractical if not irrational non-business decisions, like you know, making a product/device that people will want and be able to use thus will buy it?

        • Robert Cole

          @Lucidfer:disqus

          agree with much of your comments.

          I just sold my Vive (I’ve owned 2), the novelty had worn off, despite some amazing “moments” nothing was really compelling me to don the headset regularly.

          In fact, I was getting more enjoyment experimenting with “roomscale plus” until we reached physical cabling limits, and giving friends/colleagues their first ever VR experience, that was satisfying

          But for me, the compelling content (not killer app) is just not there yet, which is to be expected of any first generation hardware in a brand new consumer market segment.

          I have to say, I first used VR in 1991, have waited years, and the Vive did not disappoint last year, it was a mindblowing glimpse of the future.

          Along with lack of content, the other big issue I had with the Vive (I’m a designer so trained in visual arts) is the poor optics (resolution, FOV, God Rays) and terrible HMD ergonomics, and that darn tether – all of which just broke immersion too much.

          Like the scratch on your cell phone you will always see once you’ve noticed it, the human visual system is excellent at identifying anomalies :(

          I know the 2nd generation will see some useful improvements in Optics, Ergonomics, Tetherless and hopefully a more mature software ecosystem with optimisation (Valve’s Dynamic scaling engine is awesome in “The Lab”).

          We might see eye tracking and foveated rendering make the entrance to allow display resolution increase without ridiculous GPU requirements.

          I’m happy to sit back this season, watch developments (entrance of LG to SteamVR consumer market) and see what is announced in Q4-2017/Q1-2018 and then re-enter VR.

          Cannot wait to see what Valve’s first game is, surely its being designed around their knuckle controllers.

    • yag

      VR killer-apps are already existing for the simmers. And they all love their Rift or their Vive.

      • Lucidfer

        go do you fucking advertisement PR somewhere.

        • yag

          then go say your BS somewhere, another blocked kiddo.

    • benz145

      No one said killer apps save bad technology. I was a hardware Palm user at one point, it was useful for me, but it wasn’t useful for my parents or siblings. Now they all own an iPhone. What’s the difference? They found something in the iPhone that justified the value of the hardware for them.

      VR is a demonstrably compelling technology that demos extremely well and leads instantly to nearly everyone who tries it imaging how it might change the world in the future. Almost no technologies have that. But really selling the devices takes a killer app.

  • Get Schwifty!

    The biggest issue is that VR on the PC is right now an early adopter market. Haters will claim that Oculus move to lower prices was just in desperation, but it was likely also fueled by a need to stimulate the market at this point beyond the relatively cash rich early adopter crowd. HTC needs to follow suit on this.

    The reason is we need a combined install base that exceeds the paltry half million or so there is globally is its not a large enough market for studios to register to make a true, original AAA product for. This is why Oculus funding and Valve’s studio work are so important to drive content when the install base is still so woefully small. It’s not really about Steam content, or Oculus fabled “walled garden”, its about stimulating a move beyond the effectively tapped early adopter market on the PC to next stage of adopters who demand content before they commit, unlike the early adopters.

  • Doctor Bambi

    My own opinion of course, but I’d say VR’s killer app is already out, it’s called Rec Room. It has a wide swath of activities that appeal to a range of different audiences in a distinctly VR way. It’s playful, approachable, and most importantly social. It is the Wii Sports of VR, and even that comparison is a little disparaging seeing as Rec Room has considerably more to offer.

    Rec Room would make a fantastic flagship title because it is primly positioned to combat the stigmas that currently face VR. It’s presentation is charming to almost everyone. It gets you up off the couch and moving. It doesn’t cause motion sickness.The games are simple to learn yet deep enough to keep you playing, and its social element brings you closer to humanity instead of blocking it out.

    • Get Schwifty!

      Have to give that a try then…..

    • benz145

      Rec Room is good but it’s still well in Early Access. Yes it might sell a few people, but to go from hundreds of thousands to tens or hundreds of millions is the result of a true killer app.

      • Doctor Bambi

        I completely forgot this game is still in Early Access! It certainly doesn’t have the bugs that are typically associated with Early Access titles.

        Granted, I don’t think even a Zelda or Mario would convince people to drop $1200~$1500 on a new system. I’d say we’re still waiting for a “killer headset”, that’s capable of meeting a killer app in the middle.

  • Tadd Seiff

    This is a little depressing. You have one of the few people who has the power and ability to make the “killer app”, saying “I’m waiting for that killer app before my studio really commits to it.”

    He says “Right now, I’m personally looking for something really substantial as an experience [in virtual reality].” The experience is already there, people have awesome experiences in VR every day. So, does he really mean “I’m waiting for something as big as Zelda to come out in VR”? What exactly is he “waiting” for?

    Marcin, WE are waiting for YOU!!!

  • AndyP

    Tell him to play Resident Evil 7 PSVR – I’m a Rift owner, but that was proof enough for me.

  • AndyP

    AAA Devs need to realise you have to spend money to make money. They have a unique opportunity to headline at this stage.

    • benz145

      I have an odd feeling that they know this already.

  • Ghosty

    Playing Zelda in VR might change his mind! It’s way better to be in the world than just looking at it! One you are playing Zelda, the other you are Zelda!

    • AndyP

      Yes, I was IN the Res mansion. I can’t go back to boring, non-immersive Witcher 3 now – a game I once loved that now feels very dated.

    • Mike

      “the other you are Zelda”
      Well… technically you’re Link, not Zelda.

  • It is worth toying with the technology rather than simply watching it.

    Experimentation is key.

  • yag

    VR killer-apps already exist for the simmers. They are called Assetto Corsa, Dirt Rally, Elite Dangerous, FSX, etc.

    • benz145

      A killer app has mass appeal. It’s great that there’s apps out there who compel a few people, but a killer app has a significant virality to it.

      • yag

        Ben you’re right, my definition of a killer app was wrong. But as Raphael, I don’t think one app only will sell VR hardware.

    • Des Dearman

      Yep.
      And the word is spreading. hard to put a percentage on it, but of the vocal community in Assetto a ball park 70% who don’t have it in VR aspire to do so.
      The words ‘never go back’ are compelling. Having been there at the dawn of online gamming, I find these kind of debates over installed numbers, limitations of the technology amusing,
      Online was just so dam good, 33/56k et’al, a hand full of servers, same 500 or so players every night, only death match… on the back of a £1000 pc to play the games, with a MASSIVE phone bill every month.
      Thank god the debate never existed back then, the way it does now.

      • yag

        Indeed, I saw so many simmers planning to sell their triple-screen setup, to buy an HMD.

  • Reprobator

    Don’t wait appeling content : make it.

  • thanatos95

    Their next game Cyberpunk 2077 will be the perfect game to integrate VR
    aspects since the Cyberpunk universe, VR exists ! It is a
    kind of “matrix” to which hackers connect themselves to penetrate in
    databases, etc. and in this virtual world, intensive combats take place
    against firewall defenses, etc. It would be great that, when a player
    wants to connect to this “network”, he just puts his VR mask on his head
    and penetrates in this virtual world ! It would be a way to
    alternate classical game sequences (on TV) and more intense and
    immersive game sessions in VR (and for those who don’t have VR, these
    incursions in the “network” would be playable classically on TV, like
    RE7). I hope CDPR is thinking about that …

  • Brandon Smith

    “We are observing [VR] with interest. We are telling stories. If VR can help us, we’ll definitely consider it,” he said.”

    I find the concept of “telling stories” to be antithetical to what video games “should” be. It’s the whole reason why the games industry pretty much sucks now. The locus of control should be with the PLAYER, not with the invisible hand of the disembodied “director” who is the one really controlling all events. To suggest that the developers are “telling” a story is to say, fundamentally, “this is not YOUR story. It’s OUR story. We know it. It’s already been created. By us. We’re just telling it to you how we choose.”

    That works for television and movies because it’s the only way they function. But videogames don’t have that flaw. They can and should be better than that. No, VR won’t be a medium for “telling” stories. It’s a medium for allowing the player to create their own story.