Bethesda has confirmed that Fallout 4 VR for the HTC Vive will be the entire game and not just a demo or vertical slice. Further, the company says the Fallout 4 VR release date will come within 12 months.

While yesterday’s surprise announcement that Fallout 4 and Doom would be playable in VR on the HTC Vive was exciting, details were incredibly thin. We’re now starting to get additional color on what to expect from the company’s VR plans.

bethesda-fallout-4-vr-release-date

Following the company’s press conference, Bethesda Executive Producer Todd Howard revealed the Fallout 4 VR would contain the entire game, not just a segmented experience intended for VR.

“Our view is… let’s not make a short [VR] version of Fallout 4… the promise is the whole game. And that’s what we’re going to be doing,” Howard said. “The interface is already on your wrist [with the Pip-Boy], you can pull it up and switch around, playing with the weapons. It’s exciting for us where even though we’ve lived in the game, to step it into VR it becomes real on another level.”

Photo courtesy Bethesda
See Also: ‘Fallout 4′ and ‘Doom’ Are “just the beginning of Bethesda’s future in virtual reality”

Although not announced at the time of the reveal, Bethesda’s official blog says that the company plans to release Fallout 4 VR within the next 12 months, setting an upper limit on the release date of June 2017.

SEE ALSO
'Wolfenstein: Cyberpilot' Review – a Nazi-Killing Mech Game Cut Short

The price for Fallout 4 VR is still unannounced, and it isn’t clear if it will be sold as an entirely separate game or as functionality built into the PC version of the game (perhaps through paid DLC). Also still unclear is whether or not Fallout 4 VR will technically support the Oculus Rift; given that the game is being built for the HTC Vive, it’s almost certainly being built with the OpenVR SDK which also supports the Oculus Rift through SteamVR. We’ll be seeking clarity on these questions at E3 this week.

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.


  • Ian Crosson

    The biggest question is…..are they making it first person. My experience is so far with my oculus that first person is terrible. Without a way to walk around in first person, like a treadmill, I won’t be playing anything first person.

    • DiGiCT Ltd

      Agree, FPS with walks are terrible unless it is roomscale walk.

      • Bob

        Roomscale is the most natural option available with current technology although if VR remains successful in the long run and we still haven’t discovered a way to enable Matrix like experiences, then the most logical next step for infinite locomotion within virtual worlds is active omni-directional treadmill/platforms which can physically adapt to the virtual terrain. VR stairs is still a heck of a challenging problem!

        • Andrew Jakobs

          Roomscale only works if the ingame room is actually around the same size as the room you have for walking around, current roomscale tech is just crap for openworld type of games..

          • Bob

            Hence it’s stated “the most logical next step for infinite locomotion within virtual worlds is active omni-directional treadmill/platforms”

      • Charles

        Jogging in place while holding a “move forward button” works great and should be implemented in all games. No treadmill necessary (though obviously it would be better).

    • TrevorAGreen

      I would like to see it with teleport if it is room scale. With a limited teleport range. It will be a different game experience but from what I have played I think teleport is the best way to move. When you teleport small distances it even feels a bit like walking, and doesn’t seem to break the immersion. Try Vanishing realms, it is pretty good for both melee and ranged combat.

      A modified version of teleport where you point in the direction you want and if it is outside of a limited floor box it just teleports to the edge of the box in the direction you point. you just see a laser line that ends at the edge of the box and if you point to the floor you see a location indicator so that you can fine tune your position in the current box.

      The melee combat becomes about dodging by jumping around with quick point and clicks.

      Ranged combat becomes more about hiding behind things and shooting around corners.

      I would also like to see a third person, non-room scale version where you just use an xbox controller and you see your character in order to not get sick.

      I haven’t played edge of knowwhere yet but I think it does that. And lucky’s tale doesn’t seem to make you sick in it third person motion.

      • Andrew Jakobs

        And to me teleport/warping is a crap technique, I really hate it, and certainly doesn’t add to the roomscale experience. As Ian Crosson says, only a real treadmill like device can make it better..

        • TrevorAGreen

          So absent a treadmill what is the alternative? I think that the treadmill idea won’t work well because then you don’t really have room scale. And the treadmill safety system will prevent things like get down to the floor and picking things up. I understand that people get irritated about the fact that they aren’t just walking around in a virtual world with no other locomotion than the walking but I feel like that is an unreasonable expectation. There is just never going to be a consumer friendly solution to that problem. You might be able to create an arcade with movable floors that adjust as you walk around, but you aren’t going to get that in a home. And you also aren’t going to approximate terrain, so you are always going to have to be on a flat surface.

          So I think the level of immersion people want with locomotion is just a pipe dream. Which leaves us with joystick based movement which makes people sick, or teleporting. What is a 3rd option?

          I’ll be happy to try whatever treadmills come out, but I can’t imagine a price point that is going make that an accessory that many games are going to build for.

  • DiGiCT Ltd

    The question is not about which device it support, it al depends on how you want to implement the game logic and which input controllers are needed for that.
    Making a game work with other SDK/API is not that hard, its about Movement in game.

  • Charles

    Why an entire year from now? Why should it take that long? You could probably already run the game in VorpX, right now.

    • Kyle Biggs

      Implementing hand presence, if they go that route. Dealing with sim sickness (because even if you and I don’t experience it, they don’t want to risk losing sales or getting bad press). QA testing to make sure every cut-scene, feature and location works well in VR (And doing QA in a game as big and free-form as Fallout is a HUGE undertaking). The VorpX solution is quite rough around the edges.

      • WillyWonka248

        QA Testing? What would a Bethesda game be without some legendary game bugs?

    • yag

      I don’t think they need one year for that, they probably want to give the nascent market a bit of time…

    • Ryan Weisse

      VorpX is not remotely native. They’re implementing full native support that requires almost complete rework. And they ARE implementing hand presence which is a COMPLETE control rework. On top of that they have a MASSIVE game to rebuild and find all the annoying quirks, like leaning through walls and stuff. It’s really a huge undertaking. The only thing VorpX does is convert it to 3d and use head tracking to control the stick. It’s not remotely the same as true VR.

    • zerr0o

      VorpX suck

    • Chris Courtois

      That’s what I’m doing now. It’s actually quite incredible and while some misled users will say silly things, VorpX is actually one of the best VR software titles I own. Absolutely indispensable. I’ll probably finish Fallout 4 in VR before its actual VR edition is released.

    • Robbie Zeigler

      Vorpx is garbage.

  • TrevorAGreen

    The biggest problem is that the screens are not good enough. So in order to support this they have to figure out how to address the fact that vr is a low fidelity platform. The stuff up close show look fantastic. But fighting anything in the distance will be lousy.

    If you don’t believe me try vorpx borderlands 2. It is unplayable. And that games starts with a fairly cartoon setup.

    In order for this to work how you want it to they need to do level of detail scaling in the distance. So that you are looking at the most solid representation of a distance object as possible. With the detail poping in when you get to vr specific sweet spots.

    I don’t think this will be a simple port at all in order to tune the graphics and the frame rates.

    • Sam Illingworth

      Yeah, it’ll take a lot of tuning to get it right, but it sounds like they intend to put in the effort! :)

      • TrevorAGreen

        I’m not sure if there is a general understanding of how bad the current generation headsets are. Resolution has a direct correlation with the distance that you can render objects in vr with any clarity. And clarity has a direct relationship to comfort. It is like having poor distance vision but where you can’t get glasses to compensate. So in order to have a comfortable experience you need a fairly close fog of war, or you need to just not render fine details beyond a certain distance. That is going to be really hard with Fallout 4, because there is a ton of far distance ranged combat. And a large part of the aesthetic is content in the distance. I’m excited to see what they can accomplish, but I’m not overly optimistic that this generation will support something that isn’t painfully low res in comparison to the desktop experience.

        There are a ton of game styles that need to show up in vr right now, I don’t think this is one of them, even though it is the one that we are probably most excited about.

        VR Hardware devs need to get on higher resolution screens asap so that VR doesn’t stall out like 3D TV did. 3Dtv needed at least 4k and VR probably needs 8K, but instead they launch with HD which is essentially 720p for video. Just not up to today’s expectations. We need at least enough fidelity that a VR headset can emulate the 1080p video experience and be an alternative to buying a TV.

        Ideally a high quality VR headset would be an alternative to buying a monitor. When that is possible it can really take hold.

        And don’t get me started about those crappy fresnel lenses with the lense flare.

        I love some of this VR. But we just aren’t there yet.

        • Andrew Jakobs

          Oh please, the current VR headsets are great, don’t be a f-ing snob, YES it would be more awesome if you have a higher resolution, but current GPU’s aren’t capable of delivering those resolutions at those framerates for an acceptable price.
          Sorry but I really get annoyed by people saying the current headsets are crap in regard to resolution.. I’m still enjoying the VFX-1 with its very low resolution/fps, or my vuzix VR920 with it’s 640×480 per eye, and both are quite well for experiencing VR (at least with those headsets I don’t have any problems with motionsickness, whereas with my DK2 I do (but I still think it’s due to not being able to correctly focus/position the lenses, which you can with the other 2 headsets)..
          GPU’s need to get even much faster than the GTX 1080 to even be able to support one 4K screen, and the GTX 1080 is even much to expensive to get mainstream VR possible at higher resolutions as the current headsets..
          If you think we aren’t there yet, then you’re not a real VR lover IMHO..

          • TrevorAGreen

            The reason that we aren’t there is yet is because we don’t have everything that we want. If you put together a checklist of the things that you image that we would be doing the current generation doesn’t check off those boxes. That doesn’t mean I don’t like it. I just only like the parts that are optimized for what is possible, and I wish for more. The current headsets work great with things that are like Nintendo games. Simple cell shaded games. As soon as you start going into more complicated textures and photogrammetry the hardward shows its flaws. And when you go into anything that is a desktop mode, forget it.

            As for not being able to support 4k, that is not remotely accurate. The GTX 1080 will support 4k. It might not support everything you want to do but it would drive some things. It all depends on how complicated people make the software. Every game has different requirements and framerates. So there would be a ton of things the 1080 could drive with higher res screens in a headset. Sure you would probably want/need SLI to get to a 4k fallout 4 vr.

            I’ll be happy for anything I can get, but this generation is just a stepping stone that needs to rapidly be replaced by something better in order to bring in more people. I tried to sell an extra vive to a friend who is completely excited about vr but it is just too limited for the price and they wouldn’t take it.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            Well, my 760 also supports 4K, but it isn’t capable of delivering the fidelity one would expect (so only very simple graphics), the same goes for the 1080, yes it is capable of delivering 4K, but not at the fidelity one expects these days, so you have to downgrade the settings to make it work..

          • TrevorAGreen

            I have a 1080 and there are quite a number of games where I can get 4k at 60 frames (my monitors cap). If I can play something like the new doom there is plenty of capability to drive games at 4k – 90 frames per second. You don’t get everything because there is always something that pushes the edge. But the games on the vive were already pulling back on the graphics in order to work on the 900 series. So developers are already prepared to hit a resolution and framerate and make the necessary compromises.

          • Brandon

            I actually own a vive. He’s right, the low resolutions cause a lot of serious issues. 90% of the current problems go away with 2k per eye, even 1440p would be a huge improvement.

            Current gen GPUs currently struggle pushing that many pixels

          • Andrew Jakobs

            Uhm, resolution is not one of the problems that causes motion sickness… It’s a luxury problem not a necessity.. higher resolution doesn’t solve incorrectly focused lenses or IPD..

          • Brandon

            I didn’t say it caused motion sickness. It causes significant trouble with viewing render distances and blurry text, particularly in menus, it’s absolutely not a luxury. You feel this in games like Elite dangerous where you need to heavily super sample to eliminate blurry text or in games like Onward where your in a long range firefight and can’t see anything.

            If you had actually used something like Virtual desktop you’d recognize why it’s an issue almost immediately, the experience is severely hampered by the low resolution.

            You’d have to be one hell of a fanboy to actually believe resolution is not an issue.

          • Robbie Zeigler

            You do realize that SS greatly improves the image clarity right?

          • jms

            You are wrong, TrevorAGreen is not. Stop being a fanboy.

          • Robbie Zeigler

            Speaking the truth doesnt make one a fanboy.

        • Sam Illingworth

          The lenses haven’t really bothered me, but I agree the resolution could be an issue (it certainly is in Euro Truck Simulator), but I wonder if that’s something they might be able to make better with clever software tricks. I’ve played games where distant things look fine, so we’ll see.

          • TrevorAGreen

            The lenses are an issue when you have things like white text on a black background. You get a ton of glare. Not enough of a problem that I wouldn’t want to have it, but it makes any kind of productivity difficult.

            Which games have you played where distant things look fine?

            I definitely think there are tricks, but I think the primary one is to place the action within a certain distance so that any complex background elements are not something your eyes try and focus on. That is not going to work well for Fallout.

            The other thing is to reduce the visual complexity of distance objects, they might be able to do that. And to get the right frame rate they problem have to do that. We shall see :)

          • Sam Illingworth

            The background elements in Space Pirate Trainer, Thingy Golf and Vanishing Realms all looked fine. Simply 2d/spherical sky maps for the SteamVR waiting room (such as the view from the deck of the Pridwyn) look fine too. Now they’re not rendering proper 3D objects, but the resolution was still enough for small things (such as distant things) to look OK.

          • TrevorAGreen

            Vanishing Realms was actually where I noticed how things needed to be done. The distance is mostly sky. If you go to the area with the gems that triggers the healer and fire throwing guy. You will notice that those enemies are hard to see at a distance, and they aren’t near as far away as an enemy in Fallout 4 that might be shooting rockets at you. So yes, those games where in the distance you have a essentially flat color look fine. Someone needs to do an analysis and find out what the equivalent vision is in real life. Because the lack of clarity in the distance is effectively like having poor distance vision. So all the objects need to be closer.
            I want more games like the mythos one where you are just watching your small character run around a board that isn’t that far away. I think those are great.

            Diablo III would probably be a great port. Or any RTS game.

          • Sam Illingworth

            We’ll just have to attach more scopes! :P

            What healer and fire throwing guy? The skeleton kingy man?

        • Pui Ho Lam

          you’d need a super computer to power that VR gadget if you wanted 8K lol
          let’s be realistic and down to earth and accept the limitation for now
          (even a gtx 1080 won’t reach 90fps for games like fallout 4 at 4k when rendering for both screens)

          • TrevorAGreen

            Why, that makes no sense. You could be realistic about 3D tv and accept it at 1080p but people didn’t because it wasn’t good enough. Not moving forward with a higher res-product is a recipe for low adoption and limited software development. Vr has to meet a minimum standard that can do everything we want, including being a desktop monitor replacement. It would be way better to have high res screens that video cards could grow into than low res screens that are only effective only for cartoon VR. If the resolution can be doubled you can do something to just group pixels and project the same color to 4 until the cards can drive the higher res.

          • Pui Ho Lam

            I said for now, didn’t I. You cannot have such high expectation at this very moment. It’s still the beginning.

            Actually, nintendo had this thing called “virtual boy”. People tried it but was very limited by the technology that was available to them. Now that there is some acceptable result from a commercial product, You should be glad that we have reached this stage, not pointlessly whine about it. If you have some constructive feedback about how the user experience can improve other than stating the obvious technical limitation, you are free to do so. Otherwise, there is no point in such discussion.

          • TrevorAGreen

            I’m not sure what you mean, my expectation is that there will be another generation of product, my hope is that it will arrive in the second year of VR rather that have oculus and vive think that the 1st generation is going to get them the adoption rates needed to keep the industry going. I’m not convinced that is whining, I’m simply pointing out that the technical limitations are turning off people who really want to be early adopters. Android phone screens are higher resolution than what was put in the oculus and the vive. So there is nothing unreasonable about suggesting that we need to hurry and get those existing screens in the products. Yes the price point might be higher, but if the product quality is at the right level the audience is going to be way larger. And if you consider the prices people pay for laptops, high end monitors and tvs, there is room for a $1500 vr headset with the best screens possible.

            As for the technical limitations being obvious. They seem to be to some, but if you try something the the VR video from U2. You notice that these devices cannot effectively do photorealistic vr video with any acceptable level of quality.

            If you think that is whining, whatever, I’ll keep buying the experiences that do work as I have both headsets, but I’m going to keep pining for what the future offers. As some of the promise is just not fulfilled at all right now.

          • Salva

            Dood i think u need glasses. i had also blury texts until i took my glases on and its so fucking sharp! i dont fucking know ur problem! go to correct ur sight and ur be fine. It realy depends of it. Doesnt mean bcus ur short sightined u gonna see it anyway. because the screen is right infornt of u, no!

          • TrevorAGreen

            I can see the text. It is small, pixelized, and anti-aliased. Look at the menu buttons at the bottom of the vive menu for a sample. I can see all the pixels. It is just not good. It is not “retina display” quality or otherwise enough pixels at that close distance to make the text appear sharp. Not to mention the glare from the lenses when you have large white text on a black background.

            There are problems to solve yet my friend, and they aren’t my glasses.

        • KLEEBAN KLIBAN

          One piece of a solution to your draw distance problem is focusing resolution on the center of view, and sacrificing image resolution outside of the center of view. Some games already do this. Personally I don’t think it’s a great option. It’s like the game assumes you only ever look dead ahead and never use your eyes to look around without moving your head. It’s actually really annoying when I notice it. Reading is a pain because you have to follow the text with your head. Fallout 4 could use this trick to free up more room for draw distance, but I’m not sure if I prefer draw distance to realistic field of view.. tough call.. but whatever, I’m just happy we have VR at all. This gen is about software.. games and experiences. Next gen will be about hardware.

          • TrevorAGreen

            I think I agree with your last statement, but as I mentioned before. Some generation needs to be about mass adoption so that software makers can profit. This generation of hardware is not cutting it. Granted, it is way more tolerable to my children than it is too me. But it is not priced for purchase for children. I read recently that someone has a 20k device in development. That’s what I’m talking about. Lets move this stuff forward. I want a VR headset that can last 10 years and I can by a new video card every year to make it better and better.

          • KLEEBAN KLIBAN

            Yea, Im not disagreeing with anything uve said, just adding to it. Everything uve said makes sense and i feel the same way. This gen isnt good enough to go mainsteam but on the bright side this gen, especially PSVR, is going to make VR go mainstream a few years earlier than it would have if they waited to start software development when the price of higher performing tech gets low enough to be a main stream price. Maistream requires hardware and software so at least this way software will be done by the time hardware is cost effective, and it can go maiynstream soon as hardware is out as opposed to software only then getting started. Thats what I meant by software now (while thats really the best that can affordably be done) and then hardware when its actually possible at a price worth bothering. While the option is cool, I dont see a whole ton of support for 20k VR devices because hardly anyone will own them. I get that was just a general comment and u were talking 2k devices, but PSVR is already about to sell more than rift and vive combined.. in the UK at least, so that kinda illustrates that price is more important as it stands now. Right now the low end VR is more important to getting VR mainstream, but as u rightly pointed out VR will not actually reach mainstream until the hardware is much better and much less frustrating. I dont think any of this disagrees with what u said. Im just filling in the blanks that some people seemed to miss.. and led them to think u were being negative when u were just being practical.

        • KLEEBAN KLIBAN

          Wow this is old.. my bad haha

    • WillyWonka248

      Simple port or not, major games and ports of major games are needed for VR to take hold and survive. VR will not survive if all the games are crappy bow and arrow shooters or Eve Valkyrie like space shooters.

    • BJ Von Giblstein

      First off I’d like to point out your first problem was bring Vorpx into this. I was suckered into buying Vorpx for Vive and I have the latest version and I have to tell you it is a shitty driver. It’s just a flat out terrible graphics driver so please don’t use that as a comparison as to why games look bad in VR. VorpX is so user unfriendly, it’s kind of like using DOS as opposed to Windows. You have to sit there and tweak every last setting down to its finest detail and even then you won’t get it right because the games themselves just don’t have very good pixel density.
      I’m more concerned with Bethesda trying to sell me a whole new copy of Fallout 4 VR, or simply selling the VR part as an add-on.

      • TrevorAGreen

        I’m not concerned if it costs me money for Fallout 4 vr. It is a whole new development cycle for what is essentially a new platform. If it works I’ll pay the same as I would for a console version, which means that I’ll probably wait for a sale if it is a full price game, but I won’t begrudge them the revenue, especially if it is really cool. I just don’t know that it will work great without a ton of work and without drastically lower fidelity than 4k fallout on my monitor.
        I get that Vorpx is bad, but I believe that the primary reason it is so bad is because of the low resolution of the headsets. A higher resolution headset would be way more forgiving of efforts to thrown any old game at it. Because it would be able to render those distant textures rather than just munge them up into pixelated garbage that gives you a headache. Vorpx might be able to solve some of those conversion issues with some kind of LOD processing but I don’t think it is worth it.
        I do think it is worth developing old games into VR versions, but I think it has to come from the original source, so they can address the level of detail issues and control issues that VR requires.

      • Chris Courtois

        I need to strongly oppose this. I own VorpX and it’s my most used gaming-related VR software. Most of the flack is just misunderstanding. Yes, first few times setting up a game can be grueling, borderline as frustrating as playing Silver Surfer with no fingers… but the ordeal is quite limited as once you can get a few games setup right, you pretty much know the drill for all of them. As you gain experience you end up with dozens of game running near 1st party VR.

        I’ve used the tool with Fallout 4 for 32 hours, Shadow warrior (2013) for 37 hours (full game playthrough + replays, especially Mezu), Borderlands 1 for 14hrs, Borderlands 2 for 5hrs and Singularity for about 10hrs. Yes, it’s not as tight as specific 3rd party injectors like FlyInside FSX (who excelled at adding VR support into MS Flight Sim, worth trying big time) but it unleashes a near-impossible-to-finish flurry of VR capability in games that would otherwise never be close to playable in a headset. When the specific-game support is optimal (geometry 3D, 110+ FOV, 45fps+) you can get something that’s as “showtime ready” as a true VR game.

        There’s the issue with mouse pitch, where in most games you can move your head’s up/down direction with either your head or the mouse, and this tends to get your view off-level. VorpX has a new feature that covers this in a few games (Direct VR) and for those that don’t (most games don’t) I got myself a mechanical mouse and simply broke the pitch sensor on it. All I need to do is align my level with my normal mouse, and then play with my pitch-locked mouse to enjoy what is pretty much equal to a true VR implementation.

        Given the results it can attain, its user friendliness is really a matter of flexibility. Yes, Direct VR is eliminating the need for a lot of these config layers, but it’s likely said configs will remain available down the line because it simply expands the possibilities at running even more games; some eventually requiring the finer tweaks that other games don’t – the more configurable the injector is, the more it can allow us to do ourselves.

        It’s very unfortunate to see such an unjustly negative reaction to such a useful tool, mostly because people are afraid of configuration options. I tend to spend more time on my configs by choice, but when I don’t want to, if the game I’m trying to run isn’t super obscure, I’ll likely find a detailed config post on reddit in ten seconds. Shocking to see some users trying to run games on full stock setting then trying to complain the game feels “zoomed in”when the solution is one quick web search and 5 minutes of setting up away.

    • Chris Courtois

      I’ve played Borderlands 2 with VorpX, the Rift, VIVE and the DK2. You couldn’t be more incorrect, and are just nitpicking at lack of detail while ignoring the 110% playability of the game. There’s literally nothing wrong with the displays in terms of playability, only granted we’d wish for greater resolution. Borderlands 2 and 1 are both amazing in VR and to say otherwise would be misleading, disingenuous and somewhat of a downright lie.

      The truth is the exact opposite. I tend to see more distant things in VR and recognize them quicker than I ever would on a screen mostly because of the blasted FOV. ARK is a great example. I came up with a term for it called “VR vision” where I tend to see things well before anyone using screens in my play session. Once there was this ridiculously long argment between me and two others. I could clearly see a raptor on the other shore about 1km away. No one else could (playing on screens). We zeroed in on the position as everyone thought I was seeing things. There was a freaking Raptor right there.

      An object just needs to take about 3 1/2 pixels of screen surface and you immediately recognize what it is.

      As for Fallout 4 itself it’s likely I’ll have finished the game with VorpX before it even rolls out its own VR adaptation, mostly because reliance on motion controls has all but thwarted my ability to fully enjoy VR. They’re too cumbersome, often require more space than evidently apparent and just aren’t up to snuff for the home.

      Fallout 4 itself, graphically has proven a marvel for VR. Turn off DOF and FXAA which damage distant detail and you’ve got yourselves one of the most immersive digital interactive experiences I’ve ever seen in my life. Ironically an amazing thing about it is the distant detail… you can see as far as humanly possible.

      Resolution in VR is limited, yes, and could’ve been greater from the start (Gear VR is 2K; shocking PC headsets aren’t quite) but let’s not go off the rails and even try to pretend it makes things unplayable, and let’s not lose it completely saying it makes distant things hard to see when it’s the exact opposite… maybe stop actively trying to look for space between pixels and look at what the screen is actually trying to show you.

  • EvilScrooge

    I do hope this is teleporting around is just an option. Not everyone has the nausea issue. And I’m pretty sure I would puke from overabundance of teleporting.