VR Or Monitor user Poll

[LucShep]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

https://virtualrealitytimes.com/2024/01/20/varjo-aero-headset-discontinued-but-support-to-run-to-2025/#:~:text=Varjo is no longer selling,and was launched in 2021.

Console VR adoption is even lower than PCVR. .15% vs about 2% 
“the PSVR1 would have an attach rate of 0.15% after five months of sales.The PSVR2 is almost at a 0.1% attach rate after a month of sales”

.15% vs 1.84% is around 10x lower

Then consider the other console makers have no VR at all, the PS5 is about half this market as a whole, then consoles are like 1/20th of the VR gaming market.   

https://www.tweaktown.com/news/91001/playstation-vr2-launch-sales-may-be-outpacing-original-psvr1-headset/index.html#

....a month later?  PSVR2 launched in February 22, 2023 (it's not even a year old). I think more recent news would be more reliable to its current state, no?
PSVR2 got quite some traction at the end of 2023, mostly due to November 2023 game launches (19 new titles, I think).

You have to understand three things:

1. The "problem" with sales numbers of PSVR2 in the initial months had to do with not being backwards compatible with original PlayStation VR games.
   People who invested into the previous PSVR (launched in 2016, for PS4) felt there should have been some and were vocal about it, even though Sony doesn't do backwards compatibility in their devices (apart the very rare exceptions). 
    
2. Consoles sales numbers themselves are important only to an extent. Sony, Microsoft an Nintendo always sold their base equipments (the consoles themselves) at a loss, they still do. Because what drives the big money is the content for them, be it the games (exclusive and non-exclusive titles), the service subscriptions (GamePass, PSplus, etc) and the peripherals (1st or 3rd parties' products).
   It's a bit particular and different to what we see in the PC world (or to other entertainment markets), and why parallels can be difficult.
    
3. A curious "non gamer" looking to the VR experience thing (essentially someone not into this sort of media) will probably look into PSVR2 and naively think "why would I get a PS5 + PSVR2, when I could just get a Meta Quest3 that is cheaper and works standalone?".  The products are not even comparable, but even Sony can see it. 
   PSVR2 is for PS5 only - one brand/console that battles with two other giants in the market - and still it's growing. That's why it's considered an overall success. Not just for raw sales numbers, but because it's now proving to be a practical, viable way and platform to get into VR.

There are far more developers getting into PSVR2 (more games) in a much shorter time period compared to (and unlike) the previous iteration, which took too long to grow.
So, it has steady growth of game releases (+ respective updates) and sales, has learned from past mistakes, is easy to use, and can be now considered a way to have VR in a more "globalist" fashion, even if the global economy has gotten worse. Unlike PC VR, which is still too costly and complicated for most, remaining a niche.
Wether Microsoft/XBox or Nintendo will (finally) follow the example and get into VR is doubtful (but desired), considering the more conservative nature of both companies.
I too hope consoles will drive the consumer market, with PC compatibility for both games and hardware coming as an extra. We (PC and VR users) could benefit from it somehow.

Edited January 22 by LucShep

[Dragon1-1]

Well, Microsoft just axed WMR, so unless there's an Xbox VR in the works to replace it, it might take them a while to catch up. Nintendo, well, hopefully they have gotten over the Virtual Boy fiasco by now.  That said, if VR games take off on PS5, the others will follow, console games always ape each other, anyway. Ultimately, I feel it's a matter of there being enough VR games with enough to offer besides the fact of being VR games. We're talking stuff like Half Life: Alyx, where VR is not a gimmick, but just part of the game.

[SharpeXB]

14 hours ago, LucShep said:

a month later?  PSVR2 launched in February 22, 2023 (it's not even a year old). I think more recent news would be more reliable to its current state, no?

Yeah those numbers are like a year old. The original PSVR had a 4% attach rate apparently. That’s not really anything to crow about. I’m surprised they would double down on a PSVR2 with sales like that. The Kinect had a 30% rate and flopped. 

14 hours ago, LucShep said:

I too hope consoles will drive the consumer market, with PC compatibility for both games and hardware coming as an extra.

That’s hard to see because half the consoles brands have no VR at all. VR adoption there seems just as low as with PC. 

13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, Microsoft just axed WMR, so unless there's an Xbox VR in the works to replace it, it might take them a while to catch up.

As far as I can see MS/Xbox has not much interest in VR at all. The HoloLens is their only thing. I’ve tried that one too I was kinda cool. But I don’t see it used at all in my industry.

Edited January 22 by SharpeXB

[Guest]

So over 70% uses VR.

[Biggus]

28 minutes ago, Razor68 said:

So over 70% uses VR.

Of respondents, sure.

Of DCS users as a whole, not a chance.

[Guest]

The numbers dont lie.

[freehand]

Yes they do the only reason it shows VR favour is people can not be bothered with such a silly poll.  

[SharpeXB]

55 minutes ago, Razor68 said:

The numbers dont lie.

It’s a sample of enthusiasts who frequent this forum. Not the player base as a whole. I notice on the other flight sim survey that the same % use a 4090 graphics card as use VR. That’s the sort of result you get sampling avid players. I think a sample size of 50 is hardly relevant either. 

Edited February 5 by SharpeXB

[Guest]

Prove it. Personal meanings does not tell a thing.

[SharpeXB]

57 minutes ago, Razor68 said:

Prove it. Personal meanings does not tell a thing.

The facts are self-evident. The validity of a poll or survey depends on who it’s sampling. It would also have to be truly randomized and sample enough respondents in order for the results to have any meaning. The Steam Hardware Survey is an example of such. But a poll posted on the ED forums here again is just sampling the enthusiasts who frequent this page, not a large randomized survey of actual players. Common sense should tell you 70% of DCS players do not use VR. If that proportion of players did use VR then the game wouldn’t perform like with it The game would be specifically designed for VR which it clearly is not. 

[Guest]

All i can see is empty words. What do you gain from trying to get your meanings through?

Edited February 5 by Razor68

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Razor68 said:

All i can see is empty words. What do you gain from trying to get your meanings through?

Well it’s a discussion forum. If you can’t formulate a discussion or can’t comprehend what other people write perhaps you shouldn’t have started the topic. 

[Guest]

It is a vote and the people have voted. What you say its just your personal opinion and nothing more and will not change anything. If you cant accept the poll you have an issue.

[SharpeXB]

8 hours ago, Razor68 said:

It is a vote and the people have voted. What you say its just your personal opinion and nothing more and will not change anything. If you cant accept the poll you have an issue.

What I’ve said is commonly understood about polls and surveys. In any case common sense should tell you these results are skewed. There’s no way 70% of all DCS players use VR. 

[Cab]

10 hours ago, Razor68 said:

It is a vote and the people have voted. What you say its just your personal opinion and nothing more and will not change anything. If you cant accept the poll you have an issue.

...and fifty of the people...

Fixed it for you. 

[Mr_sukebe]

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

What I’ve said is commonly understood about polls and surveys. In any case common sense should tell you these results are skewed. There’s no way 70% of all DCS players use VR. 

Being fair, you’re not wrong to question the sample sizes or group, however you have no evidence to say that it’s the player base isn’t nearly 70% in VR.

I would happily state that it’s unlikely to be that high, but that’s most certainly NOT the same as can’t possibly be.

[Dragon1-1]

I think that the conclusion that can be drawn here is if you use VR, then you're probably using it exclusively. Sample size is a little small for making statements about the general playerbase, especially since this subforum is apparently not frequented by many. Get the moderators to allow such poll to the general DCS discussion and you'll see more replies.

At the same time, flightsim players do tend towards the wealthy type, and will be skewed towards better hardware, including VR. Steam Hardware Survey will involve countless of players who are only in it for DoTA or whatever casual game people play these days. At best, stuff like War Thunder. Those are the people playing on full HD screens and even laptops. At the same time, this will be a minority of DCS players.

16 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

If that proportion of players did use VR then the game wouldn’t perform like with it The game would be specifically designed for VR which it clearly is not. 

This is a seriously flawed argument. Did you try playing Cities: Skylines 2 on what Steam says is the most common rig? Or Jedi Survivor, for that matter? Sure, they're good games (the latter, I'd even say great) if you happen to have a PC that rocks a 3090, in other words specs similar to what their devs were probably using. This phenomenon is called bad design, and it's far more common than you'd hope, including in DCS. It really doesn't have to be the VRAM hog that it currently is, for example. In ED's case, some of it is more like not having a crystal ball, since when DCS:A-10 was released VR was still a distant dream (I think Oculus DK1 was the state of the art back then). 

[SharpeXB]

57 minutes ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Being fair, you’re not wrong to question the sample sizes or group, however you have no evidence to say that it’s the player base isn’t nearly 70% in VR.

I would happily state that it’s unlikely to be that high, but that’s most certainly NOT the same as can’t possibly be.

The Navigraph survey is more valid as it’s an actual sampling of a large flight sim customer base. The 16% there seems believable although again it’s a sample of people who use Navigraph meaning they are enthusiasts. The same survey shows 16% of them using 4090s so it’s clear that this is not a sample of typical players. 

48 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

This is a seriously flawed argument.

It’s abundantly obvious that DCS is not designed for VR. This is a 2D game with VR compatibility, not a game that’s fully intended for VR. If it was the game would be greatly simplified in terms of its graphics demand. It would be akin to VTOL which is indeed a VR game. If 70% of the players were truly using VR you’d see that reflected in the game’s design instead of the game crushing the strongest machines money can buy. If that proportion of the players are really using VR then ED is going in totally the wrong direction developing the game. I doubt that’s true. After all they know the real data and can make decisions accordingly. 

[Hiob]

20 hours ago, Razor68 said:

The numbers dont lie.

I hope you are joking….. 

[Baldrick33]

IMHO @SharpeXB is spot on with his observations on the value and accuracy of this poll both in terms of sample size and skewed nature on those who vote in forum polls and the customer base as a whole.

That said there are many sims which have been converted to VR with success, the whole MSFS change of mind is a classic example, pretty much every racing sim started out as 2D only. VTOL is an example of a game designed for VR capable of running on potato PCs but is hardly of interest to most DCS customers. In my view DCS is pretty spectacular in VR. Yes it needs a more powerful PC than the average player will have but I fully understand the enthusiast base it has. I am sure it is a niche but in much the same way the cockpit builders are a niche. In both cases it probably represents groups who spend far more on DCS than average, so simple percentages of numbers of users may not represent the sales value.

Personally I think these discussions are somewhat moot, the VR user base is sufficient enough and perhaps more importantly enthusiastic enough to merit supporting. 2D will remain a key aspect of future development, I don’t see VR becoming the majority use even though I exclusively run it for DCS I the foreseeable future.

[Dragon1-1]

4 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

If 70% of the players were truly using VR you’d see that reflected in the game’s design instead of the game crushing the strongest machines money can buy. If that proportion of the players are really using VR then ED is going in totally the wrong direction developing the game. I doubt that’s true. After all they know the real data and can make decisions accordingly. 

You've got it backwards. If 70% of players use VR, then all this means is that 70% of players are struggling with the same issues and cheering on ED heroically striving to cure them (or cursing them for taking so long). No matter what DCS is today, it certainly didn't start as a VR game, because VR was not really a thing back when it started. In fact, ED is now very definitely working with VR experience in mind, but their commitment to realism also includes photorealistic visuals. All on an engine which has its roots back in mid-2000s.

Your point would be valid if DCS was a clean slate design made today. This is not the case, as evidenced by the fact multithreading was implemented being cause for much fanfare. So a statement that DCS was not originally designed for VR is both obvious and irrelevant. DCS was designed according to how the playerbase looked like 15 years ago, not anything that goes on today. ED is clearly evolving and redesigning it towards being a better VR experience, but it's not an easy row to hoe, to say the least. In fact, there's exactly one sim that can be called a modern, clean slate design, and its VR performance is as good as it's going to be given its graphical fidelity (you don't need a 4090 to run it, though it can take advantage of one).

[SharpeXB]

22 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You've got it backwards.

I don’t think so. If 70% of the players were really using VR then they wouldn’t struggle because the game would be specifically designed for them as the majority. But you can easily tell this is not the case. If this game was tailored for VR it would look like VTOL

Edited February 6 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, SharpeXB said:

I don’t think so. If 70% of the players were really using VR then they wouldn’t struggle because the game would be specifically designed for them as the majority. But you can easily tell this is not the case. If this game was tailored for VR it would look like VTOL

You're doing this again, and I suspect you didn't get the point. DCS predates VR. Hence, it could not have been designed for VR from ground up. It would have had to evolve into a VR application. Evolving a complex program like this is a difficult process that is dictated by technical constrains, not, as you think, by market constraints. To an extent, ED does not base what they do with DCS on what they want to do, but on what they can do with the engine. By your logic, DCS should have been multithreaded years ago, because it's been a while since single or dual core CPUs were viable in gaming machines. 

And no, it wouldn't look like VTOL VR if it was designed for it. The big civilian sim works just fine in VR, with much fewer performance issues. VTOL VR is something of an early VR title, dating back to 2017. This was the time of 1st generation headsets and 10xx series GPUs. Look at Half Life: Alyx instead, for a slightly more modern (but still old-ish!), and much better looking, take on a dedicated VR game. Again, it's not the lack of trying on ED's part, it's fundamental technical debt that they accumulated over nearly two decades of development. VR can perform well and look good, provided the underlying code is properly optimized. Which usually means using something newer than DX11.

[SharpeXB]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

It would have had to evolve into a VR application.

Evolving DCS into an application ideally suited to VR would involve simplifications to its graphics and fidelity that most players would no doubt find unacceptable. Because the majority are playing this on a monitor. 

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The big civilian sim works just fine in VR

When you say “just fine” you mean it has the same performance challenges DCS has. Again with graphics which are simply too demanding to run well in VR. 
 

I honestly can’t see how it’s possible to design a game for both 2D and VR. You’d end up crushing one or underwhelming the other since VR is roughly 3x as demanding as 2D.

Edited February 6 by SharpeXB

[Dragon1-1]

6 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

When you say “just fine” you mean it has the same performance challenges DCS has.

It runs better on my rig. It's got some challenges, sure, partially due to the fact it's got some design issues, as well, but I run it at near max settings with a 3090. Don't go overboard with supersampling and it's fine.

6 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

I honestly can’t see how it’s possible to design a game for both 2D and VR. You’d end up crushing one or underwhelming the other since VR is roughly 3x as demanding as 2D.

You optimize things so you don't waste performance, then put a little slider in options for people who still use a 1080ti (an awesome GPU that did work for flying DCS in VR, mind, albeit not at native resolution). If graphics options in DCS don't help, then it's a problem with their implementation, not anything inherent in how it works. VR is inherently more demanding (not 3x more if we're talking same monitor resolution, though, 4K is increasingly popular in monitor gaming), which means it requires either dropping the graphics settings or using a better rig.