VR in 2014 = Mobile Games in 2002?

The first VRLA Meetup last week was awesome.  The performance capture studio at Digital Domain in Marina Del Rey hosted a series of impressive demos as well as live presentations on the current state and future of VR applications.  The venue could only hold 100 people, but 300 registered.  Mobs of interested VR consumers, developers, and producers had to be turned away at the door.

VRLA winding down. (Photo via John Root)

VRLA winding down. (Photo via John Root)

After this event, it struck me that VR in 2014 is reminiscent of mobile in the early 2000s.  Back in 2002 I attended the first GDC Mobile Gaming Summit.  It was at a jam-packed lecture hall in San Jose where presenters demoed the latest in technology and gave their thoughts on where the industry was heading.

At that point, mobile phone hardware was clunky and primitive.  Most phones were still sporting 80×50 monochrome screens with maybe 100k of RAM available for programs to run.  Even if you were ‘lucky’ enough to have one of these devices, it was nearly impossible to figure out how to download games.

In 2002 almost nobody knew how to monetize mobile games.  The hardware could barely run games anyway.  Yet, these people knew it was going to be a big deal.  The room was filled with excitement and anything could happen.

Since then, mobile gaming has created a huge new audience for games that has disrupted the traditional game industry, forcing a shift in how console games are designed and delivered.  Now mobile gaming is obvious, but back in 2002 there were many naysayers–despite the fact that in Japan iMode had been successfully delivering mobile games since the late ‘90s.

To me, VR in its current state feels the same way.  The hardware is huge and clumsy.  There is some precedent for VR applications stretching way back to the 1990s with Virtuality and Battletech Centers.  And there’s a lot of consumer interest–evidenced by all the successful VR and AR hardware kickstarters in addition to the attendance of VRLA this month.

The top question on everyone’s mind is “how do I make money in VR?”  This was the same question asked by many about mobile in 2002.  Back then, the path was more obvious.  Qualcomm’s BREW and Japan’s iMode already had established billing models for mobile content.  Right now, it’s unknown who will pay for VR experiences and what form they will take. A lot of this is a hardware question. Nobody really knows what the iPhone of wearable gaming will be like–but when it arrives, it will be revolutionary.

These definitely are uncertain and exciting times for this new medium–which makes it much more fun to develop for than established platforms.

Unity3D vs. Unreal 4 vs. Crytek: GDC 2014 Engine Wars

GDC 2014 is over, and one thing is clear:  The engine wars are ON!

Morpheus

For at least a few years, Unity has clearly dominated the game engine field.  Starting with browser and mobile games, then gobbling up the entire ecosystem Innovator’s Dilemma style, Unity has become the engine of choice for startups, mobile game companies, and downloadable console titles.

Until now, Unreal seemed unphased.  The creation of an entire generation of studios based on Unity technology seemed to completely pass Epic by as Unreal continued to be licensed out for high fees and revenue share by AAA studios cranking out $50 million blockbusters.

Lately, the AAA market has been contracting–leaving only a handful of high-budget tent pole games in development every year.  Many of those mega studios have started to use their own internal engine tech, avoiding Epic’s licensing fees altogether.  Surely this trend was a big wakeup call.

This year Epic strikes back with a new business model aimed at the small mammals scurrying underfoot the AAA dinosaurs.  Offering Unreal 4 on desktop and mobile platforms for a mere $19 a month and a 5% revenue cut seems like a breakthrough, but it really isn’t.

One of Unity’s biggest obstacles for new teams is its $1500 per-seat platform fee.  When you need to buy 20 licenses of Unity for 3 platforms, things get costly.  Unity’s monthly plan can help lower initial costs, but over time this can be far more expensive than just paying for the license up front.  Even when you add up all the monthly costs for each platform license subscription, it’s still a better deal than Unreal.

Giving up 5% of your revenue to Epic when profit margins are razor-thin is a non starter for me.  Unreal’s AAA feature set creates unparalleled results, even with Unity 5’s upgrades, but it’s that 5% revenue cut that still makes it an unattractive choice to me.

Epic is also aping Unity’s Asset Store with their Unreal Marketplace.  This is absolutely critical.  The Asset Store is Unity’s trojan horse–allowing developers to add to the engine’s functionality as well as provide pre-made graphics and other items invaluable for rapid prototyping or full production.  While Unreal’s Marketplace is starting out rather empty, this is a big move for the survival of the engine.

Unreal 4 throws a lot of tried and true Unreal technologies out the window, starting with UnrealScript.  The reason why Unreal comes with the source is that you have to write your game code in native C++, not a scripting language.  The new Blueprints feature is intended to somewhat replace UnrealScript for designers, but this is completely new territory.  Unreal advertises full source as a benefit over Unity, but source-level access for Unity is almost always unnecessary.  Although, it is possible now that Unreal 4 source is on Github that the community can patch bugs in the engine before Epic does.  Unity developers have to wait until Unity performs updates themselves.

Unreal 4 is so radically different from previous versions, that a lot of Unreal developers may have very good reasons for escaping to Unity or other competing engines.  For some, learning Unreal 4’s new features may not be any easier than switching to a new engine altogether.

Oh, and Crytek is basically giving their stuff away.  At $10 a month and no revenue share, I’m not sure why they are charging for this at all.  That can’t possibly cover even the marketing costs.  I’m not very familiar with Crytek, but my biggest issue with the current offering is Crytek for mobile is a completely different engine.  The mobile engine Crytek built their iOS games with is not yet publicly available to developers.

Which brings me to the latest version of Unity.  I’m sure it’s getting harder to come up with new stuff that justifies a point release.  Still, I need almost none of the features announced in Unity 5.  This is irrelevant as Unity has won the war for developers.  Which is why Unity is moving on to the next problem:  making money for developers.

Unity Cloud is Unity’s new service that is starting as a referral network for Unity games.  Developers can trade traffic between games within a huge network of Unity apps on both Android and iOS.  Unity’s purchase of Applifier shows they are dead serious about solving monetization and discovery–two of the biggest problems in mobile right now.

While other engines are still focused on surpassing Unity’s features or business model, Unity have moved into an entirely different space.  Ad networks and app traffic services may start to worry if what happened to Epic and Crytek is about to happen to them.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I’m a huge Unity fanboy.  But having one insanely dominant engine is not healthy for anyone.  I’m glad to see the other engine providers finally make a move.  I still don’t think any of them have quite got it right yet.

Oh–and in other news, YoYo Game’s GameMaker announcement at GDC, as well as some more recent examples of its capabilities make me wonder why I even bothered to get a computer science degree in the first place!

A Few Quick Notes: GDC2013 Edition

Before we get started, vote for evolve.la

Blatant plug!–please vote for evolve.la in the My LA2050 grant contest. I’m in the running to build a social gaming experiment that will attempt to analyze social media activities of Los Angelenos to determine how they want the future of Los Angeles to look. I need your votes to get evolve.la off the ground! We now continue with your irregularly scheduled blog post.

GDC 2013 Rundown

GDC has become increasingly irrelevant over the past 5 years or so as influence has moved away from the realm of cloistered AAA console game teams and to so-called “indie” developers and the disruptive platforms of mobile and social. Because of this, you can get much better information having conversations with other developers. I spent most of GDC talking to people–you can always watch the good presentations on the GDC Vault.

The trend for 2013 is an industry wide panic over free2play. Presentations and panels worried over whether f2p games are ethical and how the game industry is supposed to survive through this disruption. Considering this is a conversation game developers have been having since 2009, it just goes to show how long it takes for GDC to catch on to major trends.

“Indie” developers were the big celebrities this year. So much so that formerly closed platforms from Nintendo and Sony bent over backwards to encourage garage developers to create content. Nintendo greatly loosened requirements for their development program and even revealed HTML5 support for the Wii U. Sony eliminated concept approval. This shows there are some radical changes ahead for the next generation–Changes I suggested years ago on this blog.

The biggest star of the show was Oculus VR. The wait time to try the Oculus Rift headset grew to over 2 and a half hours by the final day of GDC. I got in to see it and came away hopeful, but unimpressed. The current prototype headset is uncomfortable, but I didn’t spent much time adjusting it. The display resolution is low, causing a screen door effect. When I turned my head, the screen smeared to the point where I couldn’t see anything.

These problems are being addressed. They showed me the physical part for the new screen–the retail version of Oculus will fix the resolution and latency issues. The current kit is strictly for developers and mega-nerdy early adopters. It’s pretty neat for a $300 prototype, but far from a finished product.

I was more impressed with Infinite Z’s zSpace virtual holography system that was on display at Unity3D’s booth. It costs over 10X what Oculus does for no apparent reason. Still, being able to draw 3D splines in thin air and look around them was really cool.

Overall, GDC had a lot of opportunity on display as far as new devices, markets, and tools–but a lot of uncertainty on how to actually make money producing games.

Favorite Quotes of GDC

  • “Cokeheads are better than publishers.”

  • “They said they’d publish my game if I turn it into a Skinner-box.”

  • “The reason why you won’t close the deal is because you’re too competent.”