Interview with Andrei Ivashentsev (Game Insight) about the future of VR and AR
At the White Nights Moscow 2016 conference, Mobio interviewed Andrey Ivashentsev, Game Insight's director for innovation.
Game Insight is a developer and publisher of games for mobile platforms and social networks. The most popular games on the model of free-to-play - My Country, Paradise island, Tribez.
In an interview with Andrey, we discussed:
')
Do you actively promote HoloLens because you most believe in games on augmented reality technology?
You can only guess, no one will give an accurate forecast. There is a virtual reality market in which millions of dollars are invested, there are ready-made serial projects of Oculus Rift, Vive, there will be Google's Daydream platform. There are developers, a desire to develop and huge investments, now everyone is striving to go there. The applicability of HoloLens in terms of games is an interesting question, but we see only the first generation of such wearable devices that allow us to get a high-quality picture. As this market will develop further, we can not guess. Maybe it will end with a chip in the brain or with a lens that will draw and translate the picture independently.
Forecasts are a thankless task, but in this case your look and experience is interesting.
If we talk about augmented reality in Windows Holographic, the mixed reality format of Microsoft technology, it is interesting with the ability to bind virtual objects to the real world. True, there are a number of limitations: you see a picture living in an environment in which you are now. You cannot draw a completely invented illusory world and put a player there. This can be done using VR. These are two different concepts, I can not say that I believe in something more. I use all the possible helmets that can be found, and differently assess the future in terms of market, technology and development in the future. I like Windows Holographic as a platform; there were no such products before. If we recall the years 1997 and 1995, when there was a VR boom, it was really cool. Nobody knew anything about AR, there were neither sensors for tracking space, nor the ability to dynamically draw a picture. Everyone understood that if you put your head in the monitor, you get a cool version of full immersion, and when you need a partial immersion, this is just an augmented reality. In terms of games, VR is simpler. You invented, made and released. When making a game with the help of AR, you must understand where a person is and adapt to all of his surroundings in order to make it interesting and convenient for him to play. The complexity, approaches and number of devices for these two areas in the markets are different.
What do you think, how far is Russia behind the United States in terms of penetration of user experience, devices and technologies in the field?
Approximately as much as Russia lags behind in all the rest, which is connected with computer equipment. The main devices that enter the market globally, we appear a week later. HoloLens devices can be purchased for a number of reasons only in the USA and Canada. Technology penetration always depends on how much the audience and the manufacturer are ready to fill in certain consumption segments. Due to the cost of entering VR, Russia is at a disadvantage due to the current exchange rate and the overall level of computer penetration into life. Not everyone has a powerful gaming computer, extra money for a helmet and a productive Android-smartphone or iPhone.
What could be the point for explosive growth?
There is such a theory as the diffusion of innovation. It provides a basic methodology for assessing the output of any technology to the market. It all starts with a handful of innovators who use the product because it’s cool. Over time, the number of users begins to grow: early adopters - the first to start using technology. Then comes the early majority - the mass segment of the beginners, then the late majority - the slowly catching majority, and then the laggards who use the technology last or never. You can see this trend on the example of any platform and technology. It is impossible to reliably predict that we will have an explosive growth of any product, because some technologies may simply not go further than the first stage, not take root. How should everything start? With helmets or content. And consumers have no helmets. Why? Because there is not the right amount of content. No content, because there are no helmets. The problem is chicken or eggs, and people continue to wait. Millions of dollars are now being invested in order for the market to be abundant in both. So, sooner or later, everything should start rocking simply because of the amount of funds already invested.
Under which platform or technology you need to develop to make a lot of money?
The problem is that you can not just take and do something cool and make a lot of money. This happens, but usually there is hard work behind it, a trial and error method. Indie developers need to try different approaches, platforms, concepts, and only after some time, after some experiments fail, and some do not, they will develop an understanding of what they can achieve success.
If you want to make games under virtual reality, you need to understand what is their key difference from games for augmented reality or from ordinary games. As a rule, people change the camera from one eye (conditionally, from a flat screen) to a camera for two eyes, make a stroke under the lenses and launch. Still coming up with how to manage all this. But this is not all that needs to be done. We have a lot of people with Unity who can add a camera for two eyes under the Cardboard, but they can't make a good game, and the one without the other doesn't make sense.
Is it worth it now or, perhaps, on the contrary, it is better to invest in those markets that are already developed?
Investing in the future either pays off with interest, or does not pay off at all. If we look at many VR projects that are currently being developed, and a huge number of startups that exist in VR and AR, many of them will fail, because they will not reach their target audience, the desired level of quality, or a competitor will do the same but faster and cooler.
You talked about the comfort of using helmets. Do you think that has more weight: the technology of the helmet itself or the gameplay?
You can make a terrible game under the most beautiful helmet in the world, and a wonderful game under a terrible helmet. It all depends on the amount of effort and input.
Now, with the advent of Vive, when it is possible to track your own hands using the touch controller, adaptation to VR is accelerated three times. You cannot make a space epic of the EVE: Valkyrie type, which will work on a cheap model in the phone: there will be another level of immersion, respectively, a different quality of perception.
We can say that development is the lot of large companies with huge budgets, because they impose large demands on the quality of the picture, on the chart, rather than, for example, on mobile?
Large companies have more opportunities and resources for experiments. If we understand that experimenting with VR may not pay off, then an indie-development team that spends time, effort, and money to make a great game (which is not as cool as they think) can be very upset. The same investment for a large company that has a portfolio of projects, and which these experiments can afford, will cost less blood. But if you have a brilliant idea, a good team and an understanding that the project will be in demand, and you can sell it, you make it and launch it.
Do you think Pokemon Go is about technology or about successful launch time and marketing?
It is always important to choose a good launch time so that the game earns many billions of dollars.
But there is also the presence of a unique technology: Pokemon Go is made on the basis of the successful AR-game Ingress. In general, Niantic has an interesting history, including because part of the team previously worked on Google maps. They understand what geo-positioning is, and how this theme can be correctly beaten.
Well, in the appendage you need the right brand choice: the platform has a very popular IP Pokemon. They are known all over the world, so the idea of ​​the game is clear to most people under 35 years old. Younger players also quickly understand the setting, as the Pokémon franchise is actively used around the world.
The weight of the brand and character is quite high.
There are several factors that coincided at once. But the AR-game without Pokemon, Ingress, earns orders of magnitude less. Although technologically it is more interesting for a hardcore player who wants more different mechanics, and not just collect Pokemon.
Now, many people are thinking about how to make a similar performance game and try to choose the necessary combination of components. For example - the Chinese launched a clone of Pokemon Go for the Chinese domestic market within a few weeks. Pokemons were originally invented in Japan, and China has its own similar monsters for the local market, which they used in the cloned game. The Chinese are excellent at doing such things, and now the game’s revenues are estimated at millions of dollars.
All interviews from the conference can be viewed on our youtube channel .
Game Insight is a developer and publisher of games for mobile platforms and social networks. The most popular games on the model of free-to-play - My Country, Paradise island, Tribez.
In an interview with Andrey, we discussed:
')
- the future of virtual and augmented reality;
- platforms and technologies for which you need to develop games;
- the diffusion of innovation, why Russia is at a disadvantage at the cost of entering VR;
- Success Pokemon Go - unique technology or successful marketing?
Do you actively promote HoloLens because you most believe in games on augmented reality technology?
You can only guess, no one will give an accurate forecast. There is a virtual reality market in which millions of dollars are invested, there are ready-made serial projects of Oculus Rift, Vive, there will be Google's Daydream platform. There are developers, a desire to develop and huge investments, now everyone is striving to go there. The applicability of HoloLens in terms of games is an interesting question, but we see only the first generation of such wearable devices that allow us to get a high-quality picture. As this market will develop further, we can not guess. Maybe it will end with a chip in the brain or with a lens that will draw and translate the picture independently.
Forecasts are a thankless task, but in this case your look and experience is interesting.
If we talk about augmented reality in Windows Holographic, the mixed reality format of Microsoft technology, it is interesting with the ability to bind virtual objects to the real world. True, there are a number of limitations: you see a picture living in an environment in which you are now. You cannot draw a completely invented illusory world and put a player there. This can be done using VR. These are two different concepts, I can not say that I believe in something more. I use all the possible helmets that can be found, and differently assess the future in terms of market, technology and development in the future. I like Windows Holographic as a platform; there were no such products before. If we recall the years 1997 and 1995, when there was a VR boom, it was really cool. Nobody knew anything about AR, there were neither sensors for tracking space, nor the ability to dynamically draw a picture. Everyone understood that if you put your head in the monitor, you get a cool version of full immersion, and when you need a partial immersion, this is just an augmented reality. In terms of games, VR is simpler. You invented, made and released. When making a game with the help of AR, you must understand where a person is and adapt to all of his surroundings in order to make it interesting and convenient for him to play. The complexity, approaches and number of devices for these two areas in the markets are different.
What do you think, how far is Russia behind the United States in terms of penetration of user experience, devices and technologies in the field?
Approximately as much as Russia lags behind in all the rest, which is connected with computer equipment. The main devices that enter the market globally, we appear a week later. HoloLens devices can be purchased for a number of reasons only in the USA and Canada. Technology penetration always depends on how much the audience and the manufacturer are ready to fill in certain consumption segments. Due to the cost of entering VR, Russia is at a disadvantage due to the current exchange rate and the overall level of computer penetration into life. Not everyone has a powerful gaming computer, extra money for a helmet and a productive Android-smartphone or iPhone.
What could be the point for explosive growth?
There is such a theory as the diffusion of innovation. It provides a basic methodology for assessing the output of any technology to the market. It all starts with a handful of innovators who use the product because it’s cool. Over time, the number of users begins to grow: early adopters - the first to start using technology. Then comes the early majority - the mass segment of the beginners, then the late majority - the slowly catching majority, and then the laggards who use the technology last or never. You can see this trend on the example of any platform and technology. It is impossible to reliably predict that we will have an explosive growth of any product, because some technologies may simply not go further than the first stage, not take root. How should everything start? With helmets or content. And consumers have no helmets. Why? Because there is not the right amount of content. No content, because there are no helmets. The problem is chicken or eggs, and people continue to wait. Millions of dollars are now being invested in order for the market to be abundant in both. So, sooner or later, everything should start rocking simply because of the amount of funds already invested.
Under which platform or technology you need to develop to make a lot of money?
The problem is that you can not just take and do something cool and make a lot of money. This happens, but usually there is hard work behind it, a trial and error method. Indie developers need to try different approaches, platforms, concepts, and only after some time, after some experiments fail, and some do not, they will develop an understanding of what they can achieve success.
If you want to make games under virtual reality, you need to understand what is their key difference from games for augmented reality or from ordinary games. As a rule, people change the camera from one eye (conditionally, from a flat screen) to a camera for two eyes, make a stroke under the lenses and launch. Still coming up with how to manage all this. But this is not all that needs to be done. We have a lot of people with Unity who can add a camera for two eyes under the Cardboard, but they can't make a good game, and the one without the other doesn't make sense.
Is it worth it now or, perhaps, on the contrary, it is better to invest in those markets that are already developed?
Investing in the future either pays off with interest, or does not pay off at all. If we look at many VR projects that are currently being developed, and a huge number of startups that exist in VR and AR, many of them will fail, because they will not reach their target audience, the desired level of quality, or a competitor will do the same but faster and cooler.
You talked about the comfort of using helmets. Do you think that has more weight: the technology of the helmet itself or the gameplay?
You can make a terrible game under the most beautiful helmet in the world, and a wonderful game under a terrible helmet. It all depends on the amount of effort and input.
Now, with the advent of Vive, when it is possible to track your own hands using the touch controller, adaptation to VR is accelerated three times. You cannot make a space epic of the EVE: Valkyrie type, which will work on a cheap model in the phone: there will be another level of immersion, respectively, a different quality of perception.
We can say that development is the lot of large companies with huge budgets, because they impose large demands on the quality of the picture, on the chart, rather than, for example, on mobile?
Large companies have more opportunities and resources for experiments. If we understand that experimenting with VR may not pay off, then an indie-development team that spends time, effort, and money to make a great game (which is not as cool as they think) can be very upset. The same investment for a large company that has a portfolio of projects, and which these experiments can afford, will cost less blood. But if you have a brilliant idea, a good team and an understanding that the project will be in demand, and you can sell it, you make it and launch it.
Do you think Pokemon Go is about technology or about successful launch time and marketing?
It is always important to choose a good launch time so that the game earns many billions of dollars.
But there is also the presence of a unique technology: Pokemon Go is made on the basis of the successful AR-game Ingress. In general, Niantic has an interesting history, including because part of the team previously worked on Google maps. They understand what geo-positioning is, and how this theme can be correctly beaten.
Well, in the appendage you need the right brand choice: the platform has a very popular IP Pokemon. They are known all over the world, so the idea of ​​the game is clear to most people under 35 years old. Younger players also quickly understand the setting, as the Pokémon franchise is actively used around the world.
The weight of the brand and character is quite high.
There are several factors that coincided at once. But the AR-game without Pokemon, Ingress, earns orders of magnitude less. Although technologically it is more interesting for a hardcore player who wants more different mechanics, and not just collect Pokemon.
Now, many people are thinking about how to make a similar performance game and try to choose the necessary combination of components. For example - the Chinese launched a clone of Pokemon Go for the Chinese domestic market within a few weeks. Pokemons were originally invented in Japan, and China has its own similar monsters for the local market, which they used in the cloned game. The Chinese are excellent at doing such things, and now the game’s revenues are estimated at millions of dollars.
All interviews from the conference can be viewed on our youtube channel .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/316542/
All Articles