December 1, 2016 at 11:15Interview with Andrei Ivashentsev (Game Insight) about the future of VR and AR
At the White Nights Moscow 2016 conference, Mobio interviewed Game Insight's director of innovation, Andrei Ivashentsev.
Game Insight is a developer and publisher of games for mobile platforms and social networks. The most popular free-to-play games are My Country, Paradise island, Tribez.
In an interview with Andrei, we discussed:
Do you actively promote HoloLens because you most believe in augmented reality games?
One can only guess here, 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 a Google Daydream platform. There are developers, a desire to develop and huge investments, now everyone is striving there. The applicability of HoloLens from the point of view of games is an interesting question, but we only see the first generation of such wearable devices that allow us to get a high-quality picture. How this market will develop further, we cannot guess. Maybe it will end with a chip in the brain or a lens that will finish and transmit the picture on its own.
Forecasts are a thankless task, but in this case your opinion and experience is interesting.
If we talk about augmented reality in Windows Holographic, a mixed reality format of Microsoft technology, then it is interesting in its ability to bind virtual objects to the real world. True, there are a number of restrictions: you see a picture living in the environment in which you are now. You cannot draw a completely invented illusory world and place a player there. This can be done using VR. These are two different concepts, I can’t say that I believe in something more. I use all possible helmets that can be found, and I evaluate the perspective differently from the point of view of the market, technological effectiveness and future development. I like Windows Holographic as a platform, there were no such products before. If we remember 1997 and 1995, when there was a boom in VR, it was really cool. Nobody knew anything about AR, there were no sensors for tracking space, nor the ability to dynamically draw a picture. Everyone understood that if you put your head in the monitor, you’ll get a cool version of full immersion, and when you need partial immersion, this is just augmented reality. In terms of games, VR is simpler. You invented, made and released. When making a game using AR, you need to understand where the person is and adapt to his entire environment so that he is interested and comfortable playing. The complexity, approaches and number of devices for these two areas in the markets are different. made and released. When making a game using AR, you need to understand where the person is and adapt to his entire environment so that he is interested and comfortable playing. The complexity, approaches and number of devices for these two areas in the markets are different. made and released. When making a game using AR, you need to understand where the person is and adapt to his entire environment so that he is interested and comfortable playing. The complexity, approaches and number of devices for these two areas in the markets are different.
What do you think, how far behind Russia is the United States in terms of penetration of user experience, devices and technologies in the subject?
About the same as Russia lags behind in everything else related to computer equipment. The main devices that enter the market globally appear with us a week later. Devices like HoloLens for a number of reasons can only be bought in the USA and Canada. The penetration of technology always depends on how much the audience and the manufacturer are ready to fill one or another segments of consumption. Due to the cost of entering VR, Russia is in a losing position due to the current exchange rate and the overall level of computer penetration. 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 release of any technology on the market. It all starts with a handful of innovators who use the product because it is fun. Over time, the number of users begins to grow: early adopters - the first to use the technology. Next comes the early majority - the mass segment of beginners, then the late majority - slowly catching up with the majority, and then the laggards who use the technology last or never use it. You can see this trend on the example of any platform and technology. It is impossible to reliably predict that we will have explosive growth of any product, because some technologies may simply not go beyond the first stage, not take root. Where should it all start? With helmets or content. But consumers do not have helmets. Why? Because there is no right amount of content. No content because there are no helmets. The problem is chicken or eggs, and people keep waiting. Millions of dollars are now being invested in order to have both. So sooner or later everything should begin to swing simply because of the amount of funds already invested.
What platform or technology do you need to develop for in order to earn a lot of money?
The problem is that you can’t just take and do something cool and make a lot of money. This happens, but usually it is hard work, trial and error. Indie developers need to try different approaches, platforms, concepts, and only after some time, after some experiments fail and some do not, they will understand what they can achieve success in.
If you want to make games for 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 for the lenses and start up. They also figure out how to manage all this. But that is far from 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 at the same time they cannot make a good game, and one without the other makes no sense.
Is it worth it now, or maybe, 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 under development, and at the huge number of startups that are in the field of VR and AR, many of them will burn out because they will not reach their target audience, the right level of quality, or the competitor will do the same but faster and cooler.
You touched on the topic of the comfort of using helmets. Do you think it 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 introductory.
Now with the advent of Vive, when it is possible to use your touch controller to track your own hands, adaptation to VR is accelerated three times. You cannot make a space epic like EVE: Valkyrie, which will work on a cheap model in your phone: there will be a different level of immersion, respectively, a different quality of perception.
We can say that development is the lot of large companies with huge budgets, because there are big requirements for picture quality, graphics, rather than, for example, mobile?
Large companies have more options and resources for experimentation. If we understand that experimenting with VR may not pay off, then the indie development team that takes the time, effort, and money to make a cool game (which doesn't turn out to be as cool as they think) can be very upset. The same investment for a large company that has a portfolio of projects, and which can afford these experiments, will cost less. But if you have a brilliant idea, a good team and 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 a good launch time and marketing?
It’s always important to choose the right launch time for the game to make many billions of dollars.
But there is also the presence of 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 geolocation is and how to properly beat this topic.
Well, in the appendage, you need the right brand choice: the platform has extremely 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 Pokemon franchise is actively used around the world.
The weight of the brand and character is quite high.
There are several factors that coincided at one point. But an 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 are thinking how to make a game similar in effectiveness and trying to find the necessary combination of components. For example, the Chinese launched the Pokemon Go clone for the Chinese domestic market in a few weeks. Pokemon was originally invented in Japan, and China has its own similar PR monsters for the local market, which were used in the cloned game. The Chinese are very good at doing such things, and now the game’s revenues amount to millions of dollars.
All interviews from the conference can be viewed on our website.youtube channel .
Game Insight is a developer and publisher of games for mobile platforms and social networks. The most popular free-to-play games are My Country, Paradise island, Tribez.
In an interview with Andrei, we discussed:
- future of virtual and augmented reality;
- platforms and technologies for which you need to develop games;
- diffusion of innovation, why Russia is at a loss by VR entry cost;
- Is Pokemon Go Success - Unique Technology or Successful Marketing?
Do you actively promote HoloLens because you most believe in augmented reality games?
One can only guess here, 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 a Google Daydream platform. There are developers, a desire to develop and huge investments, now everyone is striving there. The applicability of HoloLens from the point of view of games is an interesting question, but we only see the first generation of such wearable devices that allow us to get a high-quality picture. How this market will develop further, we cannot guess. Maybe it will end with a chip in the brain or a lens that will finish and transmit the picture on its own.
Forecasts are a thankless task, but in this case your opinion and experience is interesting.
If we talk about augmented reality in Windows Holographic, a mixed reality format of Microsoft technology, then it is interesting in its ability to bind virtual objects to the real world. True, there are a number of restrictions: you see a picture living in the environment in which you are now. You cannot draw a completely invented illusory world and place a player there. This can be done using VR. These are two different concepts, I can’t say that I believe in something more. I use all possible helmets that can be found, and I evaluate the perspective differently from the point of view of the market, technological effectiveness and future development. I like Windows Holographic as a platform, there were no such products before. If we remember 1997 and 1995, when there was a boom in VR, it was really cool. Nobody knew anything about AR, there were no sensors for tracking space, nor the ability to dynamically draw a picture. Everyone understood that if you put your head in the monitor, you’ll get a cool version of full immersion, and when you need partial immersion, this is just augmented reality. In terms of games, VR is simpler. You invented, made and released. When making a game using AR, you need to understand where the person is and adapt to his entire environment so that he is interested and comfortable playing. The complexity, approaches and number of devices for these two areas in the markets are different. made and released. When making a game using AR, you need to understand where the person is and adapt to his entire environment so that he is interested and comfortable playing. The complexity, approaches and number of devices for these two areas in the markets are different. made and released. When making a game using AR, you need to understand where the person is and adapt to his entire environment so that he is interested and comfortable playing. The complexity, approaches and number of devices for these two areas in the markets are different.
What do you think, how far behind Russia is the United States in terms of penetration of user experience, devices and technologies in the subject?
About the same as Russia lags behind in everything else related to computer equipment. The main devices that enter the market globally appear with us a week later. Devices like HoloLens for a number of reasons can only be bought in the USA and Canada. The penetration of technology always depends on how much the audience and the manufacturer are ready to fill one or another segments of consumption. Due to the cost of entering VR, Russia is in a losing position due to the current exchange rate and the overall level of computer penetration. 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 release of any technology on the market. It all starts with a handful of innovators who use the product because it is fun. Over time, the number of users begins to grow: early adopters - the first to use the technology. Next comes the early majority - the mass segment of beginners, then the late majority - slowly catching up with the majority, and then the laggards who use the technology last or never use it. You can see this trend on the example of any platform and technology. It is impossible to reliably predict that we will have explosive growth of any product, because some technologies may simply not go beyond the first stage, not take root. Where should it all start? With helmets or content. But consumers do not have helmets. Why? Because there is no right amount of content. No content because there are no helmets. The problem is chicken or eggs, and people keep waiting. Millions of dollars are now being invested in order to have both. So sooner or later everything should begin to swing simply because of the amount of funds already invested.
What platform or technology do you need to develop for in order to earn a lot of money?
The problem is that you can’t just take and do something cool and make a lot of money. This happens, but usually it is hard work, trial and error. Indie developers need to try different approaches, platforms, concepts, and only after some time, after some experiments fail and some do not, they will understand what they can achieve success in.
If you want to make games for 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 for the lenses and start up. They also figure out how to manage all this. But that is far from 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 at the same time they cannot make a good game, and one without the other makes no sense.
Is it worth it now, or maybe, 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 under development, and at the huge number of startups that are in the field of VR and AR, many of them will burn out because they will not reach their target audience, the right level of quality, or the competitor will do the same but faster and cooler.
You touched on the topic of the comfort of using helmets. Do you think it 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 introductory.
Now with the advent of Vive, when it is possible to use your touch controller to track your own hands, adaptation to VR is accelerated three times. You cannot make a space epic like EVE: Valkyrie, which will work on a cheap model in your phone: there will be a different level of immersion, respectively, a different quality of perception.
We can say that development is the lot of large companies with huge budgets, because there are big requirements for picture quality, graphics, rather than, for example, mobile?
Large companies have more options and resources for experimentation. If we understand that experimenting with VR may not pay off, then the indie development team that takes the time, effort, and money to make a cool game (which doesn't turn out to be as cool as they think) can be very upset. The same investment for a large company that has a portfolio of projects, and which can afford these experiments, will cost less. But if you have a brilliant idea, a good team and 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 a good launch time and marketing?
It’s always important to choose the right launch time for the game to make many billions of dollars.
But there is also the presence of 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 geolocation is and how to properly beat this topic.
Well, in the appendage, you need the right brand choice: the platform has extremely 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 Pokemon franchise is actively used around the world.
The weight of the brand and character is quite high.
There are several factors that coincided at one point. But an 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 are thinking how to make a game similar in effectiveness and trying to find the necessary combination of components. For example, the Chinese launched the Pokemon Go clone for the Chinese domestic market in a few weeks. Pokemon was originally invented in Japan, and China has its own similar PR monsters for the local market, which were used in the cloned game. The Chinese are very good at doing such things, and now the game’s revenues amount to millions of dollars.
All interviews from the conference can be viewed on our website.youtube channel .