Thanks to everyone. You known, we are amazed by people intelligence so far in the Kickstarter community. Even when the have touchy question or opposition, it has been always asked without agressivity. It's a true exchange.
Don't worry, you don't sound rude Bruno and ourselves only thought for long that these kind of devices could only be legitimate in first person games. But we think Christopher summed up pretty good what has to be told about the subject.
VR version will need to redesign the way how you play the game and real adaptions. You also have to understand that someway kickstarted has a real cost (in time of course but also money) (To pay the kickstarted platform, to pay amazon, to pay the creation and fabrication of the material rewards, to edit the videos…) we have to take all this stuff in consideration.
Wee have met people from successful Kickstarter campaign who told us it cost them as much as what they have gathered to finch the development of the project. Gave them a very good notoriety but not so much the budget they needed to finish to develop the best game possible…
As we told on the Risks and challenges, we keep our feet on earth, don't pro mess what we can't deliver and are careful with the budgets to be sure players will get what they were promised from the beginning.
We hope our answer will be satisfying but if you want more details, feel free to ask.
Have a nice day
I have to disagree with these comments, in the nicest way possible :)
While first-person is the most obvious application for VR (and indeed any kind of 3D display) we've already seen plenty of areas where 3D offers an enhanced experience. Movies are entirely viewed from a third-person perspective and 3D has been fairly successful in the film industry.
I also have a 3DS and I've found that the best 3D games aren't necessarily the ones that offer depth. Ghost Recon is a top-down strategy game and uses the 3D to give the impression of looking down on a board of miniatures.
I can see how the 3D for Subject 13 would give the impression of watching a scene in front of you, like at the theatre. Depth would give an added emphasis to the location.
The head-tracking aspect of Rift is less obvious, but if carefully implemented it might give players the opportunity to lean in and look around the scene. There would of course be a balancing issue, if the Rift perspective made the game too easy, or if the levels were designed too much with one or the other in mind. I'm part of the Elite: Dangerous community and I have to say that having a Rift is going to be a huge advantage in that game.
Personally I'm not sure why Rift implementation requires as much as 20k. I gather it's not that hard to plug in, so the money must be going to change the game to use more features.
I've the same kind of feeling Occulus is also still in development, and seems fitted for first person view games, which does not see the case here. I'm not sure that is something that will really attract people even more that there is still so much to go to get to the initial funding goal, I think this update should have been done later maybe once you get to about $30,000.
I think it would be nice to get a new video update detailing a bit the gameplay of the game or telling more and showing more of it to get people interested :)
I don't mean to sound rude, but what business does the oculus rift (wonderful piece of kit by the way) has on an adventure game?