[ReaperXL07]

I remember when I was a kid there were all kinds of shows, and movies that presented the concept of Virtual Reality gaming, it was going to be the future of how we played games. Instead of simply holding a controller you were in the world, interacting with your surrondings, seeing the world through your own eyes instead of through the eyes of another character.

Some examples of VR/VR gaming in popular media:

Lawnmower Man:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YCxFGxqLsHE

Disclosure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFkyV7d5t8o

The Matrix(kind of):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EmEPXXJ4sKw

Of course there are tons of movies that have concepts of how VR would work, these are just a few simple examples, but the concept has always been something that I wished a home console maker would attempt in a meaningful way. Nintendo tried with the Virtual boy, but when that failed it seems like everyone has given up. It really does not make sense to me, as the VB was not what I think most expected when they thought of virtual reality gaming.



I can really only imagine what it would be like to be able to put on some gloves, and a simple pair of glasses, then open your eyes and actually be "in" the world of a game like Skyrim, or transported into the middle of a warzone in a game like Killzone, or Halo. Climbing a colossus, or go into well known, or completely original fantasy worlds.

It just seems like a missed oppritunity that no one has bothered to ever try and push for this to become more than just a concept for the general public, and i'm curious as to why. It's entirely possible that i'm just unfamiliar with the challanges of making this available to everyone, or perhaps the tech just is not where it needs to be, but it's easily something that i'd like to happen at some point.

What say you Gaf, would you jump on a VR console that was a true VR experience? Do you think it's possible we will ever see it become a reality, or has the market just forgotten about it to an extent that it would not be worth it?

[PetrCobra]

No real money in it yet.

[Clear]

The biggest problem is the brain-body disconnect when being presented with motion and not feeling it viscerally. It causes nausea in a lot of people, which is kind of a critical flaw with a mass-market entertainment product.

[sixteen-bit]

It doesn't seem very practical.

[dark10x]

The ol' HMZ-T1 with mounted Track-IR comes close to delivering the kind of visual experience you'd want. If they could allow for direct interaction it would be even more amazing.

I'm interested in trying Datura in 3D using the HMZ for just this reason as it uses Move for its primary controls. Should feel pretty cool.

I know Child of Eden with Move using the headset is rather effective as is Killzone 3 + Move.

That is the closest I've experienced in regards to modern day takes on VR.

Part of the issue is that simply wearing all of the necessary gear is a hassle and isn't likely to result in a relaxed gaming session.

[daviyoung]

Headaches.

[ReaperXL07]

No real money in it yet.

What do you mean? I would assume it would work just like gaming now, you would by the hardware, and the games just like you would a regular console. So I don't know how there would not be any money in it for the company that made the jump to make this possible.

It would be risky ofcourse, but motion controls for the Wii were just as risky for Nintendo, as was Kinect for MS.

[stuminus3]

The problem with VR gaming as it was promised in the early-mid 1990s was that it actually wasn't very good in practice. I think today's trend of motion gaming and 3D displays is a sort of "in between" where it's much easier to provide an equivalent experience to a "traditional" game.

The biggest problem is the brain-body disconnect when being presented with motion and not feeling it viscerally. It causes nausea in a lot of people, which is kind of a critical flaw with a mass-market entertainment product.

There's also this. I can still remember the very disturbing feeling of "WTF" the day I played a Pac-Man VR machine. Didn't feel like it looked in science fiction at all.

[EvilDick34]

The quest for VR has not died. It just is not at a point yet where it can be sold to the masses as a success. However, as someone else said, there is an in-between right now with motion controls and 3D. Virtual Reality will eventually become a mainstream hit in my opinion, it just isn't there yet.

[ReaperXL07]

Well, one of the things that got me thinking about this was the disney quest attraction, and remembering older arcade games like Afterburner where you would sit inside a unit and the unit would react to how you played the game. As a Kid it felt like you were actually flying the jet, and with the Disney Quest thing it's even alittle bit more immersive, especially with the VR roller coaster thing.

I guess I always assumed that there was a concern for the effects that VR gaming could have on a persons brain, movies like Lawnmower Man, and games like Metal Gear Solid 2 kind of talk about those where the main characters personality was shaped, or effected by the effects of that level of interactivity.

I know that there are places that use VR for a varitey of different things, I think it's used as a therapeutic tool in some, but I could see that if the unit required a ton of gear that it could be less the ideal from a comfort perspective. I wonder how difficult it would be to make a VR unit small, and more practical then what you usually see in movies and such.

[diffusionx]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...happened-to-vr

[RurouniZel]

Virtual Boy made people reconsider.

[~Devil Trigger~]

Nintendo failed at it,

so everyone stayed away

[ReaperXL07]

Virtual Boy made people reconsider.

the Virtual Boy was not real VR though, not to mention all that damn Red.

[∀ Narayan]

It doesn't seem very practical.

At least not yet.

[stuminus3]

Guys, read the article diffusionx posted. The failure of VR has little to do with Nintendo and the Virtual Boy - if anything the exact opposite happened, though I personally don't think the VR the OP is talking about and the Virtual Boy are quite the same thing.

This is a good quote from the article:

"Bolting VR onto existing games isn't likely to be much of a success," states Wilkinson, who clearly knows his stuff as he is now employed at Activision as Senior Director Of Technology. "VR games need to be their own genre, with their own gameplay mechanics that the head tracking either makes possible or, at the very least, enhances. If the headset can't do either of those two things, it simply becomes a gimmick that will die out very quickly."

[PhoReal]

It doesn't seem very practical.

Pretty much.

[vazel]

I still get sad that I don't have a VR kit for my PC like the one used in Johnny Mnemonic. I thought I'd be using one of those by now.

[Krev]

The technology isn't really there yet.

Plus, staring for hours on end at something very close to your eyes sounds like a shortcut to short-sightedness.

[SlickVic]

I'd like to believe it'll come back eventually, but can't say I really know how many years away we are from proper VR becoming a reality. It's certainly the thing that excites me the most about the future of gaming; the ability of actually being fully immersed inside a gaming world instead of the disconnect of watching it behind a TV screen. I hope we get to see that vision realized one day.

[Solstice]

Nintendo killed the quest with this piece of shit:



Don't believe it's a piece of shit? Watch the AVGN's video on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyVAp0tOk5A

[HoosTrax]

Not going to happen until either 1) they find a way to bypass the eyes and patch straight into the optic nerves, or 2) holodecks!

Anyways, we do have things like force feedback, motion controls (ugh), head trackers like TrackIR (which I find invaluable in flight sims), and 3D monitors.

[ToxicAdam]

It's just too expensive to bring to the consumer and still be passable.

You almost need a dedicated 'dark room' and a Kinect-like controller with 3D glasses on with displays on all four walls. Or something similar to a Universal Studios ride (like Spider-Man), but you have control of the action.

Even then, I wonder if it would be enough. Even if you feel immersed into another reality, without the tactile feeling to go along with it, it might feel empty.

[ReaperXL07]

Guys, read the article diffusionx posted. The failure of VR has little to do with Nintendo and the Virtual Boy - if anything the exact opposite happened, though I personally don't think the VR the OP is talking about and the Virtual Boy are quite the same thing. This is a good quote from the article:

yeah I read the whole thing, it's really very interesting, and alot of what was said in the article I can see being issues for alot of modern tastes. People are used to being able to pull up iron sights in a FPS, or can aim with click of a button. With VR you'd have to actually be able to aim, and be a truely active participent. It also makes sense about the set pieces comment, because people would expect to be able to look where ever they would want in that world, and if you were to force their view in the direction of the set piece that you want them to see you'd break the immersion that VR would provide.

I don't know if people would be completely against some of these concepts though, when you consider how many people complain about auto-aiming, or set pieces in general. He basically states that he believes some great things could probably be done in VR with todays tech, but that he does not know if it would be worth it when you have stuff that already immerses you in other ways.

[IdreamofHIME]

I'm still waiting to have Lawnmower Man VR sex.

[Solstice]

I'm still waiting to have Lawnmower Man VR sex.

As long as it's not that weird ass Demolition Man virtual sex

That's my second demolition man reference today....

[Defuser]

It's too expensive to buy.

[saladine1]

I would love to step into the shoes of a racing car driver. I mean, hop into a car, and be enveloped in a Virtual world of motorsport.
I don't know how they would achieve that though, but it would be quite something nonetheless.

[Atomski]

I think having video screens so close to your eyes will never work out. Just to stressing on you eyes for long periods of time. Not to mention your neck getting tired from extra weight.. all the little things just add up and you realize its just stupid.

I even remember there being studies about not driving right after playing anything VR because it screwed up your depth of field. Sounded like a lawsuit in the making..

Also those blaming the Virtal Boy.. that thing had next to nothing to do with VR outside of being head mounted. Why would that effect VR? I think people who were doing real VR just realized it was bad.

[Tokubetsu]

If Arcades hadn't died I would have loved to see the stuff that was popular in 80s and 90s cartoons. You know going to the arcade for those ridiculous vR battle games. I think Batman Beyond had an ep that centered around one as well. Most centered around placing you in a small circular space (something like a small bathroom?) with mask/goggles on.

[willooi]

As long as it's not that weird ass Demolition Man virtual sex That's my second demolition man reference today....

Let's not forget Timecop's virtual sex scene either... so explicit and utterly pointless. As was all the nudity/gratuitous Van Damme arse in every one of his movies, really.

I'd say VR hasn't been successful because bridging that gap from uncanny valley to realism is still a while away, and until then it'll just be polygonal awkwardness.

[vazel]

Let's not forget Timecop's virtual sex scene either... so explicit and utterly pointless. As was all the nudity/gratuitous Van Damme arse in every one of his movies, really. I'd say VR hasn't been successful because bridging that gap from uncanny valley to realism is still a while away, and until then it'll just be polygonal awkwardness.

First time I saw that scene I thought someone had taped over my VHS with porn. It was so random...

[KenOD]

It's gone into hibernation until it can actually live up to the dreams that were presented as "just around the corner" so long ago. Both in ability and ease of size and weight to wear.

We have a nice middle ground at the moment, a rest stop before actual VR becomes practical. It's called augmented reality and there are already games that use it. Not great, but it's not overly hyped and at the level it is offers a chance for growth while keeping the interest of companies.

If you ever get a chance to though, try out one of the military training VRs, it's not actually fun of course, but it's interesting enough and it's leaps above anything else used.

[EternalGamer]

Aren't Motioncontrols just a new take on VR? It's just approaching it from movement aspect rather than the full visual immersion.

[KenOD]

Aren't Motioncontrols just a new take on VR? It's just approaching it from movement aspect rather than the full visual immersion.

No, not at all. VR, as it's been imagined, is us putting on a device and feeling as though we are inside of a game. Motion controls are just that, a form control and very much outside the game world. They can work together to enhance each other, but Wii Remote isn't going to help me turn my head and see the rest of the game world.

[stuminus3]

Nintendo killed the quest with this piece of shit:

Dude, we know it's a piece of shit, but come on. It's been pointed out why this crappy thing wasn't the reason for the death of the VR boom just a few posts before yours, it's not even the same thing. The Virtual Boy was nothing more than a really crap set of 3D glasses. It didn't even do head tracking, which is a very large part of the "VR" that we're discussing. The Virtual Boy was the precursor to today's 3DS and 3DTV gaming, not "VR".

[Solstice]

Dude, we know it's a piece of shit, but come on. It's been pointed out why this crappy thing wasn't the reason for the death of the VR boom just a few posts before yours, it's not even the same thing. The Virtual Boy was nothing more than a really crap set of 3D glasses. It didn't even do head tracking, which is a very large part of the "VR" that we're discussing. The Virtual Boy was the precursor to today's 3DS and 3DTV gaming, not "VR".

First, I had the thread open for a while before I responded, so I didn't see the responses before mine. For that, I do apologize.

Second: We know that. But the average consumer was duped into believing it was VR. Hell, the things original name was the VR 32, and "virtual boy" kind of implies virtual reality. I think with the utter disappointment of this thing, people just kind of had an "is this all it is" thought to it, and it made people shy away form it somewhat.

[diffusionx]

Aren't Motioncontrols just a new take on VR? It's just approaching it from movement aspect rather than the full visual immersion.

It's kind of a halfway step. Pair up the Sony OLED goggles with head tracking and motion controls and you have something I would call pretty close to those old VR systems.

It's kind of amazing if you think about it. The tech is getting there - 15 years late but it is getting there. The only question is game design. You need a game designed around it.

[TheExodu5]

The need for glasses and it being a rather solo experience are big barriers to entry. Gaming is becoming a social thing more than anything, and VR currently goes against that ideal.

[stuminus3]

First, I had the thread open for a while before I responded, so I didn't see the responses before mine. For that, I do apologize. Second: We know that. But the average consumer was duped into believing it was VR. Hell, the things original name was the VR 32, and "virtual boy" kind of implies virtual reality. I think with the utter disappointment of this thing, people just kind of had an "is this all it is" thought to it, and it made people shy away form it somewhat.

True, but the Virtual Boy didn't even exist in half of the world. In particular in the UK, where a lot of the VR-boom tech was being developed.

[herod]

Does anybody actually want this? It seemed like an awful concept to me. I definitely would not buy this technology, not matter how mature.

[Kinyou]

Sony's HMZ-T1.





2 OLED screens and virtual 5.1 sound.

It costs 800€ but apparently it works pretty well. Maybe Sony will directly combine it with the playstation some time in the future.

[jaypah]

I wish it was more financially viable and thus got some corporate momentum behind it. I have no shame in admitting that all the 3D and motion control stuff that I buy is simply my attempt to get closer to my dream of cool ass VR.

[Doc Holliday]

The tech sucked when VR was popular, now when we have more than enough to do cool shit no one gives a fuck :/

We have good enough 3D stereoscopic, head tracking that doesn't weigh a ton, motion controls and more than enough CPU power. IMO it's the next logical step in console tech.

[JoeTheBlow]

Youtube search for HMZ-T1 and TrackIR.
Lots of VR stuff, like Skyrim with headtracking, 3D and Kinect.

We need the gloves, but Sony's Move is still the closest we have to something like that.
I'll certainly be checking out Datura tomorrow with my HMZ and 2 moves, so i'll let you know how VR it is.

The fact that Sony told them to implement it has raised some eyebrows. It would be amazing if they had a super-cheap HMZ variant with headtracking for PS4, no-one pushed 3D like they do, and this could be a whole new way for them to sell more hardware, i fully expect headtracking for PS4 games as a standard.

note: i've tried Skyrim with the HMZ and headtracking, and its almost TOO amazing. Complete sensory overload, like part of your brain going "what the fucking fuck?!" at suddenly being in another world, when your body is reporting that its sat in a chair. Not motion sickness, thankfully, just something else. Can't take more than an hour or two.

[ReaperXL07]

As long as it's not that weird ass Demolition Man virtual sex That's my second demolition man reference today....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80UQWWUIYs

Aren't Motioncontrols just a new take on VR? It's just approaching it from movement aspect rather than the full visual immersion.

Motion controls would be apart of VR, but only a part of the experience. Watch the video I posted for disclosure, when most people think of VR, thats what people I think would expect. I think the best solution would that the headset would be no bigger than the Glasses I posted in the OP, but I think the harder part would be immersion on a physical level, because people would not want to wear a suit, or strap sensors to their bodys. I don't know how they would be able to overcome physical feedback in a way that would still be comfortable for most people.

[stuminus3]

Sony's HMZ-T1.

Again, no head tracking so it's not really "VR". Though I wonder if some combination of this plus having a PS Eye camera pointed at you for tracking would work? Could a headset plus PS Eye plus PS Move for hand movements work as some kind of cheap makeshift VR system?

On the subject I've always found it kind of funny that true "VR" is like a hardcore gamer's sci-fi wet dream, but many of the things that bring us closer to that dream - Wii remotes, Kinect cameras etc - are vehemently reviled by hardcore gamers.

Youtube search for HMZ-T1 and TrackIR.

OK now that is cool. It's a shame pretty much all first person games have your "head" and "body" tied together so view and movement are the same thing. It'd be great if a developer patched in the option to separate them.

[Luminate]

With Google experimenting with augmented reality glasses, I'm hoping it becomes the next big thing after smartphones. A Pokemon/Yugioh esque monster battle sim where you literally see the monsters next to you/your opponent would be incredible.

[Kinyou]

Again, no head tracking so it's not really "VR".

True, but I don't think we can expect a full VR system to come out of absolutely nowhere.

[ReaperXL07]

Again, no head tracking so it's not really "VR". Though I wonder if some combination of this plus having a PS Eye camera pointed at you for tracking would work? Could a headset plus PS Eye plus PS Move for hand movements work as some kind of cheap makeshift VR system? On the subject I've always found it kind of funny that true "VR" is like a hardcore gamer's sci-fi wet dream, but many of the things that bring us closer to that dream - Wii remotes, Kinect cameras etc - are vehemently reviled by hardcore gamers. OK now that is cool. It's a shame pretty much all first person games have your "head" and "body" tied together so view and movement are the same thing. It'd be great if a developer patched in the option to separate them.

I agree, but I personally don't really like Kinect because you don't have "anything" in terms of feedback, with True VR you would ideally have some sort of gloves that would allow you to have some sensation when interacting with an object in the world. I would also imagine something that would allow you to feel effects on your body, say for example wind blowing, or snow falling. Of course cutting that off at some point would be pretty much mandatory because I don't think people would want to feel a bullet wound.

I'm not against motion controls like the Wii-mote, or Move, because I grew up with this stuff, and it's always been a dream of mine. Though i'm also a big fan of Tron so....yeah my perception is kind of biased in that I'm already potentially a fan of the experience, provided it felt natural enough.