-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Is Virtual Reality The Next Evolution Of Video Games?
- Thread starter Sinoox
- Start date
googleplex
Member
Technology is now at the point where we can have good VR at an affordable price. VR is going to be huge and have a transformative effect on the industry.
That's another big one, graphics are slightly better this generation and there isn't a lick of innovation. The experience is wildly the same, which might be a big reason as to why there's such a push for VR now.
Oh my god. You really did not compare these gimmicks with the sawn of vr, didn't you?
Totally. Not interested in gimmicks.
AR is potentially far more ubiquitous than VR so it will likely be more useful/prevalent but VR definitely has its space. We're still quite some way off what, in my opinion, is proper VR though and that is mainly due to the lack of intuitive input/control and , especially, feedback devices
a secret-boss
Banned
I bet 5 years ago people said the same thing about mobile gaming. EL-OH-EL no buttons.
EL-OH-EL helmet accessory. Fail
because FB, Valve, and Sony are short sighted forking money into this fad
EL-OH-EL helmet accessory. Fail
because FB, Valve, and Sony are short sighted forking money into this fad
3D displays are gimmicks. VR is not. There's absolutely no way that you've really tried modern VR or even thought about the possibilities that the technology enables.
But you'll find out soon enough.
Raven Prime
Member
Exactly, and even further in the future, people can actually be the fighters in VR. See the thing with new technology is that they will always expand the ways we understand a certain genre. The technologies have to adapt the genre and make it their own. Of course not everyone would excel at being a first person fighter in VR, but the same thing is true with the twitchy nature of today's fighting games.
Real time strategy could also benefit from VR, just imagine being able to look across the complete map at a glance. If we try to force the 2D screen paradigm on VR then it will fall short. But we have to look at what the technology can do for certain genres and how they can expand with it's help. It's not that new (medium) technologies render the old ones completely obsolete, they can coexist for a very long time. People will still play 2D games long after VR becomes mainstream.
Muskieratboi
Member
EL OH EL Mobile gaming alone is a $60 Billion Dollar industry:
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articl...to-push-industry-above-usd100-billion-by-2017
InaudibleWhispa
Member
Considering Elite in the Oculus is the most impressive gaming related thing I've experienced in over a decade and I wouldn't play it any other way, I'd say yes. And when I literally feel like I'm sitting in a spaceship spending 10 minutes just gawping in awe at the sheer scale of the space station surrounding me, the last thing I'm thinking is "Who wants to wear a headset? What a gimmick". It's more "Holy fucking shit I'm in a spaceship". To put the feeling of sheer exhileration and immersion VR can provide into context, there is a twitch video of a guy trying Elite in VR for the first time and literally crying. But yeah, it's just like 3D and waggle, right?
a secret-boss
Banned
my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough.
Cynn
Member
Are people not buying PS4s anymore because they have iPhones? I missed that news.
gunslikewhoa
Member
Yes, it was that the technology wasn't there. It absolutely wasn't there. Not even close.
Do you honestly believe that two decades have gone by and they just dusted off the same old tech to make a run at it again? You're talking about pre-N64 days here.
Auto-Reply
Member
I don't know if you can call it the next evolution, what it actually does is removing the boundaries of your tv/vision. That in it self could be considered revolutionary I guess.
This is exactly right. We didn't have IMUs sampling at 1000Hz for one. That said even the 100K military VR setups from the 90s are utter crap compared to a Oculus Rift DK2 let alone a newer headset like HTC Vive.
I think VR will dominate a set of genres right off the bat. Things like being cut off from the world(not really) are going to help the flight and racing genres. Most simulators and strategy games will also be dominated right off the bat. Others are going to be best enjoyed on a large screen in the room at least until they get the tech down to a pair of glasses. Even then some genres will stay around though the audience for them might not be so large.
Also there is already a roadmap for getting these headsets done to the size of a pair of glasses though that's almost a decade away.
Personally I think VR is like Wolfenstein/Doom. It's the dawn of a new era of a genre of video game.
Then again, I really liked Lucky's Tale, so I can see it being bigger than a genre.
Whether or not it's as dominant as the FPS genre though is yet to be seen, but I'm all for it.
Then again, I really liked Lucky's Tale, so I can see it being bigger than a genre.
Whether or not it's as dominant as the FPS genre though is yet to be seen, but I'm all for it.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
It won't be the next evolution. We'll get the same games we always have but we'll be playing them with a headset on.
Considering gaming is such an immersion-based medium, it's hard not to imagine VR being the end game. Otherwise what are we building towards? If all the future of gaming just boils down to is higher resolution screens and more powerful hardware to pump out prettier graphics to those displays, that's honestly pretty disappointing and not terribly exciting.
There needs to be a paradigm shift at some point, from the player sitting crouched behind a TV/monitor with controller/mouse+keyboard in hand (i.e. what video games have essentially been since their inception), to actually being able to feel like one is truly "inside" a game. That is, after all, immersion in it's purest form.
What remains to be seen is whether this current boom of VR tech investment is what ultimately gets us to that point, or whether we'll have to go through another lull of waning VR interest while waiting for the technology to improve further.
Of course the graphics are getting sharper, the headset tech is improving, but it seems we also still have ways to go on control side as well. VR eventually needs to get to the point where we no longer need a physical controller (at least not one that constantly needs to be in the player's hands), but controlling a game with just one's mind still feels purely the talk of science fiction. But I'd like to hope we'll get to that point soon.
There needs to be a paradigm shift at some point, from the player sitting crouched behind a TV/monitor with controller/mouse+keyboard in hand (i.e. what video games have essentially been since their inception), to actually being able to feel like one is truly "inside" a game. That is, after all, immersion in it's purest form.
What remains to be seen is whether this current boom of VR tech investment is what ultimately gets us to that point, or whether we'll have to go through another lull of waning VR interest while waiting for the technology to improve further.
Of course the graphics are getting sharper, the headset tech is improving, but it seems we also still have ways to go on control side as well. VR eventually needs to get to the point where we no longer need a physical controller (at least not one that constantly needs to be in the player's hands), but controlling a game with just one's mind still feels purely the talk of science fiction. But I'd like to hope we'll get to that point soon.
It will be absolutely huge, without a doubt, and not just for games.
But for games in particular it will open up a lot of incredible options for immersion. Almost every single genre I can think of would benefit from this, and even some of the 'difficult' ones like RTS will still be amazing if the devs apply creative solutions to it (for example lets just say Command and conquer. Maybe you don't see the same as the game camera normally, but instead you're in a war room, there's video feeds on the walls of the action, and you're making decisions and controlling your units from there with voice, gestures, and buttons combined, etc).
It was only a matter of time before it gets good enough. This doesn't mean gaming will ONLY be VR but VR will be fucking huge, and you can bank on it. I think those that say no either have poor imagination or a lack of understanding as to where we will be able to take the technology. It's easy to say 'fad' and stuff and point to a bunch of failed things like 3D tv's, but those were only really temporary solutions that didn't really add much to the experience in the same way VR can and will.
I tried Occulus again recently and will get to try Vive soon, and while it doesn't seem like the tech is there yet, it's certainly not far off.
get hype !
But for games in particular it will open up a lot of incredible options for immersion. Almost every single genre I can think of would benefit from this, and even some of the 'difficult' ones like RTS will still be amazing if the devs apply creative solutions to it (for example lets just say Command and conquer. Maybe you don't see the same as the game camera normally, but instead you're in a war room, there's video feeds on the walls of the action, and you're making decisions and controlling your units from there with voice, gestures, and buttons combined, etc).
It was only a matter of time before it gets good enough. This doesn't mean gaming will ONLY be VR but VR will be fucking huge, and you can bank on it. I think those that say no either have poor imagination or a lack of understanding as to where we will be able to take the technology. It's easy to say 'fad' and stuff and point to a bunch of failed things like 3D tv's, but those were only really temporary solutions that didn't really add much to the experience in the same way VR can and will.
I tried Occulus again recently and will get to try Vive soon, and while it doesn't seem like the tech is there yet, it's certainly not far off.
get hype !
also porn, etc
outunderthestars
Banned
I think that adding another level of expensive hardware to the experience will limit the audience.
This. VR will be the future. You don't lose the ability to play board games, 3rd person games, old games or RTS games because you can simulate them all in VR just as if you sitting in the front of a TV. Now you may ask: Why VR when the experience is the same? Well the post above has one example: multiplayer. Another one would be different Viewpoints on the fly for example imagine you play Starcraft 2 in VR. You see your units from above as usual but then you hitting a button to zoom instant in first person view to get an even better view of the battlefield. These kind of things i'm expecting from VR and it will be revolutionary. In 20 years our kids will see VR as natural as we see smartphones today.
First a little bit about my VR experience. I have almost two years of more or less continuous experience with VR (Oculus Rift DK1 and DK2) and videogames. These days I do VR games and demos about 5 times a week, and about 1-2 hours per day (I've been doing a few 5-6 hours some days..).
Videogames will not be the biggest market for VR. But experiences that we today call videogames will be one of them (together with several other new forms of experiences strong in other mediums today). F.ex. racing games, and other seated/cockpit games are a perfect fit for VR. This point is underrated right now. These genres overall will explode into an even stronger market than today, much stronger. Racing fans will have many exciting things to look forward to, let me tell you that.. And not to mention the bit space games comeback that we see today f.ex. will be the perfect storm together with VR. And of course flight simulators and other similar experiences that we have in videogames today.
You'll be in for a shock: "walking" first person games as they are today is actually not a good fit for VR right now.. third person games like Dark Souls is however good for VR exactly because they are third person.. That might sound very strange, but it is true.. I guess someone should explain this better for you, but that's how it generally is.
Again; no, that's not necessarily true at all.
Some of us have been trying out many third person games in VR for a while now, these games actually works better in VR than first person "standing up" games...
Apples and oranges.. VR is definitely here to stay. It's not a peripheral per se, it's its completely own thing. I'm pretty sure you'll be surprised. ..And a good surprise at that.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
I can imagine a 3rd person game being great in VR. You'd be just like Lakitu following everything on a cloud.
I don't see it becoming mainstream, it's just too obtrusive. Sitting on your couch for hours wearing a helmet? How am I gonna take a sip of my drink and munch on some chips? How can I react to other people strolling by and how do they react to me?
It's gonna be a niche market but that's fine. I just don't see it becoming the next billion dollar game changer for gaming. Maybe for other things.
It's gonna be a niche market but that's fine. I just don't see it becoming the next billion dollar game changer for gaming. Maybe for other things.
The more VR-literate can correct me on this, but I would imagine that the reason third person is better for 'walking' than first-person is that it doesn't set up a motion conflict between your brain and inner ear - your brain thinks you're walking but your inner ear detects no motion = possible nausea.
Like seasickness, SAS and other kinds of motion sickness some people can adapt and deal easily, others take longer some never will - which is exactly what happens with FPS games now. Things like frame rate, camera judder when turning quickly & FOV angle make FPS on a flat screen unplayable for some people,
Third person would be more akin to playing with a toy - as has been said you'd be like Lakitu. The interesting thing about game design in this is when you move your head, does the camera pan round with your character, or do you still manually control what your character sees?
Things like motion controls, eye toy and so on are all precursors to VR, in the same way RFID & Internet of Things (IoT) are precursors to AR. They are building blocks & lessons that the technologists can use moving forward.
On the subject of AR, it's probably further away than mind controlled VR. The technology already exists to do basic things like control a block or get a computer to type from human thought. AR OTOH requires disruptive level leaps in multiple technologies from displays to batteries to Internet speed & security, not to mention a huge shift in social attitudes which was one of the biggest lessons to emerge from the Glass experiment.
VR has its own challenges - I see the physical issues being locomotion & making the headsets wireless, and software (in gaming terms) will need to be thought of in a different way - for example, say you're in a game where there's a fight about to happen every single item around you has to be a fully physical object you can use. I call it the 'what would Jason Bourne do?' conundrum, owing to his remarkable ability to take a roller up newspaper or a bird and use it as a weapon.
I think it's the most exciting time for gaming since two white rectangles you could control bounced a square around a monochrome screen.
These posts are common and just display a lack of imagination - nothing you've mentioned here can't be designed out.
Like seasickness, SAS and other kinds of motion sickness some people can adapt and deal easily, others take longer some never will - which is exactly what happens with FPS games now. Things like frame rate, camera judder when turning quickly & FOV angle make FPS on a flat screen unplayable for some people,
Third person would be more akin to playing with a toy - as has been said you'd be like Lakitu. The interesting thing about game design in this is when you move your head, does the camera pan round with your character, or do you still manually control what your character sees?
Things like motion controls, eye toy and so on are all precursors to VR, in the same way RFID & Internet of Things (IoT) are precursors to AR. They are building blocks & lessons that the technologists can use moving forward.
On the subject of AR, it's probably further away than mind controlled VR. The technology already exists to do basic things like control a block or get a computer to type from human thought. AR OTOH requires disruptive level leaps in multiple technologies from displays to batteries to Internet speed & security, not to mention a huge shift in social attitudes which was one of the biggest lessons to emerge from the Glass experiment.
VR has its own challenges - I see the physical issues being locomotion & making the headsets wireless, and software (in gaming terms) will need to be thought of in a different way - for example, say you're in a game where there's a fight about to happen every single item around you has to be a fully physical object you can use. I call it the 'what would Jason Bourne do?' conundrum, owing to his remarkable ability to take a roller up newspaper or a bird and use it as a weapon.
I think it's the most exciting time for gaming since two white rectangles you could control bounced a square around a monochrome screen.
These posts are common and just display a lack of imagination - nothing you've mentioned here can't be designed out.
Not really, it was because the neat little feature didn't justify wearing the stupid glasses/finding content for it. Even with the 3DS where you don't need glasses, a lot of people turn the 3D off because the battery drain isn't worth it, should indicate how much people care about it. This isn't necessarily going to be a problem when it comes to VR.
dr_rus
Member
I thought I already did expand on that. That concept has not been modified, it is the same helm with head tracking concept which didn't work the last time and won't work this time either. No amount of resolution and lag reduction will help this concept to be popular, the issue isn't in the underlying tech, it's in the concept itself. It is simply too much hassle for an average consumer.
Why would I buy a big clunky tv when I can just listen to the radio?
Why would I drive a big clunky car when I can just ride a horse drawn carriage?
Why would I shoot a big clunky gun when I can just shoot a bow and arrow?
Anyone who says VR won't completely change the world is being ignorant.
Truth be told, I find third person stuff in VR to be stunning. I think you'll see that when you try it. Playing stuff on DolphinVR convinced me more than anything. Wind Waker and F-Zero GX are insane in VR. The whole world is filled out around you and you can look anywhere while the camera chases the character or vehicle. It's insanley immersive. The hue is floating around the character as well and is independent of your view point. It's really really cool.
Wildstar75
Member
Own a DK2, have tried Morpheous and Crescent Bay demos. I have been gaming since Nintendo game and watch days. This is the next evolution in gaming. As big as the jump from 2d game engines to 3d ones. That said it will take a few years as graphics hardware improves, devs work out kinks, input systems are tweaked, and gamers figure out their setup space.. A few genres may remain better off without VR at least at first. But it will all converge. And when vr becomes the norm for games what's left are two more evolutions I can see. True AI, and replacing the physical aspect missing in vr. Those two are distant but that will be all that is remaining from a holodeck experience.
Wildstar75
Member
Or hasn't truly tried it on a dk2 or better system with a top end video card, on a real game like eve or Luckys tale.
Nocturno999
Member
It has to.
revolverjgw
Member
I really hope so, I haven't been this excited about anything since the NES. I can't play a game on a monitor anymore without being bummed that I'm not playing it in VR, it's always in the back of my head that I should wait because everything is so much better in VR (every genre, every perspective). But there are hurdles that will hold it back from being mainstream at least initially. Pricing being the most obvious. I've shown a lot people the Rift and it's blown everyone away, but I know most of them will not (maybe CAN not) make the investment necessary to jump in within the next few years.
Playing Elite in the Rift is just so beyond every other gaming experience I've had, it's an indescribable sensation even in its janky, rough current form. It would feel of kind of sad to play No Man's Sky on a 2D screen knowing what the alternative would be like. Like playing it in black and white.
Playing Elite in the Rift is just so beyond every other gaming experience I've had, it's an indescribable sensation even in its janky, rough current form. It would feel of kind of sad to play No Man's Sky on a 2D screen knowing what the alternative would be like. Like playing it in black and white.
D
Deleted member 10571
Unconfirmed Member
Yes, someone should. I don't see a difference here, if you want to go the "it's like you're looking at the playing field of the game" angle, how would easy stuff like rotating the camera fit into that natural movement scheme? Not even thinking about switching to manual aim, entering buildings and tiny caverns and other problems.
3rd person does only fit better for the first few seconds of thinking, then you realize that you not only have the same problems (joypad walking, rotating, camera movement vs actual head movement) but quite some on top of that.
As for the topic, I don't know or pretend to know. I don't think it will take off as glorious as a lot of people think it will. In the best case, it will be like a webcam or a regular headset, a thing on your desk you whip out from time to time, but far from being used with every game on earth. It'll be amazing for Flightsims for example. Worst case it'll be dead again by next gen, similar to motion controls or, well, 3D.
I can see the comparisons to motion controls or 3D, be it with or without glasses as well, even if VR is much more gamechanging than simple 3D. But in the end, what can you really get from it? The best experiences so far (afaik) are sitting and standing around simulators (because you can't really move without breaking immersion with a pad) and horror stuff that relies on jumpscares (because duh). I didn't see a demo of a VR game that potentially sets the world on fire like Mario 64 did. I saw a thread about VR porn though, so maybe there's where this goes. Probably more likely than games.
I'm ready to be surprised though. If VR turns out to be actually amazing and gives me great new game experiences, I'll be among the first to get a retail headset.
A lot of the comments in this thread sound like people want VR to become the next evolution of gaming as we know it because they are too scared to think of what the future of gaming would be like on its current trajectory (i.e., same types of games at higher resolutions on flat screen TVs with more processing power from increasingly powerful consoles).
*IF* that is the case, that shouldn't be a reason for talking yourselves into believing that the majority of the gaming market will ultimately think just like you and make VR the next evolution of gaming.
It certainly sounds as though the latest VR tech is creating a new kind of experience than what we've seen in the past from this area. But from all the various threads created on this topic in the last few months, let's not lose track of reality here.
(A) VR is currently a niche market for tech enthusiasts with more disposable income than the average consumer. Even if we don't know the exact figures at this time, there will be very real costs associated with purchasing these devices. For this to become mainstream from a cost perspective, the price barrier-to-entry has to be lower and the perceived return-on-investment has to be higher than that of other gaming mediums such as home consoles, handhelds, PC's, and mobile devices.
(B) Game developers have to be on board with this too. If we define "evolution" as VR games eventually replacing traditional 2D experiences on flat screens, then the idea that VR will be the "future" assumes that game developers would stop making traditional games for consoles -- a proven revenue stream -- and instead hedge their bets on VR -- an unproven revenue stream. From a business perspective, this is suicide, especially due to the sheer volume of money that goes into game development.
Look at how hesitant studios were to stop making games for both this generation and last generation. Here we are in 2015 and games are still being released for the previous generation of consoles. You think that won't happen again here but with even more hesitancy?
Best case scenario is, as with mobile, motion controls, and other new and unfamiliar game experiences, companies will continue to spend the majority of their money on developing traditional experiences while testing the water of VR until and if they can determine that they can make more money developing games for VR than traditional experiences.
If it turns out that VR doesn't bring in a comparable profit to traditional game development, they will continue to focus the majority of their talent and time on the console market and this will be the single greatest reason for how VR remains niche because it will ensure that consoles are where the majority of games are produced.
(C) As many have mentioned, VR as we know it today with a weighty helmet that cuts you off from the world (to some extent, not fully), that concept has a fundamental issue: social. If VR is going to become more than niche, it has to start by becoming less obtrusive. I play games with my wife and with friends in the same room (not always on the same games and not always with everyone playing a game). VR as we know it today, interferes with my most basic requirement in those situations which is to easily and comfortably talk with people while I'm gaming or if they are gaming and I am not and people are constantly moving around the room. As a consumer, I shouldn't have to limit how I want to be comfortable in my home when it comes to gaming. Even back in the day with wired controllers, that to me wasn't as big a deal as one or multiple people wearing bulky helmets with the sound turned up. If VR designers can address this, that would help alleviate some concerns.
With all that said, what's wrong with VR being niche? Even after these devices come to market and we know more about pricing and the quality of games that are developed for them, if it stays as niche for tech enthusiasts and 2D experiences on consoles continue to be the primary market for gamers, again, what's wrong with that?
revolverjgw
Member
It's in my best interests for VR to take off and become ubiquitous because I love playing traditional games (Skyrim, Dying Light, HL2, Outlast etc) in VR. I want EVERYTHING to support it, and the more popular VR is, the more likely the games I want to play will support it. I don't want it relegated to on-rails games, seated experiences, quirky tech demos and things like that. If I'm not playing Elder Scrolls 6 and GTA6 in native VR, I'll be devastated.
I can respect that opinion. Personally, based on how things are right now and for the reasons I mentioned above, I think VR has an uphill battle to become anything close to mainstream. There will be tweaks and infusions of cash to help VR along the way and anything is certainly possible under the right conditions, but we'll have to wait and see how things play out.