Support NeoGAF

[DarthBuzzer]

Such as what?

Headphones, MP3 players, and to a lesser extent in share-ability terms, handhelds and smartphones / mobile phones.

And how does your answer to the above question relate to VR? A tall glass of sewage could be the life of the party depending on the crowd. VR sales remain sluggish.

You can say that about any single product, so it's a moot point. One family might like monopoly, one might hate it. One family might like playing card games around the table, another might hate it.

The point is that it can cater to families gathering around, not that it automatically will. There are also asymmetrical games to play where everyone would be playing at the same time. Over time you'll have smartphones and tablets that give you a real-time view of the VR world around the person using the headset, by using AR. If we're all using AR/VR glasses as a replacement for smartphones, then that only amplifies that. And VR users will see people in real life as well using mixed reality.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Headphones, MP3 players, and to a lesser extent in share-ability terms, handhelds and smartphones / mobile phones.


You can say that about any single product, so it's a moot point. One family might like monopoly, one might hate it. One family might like playing card games around the table, another might hate it.

The point is that it can cater to families gathering around, not that it automatically will. There are also asymmetrical games to play where everyone would be playing at the same time. Over time you'll have smartphones and tablets that give you a real-time view of the VR world around the person using the headset, by using AR. If we're all using AR/VR glasses as a replacement for smartphones, then that only amplifies that. And VR users will see people in real life as well using mixed reality.

So a non-argument. Gotcha.

Come back when you can draw a comparison between how the Wii appealed to the mass-market and how VR is failing to do so.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

So a non-argument. Gotcha.

Come back when you can draw a comparison between how the Wii appealed to the mass-market and how VR is failing to do so.

And yet you made a point that was redundant, as I clearly noted it as moot, which it is.

The Wii appealed to the mass market for several reasons:
1. The price was much cheaper at launch.
2. It was an all-in-one system and not a peripheral.
3. It was a 7th generation console and had decades of continuous consoles to build upon.
4. There wasn't much of a barrier to playing. With high-end VR, there are cables, multiple sensors in many cases, IPD adjustment, sensor calibration.
5. It launched with effectively a killer app: Wii Sports. If VR launched with Beat Saber bundled in at launch, that would have made a big difference.
6. VR is still bulky and has issues that can occur such as eye strain and headaches. The Wii didn't have those issues.

So of course a 1st generation high-end headset is not going to sell as well. That was never the expectation.

Once VR is on the same page, there's no reason why one VR device can't sell as well as the Wii did.

 

[shark sandwich]

Kind of reminds me of how so many people thought video phones would be the way of the future. I mean, who would want just voice when you could actually see live video of the person you’re taking to? It’ll be almost like you’re there talking face to face!

Haha no. Aside from sexy time or letting grandma see the grandkids, turns out people didn’t want video phones all that much once the novelty wore off. What they actually wanted was text messaging with the occasional photo. The easiest, most convenient, lowest effort, least-attention-required technology won. Not the “immersive” one.

VR is just the latest tech where nerds are assuming that the more it’s able to simulate sensory immersion, the better the entertainment will be and the more people will want it.

It’s going to be relegated to niche uses for the exact same reason stereoscopic 3D, motion control, video calling, “4D cinema”, light guns, steering wheels, plastic instruments, etc. are niche.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Kind of reminds me of how so many people thought video phones would be the way of the future. I mean, who would want just voice when you could actually see live video of the person you’re taking to? It’ll be almost like you’re there talking face to face!

Haha no. Aside from sexy time or letting grandma see the grandkids, turns out people didn’t want video phones all that much once the novelty wore off. What they actually wanted was text messaging with the occasional photo. The easiest, most convenient, lowest effort, least-attention-required technology won. Not the “immersive” one.

VR is just the latest tech where nerds are assuming that the more it’s able to simulate sensory immersion, the better the entertainment will be and the more people will want it.

It’s going to be relegated to niche uses for the exact same reason stereoscopic 3D, motion control, video calling, “4D cinema”, light guns, steering wheels, plastic instruments, etc. are niche.

What a pointless comparison. Video calls are no where close to real life interaction. VR will be exactly the same given enough development, aside from being able to physically touch and hold someone that pushes back at equal force all over your body, unless in a suspended exoskeleton rig.

But that's fine, because there are countless times where someone is going to want this. If you miss your family, friends, or to help long-distance relationships. If you want a game night but can't visit each other physically. If you want to just explore places with people, visit concerts, expos, sporting events, theme parks, hang out in each other's reconstructed houses. If you want to work together in the same place. If you want to watch movies together. If you want to hold board meetings with people scattered around the globe. If you want to have live training.

This is impossible to be a novelty because it is for all intents and purposes, going to be exactly like real life minus perfect physical contact.

And as it turns out, VR will be very convenient, because when you have a pair of glasses that can switch between AR and VR, you can slip in and out of virtual worlds at a moments notice. Photos can be generated automatically with a real-time scan on the headset. Not only a normal photo, but an arrangement of photos that can be automatically reconstructed into a 3D space you can walk inside. There are many times where someone will want this.

Shark, it's pretty clear you have bone to pick with VR. You have something personally against it. No one is going to listen to your ramblings if you continue to have the wool pulled over your eyes and ignore all the valid use cases of VR.

 

[Zewp]

It feels like you're just trolling at this point. How anyone can say this with a straight face is beyond me. I already told you that everything exists today in VR, it's just early. The use cases are obvious, and we've been talking about long-term VR in the context of billions of users this entire time. Not once in that conversation has it been about VR today.

VR/AR in one device is an automatic replacement for the smartphone. It does everything a smartphone does, but better, and so much more on top.

VR/AR that doesn't technically exist yet and might never see mainstream adoption.

I'm with you that it would be awesome, buddy. But beware of saying things like "will replace smartphones". The proof is in the pudding, and that pudding is still in the oven.

This is real life, not Ready Player One. (and thank god for that. That movie and book sucked.)

 

[DarthBuzzer]

VR/AR that doesn't technically exist yet and might never see mainstream adoption.

I'm with you that it would be awesome, buddy. But beware of saying things like "will replace smartphones". The proof is in the pudding, and that pudding is still in the oven.

This is real life, not Ready Player One.

I don't mean it will replace smartphones, guaranteed. I mean by definition, it automatically replaces the function of a smartphone. However, it's very likely that it would come about as a replacement, because why not? There just wouldn't be much use in using a smartphone over such glasses.

The only reason would be not wanting to wear glasses. But AR/VR glasses would quite literally give you superpowers. I highly doubt someone is going to care much about wearing glasses when they are offered that much power. They'd also serve as a natural replacement for prescription glasses as well.

 

[Zewp]

I don't mean it will replace smartphones, guaranteed. I mean by definition, it automatically replaces the function of a smartphone. However, it's very likely that it would come about as a replacement, because why not? There just wouldn't be much use in using as smartphone over such glasses.

The only reason would be not wanting to wear glasses. But AR/VR glasses would quite literally give you superpowers. I highly doubt someone is going to care much about wearing glasses when they are offered that much power.

My issue is that you're talking about tech that doesn't exist in the form you're talking about. There are also no plans for glasses that will "quite literally give you superpowers".

You're trying to have a discussion about something that may or may never exist in a thread about VR failing. I can tell you a lot about bionic organs one day being used to replace organic organs and how everyone will jump at the opportunity to have a bionic liver installed because it would be more effective than a real liver, but until such tech a) exists and b) is viable for mainstream adoption, it's nothing more than speculation and flights of fancy.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Once VR is on the same page, there's no reason why one VR device can't sell as well as the Wii did.

You really think a VR device will sell 100 million units, even it's improved upon and cheaper?

 

[DarthBuzzer]

My issue is that you're talking about tech that doesn't exist in the form you're talking about. There are also no plans for glasses that will "quite literally give you superpowers".

You're trying to have a discussion about something that may or may never exist in a thread about VR failing. I can tell you a lot about bionic organs one day being used to replace organic organs and how everyone will jump at the opportunity to have a bionic liver installed because it would be more effective than a real liver, but until such tech a) exists and b) is viable for mainstream adoption, it's nothing more than speculation and flights of fancy.

They're not going to make you fly or turn invisible, but they are (and are already) giving you some form of superpower. For example, this: https://gfycat.com/DeepScrawnyAxisdeer or the fact that you can do a pseudo-teleportation to a real life place. Those are just some examples that already work, but need more work.

Near term (within 4 years), it's likely that VR will have useful mixed reality capabilities, as well as much more powerful telepresence. This will expand the device to give you more powerful 'superpowers' and this is basically locked in at this point, because there is no way Facebook is going to abandon VR when their investment only goes up every year in budget, team size, campus size.

So while that isn't a pair of glasses that does perfect AR and perfect VR, it is a half way point. Sunglasses-like VR has been proven possible within physical constraints, so physics will not limit us. Time itself will not limit us. The only limiter is funding. But this is AR and VR we are talking about, not just one or the other. So this involves most of the tech industry, with companies like Apple.

Very unlikely that AR/VR will run into serious funding issues. Possible I suppose, just highly improbable.

 

[dan76]

I think there are lots of reasons VR isn't working.

The games aren't great. They're mostly tech demos.

Too expensive, too many cables, too complicated. Needs a big update. Less bulky and always have the option to use a regular controller.

You can't market it in the same way as any other videogame because the VR element is lost. There's no way to show it off without you already owning the hardware. You have to imagine what it would look like in 3D, because in 2D it looks bland compared to other games.

The controls. You can't beat a controller, arcade stick or mouse and keyboard. Having to stand up and wave you arms about to do shit gets old fast. Look at the Wii. It had some good games but there was a lot of complaining about the shitty use of motion controls. Some of it was good, but again, the novelty wore off fast.

Feeling sick. Yeah, I don't want to take the plunge on new hardware that's a nightmare to set up, has average games which I can't play for more than 10 minutes without wanting to puke. Screw that, I want to have fun.

I don't have much experience of VR, but those are my thoughts, and what I've seen so far hasn't convinced me I'm wrong. Weirdly, I'd love to jump on board, especially if arcade lightgun games were to start getting ported. I think that form of game would be enhanced by VR in a way that most games aren't. The same with shmups. I'd love a VR shmup, just put the camera slightly behind the player and you're good to go. These types of arcade games that take 20-30 minutes to complete but way longer to master would be great.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

The timestamp in this video does a good job at explaining why the technology might not exist today, but it will, or at least is so clearly likely to happen that any chance of it not getting to that point would have to be caused by some global disaster.

 

[hunterjess08]

This guy is absolutely clueless. Saying VR is just a display and that there is nothing special about it and presence doesn't matter completely flies in the face of some of VR's best games like Lone Echo / Echo VR, Astro Bot, Beat Saber.

It has to be treated as something completely different because that's how it becomes a long-term mainstream success. You're not going to have VR become mainstream if it's just an optional VR mode, as great as they can be.

Anyone who says "VR is just a display" probably have never tried a real VR headset before. Sure it's bulky and may be uncomfortable for some people, but anyone who has tried it and has it can't deny the fact that it's way different than other gaming consoles because VR provides total immersion. VR selling may not be as high as the others, but the fact that different business industries are adopting VR (and AR) use is saying something about VR, and that it's somewhat a revolutionary piece of technology.

 

[shark sandwich]

What a pointless comparison. Video calls are no where close to real life interaction. VR will be exactly the same given enough development, aside from being able to physically touch and hold someone that pushes back at equal force all over your body, unless in a suspended exoskeleton rig.

But that's fine, because there are countless times where someone is going to want this. If you miss your family, friends, or to help long-distance relationships. If you want a game night but can't visit each other physically. If you want to just explore places with people, visit concerts, expos, sporting events, theme parks, hang out in each other's reconstructed houses. If you want to work together in the same place. If you want to watch movies together. If you want to hold board meetings with people scattered around the globe. If you want to have live training.

This is impossible to be a novelty because it is for all intents and purposes, going to be exactly like real life minus perfect physical contact.

And as it turns out, VR will be very convenient, because when you have a pair of glasses that can switch between AR and VR, you can slip in and out of virtual worlds at a moments notice. Photos can be generated automatically with a real-time scan on the headset. Not only a normal photo, but an arrangement of photos that can be automatically reconstructed into a 3D space you can walk inside. There are many times where someone will want this.

Shark, it's pretty clear you have bone to pick with VR. You have something personally against it. No one is going to listen to your ramblings if you continue to have the wool pulled over your eyes and ignore all the valid use cases of VR.

I don’t have a bone to pick. I had a PSVR and sold it after the novelty of it wore off.

Your entire argument boils down to “there are all these awesomely amazing things that VR will (maybe, if it gets developed to this point) someday be able to do, and it’s just self evident that everybody is going to want these things.”

What I’m saying is that it’s far from obvious that a significant chunk of people would rather have VR gaming over sitting on their butt looking at a screen and pressing buttons, no matter how advanced the technology gets.

I gave you several examples of technologies that offer more “immersive” entertainment and give you an experience that’s more “isomorphic” to the game you’re playing, and it turns out people dropped them as soon as the novelty wore off. And I think it’s by no means certain that the exact same thing won’t happen with VR gaming.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

I don’t have a bone to pick. I had a PSVR and sold it after the novelty of it wore off.

Your entire argument boils down to “there are all these awesomely amazing things that VR will (maybe, if it gets developed to this point) someday be able to do, and it’s just self evident that everybody is going to want these things.”

What I’m saying is that it’s far from obvious that a significant chunk of people would rather have VR gaming over sitting on their butt looking at a screen and pressing buttons, no matter how advanced the technology gets.

I gave you several examples of technologies that offer more “immersive” entertainment and give you an experience that’s more “isomorphic” to the game you’re playing, and it turns out people dropped them as soon as the novelty wore off. And I think it’s by no means certain that the exact same thing won’t happen with VR gaming.

Thing is, you speak of someday, but a lot of this is only a few years off from being extremely high-quality. Will we get avatars indistinguishable from reality in a few years? Maybe not that fast, but photorealistic avatars are not off the table, and that's all it takes to become a very compelling use case. The same can be said for a lot of the other big use cases of VR.

And in the context of gaming as you are now talking about, I didn't claim it would be the dominant form. I said it could be, it has that potential, but whether it does become as such is unknown. Even if it doesn't, you can have a 30-40% threshold and it would still be considered a major or mainstream part of gaming.

Your examples of failed immersive technologies do not match up with VR at all. They are far too different and did not improve gaming enough. You can see what genres VR vastly improves, like racing, horror, cockpit games, FPS, platformers, multiplayer, etc. Nothing else can claim to do that, and this is still very early on in VR, so the improvements to such genres get exponentially better.

You can argue whether people even care about improvements. Considering how well received RDR2 is, there is clearly a big market for deeply immersive game worlds, so I doubt that people will not care enough as it becomes more feasible to use.

You can also argue about whether people want to move around, but this is really moot when you consider that there are always going to be seated VR games.

 

[danielberg]

VR is a bigger jump than 2d to 3d was, the issue is the hardware, price and lack of support from major devs.

 

[Bogey]

I was the biggest believer in vr, and would still love to see it work out!

But then I played temple run on my gear vr for literally two minutes, and felt more sick than after paddling across the Atlantic on a plank. And alternative movement moves, aka teleporation, are clunky as hell.

Unfortunately, I see near zero chances of vr gaining traction until they figure out something about that issue. If they ever do.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

I was the biggest believer in vr, and would still love to see it work out!

But then I played temple run on my gear vr for literally two minutes, and felt more sick than after paddling across the Atlantic on a plank. And alternative movement moves, aka teleporation, are clunky as hell.

Unfortunately, I see near zero chances of vr gaining traction until they figure out something about that issue. If they ever do.

That's a Gear VR. 3DoF is always a problem for sickness and comfort. High-end VR and high-end standalones are vastly different.

 

[Redneckerz]

Most people don't want to buy 144Hz monitors either, but no one is saying that they are stalling because no one is trying to make games exclusively for them.

VR is a new kind of display. Buy it if you want, don't if you don't want to, just like with any other display device. But don't cripple the device's market by segregating it for no apparent reason.

If anything, VR must be selling better than 144Hz monitors. And yet people say VR is stalling, instead of 144Hz monitors!

The thing with VR is that its a peripheral first and formost, and not so much a platform. I tried PSVR. I loved it, but i would never classify it with more classical hardware. Its his own thing, but its also something that is a niche. There are many reasons why VR does not go off:

• People get sick from these things.
• There is no universal VR platform on PC given the multitude of VR companies there (Gear VR, Vive, StarVR, Rift, just to name a few).
• Sony is the only one who has a VR device on consoles. Thus its an exclusive thing there.

The second reason is probably the most dominant reason why VR does not take off: Developers have to support so many sub models it just becomes unworkable.

I for one have far more interest in Hololens/AR but realistically, i do expect that to be a niche aswell. Hololens geniunely does try something completely new however.

You don't even know the half of it. Dunno what Grimmrobe's affiliation with the dude is, but some of the Icycalm posts he's shared have been laugh out loud ridiculous. Like claiming that game complexity is inherently tied to resolution, because if you double the resolution of a chess board the game gets more complex (apparently Chessmaster 10th Edition runs at a resolution of 8x8). Or freaking out about the word gameplay, because you don't say "musiclisten" or "moviewatch".

Or all indies are bad. Its a thing, i know. You are saying all the things i originally wanted to say. There might be the occassional philosophical point of thought worth listening to, but in general, Icycalm's stuff should never be taken as gospel. You would want to have a few more sources than just Icycalm.*

*There are however, although unrelated to journalism, some people in the programming industry whose words you can pretty much take for fact. Think of Mikael Kalms from DICE for instance, or, if you know Demoscene culture, Mentor, Blueberry and Rrrola for size optimization and synthesizer programming.

I've been reading his stuff for 10 years and he is my clan leader.

And as such the ability to differentiate between multiple sources got lost on you because every single time you cite a source you cite Icycalm as the one defining source to rule them all, and disregard everything else.

I like Digital Foundry for instance, but i would never dismiss other outlets like VG Tech or NX Gamer simply because they nuance different things. Your only cite is always Culture VG, and not 1 or 2 other sources that nuance different things. It makes the risk of bias be an imminent threat to your actual argument.

Astro Bot and RE7 are cool. But RE7 can be played without VR also, and Astro Bot is not exactly the kind of game that fires up people's imaginations. You have to PLAY it to see that it's great, but with stuff like Ghost of Tsushima you are drooling BEFORE you even play it.

THAT'S what VR needs.

And in order for Ghost of Tsushima to actually be immersive in VR, you would likely need to shift the perspective in which the game is played. A ton of VR titles are FP because that's the most immersive viewing point you can have (And practically the only way imo VR makes any proper sense in terms of realism.

Since GoT isn't a FP game, it does not really classify as a good example.

Movement is NOT part of the immersion in VR. Headsets are merely a halfway point to brain jacking where it will even be IMPOSSIBLE to move. Read the essay I linked. No one in the industry understands this stuff like Alex Kierkegaard. Unless you read him, you will not understand why things are happening the way they are.

My dude, please stop with the

about Icycalm. Its fine to admire people, but to rely so heavily solely on a single individual that every word he/she says is canon is just unhealthy in my eyes.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

And in order for Ghost of Tsushima to actually be immersive in VR, you would likely need to shift the perspective in which the game is played. A ton of VR titles are FP because that's the most immersive viewing point you can have (And practically the only way imo VR makes any proper sense in terms of realism.

You wouldn't need to shift the perspective. Games like Hellblade and to a different extent, Astro Bot and Moss show that there is large benefit to 3rd person VR games. You don't need to aim for realism all the time, Just having a 3rd person view into a world via VR is much more immersive.

And high-end VR is very much about peripherals, but standalone VR (and the vast majority of VR's future) is a platform rather than a peripheral.

 

[Redneckerz]

You wouldn't need to shift the perspective. Games like Hellblade and to a different extent, Astro Bot and Moss show that there is large benefit to 3rd person VR games. You don't need to aim for realism all the time, Just having a 3rd person view into a world via VR is much more immersive.

Immersive=realism in this case.

Whatever. I am personally against VR in general, although my view has shifted a little when i tried out PSVR. Its a peripheral in my eyes.

And high-end VR is very much about peripherals, but standalone VR (and the vast majority of VR's future) is a platform rather than a peripheral.

VR only has a chance of succeeding if there is a single universal platform on PC (and possibly) consoles. The way it is now on PC is just terrible with 4-5 sub-platforms.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Immersive=realism in this case.

Whatever. I am personally against VR in general, although my view has shifted a little when i tried out PSVR. Its a peripheral in my eyes.


VR only has a chance of succeeding if there is a single universal platform on PC (and possibly) consoles. The way it is now on PC is just terrible with 4-5 sub-platforms.

Well if that's the case, then immersion is already being amplified big-time by just having a 3rd person VR perspective. Hellblade is the perfect example. It's still the exact same camera perspective, with a few options for changing the offset, and yet it's easily more immersive.

It works especially well when the game also acknowledges your presence. Senua looks right at you into your eyes; you feel a bigger connection.

I think your attitude says it all, being personally against VR. (Why? Is it's existence somehow affecting you negatively?) That makes no sense to me. You can not care for VR, but to be personally against it is to be against improvements in gaming in general. It's akin to saying: "I do not want gaming to improve" because some of what VR brings into the industry will bleed out into other areas even if you never touch VR. One example being spatial audio propagation that VR will be the key to standardizing. So why you're against it, I don't know, but it's very much anti-consumer to be against it, which is probably not great, being a consumer yourself.

And no, VR's chance of succeeding in true mainstream fashion lies outside of consoles and PCs; it's all-in-one or standalones.

 

[TheShadowLord]

So a non-argument. Gotcha.

Come back when you can draw a comparison between how the Wii appealed to the mass-market and how VR is failing to do so.

Then nintendo is right. For VR to be mainstream it needs to be a primary shared experience and not an individual experience. Something like that VR chat thing I guess.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Then nintendo is right. For VR to be mainstream it needs to be a primary shared experience and not an individual experience. Something like that VR chat thing I guess.

This is my theory. Either that, or VR needs to be so engaging that people prefer it to social engagement.

I imagine porn will play a role in making that a driving factor.

 

[Redneckerz]

Well if that's the case, then immersion is already being amplified big-time by just having a 3rd person VR perspective. Hellblade is the perfect example. It's still the exact same camera perspective, with a few options for changing the offset, and yet it's easily more immersive.

I am not disagreeing with that statement. I am just saying FP is more immersive because of the natural offset that this view provides.

I think your attitude says it all, being personally against VR. (Why? Is it's existence somehow affecting you negatively?) That makes no sense to me.

My ''attitude'' has nothing to do with that. Personally here is only used to strengthen the disagreement. Basically i am just saying i am against VR and nothing more. Perhaps this is a terminology issue, but personally in this case is used like that. It does not mean i am actively on the bars to stop VR from becoming a thing or anything.

Reminder to self: Forum text does not always properly translate the kind of nuance you try to convey.

You can not care for VR, but to be personally against it is to be against improvements in gaming in general. It's akin to saying: "I do not want gaming to improve" because some of what VR brings into the industry will bleed out into other areas even if you never touch VR.

Yeah no now you are just assuming things here and i disagree with that. I (personally) don't think VR is something that is going to take over the industry. I do believe it has its merit and its uses, both in gaming and (certainly) outside of it. But i consider it a niche.

And no, VR's chance of succeeding in true mainstream fashion lies outside of consoles and PCs; it's all-in-one or standalones.

Well standalones clearly does not work as it stands right now.. so PC's/Consoles should have it built in from the get go.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

I am not disagreeing with that statement. I am just saying FP is more immersive because of the natural offset that this view provides.

My ''attitude'' has nothing to do with that. Personally here is only used to strengthen the disagreement. Basically i am just saying i am against VR and nothing more. Perhaps this is a terminology issue, but personally in this case is used like that. It does not mean i am actively on the bars to stop VR from becoming a thing or anything.

Reminder to self: Forum text does not always properly translate the kind of nuance you try to convey.


Yeah no now you are just assuming things here and i disagree with that. I (personally) don't think VR is something that is going to take over the industry. I do believe it has its merit and its uses, both in gaming and (certainly) outside of it. But i consider it a niche.


Well standalones clearly does not work as it stands right now.. so PC's/Consoles should have it built in from the get go.

Well that cleared it up a bit then. It's easy to assume that you were actively against VR from that comment.

And we're only about half a year away from Oculus Quest releasing, which would be just as good as a high-end headset, even exceeding them in certain areas - obviously with the drawback of less processing power. Sure it's not now, but it's certainly close.

 

[n0razi]

VR is not just a display... haptics, input, and even stereoscopic audio are just as important as the visuals for a proper VR experience

 

[Humdinger]

So why is VR stalling? I said there is no reason, but I lied, since it's obviously sheer stupidity, plain and simple. Sheer stupidity of everyone involved.

He sounds an angry, condescending know-it-all. Neat. There's a real shortage of those on the internet.

 

[Redneckerz]

Well that cleared it up a bit then. It's easy to assume that you were actively against VR from that comment.

Well not actively as in i demonstrate or attempt to push it. But i am against it in general.

VR is not just a display... haptics, input, and even stereoscopic audio are just as important as the visuals for a proper VR experience

Ssssh, we are supposed to be against Culture VG here.

 

[JCK75]

I think it comes down to the same issues that plagued the Wii, a few developers get it and make magic with the technology but most just slap it on with horrid results.. except it's worse on VR when they do that as being sloppy with it can make the user vomit. I've only been a Vive owner for a week and have only experienced Batman, Skyrim and Doom VFR.. but I already know this is not something I'm going to just stop using any time soon, Bethesda knows how to mostly do VR right IMO as I'm going to spend an eternity in Skyrim this way but I see almost no other devs delivering.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

I think it comes down to the same issues that plagued the Wii, a few developers get it and make magic with the technology but most just slap it on with horrid results.. except it's worse on VR when they do that as being sloppy with it can make the user vomit. I've only been a Vive owner for a week and have only experienced Batman, Skyrim and Doom VFR.. but I already know this is not something I'm going to just stop using any time soon, Bethesda knows how to mostly do VR right IMO as I'm going to spend an eternity in Skyrim this way but I see almost no other devs delivering.

You bring up Skyrim VR, but there are actually lots of better developers in VR. Lone Echo / Echo VR, Robo Recall, Moss, Hellblade, Alien Isolation (mod) are examples of VR games or ports done exceptionally well.

There are even indies outdoing Bethesda. In fact, I think Blade & Sorcery has cracked melee combat in VR so well that they've created the best and most versatile 1st person combat system ever made in gaming, and that was just one guy.

 

[EtherMagic]

VR is stalling becuase most people dont want to buy and wear heavy glasses.

Not true...

Fact is most people look at it as a gimmick, and most that do have never tried it. I had around 35 people over at my home for my daughters Birthday last week and not one of them ever tried VR, so i got some of them on my PSVR and they were blown away! The family & friends who tried it just kept asking "How Much, i want one!".

Sony needs to have units on display in the stores that are selling it. I travel back and forth from IL to WI often, going into many electronic stores that sell PSVR and even Oculus, and i have yet to see a VR unit on display.

The lack of hands-on is whats hurting VR. It's not the only reason, but it's a big factor.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

VR is stalling because even the most polished ecosystem product, PlayStation VR, is proof of concept quality.

The games are phenomenal but jesus christ the hassle of getting it all connected, positioning the camera right, sitting in the precisely correct place, keeping your controller in sight, the blurry edges and pixelated centre, cable dangling all around you is not a mass market experience.

#FACTS^^
People have to wait till PlayStation 5.
Removing most components from the headset, and putting them into the PS5, wired by one USB-C wire is the way to go.

Price the PS5 600$,
PS5 VR headset 200$

lower the price of the PS4 to 150$,
PS4 Pro with VR 400$

Make the PS5 VR headset PC compatible so most games are made with PS5 VR specifications.

 

[Cato]

I had a VR kit for my PS1 sometime around the mid 90-s ? or earlier? Hard to tell since it was so long ago and I am just not motivated enough to google it.

Mid-90s, VR is all the hype. Sure, yeah it works. You can play all the games on your own "private screen".
Cool but a gimmick. I used it at least a dozen times and then back to the attic it went.

Why would this iteration of VR be different? Seriously, it is an idea that just will always look better on paper than in
real life.

 

[Kenpachii]

VR is stalling becuase most people dont want to buy and wear heavy glasses.

How is it so hard to understand for people really its just mind boggling.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

I had a VR kit for my PS1 sometime around the mid 90-s ? or earlier? Hard to tell since it was so long ago and I am just not motivated enough to google it.

Mid-90s, VR is all the hype. Sure, yeah it works. You can play all the games on your own "private screen".
Cool but a gimmick. I used it at least a dozen times and then back to the attic it went.

Why would this iteration of VR be different? Seriously, it is an idea that just will always look better on paper than in
real life.

90s VR is completely different. Today the specs are magnitudes higher, the tracking actually works, there are proper motion controls, you have positional tracking, you have a high enough FoV to induce presence, you have proper game support, and you have more comfortable headsets.

Even if you had today's headsets back then, you would still be using it on PS1 which isn't going to be pleasant.

 

[Wonko_C]

I had a VR kit for my PS1 sometime around the mid 90-s ? or earlier? Hard to tell since it was so long ago and I am just not motivated enough to google it.

Mid-90s, VR is all the hype. Sure, yeah it works. You can play all the games on your own "private screen".
Cool but a gimmick. I used it at least a dozen times and then back to the attic it went.

Why would this iteration of VR be different? Seriously, it is an idea that just will always look better on paper than in
real life.

That is exactly what I thought modern VR was at first too, a 3D "private screen". I was dismissive of all the VR stuff until I actually got to try it, that's when I finally "got it": The world actually surrounds you. You look up and you see the sky, you look down you see the ground. You can look all around you as naturally as real life. When NPCs get too close you instinctively react as if they invaded personal space. Pretty cool stuff.

 

[cryptoadam]

VR will become the future but its time isn't now.

Its stalling because its expensive, cumbersome, and there isn't a strong marketing message behind it. No one has found the right way to explain VR and why people should adopt it to the consumers yet.

I think VR will take off once game streaming becomes a thing and people don't need beefy tech to play VR. Also with game streaming you get rid of a ton of wires and setup since you could use a cheap headset and cell phone.

Its an expensive product with limited application for the general public. All the big games can be played cheaper and looking better on a normal console/PC. I am sure Blackops blackout mode would be crazy in VR, but there isn't a cheap easy way to do so nor is the game being sold on being in VR.

 

[Tapioca]

The problem with Vr to me is the hassle.

Putting on the headset and wearing it is too much hassle for the experience. It was cool the first 10x I used it but I'd honestly rather just play a normal game.

VR makes it feel like I'm actually doing something and when I am playing a game, I want to feel like I'm doing NOTHING.

It starts to feel like a burden. Similar to having to go to a grocery store to get cat food when you don't feel like going.

Plus the games suck.

 

[gspat]

VR needs a great game like house of dead. C'mon Sega...

 

[JCK75]

You bring up Skyrim VR, but there are actually lots of better developers in VR. Lone Echo / Echo VR, Robo Recall, Moss, Hellblade, Alien Isolation (mod) are examples of VR games or ports done exceptionally well.

There are even indies outdoing Bethesda. In fact, I think Blade & Sorcery has cracked melee combat in VR so well that they've created the best and most versatile 1st person combat system ever made in gaming, and that was just one guy.

I'm talking about major franchises that appeal to the masses, you don't get people to drop $500-$1000 for some indy titles.. while I agree there are so many games that do the VR part better, there are not many complete experiences on the same level.

 

[Wonko_C]

VR needs a great game like house of dead. C'mon Sega...

An overlooked gem:

 

[DarthBuzzer]

I'm talking about major franchises that appeal to the masses, you don't get people to drop $500-$1000 for some indy titles.. while I agree there are so many games that do the VR part better, there are not many complete experiences on the same level.

Those are AA/AAA titles, except for Moss and Hellblade, the latter of which is almost like a AAA game anyway.

But I do agree with your point though, that we need more AAA games.

 

[baphomet]

I had a VR kit for my PS1 sometime around the mid 90-s ? or earlier? Hard to tell since it was so long ago and I am just not motivated enough to google it.

Mid-90s, VR is all the hype. Sure, yeah it works. You can play all the games on your own "private screen".
Cool but a gimmick. I used it at least a dozen times and then back to the attic it went.

Why would this iteration of VR be different? Seriously, it is an idea that just will always look better on paper than in
real life.

That's not VR. That wasn't even touted as VR then. If that's what you think people are talking about you're extremely mistaken.

 

[CloudStrife_ca]

It's not a matter of limiting one's expectations.

As for myself, it's simply because I don't want to plunk a brick on my head and play glorified demos even if most of the VR games are half price.

Nobody is saying VR experiences are different either. It's just gamers as whole don't care about buying another gadget to play VR games with goggles. Not only that, I have no intention on buying VR games that resemble tech demos than a tried and true $60 game. 99% of gamers just want to sit in a chair or on their couch and use a gamepad or k/m. It's been like this since computer and videogames came out in the late 70s. Every so often someone tries to reinvent the wheel and VR is the current attempt.

Also, VR is a limiting experience (and basically a loner experience). A gamer having a VR set is rare already. But let's say someone wants to play local MP (family fun night), how's a family going to play VR together unless they buy a second or third VR helmet?

Let the market dictate where gaming heads. But I totally understand why VR gamers want it to survive..... they don't want a dead piece of hardware they paid $300-500 for.

To each their own, the headset is not actually that bad and considering it literally takes you out of your day to day world, off your couch and literally puts you in a completely different space from the comfort of your couch, that is pretty amazing. Maybe having been a gamer of over 30 years now, I find this a huge leap from when I first started playing and the biggest innovation I've seen over those years.

As for the games themselves if you did chose sit down and put some time in with VR right now, the best part is you choose what games to buy, the VR communities are a great bunch of people, if you start to look into a game you're interested in and ask around, people aren't shy to share, they're actually passionate about doing so. For the internet of all places to find such a positive group of people and so much constructive criticism to improve the experience as a whole, its not found often these days. On price I was even surprised when I first started buying PSVR games, the majority of my games have been $20-$30 CAD, sure new some new PSVR releases here top out at $49.99 to $59.99 CAD but regular new releases cost $79.99 CAD so building up a decent library only took me about a month or two and it was cheaper than buying regular games.

The games that I've really come to love, Resident Evil 7, Astrobot, Moss, Firewall Zero Hour, Skyrim, RIGS, Arizona Sunshine, are anything but tech demo's. To be honest even games that are smaller or 'tech demo like' things like Job Simulator and London Heist, leave you wanting more and in both those examples a sequel and a full game are being produced.

You might have me on the local multiplayer family fun night, honestly though between the insane online multiplayer in games like Firewall Zero Hour or even in a beta I played awhile back, Honor and Duty which was just fun to play pure and simple. Or between having people over to actually try VR for the first time, laughing with family and friends at the reactions to something scary or just the amazement on their faces is a family fun night, is definitely a event worth having.

I'm not saying VR is going to replace flat gaming, I'm not saying its a reinvention of the wheel, not even when its streamlined to where people get that comfort or ease of setup to just jump in and play with a pair of glasses or whatever.

I am saying its not a gimmick, after really sitting down after buying my PSVR in the summer and putting some time in, building a collection of decent games, getting used to the feel of it, its earned a spot along side regular gaming for me personally and I think if more people really sat down with it, they might feel the same its hard not too once you know what its really all about.

 

[hariseldon]

You can't take a random game and suddenly turn it into a VR experience. First person games would induce nausea, so you need a completely revamped controlling mechanism with no continuous turning and reduced (or removed) walking. Third person games need a completely revamped camera which should stay quite a distance from the main character (to prevent the same issues), move very slowly and have no rotation (or a very limited one). Those changes impose severe restrictions in game design and would be hard or impossible to make to an existing game.

To be honest, you could display any game in VR, it would simple be a very bad experience which would make a lot of people sick. One of the few nausea-inducing moments I've had with VR (I consider myself fairly resistant) was playing the original Quake in VR at the original running speed, controling the rotation with mouse + head. It's just not a good idea.

Well this is awkward, I managed to play Quake 1 and 2 in VR without any issues, it was a fucking blast actually. Much much better than the god-awful drek that is Doom VR. Teleporting needs to die in a fire. The biggest issue in straight conversion from screen to VR btw is gunface. One needs to separate out the direction of looking and the direction the gun is pointing, so as to avoid that, which of course makes shooting a little harder, but the immersion benefit is well worth it.

Oh and Valve won't create a killer app - they don't really have that capability anymore.

 

[Terrible_Majesty]

VR is stalling becuase most people dont want to buy and wear heavy glasses.

I would but >$300 is too high for me

I’m willing to jump in at $199

 

[GenericUser]

Was the dude who wrote this drunk?
It's stalling for very apparent reasons:

- Costs a lot of money
- Uncomfortable to wear
- Lots of cables and shits
- Not enough good gaymes

This man is lacking common sense I'd say.

 

[Daniel Pacheco]

I tried every VR device and all of them are like toys that you want to try once and leaved so is not a good way to spend you money.

Anyway, every day on Steam there´re lots of VR games that sells nothing. VR never was something that works.

 

[Darak]

Well this is awkward, I managed to play Quake 1 and 2 in VR without any issues, it was a fucking blast actually. Much much better than the god-awful drek that is Doom VR. Teleporting needs to die in a fire. The biggest issue in straight conversion from screen to VR btw is gunface. One needs to separate out the direction of looking and the direction the gun is pointing, so as to avoid that, which of course makes shooting a little harder, but the immersion benefit is well worth it.

Well, the Quake I played in VR didn't do that IIRC. Perhaps it was an early version, as that was pretty early in VR days.

In any case, the trigger point for nausea varies, some scenarios which are vomit-inducing for some people are perfectly fine for others, and that's part of the problem. I managed to force nausea consistently for everybody I tried (for science!) just by mapping the horizontal head movement in reverse (when you turn your head right, the world turn left etc).