Support NeoGAF

[StuBurns]

Well.. Lucid dreaming ..

Lucid dreaming is an incredible experience, literally unlike anything else, but actually I think it falls short of VR in one important area. VR can provide presence, your body can be physically scared of heights and things. When lucid dreaming, you're very aware of your safety and absolute control. I'm not saying VR is better, it isn't, it won't ever be, but it's not without it's notable advantages.

The desire to be in a videogame cannot be equated with the desire to breathe. Its a ridiculous notion.

No, what's ridiculous is you comparing the requirement of one hobby with the drive of another. Being in a game isn't the breathing, the seeing underwater is.

By equating the two, you are impling the demand for each are even remotely comparable. They are not.

I have been skiing, scuba diving, and have used VR, have you?

 

[plagiarize]

The desire to be in a videogame cannot be equated with the desire to breathe. Its a ridiculous notion.



By equating the two, you are impling the demand for each are even remotely comparable. They are not.

how many people go scuba diving or skiing every year? is that figure really out of the reach of VR? I don't pretend to know.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

.

VR isnt just for gamers. Think of the potential in medical, military, scientific training situations that actually place you in an environment where you feel presence.

Imagine being ill in hospital and being given the ability to leave your hospital bed and walk around the world of Journey, or Skyrim.

Have you seen peoples reactions? The astonishment and excitement so many sources have felt when first trying VR? People dont get this excited over gimmicks like move or 3D gaming. VR is gonna happen, and its gonna be massive.

These soultions already exist. They might require a bit more investment, but they are already here and have been for some time.

Let me be clear here. I am not condemning VR as a technology. Any innovation can be beneficial to mankind.

I am simply saying as a mainstream commerical enterprise it as a waste of everybodies time.

Any sony solution shown at GDC will be overblown overhyped and when the dust settles, fundamentally underwhelming. Likewise with the rift, it will have a bright spart for a few years then everyone will simply lose interest.

Anyone hoping for a paradigm shift in the way we consume media and entertain ourselves is going to be disappointed. It will have a few gimmick games and will serve as a cool techdemo gadget but ultimately it isnt going to amount to much, outside of making a few people rich out of gullible hopes and dreams.

Im sorry, but thats really how i see it.

 

[EVIL]

Lucid dreaming is an incredible experience, literally unlike anything else, but actually I think it falls short of VR in one important area. VR can provide presence, your body can be physically scared of heights and things. When lucid dreaming, you're very aware of your safety and absolute control. I'm not saying VR is better, it isn't, it won't ever be, but it's not without it's notable advantages.

This is very true, good point.

 

[Handy Fake]

If there was significant demand for the technolody, it would have been improved at a far faster pace than it has been.

Sorry to butt in, but not necessarily. There's always been a demand for faster GPUs/CPUs/RAM, displays etc, outputs, lower latency etc. with regards to gaming. Ergo, there's always been a push to excel in these areas. It just so happens that, rather than VR catching up with technology, technology has had to catch up with VR.

 

[spwolf]

I dont really get it from software side either.

Lets say that Sony builds a business case where them selling 10 million of these is profitable. This is possible of course.

As smart people here said already - best games for VR would be created for VR. And cost of making games is high. Why would anyone spend millions on creating game for market of 1-10 million.

After that, there is catch 22. How can they sell 10 million of these if there are no AAA games for it?

What is certain is that they will not lose money on hardware... so it will not be dirt cheap.

I just dont see the big picture here.

 

[Buggy Loop]

Not with that device, but the technology isnt new. There have been working soultions for people interested in that sort of thing for years.

Oh, im too lazy to look in your post history since im on phone, but im pretty sure i have a deja vue with this conversation from another thread. Let me guess, you think it wont have demand because 90's VR devices flopped? I mean the technology "VR" applies right..

 

[Portugeezer]

Are you saying it is over hyped?

HYPE DEFLATED!

 

[FrunkQ]

I just dont get it.

Kinect? gimmick.
Gamepad? gimmick.
Move? Gimmick.

But VR is somehow going to be a game changer?

At best this going to be cute distraction thats supported by a handful of games. The mainstream simply is never going to strap a box to their face to game.

This whole VR hype is the strangest thing ever to me. Its one of those things everyone seems to be gushing over online but in the real world people are meh...

I only hope the money wasted on this at least ensures somewhat of a return. Id hate for first party development to suffer to support this.

It is not for everyone... no issue with that. But don't dismiss it until you have tried it.

I have had several versions of VR in my house over the years and they were all pretty meh. 3D TV is nice but hardly awe inspiring. Motion controls are indeed gimmicky unless there is a good reason or context.

Then I got Oculus Rift... and yeah - this is the game changer. Wide FoV plus fast/accurate tracking and the gap between you and the game world is gone.

For real... it is not a small step change like most of the gimmicks you mention... and that is with a gimped developers kit.

Better resolution and proper 3D space head tracking and OR would be so much better. Both the Sony VR headset the consumer OR will nail those.

All of those gimmicks you list are in fact necessary for VR to operate; 3D, motion controls. They are all steps of immersion to an endgame... that endgame is a VR headet.

Once you try it you will either go:
- I feel ill or
- woah!

meh is not really an option. VR is so much more than a sum of it's parts once it comes together properly - and the right game/content is running underneath.

 

[gofreak]

I dont really get it from software side either.

Lets say that Sony builds a business case where them selling 10 million of these is profitable. This is possible of course.

As smart people here said already - best games for VR would be created for VR. And cost of making games is high. Why would anyone spend millions on creating game for market of 1-10 million.

After that, there is catch 22. How can they sell 10 million of these if there are no AAA games for it?

What is certain is that they will not lose money on hardware... so it will not be dirt cheap.

I just dont see the big picture here.

I think the total market for VR (OR, Sony, MS perhaps?) can exceed 10m over the next few years.

The answer is, though, that big pubs seem to be curious and hesitant. So it may indeed be a while before we see big-budget VR games from third parties.

That won't mean there'll be 'no' AAA games for it though - the platform holders will invest in showcases, and some non-VR-only AAAs may afford compelling VR modes.

The balance and the bulk of software in the short term is probably going to come from smaller developers. Smaller developers, though, can make very brilliant and very successful software.

 

[StuBurns]

I dont really get it from software side either.

Lets say that Sony builds a business case where them selling 10 million of these is profitable. This is possible of course.

As smart people here said already - best games for VR would be created for VR. And cost of making games is high. Why would anyone spend millions on creating game for market of 1-10 million.

After that, there is catch 22. How can they sell 10 million of these if there are no AAA games for it?

What is certain is that they will not lose money on hardware... so it will not be dirt cheap.

I just dont see the big picture here.

The big picture is PS5 and beyond.

Sony are moving away from dedicated hardware for the casual gamer, which makes sense, five years from now everything will have PlayStation Now, your TV, your phone, your tablet, your cheap shitty notebook that has slow down at the end of Bejeweled games when the gems pop, everything.

But Sony will still want to sell you a dedicated console for $400 in eight years. VR is perfect for that. It requires extremely low global latency, something PlayStation Now will literally never be able to provide, and it requires lots of local processing.

PS4 VR is a long play marketing campaign for dedicated gaming hardware.

 

[EVIL]

If there was significant demand for the technolody, it would have been improved at a far faster pace than it has been.

There is a significant demand for allot of things, but you can't just throw money and desire to a product demand and expect things to happen. Often technological progress needs to happen before you can move on. Its why even the military has spend large budgets to VR development and still those devices fail to achieve what Oculus has managed to do, simply because technology has to catch up with ideas.

There is a significant demand for near speed of light travel, the influence it would have socially and economically would benefit mankind but do you see any subliminal speed technologies around? no.. why, technology hasn't come far enough yet.

 

[orioto]

I dont really get it from software side either.

Lets say that Sony builds a business case where them selling 10 million of these is profitable. This is possible of course.

As smart people here said already - best games for VR would be created for VR. And cost of making games is high. Why would anyone spend millions on creating game for market of 1-10 million.

After that, there is catch 22. How can they sell 10 million of these if there are no AAA games for it?

What is certain is that they will not lose money on hardware... so it will not be dirt cheap.

I just dont see the big picture here.

The answer is in your post.
If you create a killer app, VR defining experience for it, it will sell to 50, 60, 70% of those 10 millions ? That's a nice sell to me.

And This is the same exact defining software that will make the add on sell enough to be legit.

Also just look at Oculus scene.. Nothing more easy for devs to integrate a VR mode into fitting games. So there will be content.

The real problem (and to answer the other guy question on why this isn't progressing quicker if there is a demand), is that i think we're playing with VR when the tech available and affordable are really not exactly there yet for a perfect experience. Screens for exemple. So this is still a little early...

 

[StuBurns]

There is a significant demand for allot of things, but you can't just throw money and desire to a product demand and expect things to happen. Often technological progress needs to happen before you can move on. Its why even the military has spend large budgets to VR development and still those devices fail to achieve what Oculus has managed to do, simply because technology has to catch up with ideas.

There is a significant demand for near speed of light travel, the influence it would have socially and economically would benefit mankind but do you see any subliminal speed technologies around? no.. why, technology hasn't come far enough yet.

Indeed, there's significant demand for effective water desalination technology in third world nations, it would literally save billions of lives over the next hundred years, but until a rich company has to perfect it for some commercial reason, no one will bother.

We're getting VR now because the cell phone panel race is hugely commercially attractive, and local compute levels are finally here.

 

[Omerta]

I'm a mid 30s guy who grew up dreaming of virtual reality... If buy into it in a heartbeat.

I can see more home uses than just gaming too.

I can definitely see a VR, health/fitness app going gangbusters. I can also see Sony adopting the OR's virtual cinema software too.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

Oh, im too lazy to look in your post history since im on phone, but im pretty sure i have a deja vue with this conversation from another thread. Let me guess, you think it wont have demand because 90's VR devices flopped? I mean the technology "VR" applies right..

I dont really tend to enter these threads so outside of odd comment, i doubt you would find anything in my post history. But to your point.

The fact is, things flop for a reason. No technology works really well in its first few iterations. But if the demand is there people continue to work on it and improve it until it does work. There is no reason if worked on consistantly that VR couldnt be on a technological far beyond what the rift can do now. Look how fast things like smartphones have iterated since 2007, or even mobile phones in general since the mid 90's.

Need creates innovation. There is no mainstream "need" for VR and thats why it was dropped as a technology. Its only being picked up now, just like with 3D, because tech compaines need a new product catagory to commericalise, a new "gimmick" if you will. Its not borne of real world demand for this technology otherwise we wouldhave already passed this stage.

 

[geordiemp]

I dont really get it from software side either.

Best games for VR would be created for VR. And cost of making games is high. Why would anyone spend millions on creating game for market of 1-10 million.

I just dont see the big picture here.

A game can be for standard Ps4 with a VR mode ? A racing game for example, or wipeout Ps4 or a MechWarrior game.

So the game is released where all Ps4 owners can buy and enjoy, but some with VR headsets will have a differing experience.

 

[Kurdel]

People in this thread really under estimate Sony and VR.

I started out by thinking "this is way too early for such a pricey accessory", but you know what? They will sell out for the first few months, creating a media firestorm. If Nvidia sold out of Titans and Shields, Sony can make this move now even of the masses won't be ready to invest before a year or two.

This is the right move, V is the future ans they need it as quickly as possible.

 

[Shadders]

I just dont get it.

Kinect? gimmick.
Gamepad? gimmick.
Move? Gimmick.

But VR is somehow going to be a game changer?

This is the sound of a man who hasn't used a modern VR headset. It really is an incredible moment when you first slip on one of the headsets. You just get it straight away.

Remember when you first played Wii Bowling? Everyone does the same thing, they do one bowl, they smile and make a "heh" noise. In that moment, they 'get it'. These VR headsets are the same thing.

 

[StuBurns]

Need creates innovation. There is no mainstream "need" for VR and thats why it was dropped as a technology. Its only being picked up now, just like with 3D, because tech compaines need a new product catagory to commericalise, a new "gimmick" if you will. Its not borne of real world demand for this technology otherwise we wouldhave already passed this stage.

But it's being spearheaded by Oculus? A twenty year old VR geek.

 

[CitizenCope]

Debbie Downer comments.

I don't care if it doesn't change the way WE play games I'm excited it could change the way I play games. This doesn't need to sell to millions of people for me to be happy. Get it out there so casuals can get their hands on it in places like my living room instead of behind closed doors at game shows or in the form of developers kits.

 

[FiggyCal]

I dont really tend to enter these threads so outside of odd comment, i doubt you would find anything in my post history. But to your point.

The fact is, things flop for a reason. No technology works really well in its first few iterations. But if the demand is there people continue to work on it and improve it until it does work. There is no reason if worked on consistantly that VR couldnt be on a technological far beyond what the rift can do now. Look how fast things like smartphones have iterated since 2007, or even mobile phones in general since the mid 90's.

Need creates innovation. There is no mainstream "need" for VR and thats why it was dropped as a technology. Its only being picked up now, just like with 3D, because tech compaines need a new product catagory to commericalise, a new "gimmick" if you will. Its not borne of real world demand for this technology otherwise we wouldhave already passed this stage.

This has been said many times. Even I'm not interested in VR.

 

[Crimson_Fate]

I am more interested in how they are getting the video to the headset then anything else at this point .

If the Video is Wired, being directly beamed in like the Vita remote play or if there is a separate wireless high speed video transmission.

I can definitely see the headset being used as an alternate screen for playing standard games , freeing up your main tv for other uses. After an additional year of working on this thing they better have something solid.

 

[stryke]

After an additional year of working on this thing they better have something solid.

I doubt it was planned for release last year.

 

[Kurdel]

This is the sound of a man who hasn't used a modern VR headset. It really is an incredible moment when you first slip on one of the headsets. You just get it straight away.

Remember when you first played Wii Bowling? Everyone does the same thing, they do one bowl, they smile and make a "heh" noise. In that moment, they 'get it'. These VR headsets are the same thing.

Exactly. The best has been bringing it to work and showing people who had no concept of VR before putting the hmd on. Minds are blown for days.

 

[Crimson_Fate]

I doubt it was planned for release last year.

No but it was planned to be shown last year and that was canceled because it wasn't ready

 

[TTP]

Need creates innovation. There is no mainstream "need" for VR and thats why it was dropped as a technology. Its only being picked up now, just like with 3D, because tech compaines need a new product catagory to commericalise, a new "gimmick" if you will. Its not borne of real world demand for this technology otherwise we wouldhave already passed this stage.

There was no need for an iPhone, before the iPhone.

Consumers don't know what they want until you show them something they want.

Edit: Kurdel, yep.

 

[Kurdel]

There was no need for an iPhone, before the iPhone.

The iPhone and the Rift were born from the same mentality.

The materials are finally cheap enough and accessible to play with so they can make something wholly new.

 

[BloodMoney]

Tick tock - the final hours of the waiting game.

 

[Oppo]

. No technology works really well in its first few iterations. But if the demand is there people continue to work on it and improve it until it does work. There is no reason if worked on consistantly that VR couldnt be on a technological far beyond what the rift can do now. Look how fast things like smartphones have iterated since 2007, or even mobile phones in general since the mid 90's.

Need creates innovation. There is no mainstream "need" for VR and thats why it was dropped as a technology. Its only being picked up now, just like with 3D, because tech compaines need a new product catagory to commericalise, a new "gimmick" if you will. Its not borne of real world demand for this technology otherwise we wouldhave already passed this stage.

I think you had better get used to the idea that, yes, people want it. For a long long time now, since at least Neuromancer. Even if you don't or can't see it. It was not practically viable before. Ebooks also had a huge false start in the late 90s, do you remember?

Besides, if there are a good base of experiences available, does it really matter if it is a success?

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

There was no need for an iPhone, before the iPhone.

Consumers don't know what they want until you show them something they want.

Which is true. I will give you that.

But the iPhone is an iterative technology. It was still built on the innovations in the phones space - innovations that that had testable and provable mainstream demand.

VR to all intents and purposes is not that.

I think you had better get used to the idea that, yes, people want it. For a long long time now, since at least Neuromancer. Even if you don't or can't see it.

Besides, if there are a good base of experiences available, does it really matter if it is a success?

Touché.

 

[Turin Turambar]

I dont really get it from software side either.

Lets say that Sony builds a business case where them selling 10 million of these is profitable. This is possible of course.

As smart people here said already - best games for VR would be created for VR. And cost of making games is high. Why would anyone spend millions on creating game for market of 1-10 million.

After that, there is catch 22. How can they sell 10 million of these if there are no AAA games for it?

What is certain is that they will not lose money on hardware... so it will not be dirt cheap.

I just dont see the big picture here.

It's like the start of 3d accelerated graphics (in the pc community).

They were expensive. The best games for showing the effects had to be created explicitly for it, and it wouldn't serve for the software renderer.
Who would make games for an expensive hardware limited in numbers?
Who would buy a hardware if there is no software for it?

The answer is, we will have a transitional phase. Even if Palmer has said the the best VR experiences are designed from zero VR games, the truth is, we are going to have "adaptations" for the first years, even if they aren't the best thing they can be done in VR.
Normal fps games somewhat tweaked to avoid puking (slowed strafing and backward movement, for example) where you can look around, the same with normal first person rpg games, or fp horror games. Also racing and sim games. And here and there, there will be short indie games done exclusively for VR that will complement the rest of commercial games. Then, if the product is successful, the % of games done first designed for VR and second designed for normal screens will slowly rise.

 

[DouglasteR]

Cant wait.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

A game can be for standard Ps4 with a VR mode ? A racing game for example, or wipeout Ps4 or a MechWarrior game.

So the game is released where all Ps4 owners can buy and enjoy, but some with VR headsets will have a differing experience.

This is what I assumed would happen. Fallout 4 comes out, you can play it on your TV or switch to VR mode - is this not feasible?

Also, I haven't bought a driving game or flight sim for 10+ years, but I would buy the shit out of one with a VR mode.

 

[Kurdel]

Need creates innovation. There is no mainstream "need" for VR and thats why it was dropped as a technology. Its only being picked up now, just like with 3D, because tech compaines need a new product catagory to commericalise, a new "gimmick" if you will. Its not borne of real world demand for this technology otherwise we wouldhave already passed this stage.

You obviously haven't tried a Rift, just like 99.9999% of the consumers you talk on the behalf of.

You think there is no maintream demand, but you will be wrong. Just like people thinking TV was a gimmick and radio was more covenient, when you try it for yourself and have a proper experience, you will be converted.

If you have tried it, do know you are in a very small minority, and the general consensus is the world is going to change.

 

[TheKastorian]

Which is true. I will give you that.

But the iPhone is an iterative technology. It was still built on the innovations in the phones space - innovations that that had testable and provable mainstream demand.

VR to all intents and purposes is not that.



Touché.

Well, do you remember any people being this excited -at least on the internet- with Kinect, Move etc? Just that alone convinces me that VR can be big.

 

[spwolf]

The big picture is PS5 and beyond.

Sony are moving away from dedicated hardware
...

PS4 VR is a long play marketing campaign for dedicated gaming hardware.

cant have them both, can we?

 

[Oppo]

They only need one dev on board for a VR demo. Someone get Bethesda on the phone.

 

[Man]

cant have them both, can we?

The console will have it both but VR will likely be the future anchor to make sure it still has a place in the livingroom.

 

[Kura]

Im sorry, but you really are overestimating the demand for that level of escapism.

Maybe. I didnt analyze the market, that's for sure.

But I think VR is the end goal most gamers want to reach.
It's the next logical step. We have more photo-realistic looking-games, bigger TVs and higher game resolutions. All of this is just for the immersion.

But there's one thing that keeps our feet on the ground preventing us from 'believing' the game, and that is the fact that we can see the true reality outside the screen.

Well, VR takes that out.
That's why people are really hyped. It's a new experience never seen before (not at least with good technology), and as I've said, its kind of a goal.
Gamers want it.

 

[Blue Submarine No. 6]

Anyone hoping for a paradigm shift in the way we consume media and entertain ourselves is going to be disappointed. It will have a few gimmick games and will serve as a cool techdemo gadget but ultimately it isnt going to amount to much, outside of making a few people rich out of gullible hopes and dreams.

Eloquently stated, and it sums up my impressions of VR in a nutshell. This tech will make about as big a splash in the consumer electronics market as 3D TV.

 

[spwolf]

I think the total market for VR (OR, Sony, MS perhaps?) can exceed 10m over the next few years.

expensive accessory for relatively expensive console? Can it?

I mean we all thought of Move as a failure and it sold like 20 million, right?

Of course, what we might get is $350 device that sells 2 million per year and we will have all the Sony games fully support it, with some indies making really cool use of it.

Which is cool and all but not game changer imho.

 

[StuBurns]

cant have them both, can we?

Of course yeah, I didn't mean to imply PS5 won't support normal gaming, it obviously would.

The same way we still have 2D games despite Mario 64 being eighteen years old, VR is never going to be the only future, but once people experience it, the richer immersion and control, it's going to be that Mario 64-like shift I think. It'll be slower, but it'll happen.

 

[orioto]

Also the big picture about the VR is not specially games. Did you hear about porn ?
And i'll give you more. When the tech is there to have you personal giant home cinema in your bed, while not bothering miss, it will be something people want.
And i'll give you more. Do you realize that, actually, the tech is almost there, right now, to let people live stream a 360° feed of a sport event ? Can you imagine that just for one second ?
Wait, can you imagine watching in VR the Felix Baumgartner's jump live ?
The things that are possible are not even reachable by our imagination right now.

 

[Sickboy007]

Let's not forget that Sony also has a large catalogue of movies at their disposal. I know that a VR headset would not be the best device for this experience compared to the HMZ, but imagine if VR catches on as, say, bluray extras exclusive for the PS4 platform. It could be big.

This Oculus Rift Game of Thrones simulation could be an example.

 

[Man]

Console prices may have to rise next-gen if VR is part of the default package.
Everything will be 100% digital however so there's that reduction.

 

[thunder_snail]

If Sony sets up demo booths in gamestop, bestbuy etc and people try it, VR is going to move a lot of ps4s.

 

[gofreak]

expensive accessory for relatively expensive console? Can it?

Total market, not just Sony's share.

And I wouldn't consider a VR system a failure it if hit 20m. Quite the contrary.

VR probably will be relatively niche starting out, and that's fine. Creatively killer software and commercially successful software can emerge on relatively niche platforms, we've seen it in the past (particularly in smaller audiences that are very passionate, anyway).

 

[S¡mon]

You obviously haven't tried a Rift, just like 99.9999% of the consumers you talk on the behalf of.

You think there is no maintream demand, but you will be wrong. Just like people thinking TV was a gimmick and radio was more covenient, when you try it for yourself and have a proper experience, you will be converted.

If you have tried it, do know you are in a very small minority, and the general consensus is the world is going to change.

I tried the dev kit version of OR. While I absolutely saw that it was not ready as a consumer product (resolution too low, headtracking too much lag (low persistence?)), I was also absolutely amazed by it. For me, personally, it was like using an iPhone for the first time.

So amazing. This year, as it appears, Oculus is able to solve all of the problems I had with the first dev kit. And with Sony possibly entering the VR race later today, I'm absolutely excited about the future of VR.

 

[Shadders]

Let's not forget that Sony also has a large catalogue of movies at their disposal. I know that a VR headset would not be the best device for this experience compared to the HMZ, but imagine if VR catches on as, say, bluray extras exclusive for the PS4 platform. It could be big.

This Oculus Rift Game of Thrones simulation could be an example.

Yeah, I imagine they'd be able to do something pretty special with that Pottermore stuff they were doing as well.