Support NeoGAF

[Grimmrobe]

That is halfway true. It's true that some people don't want to move, but it is a mistake to think they represent the entire potential gaming audience. One of the reasons why the Wii, Kinect, and Wii Balance Board sold so well is because people wanted to move.

And where are these people now? Where are the sequels? Where are the imitators?

That stuff was gimmicky Nintendo dreck, and that's why it died. Whoever wants to move, leaves his room. The only people who want to move without leaving their rooms are disabled people, who CAN'T move.

 

[Grimmrobe]

Movement is part of immersion. This is why games like Lone Echo, Sprint Vector, Climbey feel a lot more immersive when moving compared to Pavlov and Robo Recall.

Never heard of any of these "games".

"Climbey" lol.

 

[Danjin44]

For me personally the type of games I'm mostly play VR just kind of pointless for it.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

The comparison to laserdisc is utterly stupid because VR gaming is not an apples to apples comparison like laserdisc vs VHS.

The reason laserdisc failed is because it cost too much (player and movies). VHS was lower quality, but cheaper and people could use to record tv shows and other movies. VR is pricey and ALSO AN ADD-ON. So someone has to double up on spending to get it working. Also, the types of games are totally different and not as good as a typical $60 version game. Of course, quality of game is subjective as a standard game vs. VR game are different experiences. But laserdisc versions were all better than the VHS version as it was straight comparisons, and it still failed.

 

[Lightsbane]

Maybe it wouldn't be stalling that much, if it didn't make people like me barf after 5 minutes.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Never heard of any of these "games".

"Climbey" lol.

I already mentioned Lone Echo in this thread. This video showcases the movement best even if it's the multiplayer part of the game:

 

[infinitys_7th]

I'd say sucking is a good reason.

VR is not going to be any good until we have actual mental controls/feedback. That is not necessarily far off, but having a heavy visor strapped to your head and holding controllers just is not "VR".

 

[DarthBuzzer]

And where are these people now? Where are the sequels? Where are the imitators?

That stuff was gimmicky Nintendo dreck, and that's why it died. Whoever wants to move, leaves his room. The only people who want to move without leaving their rooms are disabled people, who CAN'T move.

One of the main points of VR is to let you explore new worlds without leaving your house. You can step outside into the world you've always known, or use VR to explore new places. So you can't tell someone to step outside in relation to VR, because it's totally different.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

I'd say sucking is a good reason.

VR is not going to be any good until we have actual mental controls/feedback. That is not necessarily far off, but having a heavy visor strapped to your head and holding controllers just is not "VR".

We don't need any brain interface capabilities. If we want an extremely versatile form of input then haptic gloves is all we need. But VR can still totally take off without them, because you can still do a whole lot with controllers which will themselves become more advanced.

 

[xellos2099alpha]

I got the Window MR unit a few month ago for 200. I know it is not as good as oculus/Rift but it is pretty decent for the price. I honesly don;t use it too often mayber beside VR porn.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

Expectations, the non-VR users expectations, the general public's expectations are all basically the limits of their own imagination at this point but thats not reality. This is first gen VR, for anyone who actually adopted VR this first gen, to grow your brand of choice, be it the PSVR, the Oculus or the Vive, we stand to support this medium as not to replace flat gaming but encourage future generations of VR to get to where we want it to be, the way you do that is with your wallets and some time, enjoying the journey as we get to that place one day where VR becomes like Ready Player One or what the general public, the uninformed consumer expects it to be.

I love my PSVR and I think for the first gen of mainstream VR its been done pretty damn well not perfect but I dont regret it and only wish I had bought in sooner. Hopefully theres a nice push on headsets over Black Friday, the more affordable these things are presented to the public, the more people get in and can't ignore the fact that VR gaming is an experience of its own.

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.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

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.

You play with your family through either asymmetrical games or through party games like Beat Saber. It's no secret that VR is often the life of a party when it's brought out. Once there is enough asymmetrical content (and mixed reality capabilities in HMDs), this issue will go away. Most gamers play games on their own in some form anyway.

Many of the people routing for VR are doing so to see further development into the technology. It's only natural to want this, just like how gamers of the 70s wanted the market to expand.

 

[StreetsofBeige]

You play with your family through either asymmetrical games or through party games like Beat Saber. It's no secret that VR is often the life of a party when it's brought out. Once there is enough asymmetrical content (and mixed reality capabilities in HMDs), this issue will go away. Most gamers play games on their own in some form anyway.

Many of the people routing for VR are doing so to see further development into the technology. It's only natural to want this, just like how gamers of the 70s wanted the market to expand.

Being life of the party means really nothing. Motion controls were life of the party last gen and look how that turned out. And motions controls weren't even an expensive add-on cost. For $100-150, you could deck out a Wii, 360 or PS3 with motions controls, a cam/kinect or for Wii additional gear. Even Nintendo which did great with Wii selling 100M consoles and everyone on TV was hyping it with Wii Sports and such, and even Nintendo bailed ship.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Being life of the party means really nothing. Motion controls were life of the party last gen and look how that turned out. Even Nintendo which did great with Wii selling 100M consoles and everyone on TV was hyping it with Wii Sports and such, and even Nintendo bailed ship.

The point is that since it's a good party idea, it's clearly an option for local play-sessions.

You asked for how families are going to play together, so I gave you one option.

 

[Airola]

Monitors rarely make people sick,

VR is also stalling because it makes people SICK!

I loaned psvr from a friend and tested it for a Week, it made me epicly seasick and I felt bit off for 2 weeks.

From what i have heard, maybe 20-50% of users feel sick while using vr, so this is biggest problem.

Hard to sell expensive device if user cant use it.

This.

I tried VR in 1995. Lol.
I tried some cheap(?) VR thing in late 90's. Lol again.
I tried VR in 2018. Played Resident Evil VII. Ok, the thing actually works now - kind of works... I got super nauseous after 10 minutes of play so I had to quit. Took a while to get the nausea off my body.

Looking around tilting your head works really well in current VR technology, but at least for me it's the "moving around" part that makes me sick. I was completely fine when I just looked around but I started to notice very quickly that when I control the character with the controller it makes me sick. I'm not sure if that's something that can ever be fixed.

People say you can get used to it, but hell no, I'm not going to subject myself to that kind of nausea just to try if I will eventually get used to it. I can't read a magazine in a moving bus without me eventually becoming very nauseous and even though it would be nice to read on a bus I will never ever want to try to get me used to it by forcing me to have that feeling over and over again.

VR has to be a thing that won't require easily nauseous people to force themselves to get used to it if it ever wants to become completely mainstream thing.

Besides, I'm not sure if that kind of "immersion" even is the optimally best way to experience video games anyway.

 

[EventHorizon]

Unless something goes very wrong, I'd expect it will hold up. Abrash is keeping the price in mind too, otherwise he'd be talking about a 220+ degree FoV, haptic suits, gloves and such for such a headset, which would be clearly enterprise focused in 2022.

If Facebook market Oculus Rift's successor in 2022 correctly, then people will be much more inclined to spend the same price as Rift is today.

Why? Because it would be at least 30 PPD which is the start of where VR is viable to use as a replacement for screens. It would have unbelievable social capability. It would have much higher realism in telepresence applications, and 6DoF video should be a consumer thing by then, which in itself is a killer app of VR.

I mean right there you have 3 killer apps of VR. Social, screen simulation, and telepresence. All of that is here today, but none of them are ready. With such a 2022 headset, they would finally be ready.

Even just screen simulation adds a lot of value by itself because you're replacing material goods.

People thought video calling was going to be a killer app at one time too.

Btw, I'm not saying VR won't improve. I am saying that just because something is technically possible isn't the only criteria for adoption. I believe Abrash and people on this site tend to downplay price too much and over consider capabilities. It's a blindspot that often affects predictions by enthusiasts.

However, one thing that could make a high priced VR headset more palatable in the future would be the likelihood that the hardware needed to generate images for it would be much cheaper. Still...it's hard to get over that this is a peripheral. There is a mental barrier to spending a lot of money on a secondary device. That's why all-in-one VR devices might ultimately take the lead.

I also don't see VR/AR headsets being a replacement for monitors by 2022. Even if the optics are good enough, the comfort and need to at least occasionally share a screen won't be. I hate comparing VR to 3D TVs because they are totally different beasts, but in this case the comparison is accurate. People just didn't want to wear 3D glasses if they didn't have to, and 3D glasses would be far more comfortable than a 2022 VR headset. No one is going to want to spend most of their work time, and a good part of their recreational time in a headset.

 

[EventHorizon]

And where are these people now? Where are the sequels? Where are the imitators?

That stuff was gimmicky Nintendo dreck, and that's why it died. Whoever wants to move, leaves his room. The only people who want to move without leaving their rooms are disabled people, who CAN'T move.

I literally answered your question in the reply you are quoting. Here let be quote the last line of it for you:

Sales would have continued just fine if only the motion controls had actually worked. Instead we got the waggle, which wasn't fun for anyone.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

People thought video calling was going to be a killer app at one time too.

Btw, I'm not saying VR won't improve. I am saying that just because something is technically possible isn't the only criteria for adoption. I believe Abrash and people on this site tend to downplay price too much and over consider capabilities. It's a blindspot that often affects predictions by enthusiasts.

However, one thing that could make a high priced VR headset more palatable in the future would be the likelihood that the hardware needed to generate images for it would be much cheaper. Still...it's hard to get over that this is a peripheral. There is a mental barrier to spending a lot of money on a secondary device. That's why all-in-one VR devices might ultimately take the lead.

I also don't see VR/AR headsets being a replacement for monitors by 2022. Even if the optics are good enough, the comfort and need to at least occasionally share a screen won't be. I hate comparing VR to 3D TVs because they are totally different beasts, but in this case the comparison is accurate. People just didn't want to wear 3D glasses if they didn't have to, and 3D glasses would be far more comfortable than a 2022 VR headset. No one is going to want to spend most of their work time, and a good part of their recreational time in a headset.

I mean it's blatantly obvious what the killer apps of VR are. If I can hop into VR and visit my buddies as if it's real life, then that's so profoundly useful, it instantly gains killer app status, because our species thrives on socialization.

You are correct on standalones though, they are the true future of VR. While I expect high-end headsets to sell a couple of hundred million units eventually, it's standalones that has the possibility of moving into billions.

And FYI, I didn't say VR would replace monitors by 2022, I just said it's the start of where it becomes viable. Replicating 1080p displays with perfect recreations requires 35-37 PPD. 30 PPD is a little less, but you can make up for it using software tricks. Obviously they need to be sunglasses to completely replace screens for an average person, but would still be totally viable for the 'start' of screen simulation otherwise.

 

[BrettWeir]

The problem with VR is two-fold:

Cost of entry (for good VR. Looking at you PSVR) and
Lack of good games being developed.

 

[Kazza]

Not having large scale games on a easy to access platform is what's slowing sales of VR. Sony is trying their best and it's sorta working but not as well as it could. VR users are also all basically semi-whales in terms of spending on games and stuff like that.

I think that most "semi-whales" don't mind splashing the cash. There's something exciting about being at the cutting edge of tech, inviting your friends over to check it out etc. I have other priorities at the moment, but I don't mind being a whale from time to time, if I'm really interested in the tech.

Lol no. Playing games not designed or modified for VR in VR is awful nausue inducing nonsense for first person games, and I've never tried with third but I'd assume it's worse. It'd be a complete waste of time to implement half assed support.
If you want to ignore everything that makes VR special and treat it as just another display, just play games on it like a normal display, which is already possible for essentially all PC and PS4 games, and stop writing garbage rants whining about things you don't understand.

Agreed. In fact, such a move could also backfire. If people were to try a low-effort port of their favourite regular 3D game as their first VR experience, then they might think to themselves "Is that it?" or, even worse, just feel nauseous. That could put them off VR altogether.

That article is a long clueless rant. Do you have any hands on experience with VR? A display is not comparable to a VR headset.

Edit: The author of the article has serious grandiose delusions of the non-ironic kind and no solid facts supporting his argument.

Here’s a quote from the patreon you linked: “I am the world's greatest videogame theorist and critic. There is no second best: there's only me. Read some of my essays and you'll see”

That surely has to be satire! No way that anyone can seriously think that way.

Also I think it’s hilarious how the VR faithful can’t even agree on what VR is supposed to do for gaming:

- “VR is just a display tech and there’s no reason why every game doesn’t support it”
- “VR is so great, it’s the future of video games”
- “VR isn’t meant to replace traditional games, it’s going coexist, and require new kinds of games to be made for it”

LOL okay guys.

Those are mutually exclusive. It can be an immersive display tech (look at the recent thread about the virtual 90s room and arcade). It can also be the future of video games without necessarily making other forms obsolete, just as 3D games were the future in the 90s without making 2D games obsolete.

You're simply saying it's a gimmick over and over again, for literally no outlined reason. Just "It's a gimmick because I say so"

If you want people to actually take you seriously, you're going to need to state why it's a gimmick. Which isn't going to be possible considering I already laid out a definition that VR doesn't fall under.

I've noticed there's a discrepancy in the way people use the word "gimmick". For me, gimmick carries a negative connotation, meaning novel but without substance, whereas I've seen people use it in a neutral way (for example talking about the different level "gimmicks" in Sonic Mania). Either way, even with me just having tried what people would consider fairly basic VR games (Job Simulator etc) for an hour or so, I think this format will be as significant as the jump from 2D to 3D. Definitely not a gimmick, by my definition of the word anyway.

Motion controlled gaming died primarily because it wasn't accurate enough for games. It could never perfectly simulate the user's input so instead of that input being an extension of the player's body, it was just another abstract input for gaming. If you are going to do an abstract input anyway, then a button press makes for a far better gaming experience than some high latency arbitrary motion.

Having never owned a Wii during it's lifetime, I bought one for real cheap with a bunch of games a couple of years ago, so have some recent experience with motion controls. The worst application of the controls were definitely the "shake/waggle" type, which added nothing to the experience and just seemed shoe-horned in (doing the whirl in Mario Galaxy and, worst of all, the roll in Donkey Kong Country Returns, which led to innumerable accidental deaths). On the other hand, shooting (whether in Resident Evil 4 or Call of Duty) was done really well. The best use I've come across so far has been the sword/gun combo in Red Steel 2 which feels really fluid.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

I think stuff like the new hmd odyssey+ which may eliminate screen door effect, and stuff like oculus quest with six degrees with no cables, that's the kind of stuff that's needed. Not sure how good odyssey+'s six degrees will be, but a device with no wires like the quest with no screen door like the odyssey+ and six degrees is what the market needs, also very high resolution.

Right now the quality of the display still hinders immersion. But if someone puts on some glasses, and sees a photogrammetry model of some real world place or some actors, with a good enough quality six degrees display, they'll be truly mind blown.

As has been suggested once these displays get small enough, a few cameras in the rooms will be enough to generate telepresence that is visually indistinguishable from everyone being in the same room.

Even if one is seated and not moving, setup needs to be easier, and cables need to go.

People say you can get used to it, but hell no, I'm not going to subject myself to that kind of nausea just to try if I will eventually get used to it

People used to get nausea from FPS games, I got nausea from original Doom, and a few FPS. But eventually I adapted, and it seems most did too.

 

[Kazza]

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.

And I am saying this as someone who is going to vote Astro Bot GOTY 2018.

VR will un-stall when it’s wireless, no external processor required, inside out tracking, high resolution display. Basically when people can lean back on a sofa and start playing right away.

You can find a bunch of information here: https://uploadvr.com/abrash-2018-predictions-oc5/

Most are very likely for 2022, a few are likely, but still a bit iffy.

But the TL;DR is:
- Bare minimum 4000 x 4000 resolution per eye and 140 degrees FoV.
- Photorealistic Avatars with full body tracking, eye tracking, finger tracking, facial tracking. Basically your Ready Player One avatars, or at least close to that.
- Depth of focus using varifocal displays or something else to solve vergence accommodation. No more headaches, no more eye strain.
- Mixed reality in VR, being able to scan the real world in real time to any amount, from items like keyboards, mice, furniture, drinks, pets, humans, food, drink, or everything in the room. Solves isolation. Allows you to easily teleport to a friend's house, etc.
- Personal HRTF calibration. A way for your ears to be scanned so spatial audio goes through a reconstructed mesh of your ear canal, thus giving you audio that sounds 100% lifelike with audio propagation algorithms.
- Foveated Rendering which would be able to cut around 20x of pixels out of the rendering equation, making VR games less intense on GPUs than non-VR. Eventually far less intense. This is where VR starts to outpace traditional gaming in graphics, framerates, and resolution.
- Wireless.

So a 2022 HMD from Oculus should fix almost every hardware problem with VR.

Other than that, we know Oculus believes haptic gloves to be doable within 10 years, and Waveguide displays would give us the Ready Player One visor form factor with no distinct time frame given, but clearly implied to be somewhere in the 5-10 year range.

The current VR tech obviously has a lot of problems, but it sounds like next gen has lots of improvements in the offing.

This might sound strange, but having avoided jumping on the VR train for all the above reasons, I'm now actually feeling a little worried about missing out on this "jank period" of VR. Although looking back now, it's obvious that the great 2D games of the 32/64-bit era aged a lot better than the 3D ones (Symphony of the Night, Guardian Heroes etc), man that "jank period" of early 3D was super exciting! No one really new how to design a game in 3D, so everyone had to experiment. You can even see this physically in the way controllers themselves evolved, from the 3DO, Jaguar, early PS/Saturn ones with the d-pad, to the later N64. Saturn 3D pad and PS dualshocks. Eventually, they will work out what works, what is popular etc and things will settle down. While this will undoubtedly be a better overall experience, it's going to lack spirit of creativity and experimentation that exists now.

The question I'm asking myself is: to jank, or not to jank? Should I wait for the Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/Xbox-like era of VR games, or jump in now?

 

[DarthBuzzer]

The current VR tech obviously has a lot of problems, but it sounds like next gen has lots of improvements in the offing.

This might sound strange, but having avoided jumping on the VR train for all the above reasons, I'm now actually feeling a little worried about missing out on this "jank period" of VR. Although looking back now, it's obvious that the great 2D games of the 32/64-bit era aged a lot better than the 3D ones (Symphony of the Night, Guardian Heroes etc), man that "jank period" of early 3D was super exciting! No one really new how to design a game in 3D, so everyone had to experiment. You can even see this physically in the way controllers themselves evolved, from the 3DO, Jaguar, early PS/Saturn ones with the d-pad, to the later N64. Saturn 3D pad and PS dualshocks. Eventually, they will work out what works, what is popular etc and things will settle down. While this will undoubtedly be a better overall experience, it's going to lack spirit of creativity and experimentation that exists now.

The question I'm asking myself is: to jank, or not to jank? Should I wait for the Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/Xbox-like era of VR games, or jump in now?

Only you can answer that. 2nd gen is looking to be a few years off still, so we're stuck with gen 1.5 for the time being. If you really want to get in, then you'd best do it during a sale.

One thing that might tip the balance is Valve revealing their 3 games. It's inevitable for 2019. CES 2019 in 3 months? E3 in 9 months? 12 months from now? Hard to say, but keep an eye out as I'd expect their titles to blow everything else out of the water. I realize that's blind faith, but I do think Valve are going to be the ones to produce the first killer apps.

 

[Omega Supreme Holopsicon]

The question I'm asking myself is: to jank, or not to jank? Should I wait for the Dreamcast/PS2/Gamecube/Xbox-like era of VR games, or jump in now?

If you have a galaxy s phone, it is quite cheap to get in some of the early mobile vr, as the gear vr is quite cheap under 100$.

But having tried oculus, gear vr, windows mixed reality. I'm left with the impression that high rez screen door free is needed to make it even more immersive. I've not tried ps vr, but I've heard it has antiscreendoor tech. I'm pretty hyped about trying the odyssey+ once that's available, to see the antiscreendoor tech in action. edit: there appears to be some unboxing vids of the odyssey plus, so may already be available. Need to check to see if there's a demo at local stores, to see if it's worth a buy.(online impressions appear contradictory, some say antiscreendoor tech is not great, others say it is very good.)

 

[Neo 007]

As far as I'm concerned, the whole industry....including movie is creatively bankrupt.

 

[Kazza]

Only you can answer that. 2nd gen is looking to be a few years off still, so we're stuck with gen 1.5 for the time being. If you really want to get in, then you'd best do it during a sale.

One thing that might tip the balance is Valve revealing their 3 games. It's inevitable for 2019. CES 2019 in 3 months? E3 in 9 months? 12 months from now? Hard to say, but keep an eye out as I'd expect their titles to blow everything else out of the water. I realize that's blind faith, but I do think Valve are going to be the ones to produce the first killer apps.

If you have a galaxy s phone, it is quite cheap to get in some of the early mobile vr, as the gear vr is quite cheap under 100$.

But having tried oculus, gear vr, windows mixed reality. I'm left with the impression that high rez screen door free is needed to make it even more immersive. I've not tried ps vr, but I've heard it has antiscreendoor tech. I'm pretty hyped about trying the odyssey+ once that's available, to see the antiscreendoor tech in action. edit: there appears to be some unboxing vids of the odyssey plus, so may already be available. Need to check to see if there's a demo at local stores, to see if it's worth a buy.(online impressions appear contradictory, some say antiscreendoor tech is not great, others say it is very good.)

I'm studying abroad at the moment, so "now" actually means "sometime next year". I don't think my phone will be up to VR. That Valve stuff sounds exciting. Do you think the probability of one of the 3 titles to be revealed being Half Life 3 VR is greater than zero?

 

[Kazza]

The best take on VR (well, PSVR at least) that I've come across is SuperBunnyhop's video:



I think he hits a good balance between enthusiasm for the new tech, while still being aware of it's current drawbacks.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

From that point of view all PC and PS4 games are already playable on VR.

Fact.

So what are you complaining about?

This.

The sluggish sales are because the concept of VR is not mainstream. It is the anti-Wii. Instead of gathering friends and family around, you are leaving them behind and entering a virtual world.

 

[RoyBrown7777]

I'm not going to go dump $1000-$1500AU on a fucking gimmick with no games.

 

[Zewp]

A minority does not make it a gimmick. Are we going to consider console gaming a gimmick too under your definition? Because it's certainly not the most popular way of playing games.

And you don't know for sure. It makes sense for VR to a be a platform with billions of users. That many users on one platform has the potential to be the dominant form of gaming. Whether it happens or not is up for debate, but you can't say it won't happen.

What planet are you on? Because here on planet earth consoles are used by millions of users. PS4 alone accounts for 80mil sales.

And we only have 7 billion odd people on earth, so it makes absolutely no sense for VR to have billions of users.

Tell me a bit more about your planet and how you're accessing earth's communications networks.

 

[Castef]

Wait... Have you just copied a whole article from someone else's Patreon page?

 

[baphomet]

Some of the most misinformed garbage I've seen on this forum lately. And I read that post about the fuckwit who doesn't understand NPCs.

 

[Liljagare]

VR is great, but the helmets on the market are a hassle. It will boom when it's wireless and lighter and easier to use.

 

[The_Mike]

VR has much more quality exclusives than Xbox One.

And the post for the best stretch only all time on NeoGAF goes to DartBuzzer. Congratulations.


If you want to join PSVRGaf send a PM to DarthBuzzer lol.

Name one VR game that’s better than Forza, Halo or any other Xbox exclusive.

 

[J4K]

As others have been saying, this is still fundamentally a hardware problem.

When *Nintendo* makes something VR related (let's ignore Virtual Boy here...), that will tell you VR's moment has come, because that will mean the hardware to do it right will have become cheap and available for the mainstream casual gamer.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

From what i have heard, maybe 20-50% of users feel sick while using vr, so this is biggest problem.

You are not a statistician.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

The differences between VR and monitors are about the same in magnitude as between monitors and handhelds.

Fact.

There is no reason a game like BotW cannot be played on all three types of display devices. If you exclude all good games from one type, don't be surprised when adoption of that type stalls. It's not exactly rocket science (though for most people in this thread, it apparently is).

I hate to break this to you, but your clan leader has no idea wtf he's talking about, and neither do you.

You're saying the difference between two different size flat screens is the same as the difference between a flat screen and a VR headset? How many games have you developed for VR? How many have you ported? Find me a single VR dev who agrees with you.

If it were as simple as you claim, VR injectors such as VorpX wouldn't suck as much as they do.

 

[shark sandwich]

There is still the question of whether mainstream gamers actually want it.

The hardcore gamers are looking at it as any geek would: their first question is “what could this technology be like when it’s advanced to its highest level?” But an even more important question is “will enough people ACTUALLY want this to make it a viable market?” And the answer is far from obvious IMO.

It’s exactly like Kinect. Many geeks like myself immediately fantasized about “wow, imagine how great this could be if we had perfect, lag-free 1:1 motion controls with enough resolution to track fingers, that could work in any room size and any lighting condition?”

But the more important question was “once the novelty factor wears off, will people still want to play games this way?” And the answer was a resounding NO.

Turns out people really like to sit on their ass and press buttons while looking at a screen. That is a hard thing to beat.

 

[LucidFeuer]

VR is stalling because it's driven by corporation with greedy leeches scum at their head that don't care about business, commerce or market but just their stock revenues at the end of the year.

Therefor no vision, no conception, no R&D and no plan of making it a market is driving actors like Facebook, HTC/Valve or Sony to develop these headsets the way they should have been for 3 years now.

Hence, we're in a situation where everybody is aware of VR but nobody feels the need or desire to buy one because they're in an impractical format that hasn't evolved where it was supposed to since 2013.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

I'm studying abroad at the moment, so "now" actually means "sometime next year". I don't think my phone will be up to VR. That Valve stuff sounds exciting. Do you think the probability of one of the 3 titles to be revealed being Half Life 3 VR is greater than zero?

I would say it's greater than zero, yes. There are a bunch of references to 'HLVR' in Valve's updates to their codebase. Though it could be a spinoff.

This.

The sluggish sales are because the concept of VR is not mainstream. It is the anti-Wii. Instead of gathering friends and family around, you are leaving them behind and entering a virtual world.

This is false. There are mainstream devices that have sold better than the Wii that are meant for personal use. And as I said earlier, VR is often the life of a party when it's brought out.

What planet are you on? Because here on planet earth consoles are used by millions of users. PS4 alone accounts for 80mil sales.

And we only have 7 billion odd people on earth, so it makes absolutely no sense for VR to have billions of users.

Tell me a bit more about your planet and how you're accessing earth's communications networks.

I'm on Earth. Are you here too? Seriously, why would VR not be capable of billions of sales? You do realize... (this is going to blow your mind) that there are billions of smartphones out there, right?

As for consoles, they are not nearly as popular as mobile gaming, therefore by the original definition laid out by The_Mike, console gaming is a gimmick. I don't believe that at all, but he sure does.

 

[shark sandwich]

Just think critically about VR for like 2 minutes. Jesus. Think about what a typical avatar of a video game does. You think ANYBODY actually wants to physically imitate anything even approximating that for an extended length of time?

Hell no. People want to FANTASIZE about being some run and gun action hero while actually sitting on their ass expending ZERO effort.

Mark my words. If there’s ever a “killer app” for VR gaming, it’s going to be some Wii Sports-like collection of little 5-10 minute mini games, and it’ll be a fad that fades out within a few years.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

And the post for the best stretch only all time on NeoGAF goes to DartBuzzer. Congratulations.


If you want to join PSVRGaf send a PM to DarthBuzzer lol.

Name one VR game that’s better than Forza, Halo or any other Xbox exclusive.

Astro Bot, Lone Echo / Echo VR, Moss, Firewall Zero Hour are some good examples. Sure, none of them have a higher score than Forza, but this is why I said VR has more quality exclusives. Astro Bot and Lone Echo are close score-wise anyway. VR has only been around for half the time of the Xbox One life cycle as well.

There is still the question of whether mainstream gamers actually want it.

The hardcore gamers are looking at it as any geek would: their first question is “what could this technology be like when it’s advanced to its highest level?” But an even more important question is “will enough people ACTUALLY want this to make it a viable market?” And the answer is far from obvious IMO.

It’s exactly like Kinect. Many geeks like myself immediately fantasized about “wow, imagine how great this could be if we had perfect, lag-free 1:1 motion controls with enough resolution to track fingers, that could work in any room size and any lighting condition?”

But the more important question was “once the novelty factor wears off, will people still want to play games this way?” And the answer was a resounding NO.

Turns out people really like to sit on their ass and press buttons while looking at a screen. That is a hard thing to beat.

Your logic is fundamentally flawed because you act as if VR forces you to stand up. There are plenty of seated VR games, some of them are VR's best games even. VR also has many other uses that let you sit down, such as using it to view media on virtual screens and 360 videos, playing non-VR games in a virtual theater, using telepresence applications, etc.

It's exactly like KInect you say? Except it isn't. Kinect is a camera. VR is a medium that can be used for many many use cases in and out of gaming / entertainment. Within gaming, VR can be used for almost every genre as well so if we're only talking about use in gaming, VR has absolutely plenty going for it there.

So yes, people will definitely want to play games like this once the hardware is suitable enough, easy enough, and comfortable enough. You'll have people that play seated games with a gamepad, seated with motion controls, seated with mouse and keyboard or a gamepad playing non-VR games on a virtual screen, standing games, room-scale games, world-scale games. Do you get it now? There are so many options, so once there is enough content in each category, someone can easily choose one exclusively and still have plenty of use from their headset.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Just think critically about VR for like 2 minutes. Jesus. Think about what a typical avatar of a video game does. You think ANYBODY actually wants to physically imitate anything even approximating that for an extended length of time?

Hell no. People want to FANTASIZE about being some run and gun action hero while actually sitting on their ass expending ZERO effort.

Mark my words. If there’s ever a “killer app” for VR gaming, it’s going to be some Wii Sports-like collection of little 5-10 minute mini games, and it’ll be a fad that fades out within a few years.

Yeah, no. VR's biggest killer app within the gaming mindset is exactly the opposite of what you describe. It's a large-scale AAA VRMMO.

Look at my previous post. It's all about choice. You need to stop assuming that VR is 100% dedicated to being in 1st person whilst standing up and moving around, because that's as far from the truth as you can get.

 

[Zewp]

I would say it's greater than zero, yes. There are a bunch of references to 'HLVR' in Valve's updates to their codebase. Though it could be a spinoff.

This is false. There are mainstream devices that have sold better than the Wii that are meant for personal use. And as I said earlier, VR is often the life of a party when it's brought out.

I'm on Earth. Are you here too? Seriously, why would VR not be capable of billions of sales? You do realize... (this is going to blow your mind) that there are billions of smartphones out there, right?

As for consoles, they are not nearly as popular as mobile gaming, therefore by the original definition laid out by The_Mike, console gaming is a gimmick. I don't believe that at all, but he sure does.

Do you understand that smartphones have become a daily necessity in most of the first world and even many third world countries?

Where do you get off on comparing VR to smartphones? VR is a luxury entertainment device. A smartphone is something that people buy largely out of necessity. They serve two different needs, so how you can compare their markets with a straight face is beyond me.

My grandmother is on her second smartphone. I can guarantee you she's not interested in VR just by virtue of having a smartphone. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[shark sandwich]

^ just LOL man. You are completely delusional.

If people wanted VR even 10% as badly as you think they do, people would be falling over themselves trying to get a glimpse of this glorious future, even if it meant dealing with high prices and inconveniences.

We’d be reading stories of like, Korean gamers being found dead in Internet cafes after playing Skyrim VR for 72 hours straight.

Fact is, the vast majority of gamers don’t want that.

Save this post. Shove it in my face if it turns out I’m wrong. I’ll be waiting!

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Do you understand that smartphones have become a daily necessity in most of the first world and even many third world countries?

Where do you get off on comparing VR to smartphones? VR is a luxury entertainment device. A smartphone is something that people buy largely out of necessity. They serve two different needs, so how you can compare their markets with a straight face is beyond me.

My grandmother is on her second smartphone. I can guarantee you she's not interested in VR just by virtue of having a smartphone. You're comparing apples to oranges.

You have a lot to learn. VR is mostly an entertainment device today because it's non-entertainment applications still need improving to be really useful. But they are there, and they are gamechangers, just as much as a smartphone is.

1. Social VR. Pretty obvious how world-changing this is.
2. Telepresence through things such as 360 videos. Again, world-changing once the resolution and positional tracking are solved.
3. Screen simulation and VR as a computing platform. Allows you to eventually replace tens of thousands of dollars worth of real world equipment and still exceed the capabilities of the real world equipment.
4. Self-improvement through public speaking, roleplaying, sculpting, painting, trying new things such as DJing.
5. Education.
6. Architecture design and product design.
7. Medical usage.
8. Escapism and treating and/or suppressing things like depression / claustrophobia.
9. Training applications.

Then what happens when you combine AR in the same device? You suddenly get a device that is capable of replacing all other devices on the planet. It becomes the absolute most useful personal device ever invented by a clear mile.

 

[Zewp]

You have a lot to learn. VR is mostly an entertainment device today because it's non-entertainment applications still need improving to be really useful. But they are there, and they are gamechangers, just as much as a smartphone is.

1. Social VR. Pretty obvious how world-changing this is.
2. Telepresence through things such as 360 videos. Again, world-changing once the resolution and positional tracking are solved.
3. Screen simulation and VR as a computing platform. Allows you to eventually replace tens of thousands of dollars worth of real world equipment and still exceed the capabilities of the real world equipment.
4. Self-improvement through public speaking, roleplaying, sculpting, painting, trying new things such as DJing.
5. Education.
6. Architecture design and product design.
7. Medical usage.
8. Escapism and treating and/or suppressing things like depression / claustrophobia.
9. Training applications.

Then what happens when you combine AR in the same device? You suddenly get a device that is capable of replacing all other devices on the planet. It becomes the absolute most useful personal device ever invented by a clear mile.

Ah, so features that are either in their infancy or not even a blip on the horizon.

You know, hover boards will also sell billions. They'll revolutionise the travel industry. They don't exist yet, but one day they will and then everything will change!!!

Call me when all of these features exist and are widely adopted. Until then, I'd like something more than speculation to support your claims that VR will be as popular as smartphones.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

^ just LOL man. You are completely delusional.

If people wanted VR even 10% as badly as you think they do, people would be falling over themselves trying to get a glimpse of this glorious future, even if it meant dealing with high prices and inconveniences.

We’d be reading stories of like, Korean gamers being found dead in Internet cafes after playing Skyrim VR for 72 hours straight.

Fact is, the vast majority of gamers don’t want that.

Save this post. Shove it in my face if it turns out I’m wrong. I’ll be waiting!

No they wouldn't. First of all, most people haven't tried VR. Secondly, no one was falling over themselves for PCs, Smartphones, TVs, Tablets.

 

[DarthBuzzer]

Ah, so features that are either in their infancy or not even a blip on the horizon.

You know, hover boards will also sell billions. They'll revolutionise the travel industry. They don't exist yet, but one day they will and then everything will change!!!

Call me when all of these features exist and are widely adopted. Until then, I'd like something more than speculation to support your claims that VR will be as popular as smartphones.

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.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This is false. There are mainstream devices that have sold better than the Wii that are meant for personal use.

Such as what?

And as I said earlier, VR is often the life of a party when it's brought out.

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.