E3 Was Secretly Terrible For The Future Of Virtual Reality

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Was this year's E3 bad for the future of virtual reality? I don't think issues like simulator sickness, timed exclusives, and locking software down to specific headsets are "bad" for the industry because, over time, all these problems will get ironed out as the industry moves forward. Your thoughts?

To be fair, the accusations against Oculus are only partially true: Oculus is buying timed exclusivity in exchange for helping to fund a game's development. It's not actually taking games away from Vive owners; it's just delaying their delivery. Even so, that's never been done on PC before. Yes, game releases sometimes only sell on Valve's Steam platform, or EA's Origin, but players have never been barred from playing them because their PC wasn't outfitted with a specific brand of component. If a PC was capable of running a game, it was allowed to play a game. That's not the case with software sold through the Oculus store; if you own any other PC VR headset besides a Rift, you're out of luck. Even if that same VR title is available on Steam, without hardware restrictions.
 

hakstarr

Limp Gawd
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
292
That is bad Its like only being able to play battlefield 4 on an ati card or doom on nvidia this is a stupid tactic and it will come back to haunt Oculus in the end. They will eventually be alienating millions of customers. It is one thing to optimise a game for specific hardware but hardware based DMR games is stupid.
 

Armenius

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
29,672
Said it before, say it again. They should start with flight Sims and racing Sims for vr before moving into motion controls for interacting with 3d world's. Xwing vs Tie Fighter VR for the win .
Man, I just about popped a blood vessel when I thought we were being shown X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter VR and it turned out to just be some Battlefront on rails gimmick.
 

bloodhawke83

I Strike Fear into the Hearts of the Masses
Joined
Oct 8, 2010
Messages
8,382
Said it before, say it again. They should start with flight Sims and racing Sims for vr before moving into motion controls for interacting with 3d world's. Xwing vs Tie Fighter VR for the win .
it's for battlefront, no x vs t yet.
 

OregonLAN

2[H]4U
Joined
Mar 20, 2001
Messages
2,627
Although I see the potential for VR games, I think it's going to be a niche market like 3D was for cinema. It has the potential for being an awesome product, but the costs, exclusivity and side effects of VR will prohibit it from becoming mainstream this generation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bos
like this

Merc1138

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 25, 2010
Messages
2,128
I'm still waiting for the VR games that aren't glorified tech demos. That star trek bridge simulator game was maybe as close as it gets, but of course they demonstrated nothing about the actual depth of gameplay, just that people have panels to poke at in VR.
 

raz-0

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 9, 2003
Messages
4,879
That is bad Its like only being able to play battlefield 4 on an ati card or doom on nvidia this is a stupid tactic and it will come back to haunt Oculus in the end. They will eventually be alienating millions of customers. It is one thing to optimise a game for specific hardware but hardware based DMR games is stupid.

So pretty much like the beginning of hardware 3d acceleration for the PC, and just like game consoles still are?

I don't think anything going on is really going to be a problem while we are dealing with a thing that is behind a near $2k buy in cost.

So far the closest thing to cheap outside of project cardboard like objects, is sony's offering. Which is $500 on top of a $400 console.

All of it needs improvement right now, so I don't think it matters what they focus on improving as long as it improves lots, rapidly.
 

Dwango

Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
682
We're a few years away from someone making a killer VR game/app yet and by the time someone does the hardware will have caught up with "good enough for average consumer" use. Right now it's all very cumbersome and very much in the early adopter phase (full disclosure here: I bought a Vive and I love it when it's working as intended). What is out there in VR land right now is developers feeling it out and seeing what they can really do with it and a lot of that stuff is very, very good but not quite to the impulsive "I want to play this more than I want to eat" level that the best games can reach yet.

I will say that I think Oculus did themselves a disservice by back burner-ing room scale and intuitive controls, because that sells the VR experience to the layperson better than "sit here, don't lean too far or the camera can't see you anymore and here's an XBox controller that you may or may not know how to use." As far as them getting some games on timed exclusives, I couldn't give a rat's ass. Right now it doesn't really matter and by the time it does I'd bet the whole thing goes away. In a market as nascent as VR when the totality of what is out there is meager at best why would you limit your reach to just a sliver of that as a developer? I predict that within 5 years we'll have "minimum VR" specs and that's all that will be the limiting factor in what you can play.
 

Litfod

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
1,465
Said it before, say it again. They should start with flight Sims and racing Sims for vr before moving into motion controls for interacting with 3d world's. Xwing vs Tie Fighter VR for the win .

Cockpit-based VR games already exist. We know it works. It's time to explore the possibilities beyond that. So far no one has figured out a natural way to deal with locomotion for VR FPS games, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be experimenting, and failing where necessary, but ultimately moving forward rather than making countless flight sims.
 

cyclone3d

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
14,719
but players have never been barred from playing them because their PC wasn't outfitted with a specific brand of component. If a PC was capable of running a game, it was allowed to play a game.


That is not entirely true.
1. There were games that required an AGEIA PhysX card to run, even though the games would have run just fine if PhysX was/was able to be disabled.
2. Nvidia purposefully crippled CPU PhysX, so if you don't have an Nvidia GPU for some games that use PhysX, you must turn it off.
3. Nvidia locked out GPU PhysX on computers where you have an AMD video card installed in addition to an Nvidia video card.
4. There were also some games, if I remember correctly, that had versions that would only play if you had a certain brand video card installed. (Pretty sure there were some specific versions that would only run on 3dFX hardware, and some specific versions that were made for other video cards as well).
 
Joined
Apr 13, 2012
Messages
567

That is not entirely true.
1. There were games that required an AGEIA PhysX card to run, even though the games would have run just fine if PhysX was/was able to be disabled.
2. Nvidia purposefully crippled CPU PhysX, so if you don't have an Nvidia GPU for some games that use PhysX, you must turn it off.
3. Nvidia locked out GPU PhysX on computers where you have an AMD video card installed in addition to an Nvidia video card.
4. There were also some games, if I remember correctly, that had versions that would only play if you had a certain brand video card installed. (Pretty sure there were some specific versions that would only run on 3dFX hardware, and some specific versions that were made for other video cards as well).

When is someone going to make Die by the Sword for the platform it was fucking designed for?!
 

defaultluser

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
14,399
That is not entirely true.
1. There were games that required an AGEIA PhysX card to run, even though the games would have run just fine if PhysX was/was able to be disabled.
2. Nvidia purposefully crippled CPU PhysX, so if you don't have an Nvidia GPU for some games that use PhysX, you must turn it off.
3. Nvidia locked out GPU PhysX on computers where you have an AMD video card installed in addition to an Nvidia video card.
4. There were also some games, if I remember correctly, that had versions that would only play if you had a certain brand video card installed. (Pretty sure there were some specific versions that would only run on 3dFX hardware, and some specific versions that were made for other video cards as well).

Which is why it's dead to the world. Nothing remotely mainstream released since Borderlands TPS uses hardware Physx.

If these VR headsets aren't careful, they''ll suffer the same fate. They're far more expensive, and just as tied to compatible software.

And both are still looking for that "killer app." Complex flight/driving simulators are not that popular, and that's all Occulus is good at. And haptic feedback is just a hack waiting for the far more expensive full body immersion. Until then, you can enjoy...running in circles.
 
Last edited:

bos

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
188
1. Having a tiny TV 6 inches from your eyes with an obnoxious hat is not VR. Everyone needs to stop calling it that.

2. We're at least a decade, probably closer to 2 from anything resembling decent VR. And probably 3-4 decades from anything that will be decent and also affordable.
 

prtzlboy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,690
1. Having a tiny TV 6 inches from your eyes with an obnoxious hat is not VR. Everyone needs to stop calling it that.

2. We're at least a decade, probably closer to 2 from anything resembling decent VR. And probably 3-4 decades from anything that will be decent and also affordable.

Aww you're so cute. Someday you'll have a big boy job.

Until then, have fun on a website with members that regularly buy $800 monitors and SLI $600 video cards.
 

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
20,783
Which is why it's dead to the world. Nothing remotely mainstream released since Borderlands TPS uses hardware Physx.

If these VR headsets aren't careful, they''ll suffer the same fate. They're far more expensive, and just as tied to compatible software.

And both are still looking for that "killer app." Complex flight/driving simulators are not that popular, and that's all Occulus is good at. And haptic feedback is just a hack waiting for the far more expensive full body immersion. Until then, you can enjoy...running in circles.

Last Batman had Nvidia Turbulence effects that were GPU PhysX only if I remember right. Also Killing Floor 2 which has a free Steam Demo this weekend has NVIDIA PhysX FleX. I think that is GPU only.


Skip to the 5:00 mark and watch the big guy explode. All of the guts being tossed around are part of the GPU PhysX.

 

SBSuperfly

Gawd
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
865
1. Having a tiny TV 6 inches from your eyes with an obnoxious hat is not VR. Everyone needs to stop calling it that.

2. We're at least a decade, probably closer to 2 from anything resembling decent VR. And probably 3-4 decades from anything that will be decent and also affordable.
Do you have any experience using any HMDs? I just can't find any merit in your comments.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
3,280
1. Having a tiny TV 6 inches from your eyes with an obnoxious hat is not VR. Everyone needs to stop calling it that.

2. We're at least a decade, probably closer to 2 from anything resembling decent VR. And probably 3-4 decades from anything that will be decent and also affordable.

Hahaahhahhahhahhahaahahhaha!

Newb!
 

bos

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
188
Do you have any experience using any HMDs? I just can't find any merit in your comments.

Yes, going back as late as the 90s, the advances is the past 20yrs are not great, the graphics are greatly improved, but the interface is not. There's a reason 3d tv/movies were a consumer flop, I'll give you a guess.
 

bos

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
188
Aww you're so cute. Someday you'll have a big boy job.

Until then, have fun on a website with members that regularly buy $800 monitors and SLI $600 video cards.

I have $1300 monitor, granted only sli $400 cards. Current "VR" is a long ways away from being anything but a niche product.
 

SBSuperfly

Gawd
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
865
Yes, going back as late as the 90s, the advances is the past 20yrs are not great, the graphics are greatly improved, but the interface is not. There's a reason 3d tv/movies were a consumer flop, I'll give you a guess.
I'll take your vague response to mean that you haven't tried the Vive or the Rift. I do own a Vive and it's absolutely amazing. I know that's only my opinion, but at least it's an informed opinion. I'm 36yo and I remember some of the terrible attempts a VR in my youth and "the advances in the past 20yrs" are incredible. VR is in no way comparable to 3D tv/movies. VR is a totally different medium. It's not meant to replace current modes of gaming or television, but add to them. Once again, I cannot find any merit in your comments. Haters gonna hate I guess.
 

bos

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
188
Wearing something on your face, the size and weight of any available hmds is a big barrier. Look at 3d TV, look at Google glass, wearing shit on your face is not enjoyable for the consumer. In order for VR to be even close to ready for primetime they have to offer full field of vision, react to eye movement, allow you to see your virtual self, and the systems have to offer full range of in game motion while stationary, basically full movement short of running, walking, jumping.. Short of that they're just a display a few inches from your eyes and a gimmick on par with the original Wii but will be far les successful with consumers. The form factor as a package has improved in that its shrunk tremendously and can offer way better graphically quality, but the basic immersion of the experience has not changed even close to enough in the past 20 yrs.
 

prtzlboy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,690
Wearing something on your face, the size and weight of any available hmds is a big barrier. Look at 3d TV, look at Google glass, wearing shit on your face is not enjoyable for the consumer. In order for VR to be even close to ready for primetime they have to offer full field of vision, react to eye movement, allow you to see your virtual self, and the systems have to offer full range of in game motion while stationary, basically full movement short of running, walking, jumping.. Short of that they're just a display a few inches from your eyes and a gimmick on par with the original Wii but will be far les successful with consumers. The form factor as a package has improved in that its shrunk tremendously and can offer way better graphically quality, but the basic immersion of the experience has not changed even close to enough in the past 20 yrs.

So what did you think of Elite Dangerous, Vanishing Realms, and Job Simulator?
 

SBSuperfly

Gawd
Joined
Feb 1, 2006
Messages
865
Wearing something on your face, the size and weight of any available hmds is a big barrier. Look at 3d TV, look at Google glass, wearing shit on your face is not enjoyable for the consumer. In order for VR to be even close to ready for primetime they have to offer full field of vision, react to eye movement, allow you to see your virtual self, and the systems have to offer full range of in game motion while stationary, basically full movement short of running, walking, jumping.. Short of that they're just a display a few inches from your eyes and a gimmick on par with the original Wii but will be far les successful with consumers. The form factor as a package has improved in that its shrunk tremendously and can offer way better graphically quality, but the basic immersion of the experience has not changed even close to enough in the past 20 yrs.

^ This kid sounds like he's calling the automobile shit because you can't fly it to Mars.
 

prtzlboy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,690
^ This kid sounds like he's calling the automobile shit because you can't fly it to Mars.

I know, right?

Kids these days. Cell phones will never catch on as a form factor until they shrink it tremendously until it's an implant allowing instantaneous telepathic communication on demand.
 

Odin87

n00b
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
21
My question is, if VR games/applications ect. aren't to the level that they need to be, would it really be worth the money to spend on a GPU designed for VR such as the Gigabyte xtreme gaming 1080?
There are obviously the OC speeds, and cooling efficiency of the gigabyte xtreme, but somehow I feel like the VR designed GPU will be a failure in the future...
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
3,280
My question is, if VR games/applications ect. aren't to the level that they need to be, would it really be worth the money to spend on a GPU designed for VR such as the Gigabyte xtreme gaming 1080?
There are obviously the OC speeds, and cooling efficiency of the gigabyte xtreme, but somehow I feel like the VR designed GPU will be a failure in the future...

So... much... facepalm. I need more palms... two simply isn't enough.
 

westrock2000

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
9,312
Even so, that's never been done on PC before. Yes, game releases sometimes only sell on Valve's Steam platform, or EA's Origin, but players have never been barred from playing them because their PC wasn't outfitted with a specific brand of component. If a PC was capable of running a game, it was allowed to play a game.

I can think of one example of this in the past, but there may be others.

Mechwarrior 2 had several versions that only worked on that particular video card. I have the Matrox Mystique version.

$_35.JPG


I think the original NASCAR by Papyrus also had some hardware specific versions.

The issue was the lack of standards at the time. Today we have DirectX (or Glide/OpenGL for video only) and so this idea is long gone. And that might be what we are seeing again with these VR helms.

Oh and sound cards were the worst offenders in the early to mid 90's. Ya the game would play, but if you didn't have a certain Sound Blast card or a certain Gravis Ultrasound or Turtle Bay.....no sound for you!
 

TheSmJ

2[H]4U
Joined
Dec 20, 2006
Messages
2,751
I can think of one example of this in the past, but there may be others.

Mechwarrior 2 had several versions that only worked on that particular video card. I have the Matrox Mystique version.


I think the original NASCAR by Papyrus also had some hardware specific versions.

The issue was the lack of standards at the time. Today we have DirectX (or Glide/OpenGL for video only) and so this idea is long gone. And that might be what we are seeing again with these VR helms.

Oh and sound cards were the worst offenders in the early to mid 90's. Ya the game would play, but if you didn't have a certain Sound Blast card or a certain Gravis Ultrasound or Turtle Bay.....no sound for you!

I keep saying this and it always falls on deaf ears. People who complain about this either forget, or are too young to remember PC gaming in the 90s.

Give it 5 years for a universal VR API to be written and all of this exclusivity business will go away. Maybe Microsoft will come up with another extension for DirectX.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
3,280
I agree!
I fear the VR gimmick is going to get old fast, if it isn't old already. That indeed, is in need of more face palms than just two.

Seriously?! Your trolling motor seems to be hitting weeds now. Time to move on Mr. Trolly MacTrollface.
 

bos

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2016
Messages
188
So what did you think of Elite Dangerous, Vanishing Realms, and Job Simulator?

Other than the better graphics and it can be run a much smaller system, it's the same as shit available in the 90s, no eye movement recognition, relies on head movement, meh. I mean floating weapons with no player visible....seriously, and the vanishing realms graphics were like WoW from 10 years ago, and job simulator... that looks just slightly less pixelated than 20yrs ago. I guess if you never messed with VR in the past this seems great, but like I said other than running a smaller system vs. needing a large rack system and the improved graphics it's not doing anything that wasn't being done almost 20 yrs ago.

A little history for you.

 
Last edited:

prtzlboy

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,690
Other than the better graphics and it can be run a much smaller system, it's the same as shit available in the 90s, no eye movement recognition, relies on head movement, meh. I mean floating weapons with no player visible....seriously, and the vanishing realms graphics were like WoW from 10 years ago, and job simulator... that looks just slightly less pixelated than 20yrs ago. I guess if you never messed with VR in the past this seems great, but like I said other than running a smaller system vs. needing a large rack system and the improved graphics it's not doing anything that wasn't being done almost 20 yrs ago.

A little history for you.



So you're saying you haven't tried the new games. I guess we're done here.
 

Odin87

n00b
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
21
Seriously?! Your trolling motor seems to be hitting weeds now. Time to move on Mr. Trolly MacTrollface.

/Facepalm
Says the guy who isn't adding anything constructive to the discussion.

Anyhow, I think what they need to come out with, is a contact that is connected to the program. That is the next step in VR imo....But with that lies potential health risks I'd assume...
 

Litfod

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
1,465
Other than the better graphics and it can be run a much smaller system, it's the same as shit available in the 90s, no eye movement recognition, relies on head movement, meh. I mean floating weapons with no player visible....seriously, and the vanishing realms graphics were like WoW from 10 years ago, and job simulator... that looks just slightly less pixelated than 20yrs ago. I guess if you never messed with VR in the past this seems great, but like I said other than running a smaller system vs. needing a large rack system and the improved graphics it's not doing anything that wasn't being done almost 20 yrs ago.

If you really can't tell the difference between using a Vive/Rift and a Virtuality machine you may as well give up. There won't be a VR system which satisfies your ludicrous criteria for centuries, until it can be implanted in your head and interfaced directly with your neural pathways. We'll all be long dead before that's possible, so I'd rather just enjoy playing the games we have right now.

It's like writing off all modern motor cars because, hey, they don't do anything the Model T didn't do a hundred years ago, and because they don't teleport you instantly from place to place.
 

Team Merica

Weaksauce
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
83
I would say Giantbomb's video detailing his experiences with the HTC Vive says it all. There appears to be a long way to go before you can have a quality experience with a really engaging game in VR. I personally have no interest in these systems when I see their current level of capability.

Combine this lack of value for the relatively high price point, with the market division and crappy sales tactics... Yes, maybe terrible in the immediate future.

 
Top