• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

It Might Be Time to Admit the Great VR Experiment Has Failed

P

polonyc2

Fully [H]
2FA
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
28,349
A survey conducted in late 2024 by the Game Developer Collective reported that over half of all developers asked consider the VR market to be in decline or stagnant..only just short of a quarter of respondents thought the market was still growing...less than half of developers currently not on board with VR projects could see their studio pivoting to creating VR titles in the future...even the presence of a big player like Apple made little impact on those surveyed...on top of this, research from Omdia showed a 10% decline in headset sales in 2024, with another decline expected in 2025

With the exception of the Meta Quest platform, VR is also still a relatively expensive hobby...PC and console VR solutions require both the headset and whatever it is you're going to be plugging it into...PC VR requires a decent gaming PC and a headset like the $1,200 HTC Vive Pro 2...Sony's price is a little easier to swallow, requiring "only" a $399 PSVR 2 headset and a $499 PlayStation 5

Modern VR feels analogous to something like a racing wheel and pedals rather than consoles, handhelds like the Steam Deck, or even taking on the project of building a PC...everyone knows the wheel and pedals are more fun, offer better control, and feel more immersive but how many of us go ahead and build such a setup?...

https://www.howtogeek.com/it-might-be-time-to-admit-the-great-vr-experiment-has-failed/
 
This is the second big VR push. The first one arounf 1995 failed all the way; nobody was supporting i-glasses or VFX headsets etc by 2000.

This generation, the headsets are better, tracking is acheivable, the software is better. The units sold has been significant. I think it may be enough that some people will keep using them, and they'll continue to see some support in new software.

That trickle of support is important, because it means when the next generational push for VR comes, there's already a library for new to the market users. And new to the market developers can see what works and doesn't without having to try it all themselves.

I'm just not comfortable in the headsets I've tried, but it has potential. All your VR enthusiasts are going to have to wait for the sci-fi future where we're all living in our headsets 24/7 though.
 
Well, I told you, even when everyone was riding the hype train at its peak, that VR is a fad, and at best it will become a niche like racing wheels or other specialized input devices only suitable for certain games.

toast0 said:
This is the second big VR push.
Click to expand...
Not is, was. It already failed when Alyx wasn't followed up by more AAA VR games.
 
I'm not sure it'll ever work until they can make the whole process smaller and more natural. The PSVR2 is 100x easier than the first version, but it's still something you have to full-on commit to in order to fire up a game for 10-15 minutes.
 
As much as I've tried to get into VR (psvr and psvr2), my brain doesn't like it. The unnatural movement is what annoys it since there's a huge disconnect between what my senses are telling me and what my eyes are seeing.

I really liked 3d vision and it didn't screw with my head. Modern OLEDs, miniLEDs and laser projectors should fix the brightness issues. They should bring back support for it.
 
I never saw the point of it, seemed like a niche product. Kind of like LCD glasses back in the day.
 
That racing wheels / joystick analogy is maybe not bad (in terms of analogy or VR achieving to be that).

In my very limited experience, VR is specially good in game where your human in the world is not moving, stock in a cockpit and the value for plane-car-spaceship simulator is obvious.

Anything that is more than the very little inconvenience is an hard push (pokemon go style of games for example, did they continued catched on ? or in most market it was a one off ?)
 
Last edited:
My Quest 2 gathers dust because HL Alyx was the only real enjoyable full game experience I had. Most of the other games felt like tech demos.

The experience also just isn't as intuitive as a standard KB+M or controller. Unless I use it regularly, I need to fumble around for hours like a drunk toddler before anything feels even remotely fluid.
 
Last edited:
I think the Quest 3 so far has been the best push for it, in terms of image quality and value. Wireless and inside out tracking makes it far more accessible, and the price is reasonable.

That said, the high-end marking keeps pushing out new headsets so I guess someone is buying them? Bigscreen Beyond 2 looks cool, but I'm not spending $1200 on JUST the headset (even though I do have Index controllers and base stations).

We'll see if the Valve Deckard rumors ever amount to anything.
 
VR isn't the future, at least not right now; AR smart glasses are where it's at.

Smartphones up-ended the tech world because they were easy to carry, easy to use, and could take over many functions without removing you too much from the world around you. People expect those now. Even a super-portable VR headset wouldn't change the reality that you're isolating yourself from everyone as long as you're using it.

AR smart glasses would effectively be the new smartphone. You could always have them with you; they're potentially very intuitive; you could do much of what you already do on your phone, and more.

The main challenge: making hardware that lives up to all those expectations. It needs to be reasonably fast, last all day (you shouldn't have to recharge your glasses after work), and have cameras good enough to replace phone cams for casual use... all the while looking like a normal, stylish pair of glasses. That's a tough hill to climb, and even if Google/Meta/others have viable glasses in a couple of years, that doesn't mean they'll be so good that you replace your phone with them.

VR, for now at least, is better for pros or certain kinds of games.
 
I wanted to like VR, but rather than the "ultra realistic" experience in games I really like I had hoped to get from it, instead it wound up being something for trivial parlor games.

I want something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2 but in 3d, and more realistic and immersive. Not a Nintendo Wii I wear on my face.

That - to me - is the problem with VR as we got it. They went after the "casual parlor game" market instead of the massive open world immersive storytelling FPS market I would have liked.

I mean, there was a VR version of Fallout 4, and I might have been interested in that, but it came out more than 2 years after the original launched. I had long since finished the game at that point.

I feel like the decision was somehow made that this would be a mass market technology, rather than something that targets people who like existing video games, and I can understand that perspective, as it is a new technology, and as a business you want to go after the largest market you can get, but the result essentially was that the industry as a whole just wasn't making the type of content I was interested in.

At least not enough of it to warrant the rather sizeable investment in the likes of a HTC Vive Pro or something like that.

That, and I will never buy any hardware that is tied to an online account, so Meta and their Oculus products can screw right off.

There is a reason that the free and open internet defeated the likes of AOL and Compuserve, and it will be a cold day in hell before I ever buy into hardware tied to a proprietary VR initiative or social media platform.

I viewed VR as potentially the best monitor ever I could use to play the games I want to play.

They viewed it as a new genre all together and a way of locking users into their social media platforms, and homey don't play that.

Make me a device that is technically superior, essentially a monitor (with accelerometer controllers), not tied to any online account (and doesn't talk on the network at all) and will work with every AAA game in my inventory.

Then I'll buy it. Heck, if it is good enough, I'll even drop a few grand on it. After all, I spend that kind of money on a good screen...
 
Last edited:
Good passthrough tech could make the in-between no helmet and light glass transition easier (cutting you less of the world, complex flight sim with a lot of buttons controls easier, if you have to move around in some game), but that type of lot of parts would limit it to high-cost device.....

Zarathustra[H] said:
for trivial parlor games.
Click to expand...
Have you tried it for the Elite Dangerous 2 type of games ?

It make so much sense when you play game that you are in actual cockpit and looking around and the advantage of the space versus some other one, there is no surprise movement you did not cause as much (I feel like when you control movement in a predictable way, less nausea....)

Outside the cheap to make and simple enough to run on the local limited hardware that make a lot of sense, they also went for the SIM market (cars, plane, spaceship) that also is very natural for it.

It is the most transformative gaming experience tech for that type of games since 3d card and soundcard in the 90s I feel like, when you take your ship to close to the sun I start to smell burn toast with how immersive it can get, too complicated to setup still in a box since last move too.
 
Last edited:
Unrealistic expectations were the problem, rather than VR itself, IMO. Companies thought that people would strap something to their face every time they wanted to relax with a quick gaming session, and that was just never going to happen. 2016-2019 saw a lot of investment borne out of FOMO, and 2020 saw that VR could move a lot of units if the price is heavily subsidized. The Quest 2 and 3 were a lot like the Wii: compelling to many at the right price, but with low long-term engagement.

Now we’re in the valley with VR. The headsets are good enough for an impressive experience, but nowhere near flatscreen, and the things that need to happen for greater adoption are at cross-purposes. The headsets need to get much lighter and more wearable, but also much more powerful. Better clarity, but also wider field of view. More capable, but also a lot cheaper. And the real money-maker, practical and affordable AR glasses, is still off somewhere in the future.

The OP’s comparison to sim racing wheels and pedals is apt. There are some gamers who just can’t stomach a racing game or a flight sim on a controller, just like I no longer find flat gaming interesting. Without the immersion of VR, I’m just playing a crappier version of the same gameplay loops from 20 years ago, but soullessly designed by committee instead of the talented visionaries that created those original ideas. For me and a few million others, gaming is pointless without VR, even though I fully acknowledge all of the reasons that others don’t feel the same way.
 
Domingo said:
I'm not sure it'll ever work until they can make the whole process smaller and more natural.
Click to expand...
The funny thing is that I have a racing wheel sitting literally in arms reach, all I have to do to use it is put it in front of me, tighten the tiedown screws and plug it in. All possible without even having to stand up from the PC. And yet....I still play driving games with the keyboard 99% of the time. How is this relevant? Because as my example shows, you can't possibly make VR more seamless and less involved to use than this, and it's still not enough.
 
I have an old samsung Odyssey+ and a quest 3

and honestly, its the games....they just suck. HL Alex was alright, but otherwise I think beatsaber was and still is the peak of VR. Everything else just feels like a mobile game.
 
I enjoy my psvr2, for me a big upgrade from my htc vive. But yea, with having a baby, i need to wait for her to be in bed and no one hanging out in the living room before I can play some gorn or arizona sunshine.

Or I can pick up a controller and play call of duty without bothering anyone.

I get it
 
So many boomer takes here out of touch with what the equivalent kids we once were are into now days.

Quest outsold the Xbox. VR has had a slow but steady growth and continues to.

AA VR games continue to flop because the big devs don't understand VR and make shitty games. (they have the same flawed ideas about VR as the boomers in this thread)

Indy games like Gorilla Tag are hugely popular amoung kids and make 100 million dollars. https://www.pushtotalk.gg/p/are-random-vr-games-making-100-million
 
sharknice said:
So many boomer takes here out of touch with what the equivalent kids we once were are into now days.

Quest outsold the Xbox. VR has had a slow but steady growth and continues to.

AA VR games continue to flop because the big devs don't understand VR and make shitty games. (they have the same flawed ideas about VR as the boomers in this thread)

Indy games like Gorilla Tag are hugely popular amoung kids and make 100 million dollars. https://www.pushtotalk.gg/p/are-random-vr-games-making-100-million
Click to expand...

To each their own I guess.

I don't play with kids. :p If what you are describing is being "in touch" then I'd rather be out of touch :p

I had never heard of Gorilla Tag but it looks like a dreadful social media game for children.

If the kids want to play that, let them have their fun, but it is not for me.

I don't play MineCraft, Roblox, Rocket League or anything else like that for kids either because - well - I am no longer a child.

Give me a good gritty and realistic story-based open world AAA FPS title with RPG elements though, and I am usually hooked. Or give me a historically accurate "tactical" WWII title Red Orchestra, and I'm into it.

Though its tough to find the time during the day for the multiplayer part as an adult, so I generally don't do that anymore. Last time I did was probably ~2017 or so when I was still playing a lot of Red Orchestra 2. Heck, I don't even have Discord. Never have. Never will. I was OK with private Teamspeak servers, or evne further back Ventrilo, but I don't want to create an account with a cloud service. And I've never streamed a game or watched anyone stream a game, and never will. I'll play games myself, but I have no interest in watching other play games. And it's usually something I do alone late at night to decompress. Not a social thing for me. Not online or locally in the living room.

I also don't want fast paced twitchy F2P lootbox and microtransaction garbage like Fortnite, Overwatch, Apex Legends or anything like that. I used to love Counter-Strike back in the day, but I feel like ver since Global Offensive came out in 2012 it has gone to complete shit. It was better before official servers, matchmaking, lootboxes and skins.

I have absolutely no interest at all in anything in the "fun and goofy hangout with my friends" category. That shit is for kids and completely and totally uninteresting to me.

And that's what the VR folks have focused on. Not only will they not draw me into VR. If those were the only games left, I'd just stop playing games all together, with or without VR.
 
mullet said:
VR = same enthusiasm as 3D Tv's
Click to expand...

Yeah, there are lots of parallels to me.

Except VR is worse, as they try to link it to social networks instead of it just being a standalone piece of hardware.

I find it kind of tropubling that Meta is selling so many headsets to kids.

We don't need kids sucked into this Second Life / Metaverse bullshit.

Remember when we used to make fun of the misfits who were into that bullshit? We probably still should.

1742503975758.png
 
Last edited:
sharknice said:
Quest outsold the Xbox. VR has had a slow but steady growth and continues to.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Xbox (hardware*) has been failing hard for years now with Playstation being more dominant.

Rumor is even that the next generation Xbox hardware will just be Microsoft branded NUC PC.

They have been moving in the direction of prioritizing the PC platform for some time now.

So, it really isn't a surprise that absolutely anyhting will have outsold the Xbox.

(*I'm still annoyed Microsoft rebranded Xbox from just being a console, to meaning anything games related Microsoft is involved with. It's so ambiguous)
 
There's definitely a pretty big difference between Quest games and big name/big budget stuff for the consoles and PC. It isn't quite as extreme, but it's akin to comparing Cyberpunk to Candy Crush. I think those stand-alone setups are probably the future at this point. They're underpowered, but they're convenient and easy. My hope is that they push the concept forward before larger studios/platforms bail on the concept and kill any chance of future AAA titles. Mobile games have finally drug themselves out of the mire, but that took a while.
 
M76 said:
Well, I told you, even when everyone was riding the hype train at its peak, that VR is a fad, and at best it will become a niche like racing wheels or other specialized input devices only suitable for certain games.
Click to expand...

It is wonderful for flight sims. Problems still exist though:

- Poor comfort
- High cost
- Sub par audio, typically hard to use with headphones as they may slide off or have fitment issues
- Software issues, my biggest problem with my Quest 2
- Particular to the Quest 2/Quest line, the charge while play cable (3rd party) is finicky. I had to enable a USB setting in motherboard BIOS but a BIOS update seemed to break that
- High resolution to not be blurry means you need a much faster GPU, that costs a lot more. Run into VRAM issues on a Quest 2 (low resolution for a VR headset) with a 4070 with 12GB VRAM. That means you need a $750+ GPU.
- Related to the Quest 2 - has tracking issues in the dark
- Hard to see keyboard/mouse

A $75 Grass Monkey IR has the same functionality, without the screen wrapped to your head. Only major downside is it does not work with ambient light so you need a dark room. The VR does add more immersion without a doubt and it also performs better at high off angles like looking over your shoulder, and the movement is more natural to the body in VR where as an IR tracker is more like a turret, but it gets 90% of the core functionality. Only point of frustration is the need for a dark room.

I use the Grass Monkey IR 90% of the time. I just use VR every now and then when I want to do a close range dog fight or flight around mountains.


I tried a "VR only" game, which worked okay. It was a target shooting game and I did like it but it lacked depth. The biggest issue is it was designed like a phone game rather than just giving you a bunch of guns and courses you needed to access a store with a horrific motion controller UI. Not a replacement for more detailed games, but can carve out a niche if designed better. Most "VR games" are designed like phone games which is disappointing.
 
Flogger23m said:
It is wonderful for flight sims. Problems still exist though:

- Poor comfort
- High cost
- Sub par audio, typically hard to use with headphones as they may slide off or have fitment issues
- Software issues, my biggest problem with my Quest 2
- Particular to the Quest 2/Quest line, the charge while play cable (3rd party) is finicky. I had to enable a USB setting in motherboard BIOS but a BIOS update seemed to break that
- High resolution to not be blurry means you need a much faster GPU, that costs a lot more. Run into VRAM issues on a Quest 2 (low resolution for a VR headset) with a 4070 with 12GB VRAM. That means you need a $750+ GPU.
- Related to the Quest 2 - has tracking issues in the dark
- Hard to see keyboard/mouse

A $75 Grass Monkey IR has the same functionality, without the screen wrapped to your head. Only major downside is it does not work with ambient light so you need a dark room. The VR does add more immersion without a doubt and it also performs better at high off angles like looking over your shoulder, and the movement is more natural to the body in VR where as an IR tracker is more like a turret, but it gets 90% of the core functionality. Only point of frustration is the need for a dark room.

I use the Grass Monkey IR 90% of the time. I just use VR every now and then when I want to do a close range dog fight or flight around mountains.


I tried a "VR only" game, which worked okay. It was a target shooting game and I did like it but it lacked depth. The biggest issue is it was designed like a phone game rather than just giving you a bunch of guns and courses you needed to access a store with a horrific motion controller UI. Not a replacement for more detailed games, but can carve out a niche if designed better. Most "VR games" are designed like phone games which is disappointing.
Click to expand...

It would be really cool if someone figured out a universal VR interface for FPS titles.

I'm not even talking room scale. Just seated VR.

There would be some challenges, like:
1.) How you move around the world. That static teleportation shit is no good. Some specialty controller with directional buttons on it would probably be best.
2.) How to handle accelerometer head movement separately from weapon movement & aiming
3.) Standard API hooks in major game engines so any title can run in VR mode with one render per eyeball.

Essentially, the accessory experience. Just like you'd connect a monitor for output and a keyboard and mouse for input, you could instead plug in your favorite headset for outpout, and your preferred VR controllers for input.

It shouldn't be that difficult though. It's not a problem of technology. The technology already exists. It's a poroblem of standardization.

I just cant justify buying into a headset until I see that I can just open whichever AAA game I want and run it without worrying about special VR integration and stuff like that. Something like a HTC Vive Pro 2 is quite expensive.

And the fucking casual all in one headsets with mobile phone level of CPU/GPU power are completely and totally uninteresting to me. Give me something powerred by my high end PC or give me nothing at all.
 
LukeTbk said:
Have you tried it for the Elite Dangerous 2 type of games ?
Click to expand...

I don't have the time to dedicate to games like that anymore.

I loved Wing Commander Privateer back in 1994, an I'd probably get way too addicted to something like that.

I did play Starfield, but mostly because it was an FPS title. I'm not looking to get into any dedicated flight sims, either in space or on earth.

Honestly, since Half-Life came out in 1999, the only game I've played that wasn't an FPS (well, OK, game series) has been Sid Meier's Civilization. (And while this used to be a must buy series for me, the latest installation seems completely uninteresting, so I haven't even bothered)
 
I use an IR headset in a lit room, there's a reflection of some kind that causes me trouble from time to time but it's nothing major. My room lighting isn't super bright though. You can also use a webcam for the same and bright lighting will be beneficial. My experience was sub-par compared to IR with one game but I wasn't using a good camera.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
I wanted to like VR, but rather than the "ultra realistic" experience in games I really like I had hoped to get from it, instead it wound up being something for trivial parlor games.

I want something like S.T.A.L.K.E.R 2 but in 3d, and more realistic and immersive. Not a Nintendo Wii I wear on my face.

That - to me - is the problem with VR as we got it. They went after the "casual parlor game" market instead of the massive open world immersive storytelling FPS market I would have liked.

I mean, there was a VR version of Fallout 4, and I might have been interested in that, but it came out more than 2 years after the original launched. I had long since finished the game at that point.

I feel like the decision was somehow made that this would be a mass market technology, rather than something that targets people who like existing video games, and I can understand that perspective, as it is a new technology, and as a business you want to go after the largest market you can get, but the result essentially was that the industry as a whole just wasn't making the type of content I was interested in.

At least not enough of it to warrant the rather sizeable investment in the likes of a HTC Vive Pro or something like that.

That, and I will never buy any hardware that is tied to an online account, so Meta and their Oculus products can screw right off.

There is a reason that the free and open internet defeated the likes of AOL and Compuserve, and it will be a cold day in hell before I ever buy into hardware tied to a proprietary VR initiative or social media platform.

I viewed VR as potentially the best monitor ever I could use to play the games I want to play.

They viewed it as a new genre all together and a way of locking users into their social media platforms, and homey don't play that.

Make me a device that is technically superior, essentially a monitor (with accelerometer controllers), not tied to any online account (and doesn't talk on the network at all) and will work with every AAA game in my inventory.

Then I'll buy it. Heck, if it is good enough, I'll even drop a few grand on it. After all, I spend that kind of money on a good screen...
Click to expand...
Hoo boy, do I feel your pain.

The early days of the new VR renaissance - when we were getting stuff like Onward, Robo Recall, BONEWORKS, GORN, and also having stuff like Elite: Dangerous, DCS World, IL-2 Sturmovik: Great Battles, DiRT Rally, and so forth round things out for cockpit sims - that was what I wanted, maybe with hopes that we'd get ArmA or STALKER with full-blown VR support later. It's just that much more immersive than pancake gaming to where it's hard to go back.

Sure, we got a few more things - Half-Life: Alyx being the big one, but I also remember Vox Machinae being an excruciating wait from announcement to release - but most of that dried up and we're seeing mostly asset flips now. Worse off, I can't even run Robo Recall on my current PC like I used to, though switching from the Oculus Rift CV1 to the Valve Index and needing Revive as a consequence probably isn't helping.

I feel like VR still has a lot of untapped potential, but the hardware is just too damned expensive for most when it's not a Quest 2/3, and this is coming from the guy who built up a much more powerful PC with an RTX 4080 with a $1,000 Valve Index full kit attached just to try and avoid framedrops in DCS, which is notoriously demanding in VR. Forget Crysis, forget STALKER 2, DCS is so punishing that in addition to needing an RTX 4080-class GPU minimum to avoid reprojection (and it's gotta be NVIDIA unless AMD fixed their drivers since the last time I had an RX 7900 XTX), you also need 64 GB of RAM and an NVMe SSD to keep your frames up.

Some of that potential isn't just gaming per se; I think there's a lot of creative potential in the tech, too, like drafting up parametric CAD models with actual perceivable scale before you put them into production, or just typical 3D modeling/sculpting. (What the hell happened to Oculus-I mean Adobe Medium, anyway? They bought it and seemingly did nothing with it, but I suppose that's better than the alternative, given how Adobe's business model relies on enshittification.)
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It would be really cool if someone figured out a universal VR interface for FPS titles.

I'm not even talking room scale. Just seated VR.

There would be some challenges, like:
1.) How you move around the world. That static teleportation shit is no good. Some specialty controller with directional buttons on it would probably be best.
2.) How to handle accelerometer head movement separately from weapon movement & aiming
3.) Standard API hooks in major game engines so any title can run in VR mode with one render per eyeball.

Essentially, the accessory experience. Just like you'd connect a monitor for output and a keyboard and mouse for input, you could instead plug in your favorite headset for outpout, and your preferred VR controllers for input.

It shouldn't be that difficult though. It's not a problem of technology. The technology already exists. It's a poroblem of standardization.

I just cant justify buying into a headset until I see that I can just open whichever AAA game I want and run it without worrying about special VR integration and stuff like that. Something like a HTC Vive Pro 2 is quite expensive.

And the fucking casual all in one headsets with mobile phone level of CPU/GPU power are completely and totally uninteresting to me. Give me something powerred by my high end PC or give me nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Part of the problem is cost/ergonomics, the other is (IMO) a poor design philosophy for VR games. For the Quest line, they do have an integrated GPU/CPU and OS but are the cheapest VR headsets. I just use it with my PC as the flight sims/games I play aren't on the Quest store anyways. The problem is the Quest 2/3S are the cheapest VR headsets out there (add another $70 for accessories to make it usable though). I would prefer to save $40, some weight, bulk/size, and avoid the annoying OS updates. An affordable PC VR only headset. The problem is the next cheapest option is $400 or so.

I know Meta seemingly covers the cost of hardware by pushing their Quest store (like Steam but for Quest OS) which is probably why the hardware cost is lower than the alternatives. I paid $200 for my Quest 2, another $40 for some accessories (charging cable & head strap adapter). But I just wish there was a similarly priced headset without the CPU/GPU/ Meta OS. For me, it just adds bulk/heat on my forehead.

I really only use it for DCS, Ace Combat 7 (via a Unreal Engine VR mod) and Project Wingman. It also worked with Star Wars Squadrons.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
To each their own I guess.

I don't play with kids. :p If what you are describing is being "in touch" then I'd rather be out of touch :p

I had never heard of Gorilla Tag but it looks like a dreadful social media game for children.

If the kids want to play that, let them have their fun, but it is not for me.

I don't play MineCraft, Roblox, Rocket League or anything else like that for kids either because - well - I am no longer a child.

Give me a good gritty and realistic story-based open world AAA FPS title with RPG elements though, and I am usually hooked. Or give me a historically accurate "tactical" WWII title Red Orchestra, and I'm into it.

Though its tough to find the time during the day for the multiplayer part as an adult, so I generally don't do that anymore. Last time I did was probably ~2017 or so when I was still playing a lot of Red Orchestra 2. Heck, I don't even have Discord. Never have. Never will. I was OK with private Teamspeak servers, or evne further back Ventrilo, but I don't want to create an account with a cloud service. And I've never streamed a game or watched anyone stream a game, and never will. I'll play games myself, but I have no interest in watching other play games. And it's usually something I do alone late at night to decompress. Not a social thing for me. Not online or locally in the living room.

I also don't want fast paced twitchy F2P lootbox and microtransaction garbage like Fortnite, Overwatch, Apex Legends or anything like that. I used to love Counter-Strike back in the day, but I feel like ver since Global Offensive came out in 2012 it has gone to complete shit. It was better before official servers, matchmaking, lootboxes and skins.

I have absolutely no interest at all in anything in the "fun and goofy hangout with my friends" category. That shit is for kids and completely and totally uninteresting to me.

And that's what the VR folks have focused on. Not only will they not draw me into VR. If those were the only games left, I'd just stop playing games all together, with or without VR.
Click to expand...

The problem is you want to play tradditional flat screen games in VR which isn't much more than strapping a screen to your face. That's just one step away from the people in here that think VR is the equivalent of 3D TV.

Where VR really shines is the motion controls. The best selling games like Beat Saber and Gorilla Tag are not even playable sitting down.
They're physically active games where you stand up, move around, turn around, and move your arms IN REAL LIFE.

Physical activity is the mass appeal of VR. It's not for lazy bums that can't even be bothered to stand up.
 
jlbenedict said:
Tell my son that... lol
He's constantly wearing one of those damn things 🤣
Click to expand...

To add- recently added this for more "immersion" i suppose... ill have to see what he thinks of it after a couple days.

https://www.bhaptics.com/en/tactsuit/tactsuit-air/

Way I understand it... example.. a game like Skyrim vr...if you get shot in the chest...or back..or hit... the motors in that section of the vest will vibrate
 
VR failed because you want people to spend more on a VR Headset than they do on their graphics card. People don't have money and already have a hard time getting a cost effective GPU. The only VR game that wasn't a gimmick was Half Life Alyx, which is not enough reason to go out and buy a VR headset.
 
sharknice said:
So many boomer takes here out of touch with what the equivalent kids we once were are into now days.

Quest outsold the Xbox. VR has had a slow but steady growth and continues to.

AA VR games continue to flop because the big devs don't understand VR and make shitty games. (they have the same flawed ideas about VR as the boomers in this thread)

Indy games like Gorilla Tag are hugely popular amoung kids and make 100 million dollars. https://www.pushtotalk.gg/p/are-random-vr-games-making-100-million
Click to expand...
You can't just say "the same flawed ideas about VR" because nobody knows but you what ideas you actually refer to. And after identifying them you still need to explain why do you believe them to be flawed.

There are random shitty mobile games that make many millions, that doesn't make them less shitty. Arguments to popularity won't be enough, especially popularity among kids.Since VR is a really expensive accessory it needs to win over the "boomers" who have disposable income to become a success, apart from the cheaper quest offering a mobile game experience.

And it's time to lay off boomers anyway, all of them are in their sixties by now. Half of Gen Z are also no longer kids but legal adults already!
 
jlbenedict said:
To add- recently added this for more "immersion" i suppose... ill have to see what he thinks of it after a couple days.

https://www.bhaptics.com/en/tactsuit/tactsuit-air/

Way I understand it... example.. a game like Skyrim vr...if you get shot in the chest...or back..or hit... the motors in that section of the vest will vibrate
Click to expand...

I've had it for a little over the year now, it works great, and does provide good directionality. I notice a huge difference when playing VR with and without it, as it does provide another good layer of immersion, and help with finding directionality when being hit, and also even for odd games like beat saber/ synth riders, it just changes the experience.

I've always been interested in these types immersion increasing experiences, I had a TNGames/3rd Space gaming vest in the late 00's and I thought those provided a much better , um impact, but that's because you basically hooked up to a small air compressor and it had actuators that would hit you as opposed to a vibro motor in there. It was actually pretty crazy playing FPS's with, as you could tell directionality from where people were shooting you from .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top