Why You are Wrong that VR is Going to Fail

I don't post very often on this site but I would like to give my 2cents worth.
I just bought the Rift with touch Saturday and after having it for a few days I can say that it's great. My wife tried the google earth app and loved it (even though she got dizzy after 10-15 minutes). As for the guy that says he has one and says it's going to fail I don't believe he has one. He hasn't given any indication that he has tried an app or game and why he doesn't like it (and not answering Kyle's question).
The two apps that to me are game changers (that I've tried) is Roborecall and VRporn. They do make you feel like you are right in the action.
The only thing that I hope gets better with time is the display. As technology gets better and 4k is more the norm then I am hoping the screen door effect is completely gone.
 
Flight sims are one of the first thing I'd DEFINITELY want to try VR for.


I just got the VR update for IL2 Battle of Stalingrad and it's a blast. DCS A10 was cool in VR but this is a magnitude better because of the close in dogfights. If you have VR hardware and are into flight simming you owe it to yourself to get IL2 BoS.
 
I don't think VR will fail, I just think it's going to take a generation or two of hardware for it to be truly interesting at a non-novelty level.

This is a fair statement. I also think that mobile VR is going to continue to improve dramatically as well. Carmack recently pushed an update to Gear VR that greatly improved the visual clarity (just code!). Believe in the Carmack!

Future standalone sets are going to be very interesting as well. They'll obviously fit somewhere between phone adapter and PC tethered, but I think they'll dominate commercial applications. Architecture, education, medical.. that kind of stuff I can see really benefiting that. Someone I know works for a building office design company that uses Vive to show their office layout to clients, she travels all over the place with a Vive in a case to meet with clients and demo their stuff. When they can get a standalone headset that can handle the types of VR applications they are using it for complete with inside-out tracking, make no mistake - that will be a huge benefit to them.
 
VR will not thrive, because the content isn't there, and content won't get investment for development because the means to deliver it is still being developed. The People who support 'VR' are making the same mistake folks who backed HD-DVD did. They hyped a product and got people interested, but failed to deliver enough to keep their interest while Sony went full 'bawlz to the wall' and hammered the market. The ONLY market available to VR are individuals with significant disposable income to spend on it AND the available free time with which to use it. This particular 'market' is also notoriously short on attention span. 99% of us simply want better graphics representation, more available selection and ease of access. VR is going to fade just like 3D is... because deep down, it's just one more shiny object the industry is using in a desperate attempt to get people to spend money.

Most 'consumers' aren't willing to re-build or upgrade until the jump in tech is high enough to warrant the cost. They then tend to sit on that investment for a significant amount of time before doing any kind of further upgrade. How many people have monitors on their desk well over 5 years old, despite new versions being released pretty much every 60 days on cycle.

VR simply doesn't warrant the cost OR effort to get involved.
 
4k phone displays will saturate the market by 2018

By then, VR will have lost its training wheels, and games will have built in minimum thresholds with regards to FPS and HMD input lag. We will track eyes, focus rendering horsepower into the user's foveal vision, develop better lenses to make more efficient use of the outer screen areas, side mirrors will expand the FOV across all degrees of vision.

On the desktop, you can play a game at 30 FPS more or less the same as 72. In VR, all the nice immersive effects that define the experience go away when below certain frame rates, and most people will not scale back graphics.
They'd rather complain. Because it's easier than thinking.

VR has not been Fischer Priced fully yet.
 
VR will not thrive, because the content isn't there, and content won't get investment for development because the means to deliver it is still being developed. The People who support 'VR' are making the same mistake folks who backed HD-DVD did. They hyped a product and got people interested, but failed to deliver enough to keep their interest while Sony went full 'bawlz to the wall' and hammered the market. The ONLY market available to VR are individuals with significant disposable income to spend on it AND the available free time with which to use it. This particular 'market' is also notoriously short on attention span. 99% of us simply want better graphics representation, more available selection and ease of access. VR is going to fade just like 3D is... because deep down, it's just one more shiny object the industry is using in a desperate attempt to get people to spend money.

Most 'consumers' aren't willing to re-build or upgrade until the jump in tech is high enough to warrant the cost. They then tend to sit on that investment for a significant amount of time before doing any kind of further upgrade. How many people have monitors on their desk well over 5 years old, despite new versions being released pretty much every 60 days on cycle.

VR simply doesn't warrant the cost OR effort to get involved.

Just about every IT product that's in common use today started out niche, impractical, expensive, etc. Clearly the fate of VR will be based on how well the current issues it faces are solved. But even if VR never hits the mainstream, I don't see it fading away. There's enough entertainment and practical applications to it to keep it going.
 
Just about every IT product that's in common use today started out niche, impractical, expensive, etc. Clearly the fate of VR will be based on how well the current issues it faces are solved. But even if VR never hits the mainstream, I don't see it fading away. There's enough entertainment and practical applications to it to keep it going.

Agreed. Home audio setups are niche, still a good market for those. Most people are fine with the speakers on their tv, next step up is a sound bar. Many dont understand that just because something doesn't end up in 90% of homes, does not equal failure. Home projectors are probably in the same group as well, or flight stick controllers and flight chairs for the flight sim enthusiasts. There are so many things that exist in this space of 'niche' and survive well enough.

This time I do feel it has enough traction to keep going and improving. Likely it will never hit the $99 price tag it would require to be in most homes, but I am fine with that. Let the peasants have their slouchy drooling game playing. I can't wait to get my vr setup!
 
VR will not thrive, because the content isn't there, and content won't get investment for development because the means to deliver it is still being developed. The People who support 'VR' are making the same mistake folks who backed HD-DVD did. They hyped a product and got people interested, but failed to deliver enough to keep their interest while Sony went full 'bawlz to the wall' and hammered the market. The ONLY market available to VR are individuals with significant disposable income to spend on it AND the available free time with which to use it. This particular 'market' is also notoriously short on attention span. 99% of us simply want better graphics representation, more available selection and ease of access. VR is going to fade just like 3D is... because deep down, it's just one more shiny object the industry is using in a desperate attempt to get people to spend money.

Most 'consumers' aren't willing to re-build or upgrade until the jump in tech is high enough to warrant the cost. They then tend to sit on that investment for a significant amount of time before doing any kind of further upgrade. How many people have monitors on their desk well over 5 years old, despite new versions being released pretty much every 60 days on cycle.

VR simply doesn't warrant the cost OR effort to get involved.

VR will never fade, your scope is to narrow.

There are 7 Billion people in a global market, plenty of room for Niche products.

There is countless applications for VR technology outside of games.

AR is becoming a thing and imho will merge with VR to complete the experience.

The games are great fun for being mostly tech demo's. For a brand new consumer technology, the cost of entry isn't that high, I spent $3,600 on a 720p 37" LCD TV in 2002, same TV today is worth about $200. 4k was 10k when it launched here, today I can get one for $1,500. The cost of entry for VR is the same or less than it was for a LCD TV in the early 2000's, or a 4k TV just 5 years ago.

As for monitors, that is a completely different ballpark man, for the average daily use, a old monitor is just fine. Unless you need/want a feature offered by a new product (144hz, gsync, etc) there is little reason to upgrade a monitor thats 5+ years old.
 
VR will never fade, your scope is to narrow.

There are 7 Billion people in a global market, plenty of room for Niche products.

There is countless applications for VR technology outside of games.

AR is becoming a thing and imho will merge with VR to complete the experience.

The games are great fun for being mostly tech demo's. For a brand new consumer technology, the cost of entry isn't that high, I spent $3,600 on a 720p 37" LCD TV in 2002, same TV today is worth about $200. 4k was 10k when it launched here, today I can get one for $1,500. The cost of entry for VR is the same or less than it was for a LCD TV in the early 2000's, or a 4k TV just 5 years ago.

As for monitors, that is a completely different ballpark man, for the average daily use, a old monitor is just fine. Unless you need/want a feature offered by a new product (144hz, gsync, etc) there is little reason to upgrade a monitor thats 5+ years old.

7 Billion? No.. more like 200-220 million in the total consumer marketplace.

Countless applications? No.. dozens of potential Business Applications, which do nothing for the @ home Consumer Market.

AR/VR are just a nice distraction, but it does mark a progressive movement. The isolation and collapse of a truly 'social' society is well under way... Can't do anything about that (meh)

Your idea of disposable income is quite different from the average someone with a family, mortgage, etc...
 
Motion sickness affects me because of the disconnect between visual appearance of velocity and my body not really moving. I thought the teleportation movement would be stupid, but actually moving first-person style instantly got me sick. Teleportation movement never does.
 
7 Billion? No.. more like 200-220 million in the total consumer marketplace.

Countless applications? No.. dozens of potential Business Applications, which do nothing for the @ home Consumer Market.

AR/VR are just a nice distraction, but it does mark a progressive movement. The isolation and collapse of a truly 'social' society is well under way... Can't do anything about that (meh)

Your idea of disposable income is quite different from the average someone with a family, mortgage, etc...

That number of consumers is changing daily and will continue to.

Your to narrow in your applications, and your discounting that those applications will provide fuel to this industry.

An opinion. Also boarding on straw man, at best an aside that has nothing to do with this topic.

Not really, when i bought that TV I was freshly moved out in a new city starting university, my room mate and i went in on it together just to afford it after working roofing for a summer. Also you completely, as in with absolute totality, missed the point.
 
Last edited:

https://www.neowin.net/news/porn-industry-chooses-hd-dvd

at that time it was a foregone conclusion that that would be the death of Blu-Ray

"Blu-ray has superior quality, yes, but HD DVD is easier to produce, cheaper to produce and there are more HD DVD players in homes than there are Blu-ray players, for example in the Xbox 360," said a spokesperson for porn studio Bangbros.
 
Turning them into streaming devices for gaming makes more sense IMO. And people forget, gaming on VR doesn't have to be "inside" the game, as not all games lend themselves to that.

Say you want to play Civ 6, well, that's something you really want to be looking at a screen, but you can be doing that on a virtual huge screen in a virtual environment of your choosing with VR.

Whats the advantage?

Well, you might be in a guest room where you don't have a 100" projector screen available, but you can play on a virtual one with your headset. Or you may have three kids and they want to watch Mickey Mouse Muff Crusaders or whatever it is kids are into, and are being super annoying, well, you can immerse yourself into the captain's chair of the USS Enterprise and play Doom on the viewscreen with noise isolating headphones, or perhaps you're on a long claustrophobic flight in coach class and find that stiffling well no problem put the headset on and you can feel like you're in a huge iMAX movie theater to watch a 3D movie. Heck, maybe you are just bored in your ocean of cubicles and want to use part of your lunch break to watch an episode of Archer.

For a young bachelor, you might even wonder does your room even need to be all that big when you can entertain yourself in a huge virtual room that looks like a million bucks and perhaps one setting is even on a tropical beach for relaxation watching some extra jiggly volleyball girls play a match around sunset? Then all of a sudden a tiny dorm room isn't so bad as long as you have a comfy chair.

Use case vs cost and mass acceptance are 2 different things. I can make a ton of good use cases for flying cars. But practical / cost efficient and mass produced? Well, that's a different problem. You didn't solve the 100,000,000 copies of High End cross-platform compatible VR systems sold so AAA titles now occur issue. It just doesn't happen on a mass scale for high cost VR. Now low cost VR it is already happening. And if it manages not to bankrupt to early then Vive Version 3 or 4 may do the same thing and then whala your dream comes true. But the bulk of the public is experiencing this through cheap phone VR. So that is step one in the process of getting them into it. The underlying value of it if it doesn't make you ill is very high. Kyle sees that value and has a conniption fit. Cause he wants it to succeed so bad he can taste it. He may get his way just take abit longer and go a slightly different path. Not too shocking really.
 
The biggest problem most VR HMD's have is image quality. Rift and Vive has horrible image quality compared to the Pimax 4k for instance.
And that has ghosting and runs at 60Hz. There's currently no hands down champ at the moment.

uh negative on the blu-ray, the porn industry as solidly in the HD-DVD camp before it went T.U.
That's kind of a bad analogy since HD-DVD had a direct competitor. The MEDIUM of high definition video still exists on blu-rays and digitally today. The only competitor VR has a medium has is not using it. That's why I keep harping on the motion sickness, it's a big barrier if you want to have content where you actually move your camera.
 
Keep in mind that the people who killed their TVs with a Wii remote were able to see what was happening in the room.
Some weren't even holding the controller!


Yeah, it's probably fake, but hilarious.
 
And that has ghosting and runs at 60Hz. There's currently no hands down champ at the moment.

That's kind of a bad analogy since HD-DVD had a direct competitor. The MEDIUM of high definition video still exists on blu-rays and digitally today. The only competitor VR has a medium has is not using it. That's why I keep harping on the motion sickness, it's a big barrier if you want to have content where you actually move your camera.
The ghosting is only noticeable if you are looking for it. The image quality on the Rift and Vive is so bad that anyone who uses it instantly complains that they can't read text and complains about how muddy the image is. Everyone that uses mine instantly talks about how nice it looks. Vive and Rift feel like 1st gen while Pimax feels like 2nd or 3rd gen VR from an image quality stand point.
 
It takes some time and money beyond casual stuff. Kids my have the time but not the money.

In my case with my boys... it could just be that I have always been a bit of a geek. My kids I guess aren't, perhaps there has always been a non-geek world I just was never aware of. ;) lol

Seriously though my youngest boy is in his early 20s now with a kid and your not wrong. He wouldn't have the money for VR even if he wanted it. My oldest though makes a lot more money that I do... but then his idea of a toy is a speed boat. Trust me I felt like I had dome something wrong around the time they all hit 18 or so and I realised none of them had watched Star Wars more then once and couldn't name the Trek cast by character or actor. My daughter is my last hope... I thought she was pretty darn geeky, then she started Jr. High and I have realised she is not. I should have found them a less cool mother I guess. lmao :)
 
For all the people who tried VR and immediately got sick, do you also get carsick/seasick?

Some people just have very limited tolerance for a disconnect between the eyes and inner ear, and those people will simply never be able to play VR, the same way they can't drive or go on a boat.

If you are NOT prone to motion sickness at all, yet you are still getting VR sick, then it might indicate that the headset just isn't set up right (wrong IPD or something) or you computer isn't fast enough (if you get less than a 9 in SteamVR test, then it's not going to be a pleasant experience)

I don't get motion sick from anything, but it's still possible to force myself to get VR sick, by running a game at a much higher quality than what the computer can handle.
 
Social, connected, video sharing and watching perhaps? Not with a person next to you but with people all over the world. A screen that has the immersion factor of an actual high-quality theater screen combined with the social aspect of the theater experience. In my mind I'm seeing it like a virtual movie theater. Everyone has an avatar of themselves sitting in a theater seat and you can hear their reaction to a movie as it plays. Crowd cheering, laughter, screams, etc. For some people that sounds like a horrible experience, but I think that could be a killer app for the younger generation, especially if it was an app that was able to team up with movie studios and get movies that are still in theaters. They could even take the theater approach and only show certain movies at specific times.
Interesting idea there, something that Hollywood would probably go for: A VR theater where people all around the world can sit and watch a movie together - even hold hands - each seeing the movie in their native tongue. Well until the AK 47's, Uzi's, shotgun, knives, strapped ons (as in bombs) come out that is. :confused:
 
While those are three common arguments, he in correct in that those aren't going to be the cause of VR failing. It will fail because it doesn't work for how most people play games. There are times where I want to be fully immersed and isolated from everyone around me. Those times are very short however. The majority of the time I have my attention divided between other projects on my PC, keeping an ear open for my kids, playing games with my kids and a host of other reasons. The most important of which is that VR is a level of immersion most games don't benefit from and never will benefit from. VR is very cool in short bursts on certain games. This is why I have said it will certainly be popular as a niche accessory and at places like Dave and Busters. My only contention is with the idea that VR will become mainstream in gaming or revolutionize it in any way. I'm sorry but that is just a laughable notion and where the comparison to 3d tv comes into play. The technology will certainly revolutionize some things; industries like Aerospace, space exploration, Medical etc. It won't for video games, it will just be a cool little add on that most people won't care about. Even "IF" they could get it down to Nintendo Wii like prices, it would ultimately suffer the exact same fate of collecting dust most of the time after 3-6 months.

I still break out my Rift from time to time. I recently got Subnautica which is literally designed with VR in mind. It was cool as shit...for about an hour. After that I went back to playing it normally. I would bet good money that I'm closer to the average for how most people will react to this than those swearing it will change everything.
 
While those are three common arguments, he in correct in that those aren't going to be the cause of VR failing. It will fail because it doesn't work for how most people play games. There are times where I want to be fully immersed and isolated from everyone around me. Those times are very short however. The majority of the time I have my attention divided between other projects on my PC, keeping an ear open for my kids, playing games with my kids and a host of other reasons. The most important of which is that VR is a level of immersion most games don't benefit from and never will benefit from. VR is very cool in short bursts on certain games. This is why I have said it will certainly be popular as a niche accessory and at places like Dave and Busters. My only contention is with the idea that VR will become mainstream in gaming or revolutionize it in any way. I'm sorry but that is just a laughable notion and where the comparison to 3d tv comes into play. The technology will certainly revolutionize some things; industries like Aerospace, space exploration, Medical etc. It won't for video games, it will just be a cool little add on that most people won't care about. Even "IF" they could get it down to Nintendo Wii like prices, it would ultimately suffer the exact same fate of collecting dust most of the time after 3-6 months.

I still break out my Rift from time to time. I recently got Subnautica which is literally designed with VR in mind. It was cool as shit...for about an hour. After that I went back to playing it normally. I would bet good money that I'm closer to the average for how most people will react to this than those swearing it will change everything.

Exactly... nobody I know who plays games regularly on a PC has a single monitor. We LOVE to multi-task, running multiple items and programs all @ the same time. VR won't become mainstream because it would require us to abandon the way we like to game. it will have interest in those short, infrequent moments where we desire isolation over general leisure activities.

I can see how many would want to see this success, and will push it hard in an effort to add folks to the bandwagon. But seriously, the idea that 'VR' is the 'next' big deal could be taken more seriously if it didn't fit perfectly into the cycle of marketing hype that comes every new season of the Consumer Industry. That industry exists solely to convince you 'you NEED this', in an endless hamster-wheel of 'keeping up with the Joneses'...

I don't need to keep up with anybody :)
 
So you are basically saying that the term "Virtual reality" must be kept reserve for the eventual creation of the NerveGear? And that a virtual experience cannot be called virtual "reality" unless it covers all 5 senses?

What are we supposed to call the thing we have now? "TV strapped to your face" just isn't as catchy, and the term "head mounted display" is already taken by a different category of product



Elite Dangerous is a completely different experience in VR compared to a regular monitor. It's like the difference between looking at a fish tank, and actually scuba diving with the fish.

When you look around the cockpit, you FEEL like you are inside a space ship (even if you can't smell it).

Plus, the ability to just look where you want to look makes flying and combat a lot easier.

My buddy brought his Vive setup and Elite Dangerous over a while back and it blew my mind how immersive it was. I'm not into the flying games but it made me rethink how incredible even today's VR experience can be. I want to see a good MMO ported (or done from the ground up).
 
Last edited:
I still want a high enough res VR headset that I can sit and do schematics and route pcbs in such that my monitors are virtual and my surroundings are a nice beach instead of the engineering office.
 
I'm a bit late to this thread but I think the huge thing that will change VR and make it mainstream is whatever amounts to the "winning haptic solution." Just like the way the iPhone nailed the touch screen and was so "easy to use" if someone gets a control system that is as fluid and intuitive in VR, in a way that makes your VR control experience an extension of your own will, that will be the gamechanging moment. Three years ago I would have said PC hardware was the limited factor but that was 3 years ago. You don't need a gaming machine to run VR and use Virtual Desktop but that experience is pretty amazing in and of itself.

This haptic form might be the gloves or controllers that allow for hand tracking, so you can see your hands in the VR. Or it might be eye-tracking, which has so much potential to be a gamechanger. (We Americans are lazy and there's nothing more lazy than just LOOKING at something.."I'm not going to have to move my damn finger, screw that, I'll just look at it)
 
I'm a bit late to this thread but I think the huge thing that will change VR and make it mainstream is whatever amounts to the "winning haptic solution." Just like the way the iPhone nailed the touch screen and was so "easy to use" if someone gets a control system that is as fluid and intuitive in VR, in a way that makes your VR control experience an extension of your own will, that will be the gamechanging moment. Three years ago I would have said PC hardware was the limited factor but that was 3 years ago. You don't need a gaming machine to run VR and use Virtual Desktop but that experience is pretty amazing in and of itself.

This haptic form might be the gloves or controllers that allow for hand tracking, so you can see your hands in the VR. Or it might be eye-tracking, which has so much potential to be a gamechanger. (We Americans are lazy and there's nothing more lazy than just LOOKING at something.."I'm not going to have to move my damn finger, screw that, I'll just look at it)
AR with haptic interfaces would be sick.
 
VR motion sickness isn't an exclusively PC VR problem though.

I don't think VR in it's CURRENT form will ever be "console common" because the simple fact is > 30% of the population has problems with motion sickness. You cannot have a product be successfull that makes 1/3 of the populous ill every time they use it. It's really as simple as that.
 
Exactly... nobody I know who plays games regularly on a PC has a single monitor. We LOVE to multi-task, running multiple items and programs all @ the same time. VR won't become mainstream because it would require us to abandon the way we like to game. it will have interest in those short, infrequent moments where we desire isolation over general leisure activities.

I don't understand how you're making the connection between multiple monitors and VR. I have a triple 1080p 3D 144Hz moinitors on one side of my office, a 40" Samsung UN40KU6290 4k monitor on the other side and a Vive in the middle. I use various monitor configurations for gaming, single 4k, 2D/3D 1x1080p and surround 3x1080p, depending on the game. VR doesn't change anything in this setup.
 
I don't understand how you're making the connection between multiple monitors and VR. I have a triple 1080p 3D 144Hz moinitors on one side of my office, a 40" Samsung UN40KU6290 4k monitor on the other side and a Vive in the middle. I use various monitor configurations for gaming, single 4k, 2D/3D 1x1080p and surround 3x1080p, depending on the game. VR doesn't change anything in this setup.

How much of that can you use while wearing a headset or goggles? It's not like you can do both while gaming. Hell, I can't even type effectively unless I can occasionally glance down @ the keyboard. There is your connection....
 
How much of that can you use while wearing a headset or goggles? It's not like you can do both while gaming. Hell, I can't even type effectively unless I can occasionally glance down @ the keyboard. There is your connection....

gaming on vr you would use the headset, gaming on multi-screens you would still use your monitors. Vr is not the 'only' method to game. I have gamepad controllers but I don't use them on every game either. If you need to watch a movie while you play a game, immersion is not what you are after so you are not the target, nor the majority of gamers.
 
How much of that can you use while wearing a headset or goggles? It's not like you can do both while gaming. Hell, I can't even type effectively unless I can occasionally glance down @ the keyboard. There is your connection....

Why do you assume this technology will remain stagnant (as in not progress past its current form)?

With continued development VR/AR can literally replace all that equipment with one piece.
 
Why do you assume this technology will remain stagnant (as in not progress past its current form)?

With continued development VR/AR can literally replace all that equipment with one piece.

I don't assume anything, I know how markets and tech progression works. It's not going to happen in the next decade.. if advances happened the way you're implying then Movies like 'Minority Report' would be your typical Tuesday @ work.
 
But VR continued on to be used ever since as an invaluable tool in fields of simulation, research, design, and many other industries outside of the consumer landscape.
Actually I've never seen it used for any serious productivity. I've seen it used for what it was. A gimmick. To show off to clients and guests. But not for actual work.
Regarding the idea that ‘people don’t want to wear something to enjoy entertainment;’ this premise is demonstrably wrong in the case of headphones for music players
I refuse to wear headphones for my entertainment. I'd rather not play or watch movies if it has to be through a headphone.
A VR set is much worse.

If you have to wear something you can't get in and out of gaming quickly. A very good example of how this affects my every day gaming is easily demonstrable trough my racing wheels. I need to move them 2 feet and fasten to my desk. But most of the time, I just don't do it. I'd rather play with the keyboard that's already there or simply don't play racing games at all.

And if for some reason I have to jump out of the game to do something else the wheel gets in the way, I need to put it away, or I need to type under it. It's the same issue with a VR set.

Another issue I have is isolation. If you cover your eyes and your ears how do you know what's actually going on around you? I'd feel insecure if I loose sensory input from my actual surroundings. I'd constantly be taking it off to check if everything is still ok in the real world.

He talks about how it is not gesture based. Just because it's more precise and has less latency than a kinect I'm pretty sure it's still gesture based control.

And I admit I don't want this type of VR to succeed and trough that become a basic requirement for gaming. I wish it failed so we don't get stuck with it for years to come. If it fails it's likely less time until a more convenient alternative comes along.
 
Last edited:
While those are three common arguments, he in correct in that those aren't going to be the cause of VR failing. It will fail because it doesn't work for how most people play games. There are times where I want to be fully immersed and isolated from everyone around me. Those times are very short however. The majority of the time I have my attention divided between other projects on my PC, keeping an ear open for my kids, playing games with my kids and a host of other reasons. The most important of which is that VR is a level of immersion most games don't benefit from and never will benefit from. VR is very cool in short bursts on certain games. This is why I have said it will certainly be popular as a niche accessory and at places like Dave and Busters. My only contention is with the idea that VR will become mainstream in gaming or revolutionize it in any way. I'm sorry but that is just a laughable notion and where the comparison to 3d tv comes into play. The technology will certainly revolutionize some things; industries like Aerospace, space exploration, Medical etc. It won't for video games, it will just be a cool little add on that most people won't care about. Even "IF" they could get it down to Nintendo Wii like prices, it would ultimately suffer the exact same fate of collecting dust most of the time after 3-6 months.

I still break out my Rift from time to time. I recently got Subnautica which is literally designed with VR in mind. It was cool as shit...for about an hour. After that I went back to playing it normally. I would bet good money that I'm closer to the average for how most people will react to this than those swearing it will change everything.
I kind of agree and disagree with you on this. What you're describing does limit the full extent of VR, but not to a dramatic extent. People still watch scary or suspenseful movies that are at their best when you're not distracted by something else. Just because an entertainment medium demands more of your attention doesn't doom it outright. I mean hell, the very concept of HEADPHONES shuts people out to a degree and last I checked, those still have some popularity.

What I think you're right on about is it DOESN'T work for how most people play games. The vast majority of first person shooters or 3rd person action games you move your character around with one hand, aim with the other. Just moving your character around in VR is going to make a significant portion of people sick. Moving the camera around is likely to make people sick. This is a big problem for trying to get a mainstream gaming audience, since moving your character and camera around has been a standard in 3D games for decades. I'm a little pessimistic about the future of VR in gaming outside of simple mini-games that currently dominate the market for it.

Exactly... nobody I know who plays games regularly on a PC has a single monitor. We LOVE to multi-task, running multiple items and programs all @ the same time. VR won't become mainstream because it would require us to abandon the way we like to game. it will have interest in those short, infrequent moments where we desire isolation over general leisure activities.

I can see how many would want to see this success, and will push it hard in an effort to add folks to the bandwagon. But seriously, the idea that 'VR' is the 'next' big deal could be taken more seriously if it didn't fit perfectly into the cycle of marketing hype that comes every new season of the Consumer Industry. That industry exists solely to convince you 'you NEED this', in an endless hamster-wheel of 'keeping up with the Joneses'...

I don't need to keep up with anybody :)
As someone who only games on PC, the last thing I want to be doing while playing a game or movie is multi-tasking. I have a single monitor over here. I'm not an ADHD addict where I need to be texting or browsing internet or talking to someone while I'm doing everything. Yes, multi-tasking can be helpful for workflow, but it's terrible for trying to get engrossed into something. This is a really esoteric complaint you have here and it's NOT the main barrier towards VR adoption. When VR works, it's simply amazing and like being in another world. That's well worth the price of not having to do something else every 5 seconds for many people. I see the situation more like:

-VR is expensive, so that will shut some people out
-People will pay the money if the experience is that good
-The experience won't be THAT good because it's a niche market, so it has less development
-It's a niche market PARTIALLY because you can't do the same things in VR that you can do in other games (like move the camera around) or else people get sick. Companies can't easily just port over their games to VR the way they can to a PC or console.

I don't think VR in it's CURRENT form will ever be "console common" because the simple fact is > 30% of the population has problems with motion sickness. You cannot have a product be successfull that makes 1/3 of the populous ill every time they use it. It's really as simple as that.
I'd argue the numbers could be well higher than 30% for VR, because some people will get motion sick under certain circumstances, but as long as they have a window and can see what's happening, they're alright. With VR, you're COMPLETELY shut out from the outside world, so it's really a full assault. 30% could apply to people riding in the backseat of a car. VR is more like being in a closed-off cabin on the inside of a ship.
 
How much of that can you use while wearing a headset or goggles? It's not like you can do both while gaming. Hell, I can't even type effectively unless I can occasionally glance down @ the keyboard. There is your connection....

Most PC VR games I play are best when standing so one isn't going to be looking at a keyboard in that position anyway. Some stuff is 4k, or 1080p or 3D (though that's mainly for movies these days). There's just multiple configurations I use when gaming. VR is another way to game and interact.
 
He talks about how it is not gesture based. Just because it's more precise and has less latency than a kinect I'm pretty sure it's still gesture based control.

It's no more gesture based than using a mouse to aim and fire. With a VR controller you point, aim and fire. The controller is physical device that maps to some action. It's just that it works in 3D space unlike a mouse.

And I admit I don't want this type of VR to succeed and trough that become a basic requirement for gaming. I wish it failed so we don't get stuck with it for years to come. If it fails it's likely less time until a more convenient alternative comes along.

You have to start somewhere though. If there are those that enjoy this technology that's a good thing because otherwise without some market to push it along how is it supposed to improve?
 
It's no more gesture based than using a mouse to aim and fire. With a VR controller you point, aim and fire. The controller is physical device that maps to some action. It's just that it works in 3D space unlike a mouse.
Because it has no reference points. It's completely freehand. The controller is just there to pick up your gesture for lack of a better word.
The mouse is not in a void it's grounded by the mat, and you can instantly reset it by lifting it off the mat. How do you do that with a motion controller? You cannot lift it into the 4th dimension to put it back into 3d space in a neutral position.
Confusing enough? What I mean is if your every movement is recognized as an input then I think it's gesture based.

You have to start somewhere though. If there are those that enjoy this technology that's a good thing because otherwise without some market to push it along how is it supposed to improve?
By doing what it already did before. Fail, disappear and try again 20 years later with better technology.

This type of VR is much a Virtual Reality as much headphones are a concert hall.
 
Back
Top