Why You are Wrong that VR is Going to Fail

Because it has no reference points. It's completely freehand.

This makes no sense to me. See thing in front of you, aim, pull trigger and fire. The only difference between this and conventional game with point and shoot mechanics with a mouse is that the action is in 3D space.

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.

Again, you aim the controller like a weapon and fire. It's as natural a action as can be.

By doing what it already did before. Fail, disappear and try again 20 years later with better technology.

VR at the level of the Rift and Vive have never been done in the consumer space before.
 
On the subject of gestures, those do exist. But they interact with the controller. For instance, dropping guns to the side like holstering is a common reload mechanism. But with the tracking capabilities of these controllers, it tends to work perfectly. And it's pretty natural. More natural than hitting "R" on a keyboard.
 
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.

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'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.

I totally agree. When I'm watching a movie or playing a game, I do so with the intent to ONLY do those things, and if there's a distraction (almost never, I don't have kids), it really takes away from the experience. A lot of people don't have distractions that come into play (kids, pets, etc.), so in that regard, VR does a great job of shutting whatever else left is out, to make it a priority.

I can see the price being a barrier, but like the movie business, people pay out the ass for luxury seating to see a movie in IMAX 3D. I think as time goes on, there will be more adopters, as developers enter the field.
 
This makes no sense to me. See thing in front of you, aim, pull trigger and fire. The only difference between this and conventional game with point and shoot mechanics with a mouse is that the action is in 3D space.



Again, you aim the controller like a weapon and fire. It's as natural a action as can be.



VR at the level of the Rift and Vive have never been done in the consumer space before.

What I mean is you can move the mouse without inputting control by lifting it. How do you do that with a 3d motion tracker?
 
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.

No, having been in the Navy for a good while, I can say that that 30% is probably pretty accurate.

That being said, there are still way to many people out there. 30% of the userbase not being able to comftorably use your product or maybe not at all use it means it's never in it's current form going to get the traction it really needs. They need to overcome this limitation first.
 
Well I've tried my best to explain. But it doesn't seem to get trough, so I give up, I failed.

I'll give it a go, let me know if I'm at least in the right vicinity.

When you move a mouse, it moves the cursor on the screen, you do not have to lift the mouse and move it around in space to interact, you have physical boundaries of the mouse's area (mouse pad) to limit its movement. You can physically see those boundries by looking at your mouse.

VR controls have no such limitation, but can lead to problems in the real world (like smashing a TV) as you are cut off from real world sensory input by the system.
 
I'll give it a go, let me know if I'm at least in the right vicinity.

When you move a mouse, it moves the cursor on the screen, you do not have to lift the mouse and move it around in space to interact, you have physical boundaries of the mouse's area (mouse pad) to limit its movement. You can physically see those boundries by looking at your mouse.

VR controls have no such limitation, but can lead to problems in the real world (like smashing a TV) as you are cut off from real world sensory input by the system.
That's not it. Altought that could be an issue too when you're not aware of your surroundings.

What I mean is that during gaming and also during work I constantly re-position the mouse, by lifting it off the mat, putting it down in another position anticipating my next move. I cannot disengage a free 3D controller like that. I cannot decouple it from the controls of the game and re-introduce it in a different position.
It was a constant struggle for me even with the ps move. For example I wanted to take a step left IRL but I don't want the game to pick up on that as an input. So I was trying to hide it from the camera so it doesn't recognise it. I always ended up outside the zone and moving back always resulted in an unintentional control input.
It feels more like wrestling with it than actually controlling it. And I've had the same experience when I tested a then "state of the art" 3d controller at a upstart shortly before this revitalization of VR. It worked using the exact same principles.I don't even know what happened to that company, it might even been bought out by some VR company. I don't remember their name. I had the same problem. I moved the control thingy to the end of the range of motion, but I wanted to move my view in the application further. But I cannot move the controller back to active zone without moving back the view in the opposite direction.

I don't have a modern VR set, so I don't know how and if they tackled this issue.
 
I'm thinking a simple fix would be some kind of small, hand held trigger or clicky. Push and movement input interrupted, release and it continues....
 
That's not it. Altought that could be an issue too when you're not aware of your surroundings.

What I mean is that during gaming and also during work I constantly re-position the mouse, by lifting it off the mat, putting it down in another position anticipating my next move. I cannot disengage a free 3D controller like that. I cannot decouple it from the controls of the game and re-introduce it in a different position.
It was a constant struggle for me even with the ps move. For example I wanted to take a step left IRL but I don't want the game to pick up on that as an input. So I was trying to hide it from the camera so it doesn't recognise it. I always ended up outside the zone and moving back always resulted in an unintentional control input.
It feels more like wrestling with it than actually controlling it. And I've had the same experience when I tested a then "state of the art" 3d controller at a upstart shortly before this revitalization of VR. It worked using the exact same principles.I don't even know what happened to that company, it might even been bought out by some VR company. I don't remember their name. I had the same problem. I moved the control thingy to the end of the range of motion, but I wanted to move my view in the application further. But I cannot move the controller back to active zone without moving back the view in the opposite direction.

I don't have a modern VR set, so I don't know how and if they tackled this issue.

I get it, your looking at how you re-position in the real world without impacting the vr environment. I honestly haven't had this issue often, though if I do it is related to the cords on the headset, it is often simple enough to make the movements you need to and use the games locomotion system to reset your position. To my knowledge there isn't currently a way to quickly disconnect the remote or headset, move and reconnect.

Edit: The cords can wrap around you, or bunch up and need a bit of tending.

For the most part these issues are handled by physically moving in the environment. For example there is a virtual wall that you setup to mimic the real world boundaries, when you hit this wall you just back away physically. Because your in this virtual environment, the most common problem is hitting your boundaries.

Edit: It hasn't been that much of an issue really, you do not need to reposition the 'mouse' so much as the remotes mimic your hands, thus it all becomes body position rather than keeping a mouse in the center of a mouse pad (which I do).
 
Last edited:
For example I wanted to take a step left IRL but I don't want the game to pick up on that as an input. So I was trying to hide it from the camera so it doesn't recognise it. I always ended up outside the zone and moving back always resulted in an unintentional control input.

Yeah, it doesn't really work that way. We're talking about a 3D simulation in 3D space. It has to track perfectly for the effect to work. If you're thinking about something outside of the simulation, the simulation is broken. Now the positioning of the WHOLE simulation, yes, that makes sense. The room scale setup of the Vive in SteamVR defines the default positioning. Some applications have the ability to reposition themselves.

I think you're overthinking this. It's a 3D simulation of an environment and normally there shouldn't be any concept like hiding the controller.
 
What we have now is just smaller than the same shit you could play at the boardwalk in Santa Cruz 20 years ago. Hell even some of the stuff they try to pass of as games on it look nearly the same lol.
Rise of the Triad in VR -- I remember that as a kid at the local Amusement Park - Worlds of Fun!
 
VR will NEVER take off, or be socially acceptable, as long as you have to strap a solid brick to your head which limits social/group interaction.

NEVER

As it relates to my generation, you can take that to the Bank.


In current format it's the Dungeon and Dragon's role playing board game equivalent for PC gaming nerds. The vast majority of the public doesn't understand it, and doesn't want it. It's a non starter for most --- and limited to a gag novelty for many.

No, I haven't tried it. Yes, I can afford it. No I don't want it because I can't find interest in sitting in my basement, at the gaming PC (as a man with a wife and kids) with a brick strapped over my face, wholly lost to reality, and my responsibilities. It's a bridge too far.

Some future iteration of Google Glass - that you can see through, or not, as necessary, and still see your friends in person is feasible. Other than that - it's like an amusement park novelty IMO.

I guess, if I was a young single guy I'd be more willing to try it.
Perhaps it's a generational thing. I'm the tail (young end) of generation X. Just like older generation doesn't like to text on their cell phones. Maybe future generations will be all in. I just don't know anyone my age, in real life, who has more than a novelty interest in this stuff.


From the article linked in the first post:

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. And size is clearly not a limitation as large headphones are becoming increasingly popular. The fact is that there’s an inverse relationship between how much someone cares about how they look (or how uncomfortable it is to wear something on their head) and the experience they’re getting. More simply put, as long as the experience provided by the VR headset is good enough, people will be willing to wear one; they will gladly sacrifice looking cool or wearing something that isn’t perfectly comfortable to obtain a great experience. 3DTV didn’t fail because people didn’t want to wear glasses, it failed because the added benefit of 3DTV compared to normal TV did not justify the downsides of wearing the glasses.

Headphones don't limit sight, and many audiophile headphones don't limit sound either - being of the open air design -- so if you stop your entertainment, or something happens in the background with enough noise you aren't going to be caught unaware. I can just imagine someone playing VR while their house is robbed in the background and they are completely unaware. Just wait - there will be a home security cam recording of this before too long. And just NO to the rest of his comments in that section. I like 3d, and I'd watch it everytime over 2d if there were no glasses (and the technology didn't stress your eyes).
 
Last edited:
VR will NEVER take off, or be socially acceptable, as long as you have to strap a solid brick to your head which limits social/group interaction.

NEVER
Lies.
samsung-gear-vr-dining.jpg
 
Speaking of DnD, I think VR would make an excellent platform for it. You have a DM who has an overview of the maps, and can drop pre-scripted encounters. You have multiple players that go in play out the adventure. I really like the Rec Room theater play, and would like it to be more interactive.

Anyway, right now.. content is a huge issue. Most of what's out there really does seem like trial or feature capability demos that cost actual money.
 
The big problem I have with VR is the controls. Beyond your fluid body movement in 3D space, everything else with those motion controls is a waggle, just like the bad old days of the Wii (e.g. "drop arms to reload" = waggle). Much harder to get right when there are multiple controls attached to different movements of your body.

Or you're stuck using a joystick, which isn't immersive at all, and hard to do because you can't see the controls. I'm sure you hotshots can find your way around 11 buttons and three different direction pads/joysticks in the heat of the moment, but I sure can't.

I ache at the thought of doing joysticks and waggle simultaneously, if your games get more complex.

This basically doesn't go away until we have real holodecks, so until then it will only appeal to those with precision muscle memory, and touch-typists. The rest of us will just stick with controls we can see.

It will never be mainstream in our lifetimes, and I don't expect we'll see many AAA games after the experiments (coming from Valve, apparently) fall hard and fast. But there will be enough hardcore people to keep it slowly improving, and enough business case for things (like Virtual Tours and VR movies) to keep it slowly improving.
 
Last edited:
VR will NEVER take off, or be socially acceptable, as long as you have to strap a solid brick to your head which limits social/group interaction.

NEVER

As it relates to my generation, you can take that to the Bank.


In current format it's the Dungeon and Dragon's role playing board game equivalent for PC gaming nerds. The vast majority of the public doesn't understand it, and doesn't want it. It's a non starter for most --- and limited to a gag novelty for many.

No, I haven't tried it. Yes, I can afford it. No I don't want it because I can't find interest in sitting in my basement, at the gaming PC (as a man with a wife and kids) with a brick strapped over my face, wholly lost to reality, and my responsibilities. It's a bridge too far.

Some future iteration of Google Glass - that you can see through, or not, as necessary, and still see your friends in person is feasible. Other than that - it's like an amusement park novelty IMO.

I guess, if I was a young single guy I'd be more willing to try it.
Perhaps it's a generational thing. I'm the tail (young end) of generation X. Just like older generation doesn't like to text on their cell phones. Maybe future generations will be all in. I just don't know anyone my age, in real life, who has more than a novelty interest in this stuff.


From the article linked in the first post:

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. And size is clearly not a limitation as large headphones are becoming increasingly popular. The fact is that there’s an inverse relationship between how much someone cares about how they look (or how uncomfortable it is to wear something on their head) and the experience they’re getting. More simply put, as long as the experience provided by the VR headset is good enough, people will be willing to wear one; they will gladly sacrifice looking cool or wearing something that isn’t perfectly comfortable to obtain a great experience. 3DTV didn’t fail because people didn’t want to wear glasses, it failed because the added benefit of 3DTV compared to normal TV did not justify the downsides of wearing the glasses.

Headphones don't limit sight, and many audiophile headphones don't limit sound either - being of the open air design -- so if you stop your entertainment, or something happens in the background with enough noise you aren't going to be caught unaware. I can just imagine someone playing VR while their house is robbed in the background and they are completely unaware. Just wait - there will be a home security cam recording of this before too long. And just NO to the rest of his comments in that section. I like 3d, and I'd watch it everytime over 2d if there were no glasses (and the technology didn't stress your eyes).
I am assuming 50 and over are your generation. I am 50 and love it. My 29 year old son loves it and so does my 16 year old daughter. And yes I bought one. Too me it's no different then trying to watch TV with my wife who can't put down Instagram or pinterest and doesn't acknowledge whats on tv. Where's the social interaction with that? Imagine the only apps on a smart phone being Instagram and pinterest. This is called variety and I am glad it's here. And I am in the IT industry so I am around tech all the time.
 
I have let probably 30+ people try my vive and oculus at various get togethers. Every single one had their jaw on the floor and was absolutely blown away and loved it.

3 kinds of people in the world:
Those who havent tried vr yet.
Those who have tried vr and love it.
Liars.
 
I have let probably 30+ people try my vive and oculus at various get togethers. Every single one had their jaw on the floor and was absolutely blown away and loved it.

3 kinds of people in the world:
Those who havent tried vr yet.
Those who have tried vr and love it.
Liars.

And how many of those 30 people have bought their own? Because there's a huge gulf between "cool party trick," and "something I'd actually use on a daily basis."

You can stop pretending like VR is going to change the world anytime soon. Much like Jackbox games, there is an attraction under the right circumstances, but current VR implementations are a wash in the real world.
 
And how many people have bought their own? Because there's a huge gulf between "cool party trick," and "something I'd actually use on a daily basis."
2 that I know. The rest dont care enough about videogames like the vast majority of the population.
 
2 that I know. The rest dont care enough about videogames like the vast majority of the population.


So, that's less than ten percent attach rate. Not exactly a hot item, but it's got enough following that it's not going to die anytime soon.

Just saying, this shit is wayyyyy overfucking hyped. It's not going to be useful for most people for more than a decade, because they still haven't figured-out how to give you accurate force feedback, plus make the controls more immersive (like I already mentioned).
 
So, that's less than ten percent attach rate. Not exactly a hot item, but it's got enough following that it's not going to die anytime soon.

Just saying, this shit is wayyyyy overfucking hyped.
Again, the vast majority of the world's population do not give one single shit about videogames.

Im sure everyone that has ridden in a say a Ferrari has loved it...but I bet its tad less than 10% that went out and bought one afterwards. ;)
 
And how many of those 30 people have bought their own? Because there's a huge gulf between "cool party trick," and "something I'd actually use on a daily basis."

You can stop pretending like VR is going to change the world anytime soon. Much like Jackbox games, there is an attraction under the right circumstances, but current VR implementations are a wash in the real world.

Your point is valid. But the efforts being put into VR/AR are without a doubt having a huge impact on a wide range of applications. These technologies aren't going away because there's too much that can be done and there are clear paths for improving the technology. In the case PC VR wireless headsets and cost reduction are clear paths for more appeal and on the software side, better tooling. There's no lack of obvious work to do and I think as long as that's the case, that there are clear paths and interest in using these technologies then it won't just disappear.
 
The big problem I have with VR is the controls. Beyond your fluid body movement in 3D space, everything else with those motion controls is a waggle, just like the bad old days of the Wii (e.g. "drop arms to reload" = waggle). Much harder to get right when there are multiple controls attached to different movements of your body.
What games are you playing exactly? The shooter games I have played have not been anything like that. Onward and Raw Data are two that come to mind quickly that have excellent in-game controls. Onward is damn near text book to real life....
 
I've always said there was more market for VR in work, movies and tours than gaming. Glad to see we agree, VR Gaming is totally overrated.

But no, VR will not die.
 
I have let probably 30+ people try my vive and oculus at various get togethers. Every single one had their jaw on the floor and was absolutely blown away and loved it.

3 kinds of people in the world:
Those who havent tried vr yet.
Those who have tried vr and love it.
Liars.

I don't deny that VR at this isn't for everyone. But there are some who clearly don't like the attention and energy being put into VR which I do think is a little odd. As long as it continues to improve, as long as there is new content and I'm able to afford PC VR, I'm in it for good. Not saying I'm going to live in a HMD but to me, it's now part of the gaming experience without question for me. As the technology improves and becomes more affordable I think that will be the case for many others.

I'm old enough to have seen the debate over PCs. Many people questioned their usefulness because of cost and bulk and complexity. It seemed obvious to me that it the questions had straight forward answers. Better, cheaper, faster, smaller. Not that the answers were easy, but the nature of the answers were obvious. I don't see VR as any different. It's obviously an impactful technology. Make it cheaper, less bulky, faster with better and better content. Yea, it will change the world.
 
There have been some I don't questions about controls. Like the notion of repositioning like you would a mouse? That simply has no analog in a 3D simulation. The controllers are tracked perfectly in 3D space, there shouldn't be any concept of repositioning that isn't just a natural movement or action.
I have no idea wtf you are talking about.
 
You know I read the words Vive and Oculus but Sony is the real VR pusher they got it right at a decent price. Not many can afford a ferrari.
The I'm the best there is Vive attitude and over blown price is what really damages VR. Oculus at least had the sense to drop their price. Yes VR is here and only real bang for buck will keep it going.... and that's not a 800. price tag..
 
I can't say I do myself. I wasn't getting the idea of repositioning VR controllers. You just move them but that didn't seem to be the answer to the question some had bought up.

I thought my clunky answer sort of addressed that. M76 also admitted to not trying the systems which makes it hard to describe.

Unlike a mouse that runs out of the physical ability to move and needs to be lifted and repositioned, You do not need to physically reposition your devices in vr enviroment, you just reposition yourself as you interact with the vr world.
 
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.
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....

This has already been fixed, although in a limited form. There is one program called 'breakroom' (terrible title) that supports unlimited active application windows, positioned anywhere around you, and allows you to see the keyboard and mouse when you look down, via the vive pass-through camera.

The software is there, and it works, but it really needs a higher-res screen and a better camera. (the pimax 4k would be ideal for this, except it doesn't have a camera)
 
when we get something like a holodeck, then VR will take off... until then niche market just like 3d movies...
 
The software is there, and it works, but it really needs a higher-res screen and a better camera. (the pimax 4k would be ideal for this, except it doesn't have a camera)

Can you hold your breath till summer.... ? If I were a betting man...... :)
 
That's not it. Altought that could be an issue too when you're not aware of your surroundings.

What I mean is that during gaming and also during work I constantly re-position the mouse, by lifting it off the mat, putting it down in another position anticipating my next move. I cannot disengage a free 3D controller like that. I cannot decouple it from the controls of the game and re-introduce it in a different position.
It was a constant struggle for me even with the ps move. For example I wanted to take a step left IRL but I don't want the game to pick up on that as an input. So I was trying to hide it from the camera so it doesn't recognise it. I always ended up outside the zone and moving back always resulted in an unintentional control input.
It feels more like wrestling with it than actually controlling it. And I've had the same experience when I tested a then "state of the art" 3d controller at a upstart shortly before this revitalization of VR. It worked using the exact same principles.I don't even know what happened to that company, it might even been bought out by some VR company. I don't remember their name. I had the same problem. I moved the control thingy to the end of the range of motion, but I wanted to move my view in the application further. But I cannot move the controller back to active zone without moving back the view in the opposite direction.

I don't have a modern VR set, so I don't know how and if they tackled this issue.

I'm guessing you're talking about mouse lift-off distance, and how it relates to tracking? I can see why that would be an issue. Especially if you're playing a twitch based shooter.
 
when we get something like a holodeck, then VR will take off... until then niche market just like 3d movies...

We have a functional equivalent of this 24th Century technology today:

upload_2017-4-27_10-32-7.jpeg


While obviously the ST holodeck is essentially magic by our technical capabilities what's depicted here are the basic elements of current consumer VR. There are a number of games that work just like this holodeck phaser range program.
 
We have a functional equivalent of this 24th Century technology today:

View attachment 23248

While obviously the ST holodeck is essentially magic by our technical capabilities what's depicted here are the basic elements of current consumer VR. There are a number of games that work just like this holodeck phaser range program.

Unfortunately his point still holds though, it's not something people really want to buy currently. I hope all this changes asap.
 
What I mean is you can move the mouse without inputting control by lifting it. How do you do that with a 3d motion tracker?
Take off headset, move around as you please. When you're ready to join the fun, put headset back on and use the controllers.

VR is not static and is advancing virtually faster than anything else in PC history. Not sure if this group will succeed but the technology is closer than most probably would believe for full tactile, temperature, motion with feedback. In some ways it looks kinda freaky, some may even think it was a prison or would want an instant panic get out suit feature. Hey if bullets really hurt, falling down does have impact, losing a sword fight might not be as fun.

 
Back
Top