Why You are Wrong that VR is Going to Fail

Unfortunately his point still holds though, it's not something people really want to buy currently. I hope all this changes asap.

I'll agree that the current offering has reached a plateau of market penetration, but all that needs is those 'killer' apps to drive it forward.

It absolutely does not need to be a holodeck experience, while yes that sounds fun and cool, people already balk at the cost of a simple headset system and the computer needed to run it. Holodeck equipment would cost hundreds of times more, and require a dedicated and specially designed room. Something akin to the VOID, and its not cheap.

As a new tech to the consumer market (I don't count DK1 and DK2) VR is doing alright, and it seems as though the companies behind them, particularly Vive and Oculus, are here to stay.
 
Unfortunately his point still holds though, it's not something people really want to buy currently. I hope all this changes asap.

I guess what I find interesting in places like this, you have a lot of people with hardware that no one wants to buy. Who wants to buy $500+ GPUs? Yet people have for decades now. But that will never be mainstream, but obviously been a sustainable market for many years. I don't see VR being any different. There will always be interest in 3D simulations across a span of concerns. And like graphics processing power, VR/AR will span across various price and performance ranges. VR/AR is simply the extension of the 3D graphics that have been in develop for over a generation now. Taking that 2D 3D generated image and moving into 3D space with natural interactions. I just don't see how this ever goes away and more than graphics processing.
 
It absolutely does not need to be a holodeck experience,

I'd argue that it current consumer level VR approximates closely basic holodeck experiences portrayed in Star Trek. Like the phaser range example. Plenty of current games work exactly the same, acquire, aim and fire when in a defined physical space in a larger virtual space. I know its the most basic of the most basic but mechanics are exactly the same. And while sure, the "killer" app would be a great thing, I don't think there's really such a thing. There are a number of experiences one can have with current VR tech. One of my favorite is VR Hoops, just a simple basketball free throw simulator. But I play it a few minutes a day all the time. When enough content gets out there will be a number of "killer" apps for various folks.
 
I'd argue that it current consumer level VR approximates closely basic holodeck experiences portrayed in Star Trek.
That makes me wonder if your standards are not just very low when it comes to windows 10.

That's like saying a bicycle approximates closely the experience you get with an 1000cc superbike.
 
I've tried it and hate it . Probably as much due to an astigmatism so severe it can't be entirely corrected for as anything else.

But my personal dislike doesn't mean it won't succeed eventually. I think the power that could be brought to creating and displaying VR is still in it's early stages. Is it the sole future of gaming interaction? I don't think so, I think it's just going to be one more way of gaming or interacting with a device. It's a very interesting technology and one of the great bastions of science fiction becoming science fact. But other promising tech flopped too (Iridium, Intelligent appliances, WebTV) due to various reasons and when you examine failed tech it's often price and a lack of applications that brings it down. So there's really no guarantee it will will fly no matter what is said. There's also no evidence it will flop either.
 
I'd argue that it current consumer level VR approximates closely basic holodeck experiences portrayed in Star Trek. Like the phaser range example. Plenty of current games work exactly the same, acquire, aim and fire when in a defined physical space in a larger virtual space. I know its the most basic of the most basic but mechanics are exactly the same. And while sure, the "killer" app would be a great thing, I don't think there's really such a thing. There are a number of experiences one can have with current VR tech. One of my favorite is VR Hoops, just a simple basketball free throw simulator. But I play it a few minutes a day all the time. When enough content gets out there will be a number of "killer" apps for various folks.

The problem with the apps at this time is they target us, the geeks, from a layman's perspective I'd say all they see is Batman VR and Resident Evil, maybe Raw Data and/or Elite Dangerous.

The killer app is more about something(s) splashy to market to the average Jane/Joe.

As for holodeck, maybe a really rough approximation of a holodeck, lacking physical objects to interact with, physical people to interact with, full haptic feedback. I'd argue it isn't really a holodeck experience, but I still love my VR and I don't think the holodeck limit is the bar to set, even in star trek the 'holodeck' was a luxury item.
 
That makes me wonder if your standards are not just very low when it comes to windows 10.

That's like saying a bicycle approximates closely the experience you get with an 1000cc superbike.

The funny thing about this is that several people who are big Windows 10 critics around here are big VR advocates.

The point is perfectly valid and logical. The mechanics of that depiction of a Star Trek holodeck phaser range simulation and a number of wave shooters like Space Pirate Trainer are identical. You're standing in confined physical space, you move around in the space to acquire a target, you aim and fire. Actually most wave shooters add an element that even this holodeck sim doesn't have, the targets fire back and you have to duck or block the incoming fire.

Despite the drastic difference in the level of technology, the actual interactions of both technologies by the user are essentially identical.
 
As for holodeck, maybe a really rough approximation of a holodeck, lacking physical objects to interact with, physical people to interact with, full haptic feedback.

Haptic feedback is there. Confined area. Check. Move and look about confined area acquire target. Check. Aim. Check. Fire. Check. There's just no difference in the physical interactions of this particular Star Trek holodeck program example and what's possible with current VR technology.
 
Haptic feedback is there. Confined area. Check. Move and look about confined area acquire target. Check. Aim. Check. Fire. Check. There's just no difference in the physical interactions of this particular Star Trek holodeck program example and what's possible with current VR technology.

Can't remember the episode exactly but when they 'upgraded' the holodeck to what we mostly remember it as it was much different than the early part of the show. Early on it really was just a black room with lines and poorly rendered objects moving around. In the scenic ones the walls were pictures.

Now that I am thnking about it, augmented reality in a room made of projector walls would be pretty damn close and awesome.
 
Can't remember the episode exactly but when they 'upgraded' the holodeck to what we mostly remember it as it was much different than the early part of the show. Early on it really was just a black room with lines and poorly rendered objects moving around. In the scenic ones the walls were pictures.

Now that I am thnking about it, augmented reality in a room made of projector walls would be pretty damn close and awesome.

They had already portrayed advanced holodeck programs by the time the episode the phaser range program was shown.
 
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.

You are totally misunderstanding how controllers and movement in VR works.

There is no fixed reference point like a screen, and the only limitation to your movement is the physical walls of the room. If you want to recenter yourself in the real-world room, you just walk to the center of the room.

If walking to the middle of the room takes you outside the virtual room of the game, then you have to use the in-game movement/teleportation controls to put yourself back in the right virtual spot. (in some cases, this may require walking up to the virtual wall, teleporting back to the middle, and walking towards the virtual wall again).

This generally isn't a problem for games written specifically for room-scale VR, because the game knows where the real walls are, and can adjust the virtual room accordingly (Job simulator does this, bigger physical room = bigger virtual room)

Games with a fixed player location (driving/space/flight sims) will have a "reset location" button that moves the virtual world to recenter where your head is.

As far as the quality of motion controller tracking, the PS Move is one of the worst. The motion controllers on the Vive, on the other hand, are extremely solid in their positioning (I haven't used the Rift yet, but it's probably somewhere in between, and closer to the Vive than the Move)
 
You are totally misunderstanding how controllers and movement in VR works.

There is no fixed reference point like a screen, and the only limitation to your movement is the physical walls of the room. If you want to recenter yourself in the real-world room, you just walk to the center of the room.

If walking to the middle of the room takes you outside the virtual room of the game, then you have to use the in-game movement/teleportation controls to put yourself back in the right virtual spot. (in some cases, this may require walking up to the virtual wall, teleporting back to the middle, and walking towards the virtual wall again).

This generally isn't a problem for games written specifically for room-scale VR, because the game knows where the real walls are, and can adjust the virtual room accordingly (Job simulator does this, bigger physical room = bigger virtual room)

Games with a fixed player location (driving/space/flight sims) will have a "reset location" button that moves the virtual world to recenter where your head is.

As far as the quality of motion controller tracking, the PS Move is one of the worst. The motion controllers on the Vive, on the other hand, are extremely solid in their positioning (I haven't used the Rift yet, but it's probably somewhere in between, and closer to the Vive than the Move)

Well said. We're talking about 3D simulations in 3D space and that becomes crystal clear when you've used it enough. Of course it's no where near perfect but when well implemented the effect is more compelling that I ever thought before using it.
 
You are totally misunderstanding how controllers and movement in VR works.

There is no fixed reference point like a screen, and the only limitation to your movement is the physical walls of the room. If you want to recenter yourself in the real-world room, you just walk to the center of the room.

If walking to the middle of the room takes you outside the virtual room of the game, then you have to use the in-game movement/teleportation controls to put yourself back in the right virtual spot. (in some cases, this may require walking up to the virtual wall, teleporting back to the middle, and walking towards the virtual wall again).

This generally isn't a problem for games written specifically for room-scale VR, because the game knows where the real walls are, and can adjust the virtual room accordingly (Job simulator does this, bigger physical room = bigger virtual room)

Games with a fixed player location (driving/space/flight sims) will have a "reset location" button that moves the virtual world to recenter where your head is.

As far as the quality of motion controller tracking, the PS Move is one of the worst. The motion controllers on the Vive, on the other hand, are extremely solid in their positioning (I haven't used the Rift yet, but it's probably somewhere in between, and closer to the Vive than the Move)
According to what you written I understand it perfectly. All I was asking is how do you reset or recenter as you put it the control. And now after two pages of trying to explain it to everyone you answered it finally, albeit involuntarily.
 
VR will fail for the same reason 3D and every other tech of the week fails. It's great gimmick that people will get bored of then realize it's a pain in the ass to use and move on. I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that but it won't be the first time I've been flamed on this board for saying the exact same thing about a fad.
 
VR will fail for the same reason 3D and every other tech of the week fails. It's great gimmick that people will get bored of then realize it's a pain in the ass to use and move on. I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that but it won't be the first time I've been flamed on this board for saying the exact same thing about a fad.

I certainly not getting bored of my Vive. I'm not the heavies of users but I get in about 5 to 7 hours a week with my Vive.

I simply can't see the idea of 3D simulations in 3D space just going away. That's simply not at all as the same things as 3D flat displays.
 
VR will fail for the same reason 3D and every other tech of the week fails. It's great gimmick that people will get bored of then realize it's a pain in the ass to use and move on. I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that but it won't be the first time I've been flamed on this board for saying the exact same thing about a fad.
I won't flame you for what you said, but I will flame you for clearly not reading the article before posting.
 
Well to play devils advocate on your points. If your buying a 4k TV right now, sure perhaps there won't be much content... still you won't have to worry about having the wrong format in a year. (although of course in a year a better TV will cost less). If you go on a family cruse and the food makes you sick for the entire time, the cruise company with likely get sued, and best case for them you may go back if they give you a redo for free.

Of course your right VR prices are reasonable enough likely for the average high end PC gamer. However having something really take off requires mass market appeal, even in our own gaming circles according to steam people that even buy a GPU are in the minority... never mind the gamers who are willing to buy the latest greatest. According to steams numbers the latest generation of GPUs doesn't often ever have more then 2-3% of the gamer market. So at least for right now not many people are ready to jump in with out complete new systems. Even with gamers if VR is ever to become as main stream as a high end GPU its going to take the hardware required to drift into the sweet spot in the mid range. (which it will... but when a year ? 2 years ?) Then of course the issue for early adopters is content. How many game companies are going to sink millions into development on a product that hasn't even sold 1 million units total (PC VR). Its coming I just don't believe main stream PC VR is in the cards till 2019-2020 at the earliest. imo anyway

Actually you are wrong. I got a 4k TV 2 years ago and now doesn't support all the new stuff out this year and next. HDR10, Dolby Vision, variable refresh rate, etc.
 
It would be good to define what people mean by "fail" too. To everyone saying it will fail, what do you think VR will look like in 10 years?

1. Completely dead except for the odd reviewer marveling at it. In other words, Virtual Boy failure.

2. Niche use. A "failure" the same way steering wheels, surround sound setups, and multi-monitor setups are failures. The average Joe doesn't have them, it's a minority of the market, but it's still being supported and fueled by enough enthusiasts to stay in the business.

I think anyone who thinks it will be #1 is ignorant or does not have much imagination. I say this as someone who thought 3D televisions and the 3D movie resurgence was implemented poorly from the very beginning. #2 however, I think it highly likely unless the motion sickness gets solved.
 
It would be good to define what people mean by "fail" too. To everyone saying it will fail, what do you think VR will look like in 10 years?

1. Completely dead except for the odd reviewer marveling at it. In other words, Virtual Boy failure.

2. Niche use. A "failure" the same way steering wheels, surround sound setups, and multi-monitor setups are failures. The average Joe doesn't have them, it's a minority of the market, but it's still being supported and fueled by enough enthusiasts to stay in the business.

I think anyone who thinks it will be #1 is ignorant or does not have much imagination. I say this as someone who thought 3D televisions and the 3D movie resurgence was implemented poorly from the very beginning. #2 however, I think it highly likely unless the motion sickness gets solved.

Whatever the fate of VR, #1 is unlikely because there's too many uses and interest in it and it naturally gains benefit from other technologies. As for physical issues, I doubt those will be solved easily with HMD implementations. I have no idea just how severe the issues are across the entire population and those issues depend a lot on the content, auto locomotion is a tough thing. Beyond that I've never had any problems nor my wife.
 
Whatever the fate of VR, #1 is unlikely because there's too many uses and interest in it and it naturally gains benefit from other technologies. As for physical issues, I doubt those will be solved easily with HMD implementations. I have no idea just how severe the issues are across the entire population and those issues depend a lot on the content, auto locomotion is a tough thing. Beyond that I've never had any problems nor my wife.
There's always a caveat to the motion sickness issue when talking about it. You say you or your wife never had any problems with it, but how many programs are you both running where the camera moves around independent of the player? I never get sick in VR if I'm just looking around or moving roomscale. It's when I move to a larger area or the camera moves around that when I get sick. Sure, you can only make VR games that don't trigger that, but then then that kind of shuts out adoption by a larger market in the long haul.
 
There's always a caveat to the motion sickness issue when talking about it. You say you or your wife never had any problems with it, but how many programs are you both running where the camera moves around independent of the player? I never get sick in VR if I'm just looking around or moving roomscale. It's when I move to a larger area or the camera moves around that when I get sick. Sure, you can only make VR games that don't trigger that, but then then that kind of shuts out adoption by a larger market in the long haul.

Auto locomotion, that's the big issue because it's just disorienting to be moving visually and not physically. It kind of use to it now but it still doesn't feel quite right. I don't get nausea but it can me little dizzy still in some games.
 
There's always a caveat to the motion sickness issue when talking about it. You say you or your wife never had any problems with it, but how many programs are you both running where the camera moves around independent of the player? I never get sick in VR if I'm just looking around or moving roomscale. It's when I move to a larger area or the camera moves around that when I get sick. Sure, you can only make VR games that don't trigger that, but then then that kind of shuts out adoption by a larger market in the long haul.

If the camera is moving independently of the player, then what you have is a very bad port of a non-VR game into VR.

You can't judge VR on the basis of non-VR ports any more that you can judge PC gaming on the basis of console ports.
 
I won't flame you for what you said, but I will flame you for clearly not reading the article before posting.
Nope, I read it before I posted. It's the same justifications as every other failed technology....basically someone emotionally, professionally, or financially invested in the tech that is more interested in telling everyone how they should feel about the product rather than listening to them. VR is and always will be a niche market that goes in and out of popularity over the years.
 
If the camera is moving independently of the player, then what you have is a very bad port of a non-VR game into VR.

You can't judge VR on the basis of non-VR ports any more that you can judge PC gaming on the basis of console ports.

Well then that highlights the reason VR is a long way off. Right now I would argue most PC games are console ports... or best case designed to operate on both platforms.

What you are saying is that no current AAA game can easily be converted to a full VR experience. Which means all VR game production needs to be done independent and separate from PC and Non-VR console development. I don't imagine there is a ton of AAA or even AA development money around for a product that doesn't even have 1 million units sold at this point. I guess the question really is how fast low end integrated GPU tech becomes good enough and headsets costs come down, cause until the install base gets to the point where it at least equals ONE of the 2 major consoles I can't see many companies spending the 50+ million it costs these days to develop a AAA game title. I mean at the current rate of PC headset sales... it will take a good 3 years before they even get to 3 million headsets sold. If I was selling a game with a 50 million budget to a market of only 3 million devices, even if everyone with a set bought my game the first $16.66 of the sale would go to nothing but the games development... if only 20% bought my game I would need to sell my game for $83 just to break even.

With those sorts of install numbers AAA game budgets are just a no go... so not being able to "Port" standard AAA PC and Console games... means it will be YEARS before games with those types of budgets make business sense for VR.
 
Last edited:
If the camera is moving independently of the player, then what you have is a very bad port of a non-VR game into VR.
See that's the issue. If you were to look at the top 100 games of any year for the past couple decades, I would bet the vast majority involve the camera needing to move around. If I want to go see the next village in Skyrim, I need to walk there. If I need to scale a tower in Dark Souls, I need to walk there. If I want to fight a boss in God of War, I need my character to jump around in a space larger than my room. Basic movement of the player is such a fundamental concept of the majority of games, that making ones without it can feel very stale.

The fact that motion sickness is currently tied to basic movement of the player or camera SEVERELY limits what kind of material you can have for VR. You're stuck to either concept games that don't require much movement at all, teleporting around in unsatisfying way, or else mini-games where there's just not that much gameplay there. It's a conundrum, since VR is hands-down the best way to experience the environment of a game, but it's a serious problem for moving much farther than your own room and not puking.

VorpX is literally the only solution I've seen to this, since you can still get the true 3D effect, but adjust the size of the screen to accommodate the motion sickness. I would REALLY like to see more support for this sort of thing, since VorpX is just a 3rd party hack solution with limited supported. I'm not saying the game support / sickness a problem that can't be solved, I'm saying it's a problem that can't be ignored if you expect VR to get big.

You can't judge VR on the basis of non-VR ports any more that you can judge PC gaming on the basis of console ports.
I can play a whole hell of a lot of console ports on PC and have a reasonably good time. Your analogy would be like if I could NOT play any console ports and could ONLY play PC-exclusives. If I CAN'T play a mainstream game in VR due to basic medium limitations how the hell is that going to translate to anything other than a niche market?
 
Well then that highlights the reason VR is a long way off. Right now I would argue most PC games are console ports... or best case designed to operate on both platforms.

What you are saying is that no current AAA game can easily be converted to a full VR experience. Which means all VR game production needs to be done independent and separate from PC and Non-VR console development. I don't imagine there is a ton of AAA or even AA development money around for a product that doesn't even have 1 million units sold at this point. I guess the question really is how fast low end integrated GPU tech becomes good enough and headsets costs come down, cause until the install base gets to the point where it at least equals ONE of the 2 major consoles I can't see many companies spending the 50+ million it costs these days to develop a AAA game title. I mean at the current rate of PC headset sales... it will take a good 3 years before they even get to 3 million headsets sold. If I was selling a game with a 50 million budget to a market of only 3 million devices, even if everyone with a set bought my game the first $16.66 of the sale would go to nothing but the games development... if only 20% bought my game I would need to sell my game for $83 just to break even.

With those sorts of install numbers AAA game budgets are just a no go... so not being able to "Port" standard AAA PC and Console games... means it will be YEARS before games with those types of budgets make business sense for VR.
Games can be made, with huge budgets, AAA title doing both non VR and VR.
 
I can play a whole hell of a lot of console ports on PC and have a reasonably good time. Your analogy would be like if I could NOT play any console ports and could ONLY play PC-exclusives. If I CAN'T play a mainstream game in VR due to basic medium limitations how the hell is that going to translate to anything other than a niche market?

I wrote a long thought-out reply to this, and then realized that it just doesn't matter, because I will never change your mind.

You are simply too weak to handle VR. Don't buy a headset, we don't care.
 
See that's the issue. If you were to look at the top 100 games of any year for the past couple decades, I would bet the vast majority involve the camera needing to move around. If I want to go see the next village in Skyrim, I need to walk there. If I need to scale a tower in Dark Souls, I need to walk there. If I want to fight a boss in God of War, I need my character to jump around in a space larger than my room. Basic movement of the player is such a fundamental concept of the majority of games, that making ones without it can feel very stale.

The fact that motion sickness is currently tied to basic movement of the player or camera SEVERELY limits what kind of material you can have for VR. You're stuck to either concept games that don't require much movement at all, teleporting around in unsatisfying way, or else mini-games where there's just not that much gameplay there. It's a conundrum, since VR is hands-down the best way to experience the environment of a game, but it's a serious problem for moving much farther than your own room and not puking.

VorpX is literally the only solution I've seen to this, since you can still get the true 3D effect, but adjust the size of the screen to accommodate the motion sickness. I would REALLY like to see more support for this sort of thing, since VorpX is just a 3rd party hack solution with limited supported. I'm not saying the game support / sickness a problem that can't be solved, I'm saying it's a problem that can't be ignored if you expect VR to get big.

I can play a whole hell of a lot of console ports on PC and have a reasonably good time. Your analogy would be like if I could NOT play any console ports and could ONLY play PC-exclusives. If I CAN'T play a mainstream game in VR due to basic medium limitations how the hell is that going to translate to anything other than a niche market?
You do know that VR is in it's infancy right? Things will get better and better.
What motion sickness? HA! If you get sick then there are other games to play or maybe VR isn't for you?
It really does a number on your brain so it's not the fault of VR, just certain individuals.

VR is getting bigger and bigger. There is way too much momentum now. :)
Since I got my Rift, I have not touched a 2D game!(7 months or something) Not sure how you can play on a flat screen with no depth....Archaic!
 
As it stands VR will be just a niche for the foreseeable future. That does not mean it will not be financially successful. Niche does not equal failure. I recognize the simple fact that many are not willing to bother with it on a regular basis in it's current form. I suspect that will change as HMDS get better, lighter, more comfortable. I suspect it will really change once we no longer need HMDS.

All that said, Elite Dangerous without VR seems almost lifeless and drab to me. I don't want to play it without VR.
 
All that said, Elite Dangerous without VR seems almost lifeless and drab to me. I don't want to play it without VR.

Ever since I bought Elite Dangerous two months ago (already had a Vive since launch) it's pretty much the only game I play now. Before that, I didn't really use VR that much, just because the content wasn't there yet.

It's the first game for VR that could really be considered AAA, and it only happened because they have been working on VR support since the Rift DK1.

The only fault I have noticed is that the world rotates around the goggles, and not around your neck, so looking around while docked is a bit weird, because the ship moves slightly different than the station (didn't even notice it for the first month)

Since I got my Rift, I have not touched a 2D game!(7 months or something) Not sure how you can play on a flat screen with no depth....Archaic!

My new video card came with a free copy of Mass Effect Andromeda (Best Buy GTX 1070 special), and I haven't even bothered to install it yet, because I'm just having too much fun with Elite in VR
 
I wrote a long thought-out reply to this, and then realized that it just doesn't matter, because I will never change your mind.

You are simply too weak to handle VR. Don't buy a headset, we don't care.

You do know that VR is in it's infancy right? Things will get better and better.
What motion sickness? HA! If you get sick then there are other games to play or maybe VR isn't for you?
It really does a number on your brain so it's not the fault of VR, just certain individuals.

VR is getting bigger and bigger. There is way too much momentum now. :)
Since I got my Rift, I have not touched a 2D game!(7 months or something) Not sure how you can play on a flat screen with no depth....Archaic!
Did you clowns miss the part where I said VorpX is one SOLUTION to this and hope it gets more support? And also said how VR is the best way to experience game environments, bar none? I say this as someone who already has VR and have been following stereoscopic 3D gaming ever since the Elsa Revelators, so you might want to consider I could actually know what I'm talking about here.

I BADLY want VR to become more viable than it is, because I know just how great good 3D is. At the same time though, I really don't give a shit about minigames, and I want to be able to play larger developed games that have a hell of a lot more content and depth to them. Those games require you to move around. Currently, VR doesn't have a good answer to this. This is massively going to impact how much it will catch on with marketshare. By saying I should play "other games", that's 99% of all games out there that we're talking about. There simply needs to be a way an average person can have a half-way viable VR experience with mainstream games in order to gain more mainstream acceptance. Again, VorpX is the only solution I've seen to this, but that only covers so many games and is just one small company. I'm willing to screw around with it to get it working, but the average consumer isn't going to want to jump through that many hoops.

I'm pointing out a serious obstacle towards VR gaining mainstream viability. You guys are acting like zealots thinking one criticism of VR is a personal attack on you. But fine, say I'm weak and don't deserve VR, whatever. If VR is having difficulty winning over someone who IS interested in it, but wants less constrained content for it AND not to vomit, how the hell is it going to win over a larger audience?

VR is going to get better and better to a degree, but please, paint me a roadmap how you think it will displace gaming in current form in say, 10 years. I see it floundering around as an enthusiast device that's not doing enough to win over the main market in the long term.
 
Did you clowns miss the part where I said VorpX is one SOLUTION to this and hope it gets more support? And also said how VR is the best way to experience game environments, bar none? I say this as someone who already has VR and have been following stereoscopic 3D gaming ever since the Elsa Revelators, so you might want to consider I could actually know what I'm talking about here.

I BADLY want VR to become more viable than it is, because I know just how great good 3D is. At the same time though, I really don't give a shit about minigames, and I want to be able to play larger developed games that have a hell of a lot more content and depth to them. Those games require you to move around. Currently, VR doesn't have a good answer to this. This is massively going to impact how much it will catch on with marketshare. By saying I should play "other games", that's 99% of all games out there that we're talking about. There simply needs to be a way an average person can have a half-way viable VR experience with mainstream games in order to gain more mainstream acceptance. Again, VorpX is the only solution I've seen to this, but that only covers so many games and is just one small company. I'm willing to screw around with it to get it working, but the average consumer isn't going to want to jump through that many hoops.

I'm pointing out a serious obstacle towards VR gaining mainstream viability. You guys are acting like zealots thinking one criticism of VR is a personal attack on you. But fine, say I'm weak and don't deserve VR, whatever. If VR is having difficulty winning over someone who IS interested in it, but wants less constrained content for it AND not to vomit, how the hell is it going to win over a larger audience?

VR is going to get better and better to a degree, but please, paint me a roadmap how you think it will displace gaming in current form in say, 10 years. I see it floundering around as an enthusiast device that's not doing enough to win over the main market in the long term.
Displace current gaming in 10 years? I am a gamer and have pretty much stopped playing 2D games. Some people adopt new things more easily than others. Yes, VR still has a long ways to go. Its clunky, wires and crap. It would be nice to have a good game standard so we don't have splitting.
Though we have that now since each platform has their own games/network for multiplayer.
 
Fallout 4 and DOOM are going to bring a lot to the VR table this year in terms of triple A games. And quite frankly I would consider Raw Data a triple A title that is available right now.
 
Back
Top