Poll: So where have all the VR talk gone?

[Jeremy Comans]

For almost a year pre-launch every site was inundating the reader with VR hype. Then launch came, the games were lacklustre and no-one was buying, and the coverage lasted mere weeks before most sites stopped reviewing it. Some sites do review the occasional VR-exc title, but the whole thing is like this shame they have to be extra quiet about to make up for all the hyping they did. Or, there is just nothing to say about it?

I am interested in VR (Vive and/or PSVR), and I have tried Vive at a demo. My issue currently is that the buy-in isn't justified by the quality of the library. Inherently, VR isn't going to make me like things I don't like now just because it is VR (i.e., I found the tech demo games just as boring as I would on a monitor, whereas some people find them fun because of the VR aspect). I don't think I'll be truly interested until devs work out wholly new mechanics and genres, which will take years. I reckon I'll be pretty susceptible to VR sickness, too. Janky, low frame-rates and narrow FOV give me headaches real quick, so...

Right now, I like the idea of picking up one of the cheap headsets for movies. I've heard that works really well.

N.B. When gaming made the move to full 3D, it took a couple of years for devs to work out utilizing space, moving a camera, etc., and how to get the most out of the new tech, and for new genres to grow from it. I think VR, to reach its potential, is an even bigger leap than that was, and will take a proportionate amount of time to get right.

 

[Saltyk]

It's way too expensive, lacks a killer app, and does have other issues (like people getting sick playing it).

Make it a bit more affordable. Make a few must have games that you can only experience in VR. And see if there is a way to deal with the other issues. Then, it might be more viable.

I could see it becoming bigger in the next ten years, but right now it's way too new.

It's like electric cars. They're expensive (A quick Google search indicates that the cheapest ones are around $25,000). They have very limited range (the more affordable ones can barely get 100 miles). They often take a long time to recharge (several hours). And there really isn't much consumer choice. Even with the advantages, like being quiet and cheaper to operate, there is no reason to think they will replace gas powered cars anytime soon.

 

[Lufia Erim]

I think the problem VR, in its current form, faces getting beyond the high-end enthusiast market is one that wont' be solved by cost reductions or even "killer apps".

It's the isolation problem.

Strapping a box to your face that essentially visually cuts out the real world just isn't viable in most people's lives. They have parents, wives, husbands, kids, pets, and a hundred other things that they need to be aware of and periodically respond to. Many of my gaming friends already face blow-back from loved ones over sitting in front of a computer/TV for hours on end with headphones on talking to people no one else can hear -- gaming often is fairly isolating. In most cases cutting off their vision as well would simply not be remotely acceptable for both practical and family-dynamics reasons.

Many of my friends wouldn't even consider VR in its current form, regardless of cost or software availability, because of such issues. In several cases I've little doubt it'd be a fast track to divorce court.

Even in the absence of VRs other issues, and they are legion, the isolation issue kills VR dead in the general market.

Isolation huh? I never thought about that in regards to VR or even gaming in general. That is a very good point you bring up.

Actually now that you mention it that may be part of the reason i am interested in getting one. I am pretty asocial. I have minor anxiety, when aeound new or unknown people/ situations. For me VR would not only be a new experience with new technology, but also a way to see and maybe experience things i may never be able to in reality. I know it's a gamble but i really hope ot takes off. Like i said in my OP, i have a bias for the PSVR, because i play only on consoles, but as far as i know the PSVR has sold 1 million systems and the PS4 at least 50 millionsystems to date. So roughly 2% of ps4 owners have one. Sure it may not be a lot but I'm hoping to see that number increase.

 

[krystalphoenix]

I've tried it at a friends house a few times, while fun for short bursts, it was quite uncomfortable for me to have to put the headset thing on over my glasses. I was constantly concerned about doing damage to my frames since they are lightweight ones to be work all day everyday. (I can't wear contacts because of severe dry eyes. Like been told by opticians to not use them to avoid getting them essentially glued to my eyes, so that's not even an option for me.)

Said friend who owned it also found a large number of the rollercoaster types and walking ones gave him serious motion sickness nausea. I didn't get that, but noticed a headache starting after a few short plays.

 

[Death Carr]

I'm not willing to shell out $1000 for a piece of hardware in it's first iterative generation that appears likely to give me motion sickness and would force me to look at games I wouldn't normally purchase just to justify the obscene cost of the headset

that said, if VR would allow me to play the games I normally play, with the added immersion of being able to move my head to look I might be a little more interested than I currently am

But I'm also not going to repurpose a room in my house just to use the motion controls for the few VR exclusives that do look interesting ( I have about 1 sq meter of available space in the room I normally use if I push my chair out of the way)

 

[Yoshi178]

and people scoffed at me when i kept saying last year that VR gaming was a total fad. now as this threads title has already pointed out, you almost never hear people talk about it anymore lol.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Maybe people realised it's kinda shite at the moment? 'Not good enough quality' and 'too expensive' are two major stumbling blocks, swiftly followed by absolutely no mass market killer aps. Ideally consoles must be on board for it to succeed, but neither consoles are powerful enough to do it justice (and if they were the headsets would be even more expensive).

And I'm not sure seeing this era as gen1 is historically accurate... Surely VR's been 'gen1' for decades, which is another problem with the whole idea.

-what happened to the VR talk? - it's still there for the niche.
-are you interested in VR? - not like this I'm not.
-have you tried VR? - nope, given I only really game on Xbox and there's only one game I'd like to try with it.
-if you are not interested in VR gaming, what would it take to personally get you on board? - being much cheaper, for starters, because it's ostensibly just a luxuriant peripheral. But 'much cheaper' needs mass market success, and as it is VR will not attain that.
-what is the game or kind of game you would want the most in VR? - Elite, which also raises the question of 'what's the point'? Yeah, it'd be an awesome experience, but it would simply be an addition or tweak to the experience - which makes the outlay a waste of money.

VR is new technology and I'm pretty sure even consoles suffered from all those at one (or two) point in history.

Eh? The concept of VR and the practical basics are not new at all, and the comparison with 3D is apt in that sense; both have been little more than gimmicks for decades, and both have tried to be pushed in the past and failed.

VR has endless possibilities if you let it.

It also seems to have endless - quite spectacularly prohibitive - drawbacks, so the "possibilities" sadly become completely academic for the majority of people.

 

[Lufia Erim]

and people scoffed at me when i kept saying last year that VR gaming was a total fad. now as this threads title has already pointed out, you almost never hear people talk about it anymore lol.

Well if you check the Sub-reddit for PSVR, They seem quite active. Everyone is gushing over Farpoint and Dick Wilde.

 

[Yoshi178]

and people scoffed at me when i kept saying last year that VR gaming was a total fad. now as this threads title has already pointed out, you almost never hear people talk about it anymore lol.

Well if you check the Sub-reddit for PSVR, They seem quite active. Everyone is gushing over Farpoint and Dick Wilde.

i don't go to reddit.

/v/'s where shit's at.

 

[Mcgeezaks]

Eh? The concept of VR and the practical basics are not new at all, and the comparison with 3D is apt in that sense; both have been little more than gimmicks for decades, and both have tried to be pushed in the past and failed.

VR has endless possibilities if you let it.

It also seems to have endless - quite spectacularly prohibitive - drawbacks, so the "possibilities" sadly become completely academic for the majority of people.

See, just because they were both gimmicks in the past, doesn't make them comparable.

While the concept of VR and the basics has been done before, they were just that, extremely basic because of the extremely limited hardware and technology at the time. Nothing like now. The last commercial VR was like what, the Virtual Boy over 20 years ago? Yeah nothing says virtual reality like all red, 32-bit graphics :^) You should read about why ''VR'' failed over 2 decades ago and not settle with ''because VR is a gimmick''.

Technology today is advancing faster than ever before and this will only benefit VR, even if you don't like VR for what it is now, I don't see how you can deny the great potential it has and will reach. 3D however peaked years ago.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

See, just because they were both gimmicks in the past, doesn't make them comparable.

It literally does in the way that the perception is that they've both been 'here' for a while, and have tried to be forced before and failed.

However---

Technology today is advancing faster than ever before and this will only benefit VR, even if you don't like VR for what it is now, I don't see how you can deny the great potential it has and will reach. 3D however peaked years ago.

I wasn't denying the potential at all, but 'potential' is a very nebulous thing. I can talk about potential in context of something like Ready Player One's systems; all of that is ostensibly feasible - but right now only in bits and pieces (software, suits/harnesses, haptic feedback, sprawling interconnected networking, etc), and there is no infrastructure to support it.

And so it is with VR. Still. I'm not saying it'll continue to be a failure, but it's been spluttering for a long while, and we're still no closer to mass market adoption or any real seismic evolution in tech or the way we interface with entertainment. There was a radio show I listened to years ago with a running gag involving the line 'The benefits are obvious', well, the benefits are not obvious for VR at all given how costly, niche, and diversely finicky it all is.

'It'll be good in maybe five to ten years' is meaningless to the general consumer, or anyone without a spare few hundred quid to toss away on work-in-progress tech.

And the hurdles VR has to face are still significant. I love the console experience - it defines gaming for me - but given the MO of console manufacturers, when will their systems truly be able to handle VR worth a damn? When will the price come down enough for them to be acceptably priced bundles? If the development and marketing culture remains fixated on resolution and fancy screenshots, how on earth can that culture segue with VR in a way that won't result in hideously unpleasant experiences? When will various VR systems be as effortless to set up and use as a digital TV box?

The list of VR's hurdles and drawbacks continues: as George Weidman noted, this is also a technology that actually makes some of its users feel sick or throw up. That's a hard thing to market around... 'Spend a few hundred quid! You might want to throw up!'. Various solutions are being found or worked towards for motion sickness, sure, but right now it's one of multiple issues minimising the userbase.

And in terms of subjective tastes I don't see dedicated VR experiences as being things I give a damn about (given there is no VR on XB1 I'd need to buy an entire new gaming PC, a VR system, and a HOTAS if I wanted to play Elite with VR which doesn't actually transform the game in any real way). It's a little like Kinect development; the dedicated games weren't exactly 'core', and given the minimal adoption rate it fizzled out because there was no real advantage or difference to playing 'with' Kinect as opposed to playing exclusively for/with it. For me to give a damn the adoption rate needs to be very high, to the extent that most - or many - games are being developed from day1 with VR as an integral component. How long away from that are we now on console? Five to ten years, if that?

 

[Myria]

While the concept of VR and the basics has been done before, they were just that, extremely basic because of the extremely limited hardware and technology at the time.

Fundamentally that's still an issue, the tech still isn't up to snuff, neither in cost nor in the tech itself. The question is, is it the issue?

There's no guarantee that even absent the cost issue and even if the tech did deliver on all its promises, that VR would take off. The death of 3D displays in the home is a very relevant example of how the desire of manufacturers to have something new to sell, the press to have something new to talk about, and techie's desire to have something new to play with does not make a successful product. It has to give people something they want without significant drawbacks. VR shares many of the drawbacks of 3D TV and adds in a few of its own for good measure, that can't be ignored.

The last commercial VR was like what, the Virtual Boy over 20 years ago?

Ummm, no, not even close. There have been several HMDs that have come and gone since -- PSVR is at least Sony's sixth commercial foray [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasstron] into the field, for instance.

This tendency to try and hand-wave VR's issues away with "It's first gen!" claims are more than a tad bizarre.

 

[bjj hero]

See, just because they were both gimmicks in the past, doesn't make them comparable.

While the concept of VR and the basics has been done before, they were just that, extremely basic because of the extremely limited hardware and technology at the time. Nothing like now. The last commercial VR was like what, the Virtual Boy over 20 years ago? Yeah nothing says virtual reality like all red, 32-bit graphics :^) You should read about why ''VR'' failed over 2 decades ago and not settle with ''because VR is a gimmick''.

Technology today is advancing faster than ever before and this will only benefit VR, even if you don't like VR for what it is now, I don't see how you can deny the great potential it has and will reach. 3D however peaked years ago.

I disagree. 3D, VR and motion controls are allgimmicks. We keep going back to them, they are going to revolutionise cinema/gaming/whatever and then they die out.

The techs have too many draw backs. You can talk about potential but there are too many barriers to make them desirable. That is why VR has gone quiet. It has had its 15 minutes again.

 

[Yoshi178]

See, just because they were both gimmicks in the past, doesn't make them comparable.

While the concept of VR and the basics has been done before, they were just that, extremely basic because of the extremely limited hardware and technology at the time. Nothing like now. The last commercial VR was like what, the Virtual Boy over 20 years ago? Yeah nothing says virtual reality like all red, 32-bit graphics :^) You should read about why ''VR'' failed over 2 decades ago and not settle with ''because VR is a gimmick''.

Technology today is advancing faster than ever before and this will only benefit VR, even if you don't like VR for what it is now, I don't see how you can deny the great potential it has and will reach. 3D however peaked years ago.

I disagree. 3D, VR and motion controls are allgimmicks. We keep going back to them, they are going to revolutionise cinema/gaming/whatever and then they die out.

The techs have too many draw backs. You can talk about potential but there are too many barriers to make them desirable. That is why VR has gone quiet. It has had its 15 minutes again.

actually motion controls have been around for over a decade now.

i don't seem motion controls going ANYWHERE anytime soon lol.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

There's a fate GO and neptunia game for psvr as well as an English version for Summer Lessons so I expect it to keep doing solid. From what I read the psvr has sold more than the others combined, and it's the worst from a performance angle, so it's likely due to being much cheaper to make it work (since the pc ones require you to have a pretty good pc on top of the vr hardware itself) combined with those exclusive games.


I myself haven't gotten it yet but I do have interest in it. I will prolly get it eventually. Still waiting for my super robot taisen vr game though.

 

[bjj hero]

actually motion controls have been around for over a decade now.

i don't seem motion controls going ANYWHERE anytime soon lol.

Yet they have not changed gaming forever, the wii sold well, the wii u bombed and it is too early to call the switch.

Motion controls are a gimmick, the vast majority of gamers still use a controller or M&K. The same way they have for decades. Even the wii moved away from constant motion controls. Mariokart is far more responsive on the controller.

 

[Yoshi178]

actually motion controls have been around for over a decade now.

i don't seem motion controls going ANYWHERE anytime soon lol.

Yet they have not changed gaming forever, the wii sold well, the wii u bombed and it is too early to call the switch.

Motion controls are a gimmick, the vast majority of gamers still use a controller or M&K. The same way they have for decades. Even the wii moved away from constant motion controls. Mariokart is far more responsive on the controller.

Yet they have not changed gaming forever

LOL and what exactly do you mean by that? they need to change all aspects of gaming now do they?

FYI, Mario Kart may be more responsive with a Gamecube controller without motion controls. However it's widely accepted that Splatoon is much better with motion controls though. so much so that Nintendo even made a point of reassuring people during the January Switch presentation that the Switch Pro Controller would support Gyro controls.

some games work better without motion controls and some work better with them obviously. just like some games work better with an analog stick and some games work better with a D-Pad. i guess by your standards that must mean Analog sticks are also a gimmick and D-Pads are the only true way of controlling our games.

you've proved nothing here.

 

[bjj hero]

actually motion controls have been around for over a decade now.

i don't seem motion controls going ANYWHERE anytime soon lol.

Yet they have not changed gaming forever, the wii sold well, the wii u bombed and it is too early to call the switch.

Motion controls are a gimmick, the vast majority of gamers still use a controller or M&K. The same way they have for decades. Even the wii moved away from constant motion controls. Mariokart is far more responsive on the controller.

Yet they have not changed gaming forever

LOL and what exactly do you mean by that? they need to change all aspects of gaming now do they?

oh and FYI, Mario Kart may be more reponsive with a Gamecube controller without motion controllers. it's widely accepted that Splatoon is much better with motion controls though. so much so that Nintendo even made a point of reassuring people during the January Switch presentation that the Switch Pro Controller would support Gyro controls.

some games work better without motion controls and some work better with them obviously. just like some games work better with an analog stick and some games work better with a D-Pad.

you've proved nothing here.

Do you have a medical issue that you keep spouting lol? That is 2 out of 2 posts noe. Is it a nervous tick?

3D polygons changed gaming, they have now over take sprites that used to be the only option. Moving away from cartridges opened up a whole new world. Analog sticks changed things. 95% of gamers go no where near motion controls. Most gamers had a go of a wii or kinnect and then went back to traditional methods and never touched them again. Motion controls are a gimmick that have passed most gamers by.

You name one game which according to you benefited from motion controls. 99% of games are better without them.

 

[Yoshi178]

You name one game which according to you benefited from motion controls. 99% of games are better without them.

according to about 70-80% of Splatoon players actually LOL

https://mynintendonews.com/2015/07/...-use-motion-controls-two-months-after-launch/

95% of gamers go no where near motion controls.

Source?

Do you have a medical issue that you keep spouting lol? That is 2 out of 2 posts noe. Is it a nervous tick?

if someone disagrees with you they have a medical problem now? LOVELY to hear that. XD

 

[bjj hero]

You name one game which according to you benefited from motion controls. 99% of games are better without them.

according to about 70-80% of Splatoon players actually LOL

https://mynintendonews.com/2015/07/...-use-motion-controls-two-months-after-launch/

95% of gamers go no where near motion controls.

Source?

Congratulations, you found a title that benefits from motion controls. I'd argue most players would be more accurate with mouse and keyboard. Shooters tend to benefit from M&K but it is not a game Ive played.

Source? Really?
The vast majority of games are not Nintendo games. The majority of PC, xbox and sony games do not use motion controls.
Even a lot of nintendo titles go no where near motion controls. Are you finding this complicated? Check the steam store some time.