Why is VR getting so much buzz?

[Tsun Tzu]

VR, as it's been pitched and, hopefully, implemented in the coming year, is not intended as a replacement for keyboard/mouse and controller.

It's meant to enhance what we've already got and make the gaming experience a hell of a lot more immersive. Which, from all accounts so far, it seems to do quite well.

So, I'm kinda optimistic about it all. Horror games with Occulus and stuff seem like they would be ridiculously traumatic, what with the removal of the distance barrier between you and the screen (and I've seen some pretty worrying reactions that look genuine from Let's Play-ers to that effect)... not that I'd play any horror games with it, but yeah.

TL;DR-

It's enhancement, not replacement.

 

[TechNoFear]

Everyone says VR is like the next thing in gaming but I'm sorry, I really don't believe it. Why?

Because in entertainment / games VR increases immersion.

Once commercial uses increase then VR / AR equipment will rapidly improve and reach an approachable price point.

In commerce VR allows increases in productivity, via greater collaboration (VR offices), ease of access (visit remote site via VR), etc.

All the mining multinationals I contract to are very interested in VR and automation (as a cost saving measure due to the commodity price slum).

One has just spent Au$80k on a autonomous drone to capture video and LIDAR data from remote sites in the Australian outback (where it is often over 50C / 122F in the shade, if you could find any shade...).

The terabytes of data collected by the drone is then turned into a very detailed 3D landscape so it can be easily analysed on screen or with VR (for asset protection / inventory management / MES).

It amazed me how much more accessible VR made this data.

I like to quote Yahtzee here on motion controls.

All these motion sensor concepts have to eventually face the fact that people play games to unwind, and no one "unwinds" by coming home and waving their arms about like an air traffic controller covered in beetles.

The problem is that you cannot see your hands or the mouse / keyboard when using VR.

Many new controllers are now emerging to solve this issue (including the arm waving).

I quite like some of the VR chairs that are coming out.

Google Roto or VRgo for examples.

 

[Saltyk]

I mostly see applications for games like No Man's Sky. A game about exploring planets and flying in a star ship was already the game I wanted as a teenager. Add VR to the mix and I'll swear someone traveled back in time and got me to design the freaking game.

Anyway, I see VR being pretty great for certain games. However, not all games. As I see it, the biggest concern is the price point. How much will VR cost? If Sony has a fairly cheap price on their VR, I can see it being adopted in mass and having plenty of games adopt it.

Hell, I once heard a rumor that the NX was going to use VR, and if that is true that would probably make VR a major feature in this generation of gaming. Mind you, that (like basically everything around the NX) is an unsubstantiated rumor. Still, if true, it would almost certainly benefit the whole VR concept on the whole.

 

[iller3]

The problem is that you cannot see your hands or the mouse / keyboard when using VR.

Who still does that anyway?? ...no one I know who could say they're good at gaming

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

If Gabe Newell thinks it's the next big thing, then i have no choice but to agree, in the vain hope that this will be part of Half-life 3's innovation and of course confirmation.

Gabe also thinks a Linux based OS will sell gaming PCs.

OT: It's the next 3D television- WHOAH FUTUREEEEE

 

[runic knight]

Why? For the same reason motion controls was, it is a lazy attempt to mimic legitimate innovation that allows them to get away marketing sub-par gaming experiences at full price. Gimmick itself will sell, equipment will sell, games with it will sell, and the market will love to cash in on all of that while the fad lasts.

that isn't to say that VR doesn't have potential, and that in order to get it, you got to start with less great alternatives than the Star Trek holodeck first, but given exactly who I have seen pushing it as the next big thing, it seems pretty clear this is 2016's answer to the motion control hype caused by the Wii's sales.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Honestly, having tried it, I actually think it's kind of incredible, but only when it's done well. I don't know if it will ever completely take off, but it wouldn't surprise me. It's hard for me to say though since most of the stuff I tried was very clearly just tech demos. Even still, there was a particular horror game I played that was more terrifying than just about anything else I've ever tried simply because it felt way more like I was actually there.

I think it has a huge amount of potential, but I do think it's pretty far off at this point from being anything more than a really expensive toy with limited use.

 

[KoudelkaMorgan]

I'm surprised that most of the posts aren't simply "because porn."

Its getting buzz because for the first time in years there is actually newsworthy content regarding it. Back in the 80s it was going to be the next big thing, eventually we got the Virtual Boy. That killed it for a long time. Now that motion controls are dying (as if they ever lived in the first place) companies are vying to get in on the next perceived BIG THING. Even if its not new, and hardly anyone is truly interested in it because its still 18+ years away from being awesome.

I'm more confused as to why "hoverboards" that do not hover, and are barely functional gimped Segueways that also explode are getting so much buzz. Apart from them bursting into flames, and the inappropriate name I don't get it.

 

[FPLOON]

Virtual Reality is the way of the future! Isolation with one another is the true evolution of mankind! Also, it'subjectively better than real life... ;p

Other than that, it's going to be interesting to see what would actually top it once it's [even] reaches the "almost one in every home" dynamic... Then again, just like capitalism, they would be so many competitors that they would all "feel" the "same" in "general"...

At first, I was like "Dammit, FPLOON! Let's actually take this seriously!"... But, then I was like "Oh, what FPLOON said..." afterwards...

Anyway, it's the next step in immersion that can go beyond just gaming when implemented correctly and shit... which already is like some "sci-fi novel predicting our future" shit from an entertainment perspective...

 

[stormtrooper9091]

because money is being paid to market it aggressively, duh? Some potential is there though

 

[Level 7 Dragon]

Because it's the next step in terms of projecting technology. TV's have gotten small enough that you can now put one on your head and make it cover all of your periperal vision. Also, you can look around thanks to motion sensitive technology.

It's not the holodeck just yet, but I'm curious myself to try out POV stuff.

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Because until now, games have been just looking some other character doing stuff and being awesome on a screen, instead of you doing stuff yourself and being awesome.

 

[Somebloke]

Depends on the game. Shooters are never going to be truly realistic as you won't be standing/running around your lounge room. But flight sims and driving games will be pretty cool. Something like Elite Dangerous in VR will be (and apparently already is) amazing.

Yes; I have been spoilt with the immersion and flexibility, and can at this point not play Elite on a monitor (it just sucks the life out the game) -- and that's with a Rift DK1, that has pixels the size of floor tiles and only 3DOF tracking...

Once I get out of my pilot's seat, though, I definitely want positional tracking for my hands (hands, at the very least). Note that this is not the same thing as disconnectedly waving a wiimote around, or jumping in front of of your TV and Kinect; This is 1:1, and you actually interact with things inside the game world. In the shooter, you are holding the gun, pointing it and aiming down its sights, as opposed to "flying by wire", as if the player character were an RC airplane.

There is certainly something to be said for Yahtzee's argument for least-effort-to-get-things-done, but I'm pretty sure there is room for both types of experience.

 

[Ishigami]

Everyone says VR is like the next thing in gaming but I'm sorry, I really don't believe it. Why? I like to quote Yahtzee here on motion controls.

All these motion sensor concepts have to eventually face the fact that people play games to unwind, and no one "unwinds" by coming home and waving their arms about like an air traffic controller covered in beetles.

Will it sell some? Sure. Is it gonna replace the standard controller/TV or keyboard/mouse/monitor layout? Not a chance. Not only does it require heavy investment, it also, of course, requires games to be specially made for it. And furthermore, you gotta mount a clunky device onto your head. And even FURTHER, most casual people don't even know VR is heavily in development. And to be quite honest, personally, I really don't see current VR as worth the whole investment at all.

I don't buy into the hype. The same way I have been highly critical of 3D movies.

That said there is some merit to it for certain genres.
For example racing games like Assetto Corsa and flight games like Ace Combat can indeed benefit greatly from VR.
Being able to look around freely in the virtual cockpit and having a life size FoV will enhance the immersion greatly.
Furthermore VR will not impact the controls of these games at all!
You can verify the status of your controls via the virtual representation of the controls in the game. For example if I turn my actual steering wheel by 90? the in game steering wheel will turn by 90? as well, the same for a flight stick or throttle.
The player is not in charge of the pilot but the machine, which is mimicked close enough to real life, itself therefore it works.

Will it work for FPS or RTS? I don't think so.

I'm a technology enthusiast and I love racing games and flight games. Therefore it is more than likely that I will buy a VR set.
But unlike some I have don't expect it to cook my meals or do my laundry.
I will only buy it as display for my virtual cockpits of a car or jet and that's about it.

 

[Wakey87]

I think once it hits the market it'll find its niche, I guess time will tell how big that niche is.

 

[josemlopes]

I think it can bring enough freshness into the table. I really like feeling "inside" the game and this level of VR (placing the screen on your face and looking around with your head) is good enough for me.

 

[Callate]

Well, let's say it has a much better chance of being the "next big thing" than 3D TV.

I'm old enough that I experienced the first wave of VR, clunky things that ran on a fraction of the processing power that's now available to the typical smartphone. And, y'know, it was kind of cool. But it was also something you played for five minutes in the equivalent of an arcade, not something you seriously thought of bringing into your own home.

"They" say that this wave is going to be different.

They might be right. I feel some optimism about the amount of enthusiasm I see from the people who have seen it thus far, people who are mostly on the technical side of things; the people who are staking their reputations and livelihoods, at least in the short term, on the future of VR have the best reason to be skeptical about the technology. They also have perhaps the best insights to see where its flaws lie and where it could improve.

And by and large, they still seem impressed. I'm probably not going to have a strong sense as to whether they're right to be impressed until there's a demo of Occulus available at the local mall or Best Buy.

The devil, I suspect, is in the details... Which in this case lies in the hands of the big publishers.

It isn't going to be a good idea to try to port Call of Duty or Mirror's Edge into VR. But they're still almost certainly going to try.

The future of the tech, for good or ill, lies in the ability of the big guys to adapt to the technology and make something compelling that makes several million people say, "I want this in my house." And companies like EA typically show all the agility of a battleship chained to an aircraft carrier. They've shown an inability to adapt to new control mechanisms before, and we have a score of bad games for the Playstation Move and Kinect to show for their clumsiness.

Yes, there's a much better "indie" scene than there ever has before, but I don't think you're going to get two million people buying a major piece of hardware to play "Fez". Or even "No Man's Sky", for that matter.

So, we'll see. I'd kind of like to see them get it right, honestly; it feels like game development has been in a minor iterative, rather than evolutionary, track, for a while now. I would like to be "wowed" by VR.

But it's not in my hands.

 

[Myria]

I've seen any number of "2016 will be the year of VR!!!!11!!1!!" articles/posts of late and been wondering the same thing as the OP.

Could VR be the next big thing? Maybe, but I kinda doubt it and I'm more than old enough to remember the last few times VR was going to be the next big thing, even a few times I was tempted to buy in.

But will it be the next big thing? I seriously doubt it. All other issues -- and they are many -- aside, the isolation is a biggie.

My gaming partner is also my best friend's husband. We spend most evenings at our respective places with headsets on chatting as we play this or that co-op or MMO game. Just the headsets are isolating enough that it drives my friend a bit nuts and I can just imagine her reaction if he put a visually isolating VR rig on his head as well. It'd never fly, never in a million years, and frankly my friend's reaction is neither completely unreasonable nor in the least bit unusual.

Even for myself, I'm a widow and I live alone, but I can't imagine wearing something that cut off both my vision and most of my hearing from the real world for hours at a time. I have way too many other considerations to allow gaming to be that close to 100% of my life for hours at a time.

Beyond a few who desperately want to need to lose themselves further and further into a game, I just don't see it going much of anywhere, no matter how 'neat' or 'immersive (two traits that tend to fade quickly over time) or even if both the tech and price were ready for prime time (and neither will be), because of the isolation factor.

So why so much media noise about VR? Aside from marketing and a very vocal and intense, if probably minute, fanbase, mostly I think it comes down to there not being much else. Motion controls have mostly gone no where so fast they should get a speeding ticket. 3D displays never really did go anywhere, in part for some of the same reasons VR won't. What else is there? Faster CPU/GPU/APUs? Denser transistor counts, whoo-hoo! For the most part only a fraction of the compute power available to the average person is really being utilized anymore, replacement cycles are way, way, way longer than the used to be, and for the most part upgrades have only a minor real-world impact. Kinda hard to get excited about that. What else is there? 4K and higher. Yeah, nice, more pixels and all that, wake me when the cost is decent and there are GPUs that can drive the things decently -- preferably GPUs that don't dim the lights for three blocks, warm my house by ten degrees in Summer, or need a mortgage to purchase.

There just isn't anything else out there on the tech horizon that has caught the imagination, and thus wallets, of consumers. I think VR is just the latest thing marketers are throwing at the wall in hopes that it will stick.