VR gaming with the Vive changed my gaming habits

[MysticSlayer]

This is not comparable to flailing wiiimotes around in front of a tv. There is detachment there, here the controllers become your hands or the tools in them, quite convincingly so you don't need to think about the disconnect. And the tracking is 1:1, accurate down to 2mm in the designated 5mx5m space.

And I remember the first couple years of the Wii being all about how it "wasn't a gimmick" and "really worked". Many people pointed to Corruption as proof that it would take over as the primary console for shooter gamers (which is side-splittingly hilarious in hindsight!). Wii Sports convinced everyone that motion controls and active gaming could work. The Wii-mote wasn't a gimmick. It was an extension of our arms!

Sony and Microsoft didn't pursue their own motion controls because everyone called it a gimmick. They pursued it because the early days of the Wii made people optimistic. Of course, now all that looks silly, but let's not act like it always seemed silly. We only can confirm that motion control was a gimmick in hindsight.

And sure, VR may come out different than the Wii or Kinect. But as of right now, all I'm hearing and seeing is the same stuff I saw and heard ten years ago. The only difference is that, ten years ago, we at least had the guarantee that a major company (Nintendo) was willing to push out a lot of games from popular franchises, which unfortunately turned out to be like 95% of the good games on the system.

 

[Vinsin]

This is not comparable to flailing wiiimotes around in front of a tv. There is detachment there, here the controllers become your hands or the tools in them, quite convincingly so you don't need to think about the disconnect. And the tracking is 1:1, accurate down to 2mm in the designated 5mx5m space.

And I remember the first couple years of the Wii being all about how it "wasn't a gimmick" and "really worked". Many people pointed to Corruption as proof that it would take over as the primary console for shooter gamers (which is side-splittingly hilarious in hindsight!). Wii Sports convinced everyone that motion controls and active gaming could work. The Wii-mote wasn't a gimmick. It was an extension of our arms!

Sony and Microsoft didn't pursue their own motion controls because everyone called it a gimmick. They pursued it because the early days of the Wii made people optimistic. Of course, now all that looks silly, but let's not act like it always seemed silly. We only can confirm that motion control was a gimmick in hindsight.

And sure, VR may come out different than the Wii or Kinect. But as of right now, all I'm hearing and seeing is the same stuff I saw and heard ten years ago. The only difference is that, ten years ago, we at least had the guarantee that a major company (Nintendo) was willing to push out a lot of games from popular franchises, which unfortunately turned out to be like 95% of the good games on the system.

Not to burst the bubble on your perspective but besides from the other major differences' between wii and a VR HMD boils down to one major section of use; the WII did what it did and nothing more or less, it was a gaming function only and only if devs graced it with a good game; and in this case VR is being backed by Playstation, Microsoft, HTC, Oculus, Steam, on and on and on are big names invested in VR; not just one console. At least that's my opinion of it.

Meanwhile.. you have Virtual Desktop that puts all of your desktop at your disposal nevermind the other VR functions. I already use the VIVE as a monitor replacement, now leap forward to Gen2 HMD's with higher resolution and the added streamlining of installation and cheaper entry prices on systems to follow (GTX 1080 @ $600 now, 1070 at $300 on release and only a brighter future to follow.) then consider that for the price of one HMD you can have 2..3..4...5. monitors all whatever size you choose; at HD or potentially even 4K down the line.

I've ordered a "Headless Ghost" as of yesterday, because windows 10 is the only OS you can't trick into adding ghost monitors into without hardware, so $20 .. until someone comes up with a better solution; or we yell at MS enough, but regardless -- $20 and I'm going to have a second floating monitor in my virtual space; to make as big or small as I want. -

So ALL other aspects aside, for a computer I built for $700 - a year ago - with a HMD fee of whichever you choose + $20 a pop if your stuck on windows 10 - Free if your not - you can enjoy VR itself, have as many monitors as you want in a virtual setting, utter privacy even in a crowded room, and in the end it's space saving if you get down to it - as you can store your monitor away for 99% of the time after your VR is setup; only using it when you really need a break from working up to a sweat in VR gaming.

So cut out the fun of the VR, the games, videos, pictures, all the modeling uses (Blender in roomscale VR anyone?) cut out EVERY other use and it'll still be worth it for the monitor function alone -- For those that demand 4K level of resolution or really just have to have that quality, yeah, maybe wait a year or two for Gen2/3 when the resolution for the HMD's have improved further (I'd say the comfort or blur or stuff.. but I haven't experienced any discomfort or such so.. I can't say?). But I can safely say theres no way I'll ever be buying a monitor again, no point, I can own say.. 4 virtual monitors for the price of an HMD & a few $20 plugins .. or switch back to windows 9 and wouldn't even need the plugins.

Do NOT get me wrong though, obviously there will still be TV's & gaming monitors even in the best of cases, there will always be call for them and it's not going to render them obsolete; watching movies with friends will always be better on a giant TV than everyone hooking up to a HMD - it's not likely to be the new TV in the living room; but that doesn't make any of the prior statements any less valid. There will be those that enjoy it, find it useful or just the more sound option for what they need and those that brush it aside or actually have no real use for it; but I can't honestly say I'd rather go back to my 42" real monitor when I have what I have in front of me and it's only getting better the more I use it.

.. and .. well frankly my girlfriend is going to end up stealing the thing when Kodon or Blender/Maya take up the reigns, heard work of mod plugins for it but when it's actually there and done.. yeah my Vive is gone. /sigh

 

[MysticSlayer]

snip

While I get that VR can extend beyond gaming, this thread was specifically about how it can apply to gaming. Yeah, maybe it can take off in other areas, but that doesn't mean it will capture most gamers as a gaming device. And even if it does take off with plenty of games, there's no guarantee that will rise above what mobile has done.

Sure, I wouldn't mind it we could get VR or other play modes to work. I'm actually willing to defend things like touch and motion controls as ideas, even if they haven't practically done a whole lot for the core gaming market yet. I would love it if VR and augmented reality could take off and find ways to get past barriers like motion sickness and eye strain (which is what kept me from 3D). But until I see some actual progress and staying power, I'm not going to see it as an actual force in gaming, at most just a tangentially-related device used mostly for other purposes.

 

[Vigormortis]

See above. I literally have never heard of a single game you listed, and all of the VR games I have seen are ones that are in first-person (as in, you are viewing through the eyes of the player, or rather how "first-person games" are classified in the first place; if you try to claim that you play XCOM from a first-person perspective, we're going to have a problem), and everything I've heard out of people who've tried VR gives the impression that games which take control away from the player cause issues even potentially leading to things like nausea, so forgive me for being a bit skeptical that the roughly 80% of games I play that aren't played from a first-person perspective wouldn't be readily available in VR.

That's fine, but you were acting as though there weren't any games of that sort at all in VR. I was simply letting you know that there were; both new and old.

Immediately jumping on everyone who says they're not impressed kind of smacks like you're trying to get everyone else to like VR.

I'm not. If someone genuinely doesn't like VR it makes no difference to me.

But blithely dismissing it without ever trying it just seems silly. That's all I'm saying.

Particularly when we're not saying VR deserves to fail, just that it has failed to grab our attention in any significant way thus far.

That's fair. I'm not arguing that VR has to be for everyone. But most of those I've seen naysaying VR are saying it deserves to fail. Those were the people I was referring to.

I don't get why people feel the need to ardently defend something from people who express their distaste for it. It's almost like the gaming community never actually grew out of the console wars mindset or something.

For me, it's not a 'console wars' mindset as I'm not defending the manufactures. I'm defending myself from an onslaught of criticisms, from which I seemingly am not allowed to defend myself without being labeled a 'shill' who is 'trying to rationalize his purchase'. It's almost as if I'm being told I'm not allowed to like VR unless I'm trying to convert everyone.

 

[Saetha]

Is it just me or do VR lovers sound uncomfortably like they've joined a cult and have come to get everyone else to join up too?

At any rate, the only part of it that I find enticing is using it for 3D modelling. That does sound genuinely interesting to me. As for the rest of it? I've never cared about "immersion," so that's not a selling point. All the games I've seen for VR either don't take advantage of the actual VR or DO take advantage of it and look boring as hell as a result. And other features like Virtual Desktop sound like such a minor perk that it's hardly worth dropping so much money on. "Ooooh, look, I'm using VR to blog inside a deep-sea submarine! I'm... still going to spend most of my time ignoring my surroundings and staring a screen anyway."

And that's saying nothing of that fact that I live with assholes who would absolutely use the chance to torture me while I'm unaware.

Which is not to say I think VR is going to fail. I bet it'll carve out a comfy niche and make plenty of money for the people who invested in it. But ultimately I think it'll be a luxury peripheral, if only because of the massive price tag. Maybe it'll find some practical use outside of hobby gaming too.

 

[infohippie]

OP owns a Vive, a Rift DK2, and is buying a release Rift. And has the hardware to drive them. Must be nice to be rich. Sorry, don't mean to be a downer, I'm just salty because I really REALLY wish I could afford just one VR device.

If you want to talk about hardcore gaming...here it is. For the first time, e-sports becomes physical e-sports. I could see a physical tournament scene developing through VR. From simple bragging rights on global leaderboards to actual scheduled events and prizes. But this does not preclude lighter experiences. Sit-down Space/driving/flight sims are all on another level with a HMD and the peripherals to go with it. RPG's and action adventures/survival (eg Minecraft, Vanishing Realms) are so immersive they are simply much better games in VR. It goes on and on.

No.
bragging rights on global leaderboards : not e-sports.
Sit-down Space : not e-sports.
driving : Maybe e-sports, but not really mainstream.
flight sims : not e-sports.
RPG's and action adventures/survival : not e-sports.

Why is experimental gimmick tech doesn't work as e-sports? Ask why Wii hardcore e-sports scene doesn't exist.

And thank the gods for that, esports ruins games. If a game aspires to become an esport, everything has to be tweaked and balanced until all the colour and interest has been squeezed out of it and every class/race/equipment/whatever has turned grey and dull. I wish esports weren't a thing.

 

[Pirate Of PC Master race]

And thank the gods for that, esports ruins games. If a game aspires to become an esport, everything has to be tweaked and balanced until all the colour and interest has been squeezed out of it and every class/race/equipment/whatever has turned grey and dull. I wish esports weren't a thing.

Some people like balances, so there we go. Personally problem of e-sports wasn't a balance.

I play the game for fun, and competitive co-op makes people into asshats and competitive single player games require insane reflexes that I don't have.
But in turn spectating tournament level e-sports games can be very satisfying. I appreciate game well played when I see one, and e-sports tend to refine them to the highest degree.

Give and take, I suppose.

 

[Vigormortis]

I would love it if VR and augmented reality could take off and find ways to get past barriers like motion sickness

Room-scale and proper tracking have already fixed that issue. A friend of mine, who routinely gets motion sickness when using the Rift or other HMDs, has yet to experience even the slightest bit of queasiness while using the Vive.

It's all about 'presence'. When your view within the VR space matches up to your movements in the real space your sense of balance, motion, and equilibrium aren't thrown into chaos.

This is what other VR makers need to realize. Simply strapping an HMD to the head and calling it a day isn't the solution. To alleviate the vast majority of issues inherent in VR interaction you need roomscale tracking.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Room-scale and proper tracking have already fixed that issue. A friend of mine, who routinely gets motion sickness when using the Rift or other HMDs, has yet to experience even the slightest bit of queasiness while using the Vive.

It's all about 'presence'. When your view within the VR space matches up to your movements in the real space your sense of balance, motion, and equilibrium aren't thrown into chaos.

This is what other VR makers need to realize. Simply strapping an HMD to the head and calling it a day isn't the solution. To alleviate the vast majority of issues inherent in VR interaction you need roomscale tracking.

Of course, then you run into the inherent problem of limiting design based on available space. And that brings up questions about how far this can go as a gaming device. Again, it could end up like mobile, pushing out a few interesting games but not much that appeals to core gamers, making it more of a general-purpose or industry-centered (which I think is more likely) device that just happens to have gaming tacked on.

 

[Vigormortis]

Of course, then you run into the inherent problem of limiting design based on available space.

Room-scale tracking extends to standing and seated experiences.

My point wasn't that proper VR requires an entire room. My point was that proper tracking like the Vive's Room-Scale system are required. Again, it's down to 'presence'.

VR experiences can be anything, but to guarantee experiences free from the possibility of motion sickness they have to have proper tracking. That's all I was saying.

And that brings up questions about how far this can go as a gaming device. Again, it could end up like mobile, pushing out a few interesting games but not much that appeals to core gamers, making it more of a general-purpose or industry-centered (which I think is more likely) device that just happens to have gaming tacked on.

I don't understand this position. The sorts of online games we play today didn't exist, even in concept, back in the days before the internet and modem play. Yet, nowadays, online gaming is an integral part of the "core" gaming scene.

VR represents both an extension of what's already available, and something entirely new. What negates the possibility for it to simply add to the "core" gaming lexicon? Why must it be relegated to the 'niche'? Isn't it just as possible that it may simply extend the vast catalog of possibilities that make up "core" gaming?

I'm not saying it will. I have no idea if it will or not. I'm just saying that I can't get behind the idea that it can't.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Of course, then you run into the inherent problem of limiting design based on available space.

Room-scale tracking extends to standing and seated experiences.

That's still within the available space.

I don't understand this position. The sorts of online games we play today didn't exist, even in concept, back in the days before the internet and modem play. Yet, nowadays, online gaming is an integral part of the "core" gaming scene.

The thing about online is it does not generate a lot of smaller, relatively casual experiences the same way that mobile and motion controls (to an arguably lesser extent) have mostly done. Some of the largest, most extensive gaming out there is in online-only or predominantly online games. It also doesn't ask us to fundamentally change the way we play games, just have an Internet connection.

VR represents both an extension of what's already available, and something entirely new. What negates the possibility for it to simply add to the "core" gaming lexicon? Why must it be relegated to the 'niche'? Isn't it just as possible that it may simply extend the vast catalog of possibilities that make up "core" gaming?

I'm not saying it will. I have no idea if it will or not. I'm just saying that I can't get behind the idea that it can't.

And I'm not saying it's guaranteed to fail. I'm just saying that it hasn't proven itself and that, at the time, it doesn't look like it will push things beyond what motion controls and mobile have done.

 

[Vigormortis]

That's still within the available space.

Right, but then what's the issue? I don't understand the criticism, I guess.

The thing about online is it does not generate a lot of smaller, relatively casual experiences the same way that mobile and motion controls (to an arguably lesser extent) have mostly done. Some of the largest, most extensive gaming out there is in online-only or predominantly online games. It also doesn't ask us to fundamentally change the way we play games, just have an Internet connection.

This seems to presume that VR is an inherently non-social experience. I've found it to be the exact opposite. I've had far more social moments when using or sharing my Vive than I have, say, playing any of this years newest releases. In fact, I can't recall any other moment within the last few years where I had friends and family gathered around, all sharing and enjoying a singular video gaming experience.

Honestly, the notions of "VR is for loners" are demonstrably absurd.

And I'm not saying it's guaranteed to fail. I'm just saying that it hasn't proven itself and that, at the time, it doesn't look like it will push things beyond what motion controls and mobile have done.

And I still think that last part is presumptive. I feel it's shown it has far more potential than anything basic motion controls and mobile have.

As much as I hate this phrase, I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[MysticSlayer]

That's still within the available space.

Right, but then what's the issue? I don't understand the criticism, I guess.

My understanding of what you are saying is that the way VR is combating motion sickness is to use room-scale tracking, which is a method that, from what I've seen, limits in-game space to room space. Then you said VR can also be used sitting down (something I thought was already assumed), which gets us back to dealing with motion sickness (or further limiting the space).

Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

This seems to presume that VR is an inherently non-social experience. I've found it to be the exact opposite. I've had far more social moments when using or sharing my Vive than I have, say, playing any of this years newest releases. In fact, I can't recall any other moment within the last few years where I had friends and family gathered around, all sharing and enjoying a singular video gaming experience.

Honestly, the notions of "VR is for loners" are demonstrably absurd.

I'm not making that assumption. In fact, I assume that if VR catches on even a little, more social elements will be incorporated into the experience.

My point is that the design of an online game is not incredibly different from a single player game at the hardware level. It isn't a stretch to assume that you can take the mechanics of a singleplayer or multiplayer game and move it to another without losing much, if any, of the experience of those mechanics. That's a major reason why someone who played singleplayer-focused FPS games from the 90s can still find enjoyment in more multiplayer-focused FPS games today.

The thing about a lot of the motion control and almost all of the mobile phases is that they never really made it there. Yes, both have their larger games that you could find (in the Wii's case rather easily), but that still hasn't helped either move past being used mostly for party games, quick games for the toilet, or non-gaming-related stuff. And as of right now, VR hasn't really displayed that it can do much more.

And I still think that last part is presumptive. I feel it's shown it has far more potential than anything basic motion controls and mobile have.

Like what?

1:1 tracking? Motion controls have that now.

Bringing people together for party games? The Wii did that, and much of the Wii's and Kinect's library are party-based games.

Active gaming? Some of the most popular games on the Wii and Kinect are based around making people active.

Potential beyond gaming? Mobile already is in that position, quite comfortably so.

And that's what I'm talking about in being skeptical. Based on the games I've seen and rhetoric I've heard, everything around VR looks and sounds like motion controls ten years ago and mobile 6-7 years ago. I'm not sure exactly if you were into either of those, but as someone who was pretty optimistic about motion controls and (to a lesser extent) mobile, I've heard (and said) all this before about other stuff. That's why I'm skeptical, but if VR can prove me wrong, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Vinsin]

Just reporting in for the sake of reporting in..

Just got done with a few (rather epic) sessions of Dishonored and Subnatica by the Vive with Vorpx.. it's a bit finicky to get around the Hud issue and it's not like it creates them into 'full fledged VR' titles that are flawless right off the bat. But I'm getting accustomed to it ...and for a basically 'alpha' stage product, it's actually .. breathtaking at times .. it just feels like a completely different experience.

Dying Light was a complete horror.. and I don't mean that in a bad way, no motion sickness on my end but by god my brain didn't want to make some of the jumps out of just.. well.. I don't know, it felt strange; epic.. unpolished sure, but epic. Sadly I haven't tweaked the settings enough to really call it stable, the FPS dips down below the 30's to often with a black flicker (but, I'm not even on a VR ready machine so no real shocker there); but just one more reason to get the 1080 soon! -- or put in the effort of tweaking the settings.. whichever! Yet even with the bad VR setup, flickering and bouts of lag; walking down a dark alley and getting attacked by a zom-zom was legitimately a brief heart-jump moment and flail to parkour away.

I'm terrified of installing Alien Isolation, and well, going to 'have to' replay all my old games at this point to see them from a new light. But for now, I'm going to be spending 'quite some time' going through my current library of installed games before I move on to things like that but, motion sickness (even on my subpar machine) has been nill, CSGO came the closest to making me 'dizzy' and that's only because one of my teammates was a jerk and spun around relentlessly as the last man alive in a comp match O_O ugh.. (thankfully MMB pulls me back into theater mode, where I could simply relax and look away, to bad it took me awhile to remember that.)

I can't understate how awesome Vorpx is now that I've tried it, it's not finished, it takes tweaking to really feel close to perfect, but for Subnatica and Dishonored I just hit play and went at it with a big grin; the feel alone of jumping from place to place, sneaking around and avoiding guards is like a whole new level, particularly the fighting; staring at one opponent just to swing my head to the left and block another attacker; warp out of sight and lurk above with this feeling of vertigo 'but in a good way' .. a immersive, don't fall sort of way. Anyway.. nuff ranting, theres my report of my most recent dive into VR to those interested, on the fence about VorpX - Try it, know it's going to take tweaking -- and in some cases it's better to just play without trying to fit the hud (or press MMB to pull back on the screen and only ever 'peek' at the hud) but it's completely worth it.

I think my next gaming goal will be to play through Dishonored, maybe dive into ARK some (if I can manage it), toy with my second monitor (got my headless ghost today and setup with Virtual Desktop, side by side curved; really nifty!) and if I can find time between my GF stealing my vive and date night <.< I'll play the waltz of the wizard thing that came out free, looks neat, at least until I can afford some new VR gaming titles.

 

[Vigormortis]

My understanding of what you are saying is that the way VR is combating motion sickness is to use room-scale tracking, which is a method that, from what I've seen, limits in-game space to room space. Then you said VR can also be used sitting down (something I thought was already assumed), which gets us back to dealing with motion sickness (or further limiting the space).

Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Room-scale tracking isn't necessarily tied to being able to move about the room. You can alleviate the issues of motion sickness by properly tracking the users positions, even if that person is only sitting and the game world is moving around them.

That's what I meant. You can dramatically reduce the queasiness as long as the game is accurately tracking where your head position is and what your point of view is. It doesn't necessarily matter if the game world is moving while you're not. It's when what you're seeing is disconnected from what your head is feeling that the problems arise. (so, for example, if you rotate your head but the horizon rotates in the opposite direction)

I'm not making that assumption. In fact, I assume that if VR catches on even a little, more social elements will be incorporated into the experience.

My point is that the design of an online game is not incredibly different from a single player game at the hardware level. It isn't a stretch to assume that you can take the mechanics of a singleplayer or multiplayer game and move it to another without losing much, if any, of the experience of those mechanics. That's a major reason why someone who played singleplayer-focused FPS games from the 90s can still find enjoyment in more multiplayer-focused FPS games today.

Which is also true of VR. You can import certain 'standard' gaming experiences into VR without losing much of anything. And, just like the advent of online gaming, VR also offers gaming experiences not possible with 'standard' hardware and methods.

Like what?

1:1 tracking? Motion controls have that now.

Which, though? The Wii/WiiU and PSMove are quite inaccurate(not surprising, given their use of antiquated tech), and the Kinect is worse. The Playmotion system is rough, and most mobile 'motion' controls are linked to old-gen tilt sensors and accelerometers.

Closest thing I can think of is the Sixense controller, but that has limited functionality.

Bringing people together for party games? The Wii did that, and much of the Wii's and Kinect's library are party-based games.

Doesn't really invalidate my point, nor do parallels in one aspect imply the two technologies are entirely analogous.

Hate to resort to the overly-used car analogy but new cars do what old cars did, but do so with better performance and with more options and features.

Active gaming? Some of the most popular games on the Wii and Kinect are based around making people active.

See above.

Potential beyond gaming? Mobile already is in that position, quite comfortably so.

Extension into other markets for one piece of technology does not negate the potential possibilities of another.

And that's what I'm talking about in being skeptical. Based on the games I've seen and rhetoric I've heard, everything around VR looks and sounds like motion controls ten years ago and mobile 6-7 years ago. I'm not sure exactly if you were into either of those, but as someone who was pretty optimistic about motion controls and (to a lesser extent) mobile, I've heard (and said) all this before about other stuff. That's why I'm skeptical, but if VR can prove me wrong, I'll be pleasantly surprised.

Skepticism is a smart position to take on anything. But let's be fair, consumer-grade VR hasn't even been on the market for a year, not even half a year. Yet, in that short time, it's already proven itself to have more potential than the motion controls and mobile tech of old did.

Again, I'm not saying it will succeed. I'm just saying I don't see the parallels with antiquated motion controls and mobile tech.

I think that's the crux of our disagreement. I feel we both share a degree of skepticism, but I don't feel it quite as deeply, given what I've seen and experienced.

Whatever comes of all this I think we can both agree the journey there will be interesting.

 

[MysticSlayer]

My understanding of what you are saying is that the way VR is combating motion sickness is to use room-scale tracking, which is a method that, from what I've seen, limits in-game space to room space. Then you said VR can also be used sitting down (something I thought was already assumed), which gets us back to dealing with motion sickness (or further limiting the space).

Please correct me if I misinterpreted what you were saying.

Room-scale tracking isn't necessarily tied to being able to move about the room. You can alleviate the issues of motion sickness by properly tracking the users positions, even if that person is only sitting and the game world is moving around them.

That's what I meant. You can dramatically reduce the queasiness as long as the game is accurately tracking where your head position is and what your point of view is. It doesn't necessarily matter if the game world is moving while you're not. It's when what you're seeing is disconnected from what your head is feeling that the problems arise. (so, for example, if you rotate your head but the horizon rotates in the opposite direction)

From my understanding, anyone working on VR headsets has to account for more than just head turning. Yeah, that is some of the most obvious ways motion sickness creeps in, but the Oculus guys had to talk about how even movement around the world was a challenge they were working to overcome. That was over a year ago I think, so I'm not sure how much work still needs to be done.

Which is also true of VR. You can import certain 'standard' gaming experiences into VR without losing much of anything. And, just like the advent of online gaming, VR also offers gaming experiences not possible with 'standard' hardware and methods.

And believe it or not, so did motion controls. We still got games like Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, which were, at their core, traditional gaming experiences with a little motion control thrown in. When the Wii started getting extensions that added some 1:1 support, there was also the possibility that things like swordplay could evolve. The problem then is developer support. Despite some initial interest, developers just didn't keep up with the Wii.

Basically, for VR to succeed beyond motion control and mobile, it will need long-term support from developers, including major developers. Online received that support. Motion controls and mobile (not counting constant rehashes of the same simple games) didn't. VR is still in the phase motion control was ten years ago: Receiving decent support, but the long-term success is less obvious.

Which, though? The Wii/WiiU and PSMove are quite inaccurate(not surprising, given their use of antiquated tech), and the Kinect is worse. The Playmotion system is rough, and most mobile 'motion' controls are linked to old-gen tilt sensors and accelerometers.

Closest thing I can think of is the Sixense controller, but that has limited functionality.

The Wii had some extension (I think it was called MotionPlus) that made the motion tracking more accurate, supposedly at 1:1. It came pretty late, and I think Skyward Sword was the only major game to try to take advantage of it.

Doesn't really invalidate my point, nor do parallels in one aspect imply the two technologies are entirely analogous.

The point isn't to entirely invalidate but to point out that having some early social experiences does not necessarily mean that VR will get the support it needs. After all, if social experiences were all we needed, motion controls would have replaced standard controllers years ago.

Extension into other markets for one piece of technology does not negate the potential possibilities of another.

Again, not the point. The point isn't that it won't extend beyond other markets. The point is that it isn't guaranteed to succeed just because those markets adopt the technology. If that were the case, The Escapist would be filled with discussions about Angry Birds, not Dark Souls.

Skepticism is a smart position to take on anything. But let's be fair, consumer-grade VR hasn't even been on the market for a year, not even half a year. Yet, in that short time, it's already proven itself to have more potential than the motion controls and mobile tech of old did.

I think you're forgetting that the Wii initially exploded in popularity, and games like Twilight Princess, Wii Sports, Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, Wii Fit, and Super Mario Galaxy made people excited for what was to come. At the time, motion control didn't seem to have any limit to what it could break into and improve.

Ten years later and motion control is recognized as just a fad that died almost as quickly as it came.

I think that's the crux of our disagreement. I feel we both share a degree of skepticism, but I don't feel it quite as deeply, given what I've seen and experienced.

I can understand. I still feel that a lot of people who dislike motion controls never gave it a proper chance. It doesn't help that the Wii's technological limitations and differences hurt the overall idea. I can imagine that someone who has experienced VR may be just as excited for what is to come as I was for motion controls. And seeing videos of games like Job Simulator, I can't blame them.

I just don't want to spend a lot of money at the moment on something that may flop. I did that on the Wii. Granted, I would probably argue that the Wii was the best console last generation purely on Nintendo's support, but that's another discussion entirely.