Why VR will fail

[Lilani]

For fuck sake. It's not about VR. It's about blocking your vision of distractions. Distractions can make or break a game. A game is physically worse when played in windowed mode for example because your desktop is a distraction.

Eh, it kind of depends really. I always play Final Fantasy XIV in windowed mode, because I need access to other windows for various reasons (opening a browser to look up things, running skype to talk with my friends, etc). To not be in windowed mode is a bother, in that case.

And to some people, having a huge thing stuck on your head and wrapped around your face might be a distraction they can't surmount. Especially if they are prone to motion sickness and the whole thing makes them want to puke. It certainly won't be the epitome of immersion for everybody, but it'll be another option on the table.

 

[Meximagician]

Wearable VR might take off, but it's ultimately doomed to be replaced by wearable AR technology. AR can simulate VR (by overlaying the entire field of view) can be used without blinding the user to what's going on in the real world, and has uses outside of games (think of a HUD in real life, with minimap and everything).

The transition will either use VR, by adding a fish eye camera and super-imposing the virtual elements onto the real ones, or use a different tech altogether, like mini projecting onto the lens of glasses (with polarized filters to avoid annoying people in front of the user). There's a company called MicroVision (no, not that Microvision) already working on the latter solution.

That's my 2¢, anyways.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

When in the history of add-ons have they been successful...Think about it to get Sony's VR experience you will need:

PS4 = £349
VR = likely £200-300
PS MOVE = £40-50.

Powerglove, Kinect, move, mega CD, Jaguar CD have all failed because of a fragmented market and none of them were close to being as expensive as this. How can anyone think this will succeed?

The Oculus Rift exists on a platform where people are willing to spend well over $1000 on a rig and you think cost is going to stop them?

Plus, with the PC version of Kinect coming very soon, expect VR to justify itself further.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

Wearable VR might take off, but it's ultimately doomed to be replaced by wearable AR technology. AR can simulate VR (by overlaying the entire field of view) can be used without blinding the user to what's going on in the real world, and has uses outside of games (think of a HUD in real life, with minimap and everything).

The transition will either use VR, by adding a fish eye camera and super-imposing the virtual elements onto the real ones, or use a different tech altogether, like mini projecting onto the lens of glasses (with polarized filters to avoid annoying people in front of the user). There's a company called MicroVision (no, not that Microvision) already working on the latter solution.

That's my 2¢, anyways.

I disagree.

I think AR will be used more for app style software while wearable VR will be for full on entertainment software. People are probably going to start combining the Oculus Rift with the PC version of Kinect when the latter gets released. Google will probably buy Microvision and have them work on Google Glass for AR. AR and VR won't overtake one another imo.

 

[Vault101]

I mean, just look at analog sticks. Those things were fucking awful years ago! Who the hell would ever want to use one of those - let alone TWO of them? Or how about those rumble pack things? Those were pretty awful too. They always broke down and didn't add anything to the gaming experience. They and analog stick will clearly go down in history as just another set of awful, failed gimmicks; just like VR.
!

the N64's analouge stick wasn't awful...it just wore out really badly....that and it would give you blisters if you played to many games of Mario Party....those of which probably didn't help in wearing it out

first time I felt a rumble pack I thourght my controller was going to explode...then I wondered what the point of it was..

 

[Vigormortis]

the N64's analouge stick wasn't awful...it just wore out really badly....that and it would give you blisters if you played to many games of Mario Party....those of which probably didn't help in wearing it out

first time I felt a rumble pack I thourght my controller was going to explode...then I wondered what the point of it was..

I think you missed my point.

I meant, years ago, analog sticks and haptic feedback were looked at as gimmicks, as pointless. Many thought they were terrible (and really, they were) and that they'd never catch on, let alone become the standard for gaming input devices.

Look at us now. Riddled with analog sticks and haptic feedback devices.

What I was getting at was, though VR may have been awkward and terrible in the past, that doesn't necessarily mean it will always be awkward and terrible. And since this was the core of the OPs assertions, I was being sarcastic in my post to point out how ludicrous his assertions were.

 

[AuronFtw]

Why VR won't fail: porn games

Doubt we'll be seeing anything like that on the Move. Well, not officially.

And that's precisely the problem with consoles as we know them. When a single company has *all* the power in terms of what games get made, published and publicized, they throttle creativity fiercely. Sometimes due to cowardice, sometimes due to ignorance, but it never fails to happen.

If the creators of VR are even remotely intelligent, they'll be in bed with PC devs before the year's end. That's where the money will be made - that's where the great VR creations will be.

 

[Matt Dellar]

Why VR won't fail: porn games

Doubt we'll be seeing anything like that on the Move. Well, not officially.

And that's precisely the problem with consoles as we know them. When a single company has *all* the power in terms of what games get made, published and publicized, they throttle creativity fiercely. Sometimes due to cowardice, sometimes due to ignorance, but it never fails to happen.

If the creators of VR are even remotely intelligent, they'll be in bed with PC devs before the year's end. That's where the money will be made - that's where the great VR creations will be.

As far as I know, Oculus already has a few developers on board (Palmer said they'd have a lot of software to show at next year's E3, and they had Lucky's Tale this year). So there's that. (As far as porn games go, we'll probably have to wait awhile. There's currently no good storefront on which to market adult games, as Steam currently disallows them.)

 

[Vault101]

Look at us now. Riddled with analog sticks and haptic feedback devices.
.

is haptic feedback the vibration? because to me that doesn't seem like a neccecity

ok ok I'm nitpicking I see what you mean

although that said I wonder why vibrating mice weren't a thing...

 

[Casual Shinji]

Also by trying to make the intangible tangible it'll only appear more artificial as a result. We can generally accept the worlds presented to us on screen, because they're on a screen. If we'd actually walk around in them in person, the virtual aspects of that world would become glaring. When I play Skyrim I'm much more lenient on an animation or a texture not being a hundred percent, than when I would be if experiencing it in full virtual reality. My brain would constantly be reminded that eventhough I'm walking around here, this place is utterly fake.

Honest question : Simple answer, Casual Shinji...

Have you TRIED the Oculus Rift? Y/N

If N than baseless conjecture. If Y, then valid, as subjective experience.

No. No I haven't.

And the sight of someone with their eyes pressed against an LCD screen is enough for me to never want to try it. Even if they could somehow jack the images straight into my mind I'd still be wandering around an obviously computer generated world. It would also mean that for it to work every game would need to be first-person, which would bore the hell out of me after a while.

No, I like my TV. I like slumping back in my seat with buttons at my finger tips taking in the screen infront of me. I don't need it to take me in.

 

[Vigormortis]

Look at us now. Riddled with analog sticks and haptic feedback devices.
.

is haptic feedback the vibration? because to me that doesn't seem like a neccecity

ok ok I'm nitpicking I see what you mean

You'd be surprised how much well implemented haptic feedback can add to the gaming experience.

And when it's really done well, you barely even notice it. It just becomes integrated into the experience.

although that said I wonder why vibrating mice weren't a thing...

I've seen it tried. It's an inherently bad idea.

Anything beyond the most subtle vibrations will cause stutter in the mouse. Unlike what happens with, say, a controller, rumble motors and most other haptic devices can actually cause unintended inputs through the mouse - simply by causing it to shake on the table.

The other issue is, when you're receiving tactile feedback in only one of your hands it's more jarring than it is immersive.

Newer haptic feedback tech could provide a solution, but any gen-1 or gen-2 haptic methods just don't work with mice.

 

[EvilRoy]

Look at us now. Riddled with analog sticks and haptic feedback devices.
.

is haptic feedback the vibration? because to me that doesn't seem like a neccecity

ok ok I'm nitpicking I see what you mean

although that said I wonder why vibrating mice weren't a thing...

The Novint Falcon tried to do it, apparently to mixed success, by basically making a one handed controller that works like a mouse that had a swappable handles and different haptic effects depending on this or that weapon you were using in an FPS.

I don't know how it is now, back at the time it was considered hot shit on the TF2 forums people were saying it was cool and fun, but overall inferior to a standard nonvibrating mouse. The shape of the handle, orientation of the hand, sensitivity and simulated 'kickback' of a weapon would put a handicap on your performance compared to a $5 usb mouse, because a realistic feedback system is less efficient than an unrealistic one.

One guy I remember in particular said that it kept throwing him, because you couldn't sight down the NF like he would on a gun range - so you were just holding something that felt like a gun to the right of what you were actually looking at, and applying pressure to the handle to rotate your view.

Basically it was something for technology enthusiasts, but not hardcore gamers.

 

[II2]

Also by trying to make the intangible tangible it'll only appear more artificial as a result. We can generally accept the worlds presented to us on screen, because they're on a screen. If we'd actually walk around in them in person, the virtual aspects of that world would become glaring. When I play Skyrim I'm much more lenient on an animation or a texture not being a hundred percent, than when I would be if experiencing it in full virtual reality. My brain would constantly be reminded that eventhough I'm walking around here, this place is utterly fake.

Honest question : Simple answer, Casual Shinji...

Have you TRIED the Oculus Rift? Y/N

If N than baseless conjecture. If Y, then valid, as subjective experience.

No. No I haven't.

And the sight of someone with their eyes pressed against an LCD screen is enough for me to never want to try it. Even if they could somehow jack the images straight into my mind I'd still be wandering around an obviously computer generated world. It would also mean that for it to work every game would need to be first-person, which would bore the hell out of me after a while.

No, I like my TV. I like slumping back in my seat with buttons at my finger tips taking in the screen infront of me. I don't need it to take me in.

I can dig that you like what's comfortable and know what you like - we've all got that, but it's when people draw conclusions about things they haven't experienced, or at least tried to explore as an idea, that gets up my ass about these kinds of statement; "don't knock it till you've tried it" (appended with 'then knock it to your hearts content, since it isn't for everyone').

A couple I'm friends with have a dev model and I had a go... They were using it for a completely non-gaming, high tech multimedia art installation, but I brought a computer with some games and Vireio Perception and VorpX drivers to give it a spin. I really liked it. It adds the same depth and real biopitical 3D to 3rd person games it does to FPS perspective.

It works just fine sitting down with your controller or WASD. The main problems come just from GUI elements that weren't designed for it - full screen menus you can't read since they're pushed into your peripheral vision (skyrim, etc), shaders not designed to work with 2 cameras, FOV tinkering, etc. These things will be addressed in time, by multiple parties involvement.

...

Anyway, I'd say at least try it, if you have the opportunity. Worst case scenario, you've experienced something you don't take to.

 

[Yuicne]

It's not really from price point, i mean if you want to play games You need to get a PS4 or an Xbox, You Don't Need an rift or a Morpheus, unless you really are looking forward to an oculus rift game which as far as i am concerned is not really there yet.

I think why it will fail in most genres is because of the VR itself, for instance the Game Black Desert online, which looks amazing, and would be quite awesome with VR for an experience. but fighting. managing your inventory with an oculos rift on. Just imagen how painfull it would be to fight with an oculos rift on, 2-3 kilo brick on your head, especially with jumping and vaulting archers in pvp it's a niece experience i'd like to have one day, but it's not an essential piece of hardware, Devs are actually not really Developing for it, Valve was the only one, even if it finally comes out of it's state to a consumer version who will pick it up, to play Tf2 with it, once or twice.

the oculos is only good for a few genres, it's not going to be the new Steam controller, hardware that would improve the experience of gaming, i think it will only hurt it in some areas.

 

[ThriKreen]

Just imagen how painfull it would be to fight with an oculos rift on, 2-3 kilo brick on your head,

It's really light, Wikipedia lists it at 380g for the DK1. The DK2 might be heavier but we'll see. But even then, when I wore the DK1, I hardly felt it was there, and even fits my glasses.

Couple it with a Razer Hydra and Oculus Maximus and I may or may not have knocked over some things in my zeal to behead some gladiators.

 

[NateA42]

First off my post said the same thing I did before it was just I edited it to make fun of how you formatted your post.
But perhaps you are right, maybe I will like VR when it gets better, but I sure as hell know that I don't enjoy wearing a facemask and standing to use a video game console.
As far as VR itself goes I don't like total immersion, I play games because they are games, not real life or even trying to be. I do stuff all day and it's good to sit down and do stuff and not have to stand anymore.

Just to let you know, you don't have to stand to play. Also, you haven't even tried it so how do you know you wouldn't like total immersion?

Sounds to me like you are just hating on it to hate on it. No actual reason at all.

Again I have played it before, we stood when we did it because that what we were told to do.
There is no need to rage at me because your niche thing is a niche thing.