Why VR will fail

[Britpoint]

Nah, don't see it failing. I've used the Rift and it's just too good a piece of kit to fail, even the dk1 version that I got to play with. Yes this stuff will be niche, but for racing sims and flight sims it's nearly a must buy, and there will be a small but significant percentage who want it for other first person games like Skyrim.

£200-300 may seem a bit much for anyone but the enthusiasts, but that's only the early adoption price. The enthusiasts will pick it up early for that, then the price will come down and the layman will pick it up. It's not going to revolutionise the way every single person plays games, but I think it has more widespread utility than 3D and Kinect ever did.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I'm of the opinion that without the boundries of a screen and the awareness of our own surroundings to a certain extent, we can't enjoy visual media in a way that doesn't feel highly intrusive. We need the notion that what we're observing is being played out on a screen, and that the space between ourselves and this screen is sufficient enough to allow us breathing room.

And that opinion sort of flies in the face of all the people that have been pouring on glowing reviews of their experiences with the Oculus Rift. Perhaps you should try changing out the word "we" with "I" and stop trying to speak for everyone?

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm of the opinion that without the boundries of a screen and the awareness of our own surroundings to a certain extent, we can't enjoy visual media in a way that doesn't feel highly intrusive. We need the notion that what we're observing is being played out on a screen, and that the space between ourselves and this screen is sufficient enough to allow us breathing room.

And that opinion sort of flies in the face of all the people that have been pouring on glowing reviews of their experiences with the Oculus Rift. Perhaps you should try changing out the word "we" with "I" and stop trying to speak for everyone?

That's why it's called an opinion.

 

[CloudAtlas]

Eh. In this case I'm more inclined believe someone who put his money where his mouth is - Marc Zuckerberg - instead of some random dudes on the internet.

Maybe VR won't be the next big thing that every has to buy. But for any sort of game that resembles the VR experience closely, i.e. that has the player character sitting somewhere fixed while controlling something - be it a space ship, a race car, a plane or a battle mech - VR seems to offer a really cool experience.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I'm of the opinion that without the boundries of a screen and the awareness of our own surroundings to a certain extent, we can't enjoy visual media in a way that doesn't feel highly intrusive. We need the notion that what we're observing is being played out on a screen, and that the space between ourselves and this screen is sufficient enough to allow us breathing room.

And that opinion sort of flies in the face of all the people that have been pouring on glowing reviews of their experiences with the Oculus Rift. Perhaps you should try changing out the word "we" with "I" and stop trying to speak for everyone?

That's why it's called an opinion.

An opinion that is demonstratively false is an opinion in need of revision.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

The way I see it is in the future we will definitely not be gaming with controllers and looking at games on a screen. The end goal is total immersion and VR is a step in that direction, and isn't even horrible at the moment. The difference is motion controls are clunky currently and not as good as a button press and provide no extra functionality, 3D provides a somewhat cool effect at best but doesn't do anything towards immersion.

Long story short, some form of VR is how we're going to be playing games eventually in my opinion, likely with motion controls that are much better than what we have now, because it is the utmost in immersion and immersion is lyfe. So whether OR is a success or not, whether Sony's is a success or not, it's going to happen eventually.

 

[Casual Shinji]

An opinion that is demonstratively false is an opinion in need of revision.

And that's your opinion.

 

[Scars Unseen]

An opinion that is demonstratively false is an opinion in need of revision.

And that's your opinion.

Touché.

To further expand upon my opinion(and to dodge moderator wrath for low post content), I feel that some games are vastly improved by isolation. It's why you get people recommending that you play horror games with the lights off or with headphones. It's why people build custom cockpits for their flight sims(well that, and it's just plain cool). Some games are social games(such as the fighting game genre). Some are meant for the player to maintain an emotional distance(such as platformers and puzzle games). And then some are meant to envelop the player.

That is where VR has its place. When both the player and the game want the outside world to no longer exist, if only for an hour or so. When everything that doesn't bring you closer to the game is detrimental to the experience(incidentally, this can include motion controls in their current state). Star Citizen. System Shock 2(if only it were open source so someone could add OR support). Skyrim. These games are only improved by isolation, and they are the sort of games that I plan on buying the Oculus Rift for(assuming that Facebook doesn't somehow screw it up between now and commercial release).

 

[Alterego-X]

the unusual weight (how often is anything more than a hat ever placed on your head? And I am pretty certain a vr thing will weigh more than a hat

It weights 300 grams, about twice as much a fedora, and roughly as much as a skiing goggle. Doesn't seem that terrible.

Larger looks are accommodated by the neck and larger again by rotating our torso but VR head sets don't track eye or torso movement ...

VR does have position tracking, so whether it tracks your torso in particular, it does sense the result of your head being rotated whether it is with or without neck movement.

And eye-tracking is also a relatively simple addition that the very first Rift customer version is implied to have, but the second is even more likely.

Besides, being FORCED to stare at a fixed monitor for a long time, seems to be more strainful to me, than having the ABILITY to turn around in a natural world surrounding you.

You know, I have to wonder if it's a self fulfilling prophecy when people claim a new idea is a gimmick that will fail.

It's not. People have said the exact same "gimmick" prophecies about radio, airplanes, TV, mobile phones, the Internet, and tablets, as they did about segways and wiimotes.

"It looks ridiculous!" "It doesn't fit into people's current lifestyles!", "the technology is not quite as perfect as our wildest dreams!"

 

[Alterego-X]

VR has some of the same problems that 3D has failed to overcome for home use- it's isolating in what many have come to think of as a social experience; it's hard to share with others you'd like to see this cool toy

The reason why Facebook bought it, is the potential that it might be a HUGE social thing, if not in physical interaction, but in online communication.

Being present in a virtual world might isolate you from those physically around you, but it can also connect you to those who also appear in the same virtual world.

Actually standing face to face with other people's virtual avatars, can be a far more social experience than any MMO where you are chatting while knwing that the tiny figures on a tiny screen are *controlled* by people, or even than webcams where you are awkwardly avoiding eye contact due to looking at the screen not the camera.

Maybe the first generation won't be the best for that, but in 10 years, with detailed tracking of facial expressions and gesticulation, I can definitely see grandma complaining that you shouldn't just call her on phone once a week, but actually visit her "directly" at her weekend cabin at Rivendell.

 

[Rosiv]

Is there any data on how this vr tech might be ad for eye sight? I woulsnt think so since eye strain is caused when they have to refocus constanty due to the change in light, but I'm a nub when it comes to science.

 

[veloper]

VR will keep failing until there's a chip in our brains that allow us to fully upload our brains into a virtual world.

For now, a controller allows for far better reaction time and the third person camera is indisposable for players that don't have the luxury of 5.1 surround to provide other means of tracking enemies.

Not to mention the whole disorienting effect of being bolted to one spot while in a 3D view.

This and headaches.

As long as there is latency such goggles will only simulate dizziness and as long as you cannot feel, smell, touch and use all your limbs it isn't going to be worth it anyway.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Touché.

To further expand upon my opinion(and to dodge moderator wrath for low post content), I feel that some games are vastly improved by isolation. It's why you get people recommending that you play horror games with the lights off or with headphones. It's why people build custom cockpits for their flight sims(well that, and it's just plain cool). Some games are social games(such as the fighting game genre). Some are meant for the player to maintain an emotional distance(such as platformers and puzzle games). And then some are meant to envelop the player.

That is where VR has its place. When both the player and the game want the outside world to no longer exist, if only for an hour or so. When everything that doesn't bring you closer to the game is detrimental to the experience(incidentally, this can include motion controls in their current state). Star Citizen. System Shock 2(if only it were open source so someone could add OR support). Skyrim. These games are only improved by isolation, and they are the sort of games that I plan on buying the Oculus Rift for(assuming that Facebook doesn't somehow screw it up between now and commercial release).

On paper this sounds perfect, and obviously when you play a game that is heavy on atmosphere you want to be as immersed as you can. But I don't think virtual reality will help with that, in fact I think it would do the exact opposite.

For one thing, your eyes and ears would be under constant bombardment. When watching a screen you can avert your eyes for a moment when things get too bright or straining, or when you just want to check the clock. It's like sitting too close to the screen in a movie theater.

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.

 

[Britpoint]

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.

It doesn't really work that way though. When I was playing Assetto Corsa on the Rift, it was by far the most realistic experience I've ever had in a racing game, even though it was slightly blurry and I could make out individual pixels because the resolution was so low. It was also a little disorientating at first as you don't have the g-forces that your brain expects to match what is going on on screen - the first time I went over a hill I got vertigo, and the first time I got some oversteer it was difficult to control.

But despite these drawbacks and reminders that it was an artificial environment, the sensation of actually being in the cockpit of a Zonda R and being able to naturally move my head around to look in my mirrors or to the apex was immense. It was a jump forward that easily outweighed the drawbacks to make it better and more immersive than simply looking at a screen. On top of that, a lot of the issues went away after a couple of laps. My brain quickly adapted to the lack of expected forces so I stopped feeling disorientated, so the only real problem was the low resolution, which will be fixed for the consumer release.

So while everything you say is true in that oddities in a VR world can take you out of the environment to some extent, in my experience it's nowhere near enough to make me believe that looking at a screen is the better option.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Touché.

To further expand upon my opinion(and to dodge moderator wrath for low post content), I feel that some games are vastly improved by isolation. It's why you get people recommending that you play horror games with the lights off or with headphones. It's why people build custom cockpits for their flight sims(well that, and it's just plain cool). Some games are social games(such as the fighting game genre). Some are meant for the player to maintain an emotional distance(such as platformers and puzzle games). And then some are meant to envelop the player.

That is where VR has its place. When both the player and the game want the outside world to no longer exist, if only for an hour or so. When everything that doesn't bring you closer to the game is detrimental to the experience(incidentally, this can include motion controls in their current state). Star Citizen. System Shock 2(if only it were open source so someone could add OR support). Skyrim. These games are only improved by isolation, and they are the sort of games that I plan on buying the Oculus Rift for(assuming that Facebook doesn't somehow screw it up between now and commercial release).

On paper this sounds perfect, and obviously when you play a game that is heavy on atmosphere you want to be as immersed as you can. But I don't think virtual reality will help with that, in fact I think it would do the exact opposite.

For one thing, your eyes and ears would be under constant bombardment. When watching a screen you can avert your eyes for a moment when things get too bright or straining, or when you just want to check the clock. It's like sitting too close to the screen in a movie theater.

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.

Actually, that is all incorrect from a technical standpoint. The Rift is actually easier on your eyes than a traditional monitor in part because you aren't focused on the physical screen, but on the content, which seems more distant. In other words, you are focusing where your eyes would naturally. It's not quite as good as a collimated display, but it's definitely better than a normal display.

Additionally, VR done right causes an effect called "presence" that fools the brain into believing that you are physically there. There was an article on this site about a guy using three Kinects and the Oculus Rift [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/134494-Man-Re-Creates-Body-in-VR-with-Oculus-Rift-Three-Kinect-Sensors] for telepresence, and the it felt real enough despite low quality graphics and his own avatar's garbled nature that he felt really weird when he moved his "body" through the furniture and unconsciously moved his legs out of the way rather than let his legs pass through the table legs.

 

[Callate]

The reason why Facebook bought it, is the potential that it might be a HUGE social thing, if not in physical interaction, but in online communication.

Being present in a virtual world might isolate you from those physically around you, but it can also connect you to those who also appear in the same virtual world.

Actually standing face to face with other people's virtual avatars, can be a far more social experience than any MMO where you are chatting while knwing that the tiny figures on a tiny screen are *controlled* by people, or even than webcams where you are awkwardly avoiding eye contact due to looking at the screen not the camera.

Maybe the first generation won't be the best for that, but in 10 years, with detailed tracking of facial expressions and gesticulation, I can definitely see grandma complaining that you shouldn't just call her on phone once a week, but actually visit her "directly" at her weekend cabin at Rivendell.

I'm not certain whether Facebook specifically had communications uses in mind for Occulus or Mark Zuckerberg simply found the tech intriguing; I suppose that's something else that will come to light in how the technology comes to the consumer market.

Your supposition may well be correct, and I can see your point on what the technology could do for social media. That being the case, though, I wonder if the VR of "ten years in the future" will be iterations of the products currently in the planning stages, or whether the technology will have to go through another decade or more of hibernation after another failed launch before someone tries to pick it up again.

 

[MammothBlade]

Won't Sony's VR also run on PC? It'd be a bad business move if it doesn't.

If it's not out of the box, it almost certainly will be.

Why VR won't fail: porn games

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

Maybe this instance of VR will fail. Without it being an integral feature, it will probably fail due to perception as an expensive gimmick, an uncomfy risk for developers and gamers alike. Will there be enough games that take advantage of it? If there is a good, quality selection of VR games, will enough people buy them?

With a fragmented base (Which is a valid point the TC makes) and the costs associated, I have trouble believing there will be games worth it. Further, people will be paying for a novelty. Now, on the PC with the OR, I can see the amateur, indie, sandbox, homebrew, etc communities jumping on it, and maybe we'll see that for PC applications of Morpheus. But what will probably be an expensive and limited peripheral that likely means more money and more effort in a medium of lowest common denominators?

I just don't know how they could get enough people to justify it.

Yep, I quite agree. It is an expensive risk, and console developers have taken enough expensive risks recently - as have gamers, in buying into an unproven and as of yet sparse console generation.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yep, I quite agree. It is an expensive risk, and console developers have taken enough expensive risks recently - as have gamers, in buying into an unproven and as of yet sparse console generation.

Are you seriously comparing a console to a peripheral? Because I think you will find both the level of support and assumed risk to be quite different.

 

[Ieyke]

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

PS4 =
VR = likely -300
PS MOVE = -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?

Because Sony has nothing to do with this suceeding.
VR rides almost purely on Oculus and the PC, and apparently they're going to be selling it for as dirt cheap as they can.
Sony has to keep up with the Oculus or the Morpheus is fucked, not VR as a whole.

Also, unlike all the things you mentioned, VR is ACTUALLY revolutionary.