Support NeoGAF

[Onemic]

Most people don't want to. For VR not to die a crib death, it really needs people to want to. It never will.

It's imaginary because the minimum space needed is so small, you really dont have to go through hoops making space for it unless you game in a small room. I feel like most of the people complaining about making space play games in living rooms....

Regardless, roomscale is just another option. It's not required.

 

[FlyinJ]

This is the only example I ever see, and the only one I can think of as well; even at VR's highest aspiration, it doesn't seem to offer too much benefit over a tablet. I guess you could have better control over viewing your model, but we already have accessories that allow for more accurate control like the SpaceController, which require less physical movement.

It's more about the idea of being able to get the same resolution of a monitor in an AR headset. It would remove the need for a physical monitor entirely.

Instead of re-sizing windows on a physical display, you could re-size the entire virtual display. You could create as many and as few "monitors" as the current task needed.

Also, you wouldn't need a physical surface to put your monitor on, opening up a ton of possibilities on where your workspace could exist.

 

[Tain]

This is the only example I ever see, and the only one I can think of as well; even at VR's highest aspiration, it doesn't seem to offer too much benefit over a tablet. I guess you could have better control over viewing your model, but we already have accessories that allow for more accurate control like the SpaceController, which require less physical movement.

I'm not a professional or anything but having depth perception and "infinite" screen space both sound pretty appealing and potentially worth minor physical movement.

 

[mike6467]

It's imaginary because the minimum space needed is so small, you really dont have to go through hoops making space for it unless you game in a small room. I feel like most of the people complaining about making space play games in living rooms....

Regardless, roomscale is just another option. It's not required.

I think, based on myself and the people I hang out with, that the Giantbomb streams hurt the impressions of non-roomscale VR. Personally I don't like to be physically active when gaming, it's a relaxing activity, so I'm looking forward to the seated stuff exponentially more then the stuff involving a lot of movement. Though clearly they'll both have unique applications.

 

[FlyinJ]

A lot of the dismissal I'm seeing here is very similar to people in the 1970s saying that no one but scientists and banks would ever want to use a computer.

They were blind to the massive potential of all other fields benefiting from it's use.

 

[Zalusithix]

Actually it serves several purposes: It can be set to automatically trigger or turn on when you're approaching the bounds of your play space so you don't hit anything, thus complimenting the chaperone system. It can be manually powered on (by double tapping the system button the controller or the system button on the HMD) to allow you to view the room and interact with objects, and now that developers have full access to it, and as Microsoft has demoed, it can be used for a mix of VR, AR, or MR for a Hololens type experience.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcXfdbwjOFs

Yeah, I just simplified it. The chaperone walls remain the primary means by which you don't hit things though; the camera augments that. AR is basically a specialized use of interacting with the real world. Games could theoretically come up with some other novel use for it, but that remains to be done. Not trying to dismiss the camera (especially in future sets), but point out that it's not the means by which you avoid things. That would leave PSVR and Rift as dead in the water for anything other than sitting/standing in place. All of the major (non mobile) VR sets can implement a chaperone system though.

 

[KatamariOnTheRocks]

It's a reasonable position.
VR is an experiment at this point.
Price is a barrier, controls are a barrier and so are limitations in gameplay and health concerns.
Imo it won't be easy for VR to become a mainstream success, but who knows. Companies are betting on it hoping to become pioneers in a new big market.
If it's going to be the next big thing or the next 3D glasses is up in the air

VR is absolutely guaranteed to succeed and there is no chance at all that it will fail.

People always try to cover their unwarranted skepticism with stupid stuff like "well, it may work out for VR but it's just too soon to know now, it may still fail"

Own up to your nonsense and state your true opinion.

If you foolishly believe it will fail, just say so, I state it as fact that it will succeed because it is an objective fact that it will.

And to be clear, my definition of success is not mainstream adoption over night, success to me is releasing a product, meeting demand and earning a profit to invest in R&D of future hardware, and repeating the cycle the way we do with all tech.

People expecting mainstream adoption overnight would be like expecting the original Atari to sell the same number of units as the PS4 did which is simply not possible if you're talking about a brand new medium like videogames were back in those days and VR is like now.

 

[MadClacker]

People often seem to forget that using VR limits the game to just one viewer at a time. Sure we can sit around and watch someone flail around with a giant piece of plastic strapped to their head, but only that person is getting the proper experience. It's a very insular experience. It's way too expensive to even consider it being a viable alternative. You can't really pass the controller around (efficiently) It's just not practical. I just don't see it catching on in the way many seem to think it will. It certainly seems like a fun peripheral to mess around with on occasion - but I predict it'll be far from becoming anything remotely standard. I just don't think that many people are willing to get off their butt or deal with putting on a headset to play a videogame. Perhaps initially, but I think it'll be a novelty that'll wear off. At least until costs come down. I fear many games, at least immediately following the launch of the PSVR / Oculus etc, will attempt to cater to the (small) VR crowd at the expense of the game itself.

Oh, and all jokes aside - horror games (such as Alien Isolation) I truly believe run a genuine risk of causing serious harm to people's health. That being said, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be curious about trying it.

Of course, I could be 100% wrong, and perhaps I am - but I just don't get all the excitement. To me, it's just another incredibly expensive peripheral that - historically speaking - only a handful of games will really make good use of the damn thing, like 3D, like PS Move, like Kinect, and let's be honest - like the Wii.

 

[Onemic]

People often seem to forget that using VR limits the game to just one viewer at a time. Sure we can sit around and watch someone flail around with a giant piece of plastic strapped to their head, but only that person is getting the proper experience. It's way too expensive to even consider it being a viable alternative. You can't really pass the controller around (efficiently) It's just not practical. I just don't see it catching on in the way many seem to think it will. It certainly seems like a fun peripheral to mess around with on occasion - but I predict it'll be far from becoming anything remotely standard. I just don't think that many people are willing to get off their butt or deal with putting on a headset to play a videogame. Perhaps initially, but I think it'll be a novelty that'll wear off. At least until costs come down. I fear many games, at least immediately following the launch of the PSVR / Oculus etc, will attempt to cater to the (small) VR crowd at the expense of the game itself.

Oh, and all jokes aside - horror games (such as Alien Isolation) I truly believe run a genuine risk of causing serious harm to people's health. That being said, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be curious about trying it.

Of course, I could be 100% wrong, and perhaps I am - but I just don't get all the excitement. To me, it's just another incredibly expensive peripheral that - historically speaking - only a handful of games will really make good use of the damn thing.

If youre just talking about watching someone play, a screen also shows up on the monitor so you see what the person that is using the headset is seeing.

And VR is a platform not a peripheral, so what you're saying about historical peripheral support doesnt apply here. It's not the same as the Kinect or Move. It's the reason why there are already like 100+ games/applications playable in VR right now.

 

[Zalusithix]

People often seem to forget that using VR limits the game to just one viewer at a time. Sure we can sit around and watch someone flail around with a giant piece of plastic strapped to their head, but only that person is getting the proper experience. It's way too expensive to even consider it being a viable alternative. You can't really pass the controller around (efficiently) It's just not practical. I just don't see it catching on in the way many seem to think it will. It certainly seems like a fun peripheral to mess around with on occasion - but I predict it'll be far from becoming anything remotely standard. I just don't think that many people are willing to get off their butt or deal with putting on a headset to play a videogame. Perhaps initially, but I think it'll be a novelty that'll wear off. At least until costs come down. I fear many games, at least immediately following the launch of the PSVR / Oculus etc, will attempt to cater to the (small) VR crowd at the expense of the game itself.

Oh, and all jokes aside - horror games (such as Alien Isolation) I truly believe run a genuine risk of causing serious harm to people's health. That being said, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't be curious about trying it.

Of course, I could be 100% wrong, and perhaps I am - but I just don't get all the excitement. To me, it's just another incredibly expensive peripheral that - historically speaking - only a handful of games will really make good use of the damn thing, like 3D, like PS Move, like Kinect, and let's be honest - like the Wii.

Your argument would be more compelling if couch coop wasn't dying in the traditional gaming realm. Aside from Nintendo, it's a feature that has been increasingly dropped from games in favor of online play. Even major series that have had it from the get go such as Halo have killed it off.

As far as taking turns goes, it's only hampered in VR by the first gen nature of the sets. As the sets get smaller, lighter, and more comfortable, it becomes less and less of an issue. Also, as it becomes cheaper, you could get to the point where you have two sets in the same room where you see eachother in the virtual environment. Even as it is now, it takes less than a minute. And that's changing the facial interface and resizing the bands of the Vive.

 

[MadClacker]

If youre just talking about watching someone play, a screen also shows up on the monitor so you see what the person that is using the headset is seeing.

And VR is a platform not a peripheral, so what you're saying about historical peripheral support doesnt apply here. It's not the same as the Kinect or Move. It's the reason why there are already like 100+ games/applications playable in VR right now.

Fair points - I just don't think it'll be a very "crowd friendly" experience.

VR is a platform, yes - games are being made that can only be played using VR - much like Kinect games, so I'd say it's at least a little comparable.

I think in the specific case of PSVR to be a massive success which some here may think, you're counting on people being willing to drop their current PS4 and upgrade to the PS4.5 (or whatever it's called) AND be willing to drop $400-$600 on a VR kit. It's a LOT of faith to have in the average consumer to think this may come to pass.

Once again, I could be very wrong - and I gladly welcome and appreciate new and innovative ways to experience gaming as a medium, I just think it'll have a very niche but loyal crowd. As cliche as it is, it really IS too early to say. It's all speculation, and everyone here knows as much as everyone else - which is practically nothing.

EDIT:

Your argument would be more compelling if couch coop wasn't dying in the traditional gaming realm.

My apologies, I should have been clearer - I'm not necessarily referring to couch co op (though while still popular among sports games, isn't really viable through VR) I'm simply talking about playing games with an audience of some kind. Be it some friends, significant other, etc. Just someone else present when you're playing a game. They can see the TV, they can see what you're playing. With VR - they're not getting the same experience, and that's what I mean when I say it's a very independent and insular concept. Sure, they might be able to SEE what I'm seeing, but they'd likely not enjoy watching it simply because my heads moving around all over the place. Again, it's all speculation and unique to everyone's own individual experience - I just don't see it as a concept that'll capture the imagination, or attention of the mass consumer.

To close, I predict it'll have a very strong niche crowd with a very healthy selection of predominantly first person shooters or horror games. Some will be amazing, most will be bad. I don't think the mass public are willing to drop the money for a piece of hardware like PSVR. Will it be a successful and viable alternative to controllers or "radically change the way we think about games"? Sure, perhaps in time - but I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future. The whole concept of VR, in my mind, limits you to a first person experience - which, while a MASSIVE amount of games use, won't be viable for many people. It's an individual focused experience in an industry that's constantly growing and becoming more social and one based on sharing.

 

[Jebusman]

VR is absolutely guaranteed to succeed and there is no chance at all that it will fail.

If you foolishly believe it will fail, just say so, I state it as fact that it will succeed because it is an objective fact that it will.

As much as I think VR is going to have a better time than the last halfbaked time we tried all this, I don't think anyone can call it an objective fact that it will, and stating so is probably the least objective thing you can do.

Defining your own definition of "succeed" just so you can say that it's an objective fact that is will succeed literally defeats the purpose of it being "objective", as in, not affected by your own personal feelings or interpretations.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I think in the specific case of PSVR to be a massive success which some here may think, you're counting on people being willing to drop their current PS4 and upgrade to the PS4.5 (or whatever it's called) AND be willing to drop $400-$600 on a VR kit. It's a LOT of faith to have in the average consumer to think this may come to pass.

PSVR works with the regular PS4.

 

[Onemic]

Fair points - I just don't think it'll be a very "crowd friendly" experience.

VR is a platform, yes - games are being made that can only be played using VR - much like Kinect games, so I'd say it's at least a little comparable.

I think in the specific case of PSVR to be a massive success which some here may think, you're counting on people being willing to drop their current PS4 and upgrade to the PS4.5 (or whatever it's called) AND be willing to drop $400-$600 on a VR kit. It's a LOT of faith to have in the average consumer to think this may come to pass.

Once again, I could be very wrong - and I gladly welcome and appreciate new and innovative ways to experience gaming as a medium, I just think it'll have a very niche but loyal crowd. As cliche as it is, it really IS too early to say. It's all speculation, and everyone here knows as much as everyone else - which is practically nothing.

It's still not comparable because Kinect is a peripheral that is tied solely to the Xbox and the Xbox alone, while VR isnt tied to anything. It's why you have Vive, Oculus, PSVR, GearVR, Google cardboard....the list goes on. It's also why you have things beyond just games being used for VR. It would be like saying a console is a peripheral because console exclusive games are created for them or that it's a peripheral because you need a TV/monitor to actually use it.

EDIT:



My apologies, I should have been clearer - I'm not necessarily referring to couch co op. I'm simply talking about playing games with an audience of some kind. Be it some friends, significant other, etc. Just someone else present when you're playing a game. They can see the TV, they can see what you're playing. With VR - they're not getting the same experience, and that's what I mean when I say it's a very independent and insular concept. Sure, they might be able to SEE what I'm seeing, but they'd likely not enjoy watching it simply because my heads moving around all over the place. Again, it's all speculation and unique to everyone's own individual experience - I just don't see it as a concept that'll capture the imagination, or attention of the mass consumer.

I'd say it's quite the opposite actually. People are more engaged because it's not just you pressing buttons on a controller(if you're doing standing/roomscale) but you actually doing actions. Even in a seated experience it's more compelling because there's more visual feedback from the person playing the game vs non-VR. in non VR you're limited to just watching the screen, in VR the audience can not only watch the screen, but watch what you're doing and see your reactions to things in the game world as well.

 

[MadClacker]

PSVR works with the regular PS4.

Sure, but there's going to be a BIG focus to shift people to the "new and improved model" and with updated graphics chips, faster processing, and "built for VR in mind" it seems like the natural choice. You're not FORCED, true - but you're certainly not going to get the ideal experience.

 

[KatamariOnTheRocks]

As much as I think VR is going to have a better time than the last halfbaked time we tried all this, I don't think anyone can call it an objective fact that it will, and stating so is probably the least objective thing you can do.

Defining your own definition of "succeed" just so you can say that it's an objective fact that is will succeed literally defeats the purpose of it being "objective", as in, not affected by your own personal feelings or interpretations.

The reason I state it as being objective is because the chances of success are as high as anything in life can be regardless of what I or anyone else believes will happen.

It's not objective just because I believe it, it's objectively true therefore I belive it just as I believe the world is not flat because it's also objectively true.

I was just trying to specify what I consider to be success because everyone has a different idea of what that means so if i simply said it would succeed, someone would move the goalposts and say it didn't sell 40 million units therefore it wasn't a success.

 

[Pops Maellard]

"must not have tried it"

This man is saying the right things about VR.

Not really though. I moved into a tiny one bedroom for the summer and have just been setting up my Vive this morning. It totally works, albeit within a much smaller space than would be desirable. As long as you have a tiny square/rectangle of space in between your TV and your couch (in this hypothetical scenario as posed by the OP), you're fine. It works, it's enjoyable. And PSVR doesn't even demand (or realistically support) room scale.

 

[FlyinJ]

My apologies, I should have been clearer - I'm not necessarily referring to couch co op (though while still popular among sports games, isn't really viable through VR) I'm simply talking about playing games with an audience of some kind. Be it some friends, significant other, etc. Just someone else present when you're playing a game. They can see the TV, they can see what you're playing. With VR - they're not getting the same experience, and that's what I mean when I say it's a very independent and insular concept. Sure, they might be able to SEE what I'm seeing, but they'd likely not enjoy watching it simply because my heads moving around all over the place. Again, it's all speculation and unique to everyone's own individual experience - I just don't see it as a concept that'll capture the imagination, or attention of the mass consumer.

It's actually quite a bit more compelling to watch someone play a VR game than it is to watch someone play a game on a couch. Not only are you seeing exactly what they are seeing on the TV/screen, but you also get to watch their entire body react to what is occurring to them as opposed to watching them just sit on a couch with their mouth hanging open.

 

[Zalusithix]

I'd say it's quite the opposite actually. People are more engaged because it's not just you pressing buttons on a controller(if you're doing standing/roomscale) but you actually doing actions. Even in a seated experience it's more compelling because there's more visual feedback from the person playing the game vs non-VR. in non VR you're limited to just watching the screen, in VR the audience can not only watch the screen, but watch what you're doing and see your reactions to things in the game world as well.

Yep, it's actually far easier to relate to what's going on the screen. You see not only what's happening, but how it's happening. In traditional gaming you see typically see the results of their actions. In VR (with tracked controllers at least), you can see the actions themselves pan out. That and when the game is intentionally meant to be silly, seeing both the zaniness in game and the inherent pantomiming in real life at the same time is priceless.

 

[Jumeira]

A lot of the dismissal I'm seeing here is very similar to people in the 1970s saying that no one but scientists and banks would ever want to use a computer.

They were blind to the massive potential of all other fields benefiting from it's use.

Getting more and more waçky. Sorry, but VR itself is old and has been a nice but unnecessary instrument. And this day and age, were fortunate to have lots of devices vying to become centre of entertainment, this is not it. Tried it and it was good, but not ground breaking. Infact it poses too many obstacles to be vital, covering my face is always going to be an inconvenience.

 

[FlyinJ]

Getting more and more waçky. Sorry, but VR itself is old and has been a nice but unnecessary instrument. And this day and age, were fortunate to have lots of devices vying to become centre of entertainment, this is not it. Tried it and it was good, but not ground breaking. Infact it poses too many obstacles to be vital, covering my face is always going to be an inconvenience.

1. VR 20 years ago was a proof of concept. Now it works.

2. You're basically falling into the exact same camp I just described. 1970: Who wants to use a computer other than a scientist? 2016: Who wants to use VR other than gamers?

3. 2nd-3rd generation headsets are going to be about as heavy and face covering as a pair of sunglasses. This is so similar to the people who said "computers are too big to fit into peoples houses, no one will ever want one". At least back then the normal person hadn't been exposed to 30 years of first-hand experience of electronics getting smaller every iteration so they had some excuse to doubt it.

 

[Zalusithix]

Getting more and more waçky. Sorry, but VR itself is old and has been a nice but unnecessary instrument. And this day and age, were fortunate to have lots of devices vying to become centre of entertainment, this is not it. Tried it and it was good, but not ground breaking. Infact it poses too many obstacles to be vital, covering my face is always going to be an inconvenience.

VR as a concept is old. VR as being practically possible, particularly in a home environment, is quite new. Also, you know what else requires covering parts of your face? Motorcycles, snowmobiles, four wheelers, dirt bikes, skiing, diving, etc. Yet these activities are enjoyed by millions of people worldwide despite it. Minor inconveniences (and it will be increasingly minor as the tech advances) aren't going to stop people if the experience they allow is compelling enough.

 

[J-Skee]

OK. Now use the money you saved and make TOP SPIN 5 GOD DAMNIT!

Bringing up the real issues.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

My apologies, I should have been clearer - I'm not necessarily referring to couch co op (though while still popular among sports games, isn't really viable through VR) I'm simply talking about playing games with an audience of some kind. Be it some friends, significant other, etc. Just someone else present when you're playing a game. They can see the TV, they can see what you're playing. With VR - they're not getting the same experience, and that's what I mean when I say it's a very independent and insular concept. Sure, they might be able to SEE what I'm seeing, but they'd likely not enjoy watching it simply because my heads moving around all over the place. Again, it's all speculation and unique to everyone's own individual experience - I just don't see it as a concept that'll capture the imagination, or attention of the mass consumer.

I've had friends over a number of times for VR and we all had a good time. These are all non-gamers with the exception of one. A good 50/50 split of men and women. You pick the right experiences, get alcohol involved, and it's a great time. It's surprisingly more social than you think.

 

[Onemic]

Getting more and more waçky. Sorry, but VR itself is old and has been a nice but unnecessary instrument. And this day and age, were fortunate to have lots of devices vying to become centre of entertainment, this is not it. Tried it and it was good, but not ground breaking. Infact it poses too many obstacles to be vital, covering my face is always going to be an inconvenience.

for you

 

[Jumeira]

1. VR 20 years ago was a proof of concept. Now it works.

2. You're basically falling into the exact same camp I just described. 1970: Who wants to use a computer other than a scientist? 2016: Who wants to use VR other than gamers?

3. 2nd-3rd generation headsets are going to be about as heavy and face covering as a pair of sunglasses.

It's been in use for a long time, probably not with the fideilty now of course. Your comparison is flawed, we've used it, it's not going to control our lives, it's inherent obstacles limit it. It's another reality, but requires full command of your senses to pull off, and that's too big of a commitment especially for long periods, it's not going to work for most IMO.

 

[SneakyStephan]

It's more about the idea of being able to get the same resolution of a monitor in an AR headset. It would remove the need for a physical monitor entirely.

Instead of re-sizing windows on a physical display, you could re-size the entire virtual display. You could create as many and as few "monitors" as the current task needed.

Also, you wouldn't need a physical surface to put your monitor on, opening up a ton of possibilities on where your workspace could exist.

You just described windows on a single display lol

 

[FlyinJ]

It's been in use for a long time, probably not with the fideilty now of course. Your comparison is flawed, we've used it, it's not going to control our lives, it's inherent obstacles limit it. It's another reality, but requires full command of your senses to pull off, and that's too big of a commitment especially for long periods, it's not going to work for most.

To quote myself from the last page:

Future iterations of HMDs are going to be pretty much normal glasses that will overlay visuals into the normal world. They will also have the option of blacking out the normal world for full immersion when needed.

 

[FlyinJ]

You just described windows on a single display lol

If the single display took up the entirety of your vision.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

he's completely correct.

giant bombs vr stream further proved it.

 

[Onemic]

So looks like I'm gonna have to add this thread to my collection too. See y'all in 5 years.

You just described windows on a single display lol

Not the same....at all.

 

[JaggedSac]

The Kinect sold like 25m+.
If that's the case, then VR will do fine.

It was also like $150.

 

[Saganator]

I was looking forward to VR until I found out Motion controls were required.
I hated motion controls last gen and was hoping VR would be strictly a new "Display" technology.

Hopefully you will be able to sit down and play games in VR, like some youtubers did on Oculus a while ago.

Someone has already corrected you on the misinformation in this post, but I just wanted say as someone who hated motion controls last gen, the VIVE motion controls are on another level. Fucking love them.

VR is here, it's not going anywhere but up. The only thing that should be up for debate is how long until it's mainstream, who's going to do it, and how will it get there.

 

[bj00rn_]

They can see the TV, they can see what you're playing. With VR - they're not getting the same experience

They aren't..? I'm curious; What makes you think they aren't getting the same experience?

 

[eyeball_kid]

VR could die horribly, but PSVR has the best chance to save it. It's not $2000, doesn't need a big room, has plenty of studios working on content for it, and probably has the best chance to increase interest virally as friends come over and try it out. It's the VHS to Vive's Betamax.

 

[Tain]

They aren't..? I'm curious; What makes you think they aren't getting the same experience?

I wouldn't say they're getting the same experience. How could they be?

But I also wouldn't say that watching my friend play a traditional game on his TV is me "getting the same experience", either.

 

[Zalusithix]

VR could die horribly, but PSVR has the best chance to save it. It's not $2000, doesn't need a big room, has plenty of studios working on content for it, and probably has the best chance to increase interest virally as friends come over and try it out. It's the VHS to Vive's Betamax.

Except unlike VHS and Betamax which were competing standards where one had to die (like HD-DVD and Bluray), both the Vive and PSVR (and Rift, etc) can succeed. Hell, VR needs multiple players pushing in different directions at different price points. VR is more than one company. VR is more than gaming.

 

[Onemic]

VR could die horribly, but PSVR has the best chance to save it. It's not $2000, doesn't need a big room, has plenty of studios working on content for it, and probably has the best chance to increase interest virally as friends come over and try it out. It's the VHS to Vive's Betamax.

VR doesnt need saving.

Though it can get a lot of people interested in it very quickly, yes.

 

[BlackBanditSho]

Completely agree with him (and yes, I've tried both PS VR and Oculus Rift).

4K with HDR is the way to go forward for gaming.

I just tried the rift demo at Best Buy and was blown away. I loved it, but I definitely agree with the assessment that it's too costly and too cost prohibitive...which is why I'm hoping for the PSVR to be a thing. The price is right. Since you've played both, are the experiences comparable between PSVR and RIFT? With regards to fidelity and performance...

 

[bj00rn_]

Is there a consensus? From who?

Actually, it's not your job to give an apology here, it's mine. ..Didn't mean to come off so harsh.

The consensus especially comes from the the enthusiast here on gaf that has been a part of the "high end" scene over the last few years, many of them DK1 and DK2 owners. This is a sensible group of people and often VR's harshest critics. At this stage I don't really give a rats ass about what the mainstream consensus is, because it's not the target market for current gen VR. This is definitely a enthusiast generation.

What is the definition of "the future"? The future can be tomorrow, and at the same time it can be in a thousand years (and everything between).

So in general, is VR the future? Well functional and relatively affordable VR is here right now isn't it.. So.. it already is the future.

However, no high end VR enthusiast I've discussed with here on gaf the last few years have said that there wil be a VR system in every home tomorrow. The consensus is clearly "no!!!!!" to that.

Hence some of my annoyance from the notion that everyone who likes VR is a bunch of silly drunks who only wants to use their VR penises to sodomize traditional gamers.

Will VR be a mass market future? Yes. Tomorrow? No.

Does it really matter? For the top of the pops devs who doesn't know what to do, probably. I for one don't mind a slow start as long as high end VR is sustainable enough to drive the technology and form factor forward.

So when is the future for mass market? No one knows. Some say 5-10 years, some say 10 years.. Some say more. What else is there to do other than to wait and see.

I wouldn't say they're getting the same experience. How could they be?

What do you mean?

 

[eyeball_kid]

Except unlike VHS and Betamax which were competing standards where one had to die (like HD-DVD and Bluray), both the Vive and PSVR (and Rift, etc) can succeed. Hell, VR needs multiple players pushing in different directions at different price points. VR is more than one company. VR is more than gaming.

Well I meant that more in the context of, the better technology doesn't always succeed. I agree that there's an opportunity for multiple price points and vendors, but in terms creating a critical mass of interest for VR to take off with a mass audience I think the PSVR may be VR's best shot at sustained growth and interest.

 

[RichyDevil]

I've never agreed with a CEO more strongly about a gaming-related topic. He's dead on.

Doesn't mean that whatever VR may be in 5 years won't be successful. But whatever VR is now is not something that is appealing to anything close to a large market for all the reasons he listed.

 

[thiscoldblack]

Basically downplaying VR? Things just got started!

I live in a 580 sqft apartment and I have enough space for 2.2m x 2.1m room scale for the Vive. I don't even have to move furniture to get that. If you are a PC gamer, you already must have a good machine capable of running modern games.

Price will become afordable as time moves on. This happens to almost every piece of technology. If anything, he should be excited about the future of VR gaming.

 

[Imperfected]

Getting more and more waçky. Sorry, but VR itself is old and has been a nice but unnecessary instrument. And this day and age, were fortunate to have lots of devices vying to become centre of entertainment, this is not it. Tried it and it was good, but not ground breaking. Infact it poses too many obstacles to be vital, covering my face is always going to be an inconvenience.

No offense, but how old are you?

Do you remember brick cellphones (and "car phones") of the 80's? Do you remember, "Why would anyone but a doctor or a drug dealer even need a cellphone?" Do you remember, "Cellphones aren't really a replacement for pagers"?

 

[mclem]

Thank you Take-Two CEO, I would like developers to focus on the way games have been played since it's inception.

.

 

[mrklaw]

he's completely correct.

giant bombs vr stream further proved it.

Giant bomb launch streams for anything are relatively dour events - sitting around broadcasting for 10 hours straight will do that to you. Their vive stream was pretty good really. It had dips with some of the crappier games, but they had fun with a few too.

 

[thiscoldblack]

I just don't get all the excitement. To me, it's just another incredibly expensive peripheral that - historically speaking - only a handful of games will really make good use of the damn thing, like 3D, like PS Move, like Kinect, and let's be honest - like the Wii.

Just play a good demo of it. Preferably the Vive. No matter how many videos you have seen or impressions you have read, it will not match what you'll see through that headset the first time you try it.

I never liked any of those things you've mentioned or motion controls, for that matter. However, playing VR (the Vive in this case) is on another level. The type of games that can be executed can be totally new experiences. You will not understand it until you try it.

 

[bj00rn_]

4K with HDR is the way to go forward for gaming.

I kinda sense that what sparked you into writing that post is something resembling: "People told me VR is the future of traditional videogames!". If so I'm curious to know who told you this, because "not even" the most dedicated VR enthusiasts I know think that there'll be an absolute and mutually exclusive type future like that.

It's more nuanced like that. F.ex.:

In ten years time, in general, will people play traditional type games without VR? Yes of course

In ten years time, in general, will people experience racing simulation and flight simulation with a traditional setup without VR? Nope
(I think even those who built fully realized aircraft cockpits in their basements will start to think real hard about doing both at that time..)

I think it sometimes is good to be a little bit more specific of what we're discussing, because there's many different angles and aspects to this.

And just to mention it; Let's not pretend that enjoying traditional games and VR is mutually exclusive.. I'm looking forward to continue play DSIII later this evening.. Perhaps I'll finish with a couple of rounds of Audioshield..

 

[Zalusithix]

I kinda sense that what sparked you into writing that post is something resembling: "People told me VR is the future of traditional videogames!". If so I'm curious to know who told you this, because "not even" the most dedicated VR enthusiasts I know think that there'll be an absolute and mutually exclusive type future like that.

It's more nuanced like that. F.ex.:

In ten years time, in general, will people play traditional type games without VR? Yes of course

In ten years time, in general, will people experience racing simulation and flight simulation with a traditional setup without VR? Nope
(I think even those who built fully realized aircraft cockpits in their basements will start to think real hard about doing both at that time..)

I think it sometimes is good to be a little bit more specific of what we're discussing, because there's many different angles and aspects to this.

And just to mention it; Let's not pretend that enjoying traditional games and VR is mutually exclusive.. I'm looking forward to continue play DSIII later this evening.. Perhaps I'll finish with a couple of rounds of Audioshield..

Eventually VR will be capable of replicating a traditional screen at the same fidelity, at which point VR will be used with traditional gaming, not in lieu of it. For many cases having an infinitely adjustable screen regardless of your dwelling will be a boon. This is beyond the 10 year scale though. How many years it will be, I don't know, but at least double that IMO. Could easily be 30+. Doesn't matter though as that's the end game, and not required for the success of VR. Rather, that's the point at which traditional screens start becoming a questionable purchase.

In that far future the argument wont be "Why strap that ungainly thing to your face to play a game?", and instead will be "Why make room for a 50"+ box on your wall when you can just put on these glasses and have a 500" virtual screen?"

 

[Tom Nook Sawyer]

Just play a good demo of it. Preferably the Vive. No matter how many videos you have seen or impressions you have read, it will not match what you'll see through that headset the first time you try it.

Nah, it was exactly what I expected. Still impressive, but it didn't blow away my expectations