Support NeoGAF

[War Eagle]

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:



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.

The bold is wrong. I am so impressed with Luckys Tale and Chronos, the idea of open world third person games has me more excited than anything else.

 

[Tain]

What do you mean?

Spectators are seeing what the headset user sees, but it's hard to understand the impact of the VR scene from that one-eyed 2D preview display (for all the same immersion-driving reasons that I love VR). I also think that watching the 2D display can make those prone to motion sickness a bit more uncomfortable than actually wearing the headset themselves, too, with all the small head movements.

I don't think this is a particularly strong point against VR, of course.

edit: Oh, I think I know where you're coming from. You mean that the spectators are getting the same experience regardless of whether the player is in VR or playing a traditional game, right? I agree.

I read his post as pointing out that spectators aren't getting the same experience as the VR player (and thus it's less "shared" or whatever).

 

[qa_engineer]

VR hasn't hit mainstream, nor will it over night, but its doing pretty well thus far if Steam top seller lists are anything to gauge by

http://uploadvr.com/pool-nation-vr-top-sellers/

 

[gigantor21]

I dont see VR being anything more than an expensive niche until you can get Oculus or Vive level performance in a standalone unit. $400-600 wouldnt be that bad if that was all you had to spend; needing a PC on top of it is the real problem.

 

[qa_engineer]

I dont see VR being anything more than an expensive niche until you can get Oculus or Vive level performance in a standalone unit. $400-600 wouldnt be that bad if that was all you had to spend; needing a PC on top of it is the real problem.

Whats crazy is that while VR is a niche market with a high cost barrier to entry, a VR (Vive) only game finally cracked steam's top seller list. That is quite the feat.

 

[Onemic]

I dont see VR being anything more than an expensive niche until you can get Oculus or Vive level performance in a standalone unit. $400-600 wouldnt be that bad if that was all you had to spend; needing a PC on top of it is the real problem.

For high-end VR this will never happen, nor do I think it's necessary. what you're talking about is most feasible through phoneVR, since almost everyone has a smartphone. In terms of getting to true mainstream mass market appeal it's phoneVR that will probably do this. Because of the limited hardware of phones vs PC's though, I'd give it 10 years before phoneVR gets to a point where its feature set vs high end VR is close enough where it wont matter much to the common user.

I suppose they could also do a midrange headset complete with the hardware necessary to drive the device, though that would mean the headset would be more expensive vs phoneVR headsets, so I dont think it would make much sense to do. Maybe after VR has already become a mainstream product.

The biggest thing right now is cutting the price of the high end headsets and the PC components needed to run VR. If they were at least half the price of what they are now it would be a good start. On the PC component side AMD is already helping with the 490. Hopefully their new Zen architecture is cheap as well.