Virtual Reality Predictions

[Creamhoven]

Hello dear screen strapon enjoyers and sceptics,

 

virtual reality has been an exciting concept for many decades now. The idea to make something that gets closer to a real life holodeck has gotten alot of attention. To visit different places, maybe in different historic contexts. To experience various things from the comfort of your home. Those are all quite compelling things that spark the imagination.

 

Seeing John Carmack leaving VR behind, however, is rather sobering.

 

Was it a success? Was it too ambitious, too early? Will it achive mainstream appeal in the future or is VR in general a niche product at best?

 

For me, I would be fine going to an arcade setting, trying out GT7 on a racing chair that mechanically reacts to the gameplay, perhaps running on a  high end PC in 120fps, maybe even with ray tracing.

 

Dedicating so much space and lay down the money for a setup at home on the other hand, there is no way.

 

I kindly ask you to share your thoughts.

Edited March 2, 2023 by Creamhoven

[Tanooki]

If you had a room to do it, preferably elsewhere at this rate, like a go-to an ST TNG style holodeck sorta setup great.  In my home buying all the expensive gear and having to clear a wide open space around the chair/floor area to do the tasks of the game I can't do or justify.  I'm fine using a Virtual Boy at this rate if I want my face in some googles.

[zzip]

16 hours ago, Creamhoven said:

 

Seeing John Carmack leaving VR behind, however, is rather sobering.

 

Was it a success? Was it too ambitious, too early? Will it achive mainstream appeal in the future or is VR in general a niche product at best?

PSVR2 just came out and is getting rave reviews.

 

I only have the original PSVR from 2016,  but even that has some really amazing immersive game.   

 

Main issue is setting it up and being something you wear.   I don't use it all the time,  I couldn't imagine using it to play games long games like Skyrim VR

 

[Creamhoven]

On 3/3/2023 at 12:26 AM, Tanooki said:

I'm fine using a Virtual Boy at this rate if I want my face in some googles.

The VB is like a GB on steroids. That wario game and also panic bomber are a joy!

[Creamhoven]

20 hours ago, zzip said:

PSVR2 just came out and is getting rave reviews.

 

I only have the original PSVR from 2016,  but even that has some really amazing immersive game.   

 

Main issue is setting it up and being something you wear.   I don't use it all the time,  I couldn't imagine using it to play games long games like Skyrim VR

 

Having a screen on your face for many ours doesnt seem healthy. I don't know why they didnt imagine it as an arcade  experience early on. Also having to use your arms like in games that let you climb, its nothing I would want to do in general, but certainly not for longer than a few minutes.

[zzip]

On 3/4/2023 at 6:29 AM, Creamhoven said:

Having a screen on your face for many ours doesnt seem healthy. I don't know why they didnt imagine it as an arcade  experience early on. Also having to use your arms like in games that let you climb, its nothing I would want to do in general, but certainly not for longer than a few minutes.

I think arcade type experiences are perfect for VR.   Those are the VR games I keep coming back to-  Wipeout, Beat Saber, Astrobot Rescue Mission, VR Pinball and even ping pong.

 

Problem is modern gamers complain bitterly if a game delivers less than 20 hours of story, so hence things like Skyrim VR exist.

[Creamhoven]

1 hour ago, zzip said:

I think arcade type experiences are perfect for VR.   Those are the VR games I keep coming back to-  Wipeout, Beat Saber, Astrobot Rescue Mission, VR Pinball and even ping pong.

 

Problem is modern gamers complain bitterly if a game delivers less than 20 hours of story, so hence things like Skyrim VR exist.

I am clueless, why 20h story games are so popular. My had is so occupied with things I have to think through in my daily life that the last thing I want is a game that has 20h of lets be honest most of the time mediocre stories. Oof...

[zzip]

1 minute ago, Creamhoven said:

I am clueless, why 20h story games are so popular. My had is so occupied with things I have to think through in my daily life that the last thing I want is a game that has 20h of lets be honest most of the time mediocre stories. Oof...

From the forums I've been in, it seems like a "value for money" argument.  If I new game costs $60 and delivers 30 hours of storyline then it costs $2/hour.   If it delivers 10 hours then it costs $6/hour and you are getting ripped off (according to the people making this argument)

 

But these storyline based games will often tell you where to go, who to talk to what to fetch.   It's more like completing a set of checklists than playing a game.   So this mindset does cause developers to pad out the storylines.

 

Those long games also often don't have much replay value.   After enduring one 40 hour playthrough, do you really want to spend another 40 hours on a second playthrough?   In most cases no

 

The arcade games were designed for replay value, that's how they made money.

 

I've also noticed that people who like the long story games are often lost when presented with arcade style or sandbox game.   They expect a set of objectives to be presented to them.   I suppose the games you grew up on and your personality will determine what gameplay style you enjoy.

[Creamhoven]

14 minutes ago, zzip said:

From the forums I've been in, it seems like a "value for money" argument.  If I new game costs $60 and delivers 30 hours of storyline then it costs $2/hour.   If it delivers 10 hours then it costs $6/hour and you are getting ripped off (according to the people making this argument)

Yeah, arcade games you can enjoy for countless hours, but I get their argument, even if I see it differently.

 

14 minutes ago, zzip said:

But these storyline based games will often tell you where to go, who to talk to what to fetch.   It's more like completing a set of checklists than playing a game.   So this mindset does cause developers to pad out the storylines.

Yes, I know these experiences, and it feels so much like tedious busywork to me. I dont get it all. If they enjoy it, good for them. I just dont get it at all. I rather play tetris while listening to a awesome audiobook of excellent literature. Lets be honest stories in games are seldom truly good.

14 minutes ago, zzip said:

Those long games also often don't have much replay value.   After enduring one 40 hour playthrough, do you really want to spend another 40 hours on a second playthrough?   In most cases no

Yes, and most of them will be forgotten like many old hollywood movies are forgotten by most.

14 minutes ago, zzip said:

The arcade games were designed for replay value, that's how they made money.

Yes, tetris you can play for so very many hours in your life without it ever getting. A true classic.

14 minutes ago, zzip said:

I've also noticed that people who like the long story games are often lost when presented with arcade style or sandbox game.   They expect a set of objectives to be presented to them.   I suppose the games you grew up on and your personality will determine what gameplay style you enjoy.

Hm... I also think that the growth and hollywoodisation of gaming has attracted audiances, that are disconted from the history of gaming. There was a push of VMU gaming with the sega CD. We still have games in the spirit of those VMU games, although they are more sophisticated, they are more like interactionable movies than what gaming once was. Unfortunatly this among other outgrowths have largely overtaken the industry.

 

I wish there was a categorial differentiation between for example hollywood type of 'games', and the gaming spirit that reigned supreme from the inception till the 00s.

 

VR in a sense has arrived too late, since we have experienced the death of the arcades. If arcades were as big when they were peaking, this would have been a great chance making this technology feasible. Than again there seems to be more interest in making a distopian social media VR parallel reality than anything.

[zzip]

9 minutes ago, Creamhoven said:

 

VR in a sense has arrived too late, since we have experienced the death of the arcades. If arcades were as big when they were peaking, this would have been a great chance making this technology feasible. Than again there seems to be more interest in making a distopian social media VR parallel reality than anything.

I don't necessarily think it has come too late.   When videogames arrived, you started with Pong, Night Driver, Space Invaders,  not Call of Duty.   

 

It took years for the gaming audience to grow big enough for to support those kinds of games (and the tech to catch up).

 

Well VR has a big jump on the tech,  but it's still going to start with a small audience and grow over time, and the investment in games will reflect that.   Yeah, there's people who will write-off VR before it's had a chance.   But I also recall how skeptical my father and other adults were about video games back in the day.   And as much as my dad hated the idea of video games, he did eventually find games he liked.    Same thing could happen to VR skeptics

 

 

[Creamhoven]

I think VR can work, when developers work with the strengths and weaknesses of this medium. Forcing Zuckerbergs dystopia into it is a backwards approach. Go with whatever works, and I agree with your experience that arcade titles make sense. Certainly there are other experiences that could work with it. Lets hope talented developers with the freedom to explore the medium will make it work.

[Video]

VR can work, my experience with it is great. The problem is cost. People love to say 3d failed cause "people voted with their wallet" but when it comes down to it, they weren't truthfully given a choice.

 

3d tv came out at a time you'd pay over a grand for a 45" tv, but it would cost five to ten times as much for the 3d version of the same tv. Nobody can truly justify paying 5-10k for that tv.  Look at current 4k tv. Think that would even be a thing, if it was done the same way? Heck no. But it is succeeding now, for one very good reason, people ARE willing to pay a little bit more to get it (often under $50 for the bump from 1080p to 4k.

 

When 3d can do that, you will see it take off, and I will be first in line. hell, its the reason I bought virtual boy, and 3ds.

 

People aren't aware of this, but 3d tv is the reason we have some of the stuff we have, like 4k (3d without losing resolution in 1080p format) or 144 Hz screens (3d past the refresh of human eyes so you won't see flicker) so the next attempt at 3d won't have those hurdles to deal with and should be cheaper.

 

As for game length, a GOOD game provides value, despite being short. Even though its 10-30 minutes to beat, super Mario bros is still one of my most played games, ever....and at ten minutes to beat, that's $360 for a one hour game (or probably $700-$900 in today's market)

[Creamhoven]

I have played Crysis on a sharp 70" 3D TV and I think for 3D TV to succeed you need to get rid of the glasses and make it headachefree.

 

That being said, if there will be a dreamcast 3D I will get one day one!

Edited March 6, 2023 by Creamhoven

[Ninjabba]

My gut feeling tells me that there's no big consumer market for expensive hardware that needs to be strapped to the face to stare at small screens to create a nauseating feeling of immersion if used longer than 30 minutes. I can see it work in the entertainment business though.

 

We have a VR Arcade in our city that allows you to run freely in a big space shooting zombies/aliens and its great! They map the digital space to match the building such that you don't run into a wall or pillar. The matches are 15 minutes each and after 2 sessions I feel mentally exhausted. I think they deliver the best VR experience one could wish for, but their setup is huge and the gameplay is rather limited to run and shoot in a local network. Any kind of delay feels like a huge impact on the brain so I can't see this ever work in an online environment, let alone the fact that you'll need one of those treadmills that allow you to run in arbitrary directions if you want to have this kind of experience at home.

Edited March 7, 2023 by Ninjabba

[EvanGrahamn]

I get what you're saying about VR. It's definitely an exciting concept, but it's also had its fair share of ups and downs. IMO, VR has a lot of potential, but it might take some time before it becomes mainstream.

[Austin]

VR is in a weird place. It's an amazing experience, but it's also a bit limited in the kind of experience it can provide. It's all too easy to have the immersion broken, and some players can still experience awful nausea. Myself personally, if I have to use an analog stick to move and turn, I about fall over because my brain just can't take it. It's not fun. There's also the issue of it being isolating in nature. Even if you have a group of people in the same room watching your gameplay on the TV while you're in the headset, there's still this weird disconnect between the player and those in the room.

 

There's of course the accessibility issue. Facebook/Meta Quest and PSVR have apparently done the best in making it more easily accessible and affordable, but both are also limited in their capabilities. PSVR2 is getting rave reviews, but coming from PC VR I don't find it as impressive as others are touting, and it has a high barrier to entry with its price. For the cost of a PS4 and PSVR1, you only get the PSVR2 by itself. If you don't already have a PS5 but you want to get into PSVR2, you'll be looking at a $1,000+ buy-in, then you still have to purchase the games. It'll be neat if Sony enables the PSVR2 to function on PCs eventually, as that could help with the adoption rate, but I don't think it'll really push the market forward in a meaningful way outside of potentially getting more people actually using the tech.

 

I also feel like the tech isn't evolving fast enough and it's feeling a little stagnant to me at the moment. I enjoy it, but I don't get hooked on it like I did in the earlier Oculus and Vive days when it was new and fresh. I'm certain a way to push it forward is more wearable tech, but even then.. I can't imagine the future cost to get a more involved experience. Right now there's still a major disconnect thanks to the uncomfortable nature of the headsets themselves, the fact you're still holding what's effectively game controllers to simulate hand and finger movements which inherently doesn't feel right, etc. No amount of haptic feedback (one of PSVR2's best features) can fix that disconnect.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Austin

[Creamhoven]

Okay, so VR is good for niche audiances/use cases.

 

Can it be said, taking the development costs into account, that VR is a gigantic failure and is likely not going to gather a large enough audience soon or ever?

[Austin]

I don't think it's a gigantic failure. Headsets are still selling and companies are still investing in the space. It's just not the runaway success some probably hoped for.

[Lostdragon]

On 3/3/2023 at 2:47 PM, zzip said:

PSVR2 just came out and is getting rave reviews.

 

I only have the original PSVR from 2016,  but even that has some really amazing immersive game.   

 

Main issue is setting it up and being something you wear.   I don't use it all the time,  I couldn't imagine using it to play games long games like Skyrim VR

 

Looking at the prices.. 

 

 

UK
RRP: £529.99
USA
RRP: $549.99
Europe
RRP: €600
Canada
RRP: CA$749.99
Australia
RRP: AU$879.95

 

Doesn't that make it more expensive than the PlayStation 5 console itself?. 

 

From my limited knowledge of friends who owned the original PSVR, the complaints seemed to be there just weren't enough titles available for it, to justify the purchase. 

 

Something Sony will of hopefully learnt from this time around and ensure the software is out there to make it an essential purchase for those with the funds. 

 

I've also seen some concerns raised regarding the devices colour choices, a reviewer saying his already shows scuff marks on the front of the unit.. 

 

And the issue of being  tethered to the PS5, can be an issue where space is limited, even though it comes with a 4.5m cable, which you can easily trip over. 

 

The technology is clearly a step up from the original, but it's still not there yet it seems. 

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by Lostdragon

[zzip]

19 hours ago, Austin said:

and some players can still experience awful nausea. Myself personally, if I have to use an analog stick to move and turn, I about fall over because my brain just can't take it. It's not fu

And nausea-  a form of motion sickness really-  varies a lot from player to player.   Some people don't experience it at all,  some get it after long play periods,  others can barely put on the VR googles before experiencing it.  Some get acclimated to it and stop experiencing it.

 

For me, only "Minecraft VR" triggers any kind of nausea but it's not severe.

 

19 hours ago, Austin said:

PSVR2 is getting rave reviews, but coming from PC VR I don't find it as impressive as others are touting, and it has a high barrier to entry with its price. For the cost of a PS4 and PSVR1, you only get the PSVR2 by itself. If you don't already have a PS5 but you want to get into PSVR2, you'll be looking at a $1,000+

Yeah cost does seem like an issue for PSVR2.   The tech they included was bound to push up the price, but was needed to push VR forward.

 

But another issue is because of the radically different tracking tech,  backwards compatibility with PSVR1 was not really feasible,  so PSVR2 is starting off with a relatively small library, and I'm hesitant to buy because some of my favorite PSVR1 games have not announced PSVR2 updates.

[zzip]

4 hours ago, Creamhoven said:

Can it be said, taking the development costs into account, that VR is a gigantic failure and is likely not going to gather a large enough audience soon or ever?

It's more like videogames at the start of consoles.   VR is selling millions or tens of million units, just like the early game consoles.     It doesn't sell hundreds of millions units like modern consoles.

 

But it has to start somewhere.  The numbers should grow as people become more used to and accepting of VR

[zzip]

2 hours ago, Lostdragon said:

And the issue of being  tethered to the PS5, can be an issue where space is limited, even though it comes with a 4.5m cable, which you can easily trip over. 

If you don't tether you will have add a hefty battery, (PSVR tries out to be one of the lightest, most comfortable VR units) and high bandwidth wireless that may add latency.    So tethering is the price of high performance.   I'm OK with that especially since PSVR2 uses only a single USB-C cable,  not the mess of cables the PSVR1 has.

 

I do wonder if the PS4 could ever be miniaturized enough that they could release a fully mobile version of PSVR1 with integrated PS4.  Probably not because of the tracking needed.

[EvanGrahamn]

On 3/9/2023 at 7:44 PM, EvanGrahamn said:

I get what you're saying about VR. It's definitely an exciting concept, but it's also had its fair share of ups and downs. IMO, VR has a lot of potential, but it might take some time before it becomes mainstream.

If you're interested in computer vision and how it's used in gaming and other industries, you should definitely check out https://www.exposit.com/solutions/computer-vision/. They have some great solutions that could be helpful for VR and other gaming applications. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, and happy gaming!