Does VR have a future in gaming?

[ryvrdrgn14]

There are quite a few issues with VR that I see.

• People can tire out quickly if the mechanics are too active, but it can seem dull if the mechanics are too simple.
• Games that capture your body motion don't seem all that accurate or responsive. Flailing around tends to be just as effective as any precise action.
• Space requirements. VR games should probably warn players that they are going 'out of bounds' of their pre-designated play space so the don't hit walls. Some way to allow players to get back to the middle of their play space would be great too. Also cables and wires.

Once VR is a little more than just plastering monitors directly on top of your eyes then maybe it might become more popular.

[fenrif]

Motion sickness has been solved. Either take some time to get used to it (like sea sickness or car sickness) or play teleport only or natural locomotion with blinders. Most games have these options as default now.

[therepublica]

Need gameplay reasons to be invested in VR. As of now, it's more of a novelty than necessity.

[nmlss]

My opinion on VR is that it's the most expensive right stick ever. In most games, what it does is basically substitute the function of the right stick (usually moving the camera) to do it with your own head. Not interested.

[Chris Simon]

I'll adopt VR when they invent the Holodeck. Until that point, I'm not that interested.

Yeah, the movement and interaction are the major hurdles to overcome.

[CyberJ]

I'll adopt VR when they invent the Holodeck. Until that point, I'm not that interested.

[Nic]

it needs a lot of work. it isn't accessible enough. it's too complicated to set up. it needs to become as easy as picking up a controller and then it will pick up real steam. games like beat saber get me really excited. it also has to be integrated as an option in AAA games like cyberpunk 77, then I would pay my soul for VR.

[Verhoven 69]

Great future but for people with vision issues (I can't do FPS etc),I'm one of the deprived.

[Valkenr]

I can't see VR picking up that much steam with its current imagining for a few reasons: (Unfiltered thoughts outlined and slightly refined in a random order, don't expect them to be coherent, I'm here to discuss and throw around ideas)

1. Motion sickness will always be a problem.. You're basically looking at an image with infinite depth of field. Until you can near 100% reproduce human vision in a simulated rendered environment, you'll have issues. Even when the system is perfect, people with motion sickness will still probably have issues in simulated situations similar to real situations that give them motion sickness. And since motion sickness isn't something that will just go away, you can't really get the VR exclusive titles with AAA budgets that will blow up the genera. Like with 3d movies, the 2d versions will be enough for most people.

2. The tech is years off. I can't see conventional pixels and refraction/reflection being the tech that pushes this forward. Full depth of field is an immersion breaker, eyes don't work that way. I think there has to be a re-thinking of the way images are produced, back to something similar to the CRT, except instead of a screen you project through fiberoptic-connected contacts, or something, directly into pupil and monitor eye movement, focal distance and head movement, along with a game engine designed entirely around rendering for two simulated eyes... While this sounds like it will be super heavy rendering computation, think how our vision works, our eyes aren't cameras. Per frame, you're looking at potentially less rendering power, because the zone of focus is tiny in comparison to a 105-120deg full depth of field FOV, the majority of the image isn't rendered in focus. The hurdle will probably be getting the latency low enough. This also gives some room for Ray Tracing innovation, where you ray-trace to a higher degree in the center of vision. I think the key is tapping into the brain's abilities for visual inference and finding the minimum necessary visual input to go unnoticed.

3. Cost of Early Adoption. I have the feeling the next major jump in VR quality will be an expensive one, and the cost needs to be kept down, especially in the current financial climate. They will have to be sold at an incredible loss to be viable, and recoup that loss with licensing fees. I'd be fine with VR games marked up 33% or something, but I don't think that will happen in the next wave. MS and Sony will need to see a very successful application on the PC before they consider adopting the tech. This is probably the biggest factor slowing down the VR market

4. Puritans. Lets be honest, Porn is where VR needs to be refined, that's how video distribution systems evolve. And the stigmas around porn (and likely unwillingness for Microsoft and Sony to openly partner with PornHub), means the first tech needs to be usable for gaming, while still being accessible to the "Adult" market. Then comes things like "priapism stimulation trousers" (and a female version), a "simulated dynamic torso touch-controller," then porn stars start selling the rights to their body scans, vocal samples and "active stimulation recorded experiences." And then all the men (mostly, lets be realistic) disappear, Prime Now demand skyrockets, PornHub explodes and Second Life gets an expansion. Then in a year or two, the men (mostly) immerge along with a refined VR headset that everyone can enjoy and everyone pretends like the innovation came from regular video games, not the Ao 18+ ones...

5. Square footage. I think this will always be a problem, and probably the biggest problem... for the non-adult gaming side of VR. If you live in an apartment (like more an more people are doing, especially around population centers) you'll need some kind of full-motion treadmill, which will be outside of the budget of most. There is always a disconnect when you have part of the character motion on a controller. In my eyes, you either need full VR control with basically a pip-boy-like wrist tool for in-game menus, a prop motion-controller for whatever your character is using (sword, gun, XP20-XS), elbow length sensor gloves, and some way to move in-place without moving in-space. My guess, is the first major high-use iteration of VR will be the comatose-couch-potato version, where you just lie back with a regular game-controller (or special trousers).

---

I think we'll eventually get there, but there will never be a major market innovation push until the number of users reaches a critical mass for VR porn to blow up. And that might take a bit. But when it hits, it will probably be the H-bomb of tech explosions. We just need that plausible deniability to make VR rigs socially acceptable to the mainstream while that's happening. And until its cheap, and/or something console developers can throw-in with the next next gen consoles, I can't see it being adopted by the majority of gamers.

I'm in sit-and-wait mode. I'd give it at least another 10 years to gain mainstream usage, probably more. This is one of those areas where I can't be optimistic, there are just too many things working against it. I really want this to blow up so we can get some AAA titles designed around VR from the ground up, but I can't see an easy way to get there. The best I'm hoping for in the short-term is a larger number of VR experience centers where they repurpose a warehouse or something where people can run around with headsets on.

---

"Yeah, that's my VR 'gaming' headset." ~some gentleman

"Where have all the men gone?!?" ~some lady

[StefDevs]

I think the Quest will be a big step forward with full VR experiences without the need for a $1500 PC. It will lead to more penetration, but the big key hurdle IMO is to bring real mechanical depth to VR games.

There are very few VR games that I would actually go back to for more than 8 - 20hrs of gameplay. Contrast this with the 600hrs of rocket league I've logged, or the 400 in PUBG, etc. I think the market has been focused, or distracted too much by the low hanging fruit that is immersion. Yes, with VR you can now look and point with your head and hands in a virtual space and it's magical, but that's not going to replace the complexity of action games with unlimited locomotion (character movement) or strategic complexity in strategy games.

I've heard allot of people judge VR game ideas with "But does it _need_ to be in VR?", and I think this is wrong.

For example - poker doesn't need to be in VR. It works just fine in 2D, but Poker Stars VR has been really successful in retaining players for _many_ hours. Why? It has all of the wonderful complexity and nuance of poker as a solid foundation, and on top of that it exploits another big core strength of VR - social interaction - which gives it real value over regular online poker.

This model will work for other genres as well. That's where I'm placing my bet at least.

[Tuklofeign]

Eventually. Just not yet. We went through this before a long while back in the 90s when movies like The Lawnmower Man, Virtuosity, and the always fun to watch David Cronenberg flick, eXistenz, helped make VR popular back then. And while the tech has gotten better, it's still both too expensive and not quite good enough just yet to have that lasting power. One day I'm sure it will get there though. But that's assuming something much cooler doesn't get created first.

[ryan_]

I think it was much too early for them to go for the home console market with VR. The price point isn't low enough for that market, they never generated significant demand, and the install base is super low, all leading to very low sales numbers for most games. Almost every game made for the home VR market was made at a significant loss and was paid for by investors, not customers, which is not a sustainable business model. I think what they're doing now, Location Based VR (basically VR arcades) is a lot better for generating demand, but still think it's not the application for VR that's going to really generate demand.

I think the core thing that will generate demand for VR is social media applications -- creating environments that allow you to build deeper, more real connections with online-only friends who aren't geographically accessible. Things as simple as being able to watch a movie with someone. This extends to porn as well, because it's a similar concept -- increasing a feeling of *closeness* to a person.

As far as games, they're still a ways to go in terms of finding genres that utilize VR to its fullest. Beat Saber is a good example. Things like escape rooms or horror games, where the environment is very important, also make good use of the form, but I still don't think they're there yet.

Basically, I think games should probably be about 12% of the real world application of VR (to pick a number based on feeling), and they're spending 90%+ of their energy on games.

[Tech_0ne]

I always wondered who was the first person to be caught fapping to VR porn, and did they know they got caught? Lol

[Chris Simon]

As far as motion sickness and headaches go, I did occasionally experience that at the beginning, but once I've figured out the IPD settings and learned how to move (looking around with my head, moving my eyes as little as possible) I've never sufferend from that again.

And it's true that porn may actually kick off the VR more than games ever could. After all, we can thank porn for affordable broadband and 4K.

[Hopeless Wombat]

VR feels like it's hard to get right. The way the brain works and motion sickness make it really hard. I have a PS VR unit that hopefully one day I'll return to (small space).

It's fun, but things with even the smallest amount of speed make you feel like pulling a Stan Marsh. The only game in PlayStation Worlds where I didn't feel this was the Deep... which isn't a game so much as it was an experience. There was a full on jumping from asteroid to asteroid game with unbound gravity in there too and that tested my absolute limit. Even the Playroom VR games gave me a decent headache.