VR needs a GoldenEye moment. VR needs the kind of revolutionary blockbuster that Doom was, to make people sit up and take notice. Something that really pushes the possibilities of the technology, and pushes us into a new era of gaming, the way FarCry pushed the limits of video technology.
Instead, it's not quite getting dumped in the sand the way Atari dumped ET in 1982, but it's not far off - major supporters are giving half-hearted statements, and the biggest application I've heard about receiving VR investment is a desktop replacement - not exactly something from which I'd expect a compelling VR experience. So far, my most mind-blowing VR experience has merely been Google Earth.
Where are the Wii-game clones? Where are the DDR-clones and, like, retro arcades? Where are the games that have co-op in the same space? Why can't you invite your friends into your Google Earth, to look at the same scenes?
We're roughly a year out, with multiple platforms, and almost every game is still a tech demo. Where are the news reports of people breaking their TV with their Vive-mote? - Nobody has been so preoccupied with a VR game that that they flung the controller into the TV yet. I'm worried that investors were so preoccupied with whether or not they could make money off of this, that they didn't stop to think if they should make it fun. How many consoles have successfully gone their first year without a compelling release, and later recovered?
>We're roughly a year out, with multiple platforms, and almost every game is still a tech demo.
Making a game with a really solid experience, to my knowledge, usually takes a few years to make. And that's true even when you're not trying to build entirely novel modes of interaction from the ground up.
> Where are the news reports of people breaking their TV with their Vive-mote?
Wii's were way, way cheaper, and not nearly so niche, leading to sales of 600,000 units in the very first week, you probably would have heard this about the Vive if it had that kind of market penetration that fast, because it definitely does happen to people.
> Where are the Wii-game clones? Where are the DDR-clones and, like, retro arcades?
I'd say multiple examples of all three are on Steam.
> Where are the games that have co-op in the same space?
Like local co-op? Probably waiting for the release of hardware that has more robust tracking because with multiple individuals in the same tracking space, the problem of occlusion crops up a lot more. Those improvements are planned, at least for the Vive, but they're not available yet to my knowledge.
> Why can't you invite your friends into your Google Earth, to look at the same scenes?
I'd guess licensing the imagery and data, although there are a handful of things like this for singleplayer (Including Google Earth VR), so it might have to do with the complexity of building a networked experience over a purely singleplayer one.
> Making a game with a really solid experience, to my knowledge, usually takes a few years to make. And that's true even when you're not trying to build entirely novel modes of interaction from the ground up.
Fair point, but don't developers usually have significant lead time, so games are released soon after a new console or other hardware? Or is VR simply that much more complicated to develop for?
> Like local co-op? Probably waiting for the release of hardware that has more robust tracking because with multiple individuals in the same tracking space, the problem of occlusion crops up a lot more. Those improvements are planned, at least for the Vive, but they're not available yet to my knowledge.
So essentially, the technology isn't ready yet, and we're all using the Early Access version of the hardware?
> I'd guess licensing the imagery and data, although there are a handful of things like this for singleplayer (Including Google Earth VR), so it might have to do with the complexity of building a networked experience over a purely singleplayer one.
How much more network data is needed to coordinate a VR experience over another type of 3D game - is there usually more collision data, from all of the extra motion tracking? Will VR require gamers have 1 Gbps home internet connections?
>> So essentially, the technology isn't ready yet, and we're all using the Early Access version of the hardware?
I would say this is really close to being a stupid comment. The technology does exactly what it's supposed to do, and does it quite well. Just because it doesn't support features you want doesn't mean the tech isn't "ready".
So, you would say smart watches are "ready"? Despite the abominable battery life the Apple Watch gets, even though it isn't Always On? Would you say the Internet Of Shit is ready? Even though you can't get a decent cup of coffee before a firmware upgrade? After all, "the technology does exactly what it's supposed to"?
In the same vein, the low-resolution, headache and nausea inspiring VR headsets of modern day aren't really ready, even though engineers are making the best of what they have.
I would say yes to every question you just posed. Again, just because the tech doesn't work to your expectations doesn't mean it is not ready for market. You're just being stupidly picky.
>> Even though you can't get a decent cup of coffee before a firmware upgrade?
I easily get two days worth of battery from my Apple Watch and I'm completely satisfied with the experience of the HTC Vive. I dunno what you're on about.
Big developers are mostly taking a wait and see approach. Indies are piling on like it's a gold rush. If VR turns out to have staying power, it will take a while for the AAA sector to get in gear.
As someone peripherally involved with certain VR indie communities, I'd say it's simply that indies do what they want, and there are a lot of people who are extremely passionate about VR. As far as money goes, VR users are very hungry for apps right now, so it's a small but vigorous market.
Platform launches are always a good opportunity for niche games and new IPs because early adopters want to justify their purchase and with a limited library are more open to buying games they wouldn't buy otherwise.
It's not any more complicated to develop for than an equivalent 3d-space game, but almost none of the tropes and techniques that work for a flat experience like playing Counter Strike translate. People are figuring out basics like how to make picking something up feel good/right, really basic gestures and actions take on a lot more importance when you're supposed to feel them as a natural part of yourself. It used to be "press A to open door", now you actually have to open the door, and getting that right takes a lot of trial and error.
It is really a chicken and egg problem. We need more affordable hardware to create a market for the software, but to create the software we need that market to already exist.
The only real solution is for the VR hardware manufacturers to invest in development of software until they get something good.
I own a vive and there are some really cool experiences, but in my library of games there is not really anything that i'm itching to come back to. It mostly just sits put away till something new releases, or I want to show it to a friend.
Further complicating the issue is the hardware split. Vive/Oculus can somewhat share things if you are dedicated and willing to accept poor control schemes, but PSVR is out on its own. Then you get into the whole seated/roomscale issue, and things like motion sickness from locomotion and you find that it is really hard to develop something that can apply to a large population right now.
I don't think that this is purely a chicken and egg problem. A major part of total VR expense is GPU capacity; there is a certain level of computing performance that must be met for "good feeling" VR - but GPUs are and will be getting investment and improvements in price/performance even without VR; so the software/content folks can simply wait for the hardware to become more affordable, so that many more (most?) people would already have the required computing gear and would just need some peripherals.
> the biggest application I've heard about receiving VR investment is a desktop replacement - not exactly something from which I'd expect a compelling VR experience.
I completely disagree with this. A good desktop replacement is exactly what you'd want from a compelling VR experience.
1. It's a literal virtual reality that users would use to replace actual reality.
2. If you can make a compelling, usable desktop replacement, then you've successfully made a reason for many VR users to be happy with never taking off their headsets. Tired of a game? Go back to the desktop environment. Want to look up some tips? Go back to the desktop environment. Want to look at links from friends? Go back to the desktop environment.
3. A compelling desktop environment is probably far more technically greedy than an actual game since you need to have a high resolution headset to simulate the desktop with at least the fidelity of a real screen... and most people are going to want at least two of those high-resolution virtual screens in their field of vision.
Except the part about getting sick to your stomach? How many people do not know they have VR induced motion sickness? I know I didn't until I strapped up a cardboard. I do not get sick in less than 13-15 foot seas, but sick as hell with cardboard.
A big part of this is due to mobile-grade hardware and no positional tracking. These things are neat little toys and I have both a Cardboard and a Daydream that I mess with from time to time.
But even my old (in VR-industry terms) Oculus dev unit from a couple years ago works much better. The mobile VR setups only track head orientation but the Rift, Vive, and similar devices also track your position in xyz space. This has a huge impact on how well your movements are mirrored in the virtual environment. Ultimately, getting as close to 1:1 mirroring is how you avoid motion sickness.
The other part of that is overall body position so a lot of the attempts to shoehorn traditional FPS games into VR are iffy because even if your head is tracked, your brain knows you're not running around even if your visual input tells you that you are.
It's a big part of why I don't think games (or at least many styles of games that work on 2D screens) are the end goal for VR. They seem obvious since they're already using complex and realistic environments but the VR applications that really work are the ones where your viewpoint matches your actual physical orientation (including the rest of your body).
I also think the big jump will come when someone sorts out how to get a few cheap depth cameras set up around a room to generate a real-time 3d model with video data used to texture the mesh. Send that data over networks and display in a VR headset and you're on your way to 3d/VR telepresence. The hardware still needs to improve and the software developed, but it reminds me of using early smartphones more than anything else.
When I had a Treo or an old Pocket PC I knew that technically these things could be as fluid and smooth as a desktop or laptop of the time. It just wasn't feasible to cram it into a tiny handset for a price anyone could pay. But now 10-15 years later you can spend a few hundred bucks and get something better than your old Playstation or laptop in your pocket.
You are actually comparing a cheap cardboard box with a run of the mill mobile phone to specialized hardware with optimized firmware? Cardboard is the lowest end you can get and has all the latency and fps issues that actual VR hardware had to fix. High latency and low fps are killers for people with low tolerance, for VR milliseconds count.
Cardboard being a set of lenses in a box has tracking latency issues with most mobile hardware. The GearVR gets round this with better hardware in the headset and Google now have the Daydream standard for VR capable phones. Both make an enormous difference and this isn't an issue in the high end headsets either.
the sickness happens because your brain cannot correlate what you see and what you feel, it more or less happens when there's actual movement involved in games (that is why most games by default do not let you turn with the analogue stick, but rather move in X degree increments while blanking out the screen for a moment. It would not be the case when you're basically just looking around, but not moving. I recommend SuperBunnyhop's video on YouTube about the issue!
It really doesn't. Anyone who has used VR knows how amazing it is. The main issue for games is getting the controls right.
The way I see it, sticking to a controller or keyboard/mouse and using the VR as a kind of stationary surround monitor is the best way to go for gaming.
Dual controllers and physically moving around in a room have too many issues and don't feel natural for games. It's great for tech demos, but I can't imagine playing through an 80-hour game like that. It's like the Nintendo Wii controllers that are only good for party games.
> It's great for tech demos, but I can't imagine playing through an 80-hour game like that.
I'm not a gamer - not in the sense of today. But I do like to play games occasionally.
Back in the 90s, I remember playing Dactyl Nightmare - stand up, single controller, crappy (by today's standards - back then, it was different) HMD/res - but I loved it. Five minutes for 5 dollars - expensive, but I always liked that at the end of the game, I had gotten a great bit of exercise that was fun (I wasn't one of those "players" that just "derped" and looked around - I played the game).
Dodging, ducking, aiming and shooting - all of that "action" translated into a pretty good workout!
My future fantasy would be playing and exploring the Cyberpunk 2077 world (assuming its released); today, I would love to do the same with GTAV, but apparently it isn't something supported by default in the game (there are hacks to somewhat allow for it in the "freeform" or "single-player" mode (?) - but even those hacks don't work perfectly, from what I gather).
I'm one of those kinds of people who hates exercise - but has no problem getting it from a game or other "active" activities (I dislike competitive sports as well - but I love hiking).
I think this sounds a lot like a "back in my day" kinda comment you'd hear from someone that's really averse to something different. Arizona Sunshine is one of the coolest games I've ever played and, even though it's not 80 hours long, is amazing for something running on 1st gen hardware. I can't wait to see what happens with VR in the future and would gladly play games with dual controllers and standing.
It's a comment and personal opinion from someone who works with the technology and has first hand experience. Make of that what you will.
I'd like a completely immersive experience, but current VR simply can't offer that.
To get there, full body tracking is required so that controllers are not needed anymore, and some kind of treadmill that allows you to walk in VR while physically staying in the same position, to avoid running into walls, having to re-adjust the connectors etc.
And even then, holding an object in VR when your hands are really empty or holding a controller feels weird.
2x games: SuperHot and Onward. Both just totally blew my mind! Google them if you've never heard of them before. And Onward really shows the power of an Indie Dev.
Yeah, probably we will see progressively cases of people having anxiety and panics attacks because VR experiences, of course also the opposite, the "this is not my kind of game" will become a more serious statement.
As an industry I think it's very fair to say we are a year out. Vive launched (with motion controllers!) in April 2016. The Rift launched in March 2016, albeit we waited longer for Touch. The Samsung Gear VR, which has a surprisingly impressive install base now thanks to the various free promotions Samsung ran, was November 2015.
The issues VR faces, especially around the lack of compelling content, aren't really specific to a headset model or brand. I agree with the previous post - VR as a consumer industry is pretty much a year old at this point.
It's increasingly my opinion that Valve/Facebook will need to lead by example to get the content off the ground to solve the 'chicken and egg' problems, and that leading is going to involve throwing good money into projects that simply won't make money, for the greater long term good of VR. Thankfully it looks like this is finally starting to happen, with Facebook stumping up 250 million dollars for original content and Valve's recently announced in house projects. This industry and install base isn't going to grow fast enough without this investment, especially if the past 12 months are anything to go by.
I forget my basement ceilings are low and end up hitting them all the time. Plenty of us are damaging our equipment and bodies with VR. News may not be covering it but you can find plenty of war stories on Reddit.
But yes, software support is nowhere near where it needs to be to ensure the future of these platforms.
> Where are the Wii-game clones? Where are the DDR-clones and, like, retro arcades?
If you watch the Gabe interview, he points out that cloning experiences is the wrong approach. The problem with VR is that nobody knows what its DOOM would look like. Elite: Dangerous gives a glimpse into what that could be, but it's not conclusive and is on the more expensive platforms.
> Nobody has been so preoccupied with a VR game that that they flung the controller into the TV yet.
With Leap Motion Orion, I've flung my hand into a wall - if that counts. The term is "presence," and Leap takes it to another level. Sadly, Leap consists of tech demos right now.
Nobody has been so preoccupied with a VR game that that they flung the controller into the TV yet.
My retired dad tried the Vive tutorial where you can blow balloons using the controller, then hit them with your hands. He was so excited he tried to kick the balloons... And almost broke a chair. (Kicking doesn't work since there are no trackers on your feet, but the immersion was so strong he didn't realize that.)
Valve did make a "Portal" game, but without any portals. Instead, you have a teleport gun and a gravity gun. It felt half-hearted, another tech demo, and ends without any hint of more levels or player-driven maps.
Instead, it's not quite getting dumped in the sand the way Atari dumped ET in 1982, but it's not far off - major supporters are giving half-hearted statements, and the biggest application I've heard about receiving VR investment is a desktop replacement - not exactly something from which I'd expect a compelling VR experience. So far, my most mind-blowing VR experience has merely been Google Earth.
Where are the Wii-game clones? Where are the DDR-clones and, like, retro arcades? Where are the games that have co-op in the same space? Why can't you invite your friends into your Google Earth, to look at the same scenes?
We're roughly a year out, with multiple platforms, and almost every game is still a tech demo. Where are the news reports of people breaking their TV with their Vive-mote? - Nobody has been so preoccupied with a VR game that that they flung the controller into the TV yet. I'm worried that investors were so preoccupied with whether or not they could make money off of this, that they didn't stop to think if they should make it fun. How many consoles have successfully gone their first year without a compelling release, and later recovered?