VR will flop

Started by kitler53, Mar 02, 2015, 07:34 PM

previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kitler53

let's just start off getting the obvious out of the way..

VR looks dorky:
plain and simple,.. VR looks dorky and creates with it a negative stigma.   as gamers we are all well aware of that negative stigma and we fight tooth and nail to combat it often.  even still no one can deny that no one looks at this guy and says "i wish that was me".   ..but things run far deeper than that.



Technology should be social not anti-social:
i have a wife and a kid and friends and i can't share VR experiences with them.  VR is a "take turns" or "one person at a time" technology.  that right there significantly decreases its value.   humans are inherently social creatures that like to share experiences and VR goes directly against that.  no one likes to wait for their turn in order to play.  even worse the alternative to waiting turns is...

VR is too expensive:
in the current technology push it requires a ps4 or pc in addition to the VR headset.  from my reading it would seem most sites are expecting  a $200 to $300 for the glasses in addition to the ps4/PC which will set you back another ~$400 (currently) for a total of at least $600.  to make matters worse that is just for one person and a second headset isn't enough to have 2 people play at once,.. you also need a second ps4/pc making the tech ~$600 per person.  that is hella (prohibitively) expensive for your typical family of 4.

...but the experience.
is what i always hear people say.   full surround sound.  full surround vision in 3D with motion tracking.   an experience immersive like no other. 

but the experience... won't happen.
let's start of here.  major publishers won't support VR.
http://www.develop-online.net/news/ubisoft-won-t-support-vr-tech-until-sales-exceed-1m/0190722

games are expensive to develop already and cost are often times not recouped.  each new feature developed adds to the cost and we already have major publishers claiming they won't support the technology.  that by the way, is just to support VR as a port for games developed first and foremost for 2D screens.

but the experience... need native development.
we've seen this over and over already.  retrofitting motion controls into a game not developed specifically for motion controls sucks.  it sucks a lot.  it doesn't add to the experience and more often then not deters and diminishes the experience.  in order for VR to actually be good it needs games that are developed to be VR exclusive.  you might get a handful of indie developers will to do that but major publishers will not.  they are reluctant to do even give the technology a "port" so there is no way in hell they'll invest in a AAA exclusive.  without exclusive, compelling content VR is as dead as vita.

but the experience... sucks for (most) games anyways.
think back to all those reasons why you guys have bashed kinect over the years.  VR has many of the same flaws.  now there are a few genres where VR would be nice.  the one that really comes to mind is games like GT or forza.  the basic gist is in those games you are pretending to be sitting in a chair and looking left/right a bit.  that would fit the controls for VR quite nicely. 

but shooters, action adventure games, sports games,..  any game where you expect to move the controls will feel awkward.   you can look left right but what are your options for moving forward or turning around?  either:

A) buy this setup which adds to the costs of VR, increases the dork factor, and (like with motion controls) with be physically exhausting very quickly which is a complaint all of you had about motion controls for all these years.


B) or..   you map movement to a button.  this significantly removes a level of immersion that VR is suppose to create.  VR is reduced to a "peak" functionality.  worse yet having your view of the world being partially mapped to your head movement but mostly mapped to your button presses will cause dizziness and sea-sickness with most users.

and then there are all those other genres,.. puzzle games, platformers, rhythm games, basically any genre not specifically in the first person perspective.  VR is completely, utterly pointless in those genres.

but the experience... adds (almost) nothing to movies.
it just needs to be said,..  you'll get the wide vision of an IMAX i suppose but movies aren't suppose to be interactive.  the director sets up their shots specifically to show the movie-goer what they want to show.  the technology would add a lot to the costs of movies and they will resist it.  without movies VR is just a subset of games which is already a much smaller market (at least wrt to users) than movies.  that is a big hamstring on mass market support for VR.

the technology:
..directly conflicts with gaming today.   legend had a nice thread critiquing AR and games that i can't seem to find.  VR has different but similar issues.  the main issue, imo, is framerate.  VR needs a very smooth framerate to not be a horrible experience.  from what i read we're talking about a 90 fps minimum.  and yet games today don't typically run even at 60 fps.  it's not like developers wouldn't like to have higher framerate but there are limits of development and most developers are choosing to only support 30 fps.  all of the physics, all of the AI, all of the rendering needs to happen within that timeframe and the faster the framereate the less you can do.  by locking in at 30 fps the developer has much more freedom to create more beautiful, detailed worlds but also add gameplay elements like advanced physics, advanced AI, increased count of NPCs on the screen, ect.  when locked in at a 90 fps minimum,.. the games that can be created will suck.   ...and by suck i mean feel like a giant step back in technology that the "immersion" of VR won't be able to be cool enough to be "worth it".

..at least not for long.



VR is probably a flop.  maybe with enough marketing it could be elevated all the way up to fad.  ..but this isn't the future of interactive entertainment.  it will be neat for a while but not compelling enough for either publisher or consumer to "take the risk" to invest in the technology.  it's expensive, it only works for a few genres, and even those genres contain gameplay flaws.  this puts it into a chicken or the egg scenario where neither side will want to invest first. eventually VR be labeled a failure just like it was in the early 90s and with the virtual boy.  things are better this time like with 3D and something i hope to experience once or twice,.. but they aren't compelling enough to make me want to buy one and deal with all the hassles and disappointments that come along with it.
          

the-pi-guy

Mar 02, 2015, 07:45 PM Last Edit: Mar 02, 2015, 07:51 PM by the-pi-guy
VR looks dorky:
Subjective, gaming is considered dorky by some people. 

Technology should be social not anti-social:
VR can be a new generation of social technology. 
Besides, most would argue that technology has already made us less social.   Doesn't make it less popular. 
Legend gave examples of utilities for VR such as teaching.  Virtually putting someone in a classroom is leaps and bounds more social than sitting at a computer doing online learning by yourself and much more social than webcamming because it would have the ability to put you in the classroom. 

VR is too expensive:
If someone has already spent 400-1000$ on a system, another 200$ is probably not going to stop them.  Slow them down sure.  But cost will go down. 

let's start of here.  major publishers won't support VR.
Did you go out and ask them?  There's already tons and tons of support, despite the fact that it's still a ways away.  The support isn't fantastic, but it's there and numerous.  I'd wait until E3 to see how much support is being thrown at VR, or Gamescom and TGS.  I bet we'll see at least a few big things. 


but the experience... sucks for (most) games anyways.
Kinect is a controller, VR is more of a screen, with control capabilities, doesn't have the same issues. 
VR's goal is to display, while taking in input for the display and giving the system rotational information, etc.  While Kinect has to figure out how you're moving from images.

but shooters, action adventure games, sports games,..  any game where you expect to move the controls will feel awkward.   you can look left right but what are your options for moving forward or turning around?  either:

Turning around?  Pretty sure that's already in the headset.  Yes, I expect it to be awkward to move around, but the overall experience will be a boon. 


and then there are all those other genres,.. puzzle games, platformers, rhythm games, basically any genre not specifically in the first person perspective.  VR is completely, utterly pointless in those genres.

Yet to be seen.  No I can't imagine it working well, but I've heard from others that it still works well. 


the technology:
Lots of people have been saying otherwise.  This is already in the hands of gamers, developers, and even some nongamers who've tried it out and they've been impressed.  I love watching their response. 



VR is probably a flop.  maybe with enough marketing it could be elevated all the way up to fad.  ..but this isn't the future of interactive entertainment.  it will be neat for a while but not compelling enough for either publisher or consumer to "take the risk" to invest in the technology.  it's expensive, it only works for a few genres, and even those genres contain gameplay flaws.  this puts it into a chicken or the egg scenario where neither side will want to invest first. eventually VR be labeled a failure just like it was in the early 90s and with the virtual boy.  things are better this time like with 3D and something i hope to experience once or twice,.. but they aren't compelling enough to make me want to buy one and deal with all the hassles and disappointments that come along with it.

Virtual boy is no where near the same thing as VR.  Let's compare television with shadow puppets in that case.  But I do agree, VR will probably flop.  But the level of support has me convinced that someone else is convinced that it's going to be a big thing.  So I'm convinced it'll be a big thing. 

kitler53



stuff.



"If someone has already spent 400-1000$ on a system, another 200$ is probably not going to stop them."
yes it will.


i don't need to ask publishers myself.  ubisoft has come out and said they won't even consider it until after it proves to be a success and you won't find EA, activision or any other major publisher on any of the "supported games" list.  it's all indies or manufactures (valve, sony).   actually, now that SoE is sold i'll bet a cookie that everquest next goes from planned to canceled.


VR is as much a controller as kinect.  it has gryros/cameras and motion tracking galore for all the same purpose as kinect,.. to know where the user is and is looking.  without which VR is pointless,.. you might as well just get a massive tv if all you want is a high field of vision.  the point of VR is that the immersion comes from changing the users view in response to the movements of their head so that if feels like the camera is controlled directly by your normal head movements to see something. 

you could even make games that used nothing but the VR headset as the controller.   mayhaps a "dodge ball" game where you move your head left/right to avoid getting hit in the face.  fun.........



          

Legend

VR looks dorky:

Most sets certainly do. It's why Sony is so adamant on Project Morpheus at least trying to look pleasant.



It looks kinda dorky, but much much much better than DK1. The HTC vr looks dorky, but it embraces the nerdiness and pulls it off in my opinion.

Either way, the current headsets are not going to be getting any awards for their looks. That'll change with time as the tech lets them get smaller and smaller, but for now yeah they're dorky looking.


Technology should be social not anti-social:

This is a common misconception. Humans love being connected, not social. Look at the trends as of late. Local social technologies are dying, while online faux social interactions are on the up and up. Smartphones are just for one person. You play with others, but they're all around the world with their own devices. Game systems are just for one person. Local mp is rare, while online multiplayer is the biggest thing since sliced bread. Sitting at a computer all alone is very anti-social, yet millions of people are doing it right now this very second to play League of Legends online with friends.

We're more anti-social than ever. It's just that we're also more connected then ever.


VR is too expensive:

No one is going to buy multiple headsets, just like a family isn't going to buy multiple PS4s so they can play more than a handful of games together. Same thing with mobiles games and smartphones. Most people eventually have their own, but no one ever thinks they have to buy one for each member of the family. VR is $200 to $300 going off your estimate, that's it. People already own all the other devices needed for it. I mean any person that'll be an early adopter of this tech will most definitely be nerdy enough to either have a next gen console or a gaming PC. On the virtual tourism side of things, VR can simply be powered by smartphones.


...but the experience.

No. The "full surround sound.  full surround vision in 3D with motion tracking." is nice, but you're missing what makes VR VR. PRESENCE

Modern VR is so good that your brain believes it is real. If you're afraid of heights and use VR to put yourself on the edge of a skyscraper, you're going to have a heart attack. Even if you're not afraid of heights, it takes a lot of mental power to walk off the virtual edge. You consciously know it's all fake, but your subconscious is fully tricked by the illusion.

This presence means that when you put on VR, you feel that you've teleported. VR tourism to Mars is not cool because you get to see it in greater detail. It's cool because you really feel like you're there. It's something you have to experience for yourself before you fully understand the sensation.


but the experience... won't happen.

Most big devs aren't going to have VR support. On PC VR support can be patched in though, so for that market it's not a problem.

For PS4, it'll be a challenge. Support will be there, but it'll be thin.

For mobile, support will be everywhere. Apps are low quality and cheap. VR apps will flood the market.


but the experience... need native development

Yes VR is best with native development. I tend to look at it like the transition from 2D to 3D in games. 2D games could be converted to 3D in less than pleasant ways, but really building 3D games from the ground up was the only solution.

The types of games that work best in VR, don't even exist yet. It's a brave new world and we're only at the beginning. However that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of fun experiences out now. The Summer Lessons game for example. Perviness aside, this isn't even a game at all. You're in an environment learning from a digital teacher.

These semi games are the bread and butter of VR's mass appeal. Virtual Tourism, education, online gathering, etc.


but the experience... sucks for (most) games anyways.

Traditional games can work great with VR, as long as some changes are made along the way.

First person shooters are actually some of the worst VR experiences. The cameras in the games bob and the motion is too extreme. Third person games, the ones you shrug off, are actually much better with VR. In these games you feel like a cameraman flying around on a jib. You have your traditional controls for everything and your "magic flying chair" and then VR is only used to look around.


but the experience... adds (almost) nothing to movies.

I think you're confused. VR for movies does not mean the film is being presented like a VR game. That'd never fly. Instead it's using VR to put you in a digital Imax theater and then displaying the movie on your virtual 100 foot screen. If you're watching a 3D film like this, then you can watch that in 3D without virtual glasses.


the technology:

It's 60 fps minimum for frame rate. 75fps is nice, and 90 fps is great.

I'm a huge supporter of games choosing 30fps over 60fps. Fully agree that there are drawbacks. However that's only in regards to PS4 games pushing graphics. People that don't care about graphics can do mobile VR, people that do care can do PS4 (lots of 60fps games on PS4 that still look very good), and people that want graphics naughtiness can do PC with beefy CPUs.







I see VR releasing this year to good sales and good mainstream perception. Only among core tech enthusiasts will it be huge though. Then slowly over the next few years as prices decrease and content increases, it'll trickle down to mass success.

the-pi-guy


"If someone has already spent 400-1000$ on a system, another 200$ is probably not going to stop them."
yes it will.

Not if they are interested.  And like I said cost will go down. 
Books were originally rare and expensive.  In order to make a copy or two, someone would have to write down and copy all the contents by hand.  Then comes the printing press and books became cheaper and more inexpensive and books were more readily available. 
The advent of phones, and smart phones being so popular is the printing press for VR.  High quality portable screens are being mass produced. 


i don't need to ask publishers myself.  ubisoft has come out and said they won't even consider it until after it proves to be a success and you won't find EA, activision or any other major publisher on any of the "supported games" list.  it's all indies or manufactures (valve, sony).   actually, now that SoE is sold i'll bet a cookie that everquest next goes from planned to canceled.

Valve isn't a manufacturer.  SteamMachines wasn't going to be built by Valve.  Only the OS.  Valve and Sony are also software developers. 
I'm not certain as to how successful PM will be, but OR has a major advantage, being on PC. 
There will be those that mod those big games to be able to take advantage of the headset.


VR is as much a controller as kinect.  it has gryros/cameras and motion tracking galore for all the same purpose as kinect,.. to know where the user is and is looking.  without which VR is pointless,.
you could even make games that used nothing but the VR headset as the controller.   mayhaps a "dodge ball" game where you move your head left/right to avoid getting hit in the face.  fun.........

The headsets will have their own information along with camera tracking.

kitler53



I see VR releasing this year to good sales and good mainstream perception. Only among core tech enthusiasts will it be huge though. Then slowly over the next few years as prices decrease and content increases, it'll trickle down to mass success.


i really like how optimistic you guys are but you are in such a bubble.  it will launch with some good perception but even the most optimistic reviews will be pepper with "buts" just like every review i've read so far.   "it's an amazing experience but...".  the initial units will probably have a huge bust of purchases but like Xbox One it will plummet to dangerous sales levels within a couple months and stay low.  publishers will take that as a sign of lack of interest and therefore no compelling content will support it past the first wave of launch titles.  due to a lack of content even the most ardent supporters will stop using the devices after a year or so.

i forgot to add it to the OP but a dirth abundance of device choices is also a hinderance as what little userbase there will be early on will be split across too many ecosystems making VR development even more expensive or exclusive,.. take your pick.




so direct question,..  are you supporting OR, PM, ect with vizioneck?
          

the-pi-guy


Legend


i really like how optimistic you guys are but you are in such a bubble.  it will launch with some good perception but even the most optimistic reviews will be pepper with "buts" just like every review i've read so far.   "it's an amazing experience but...".  the initial units will probably have a huge bust of purchases but like Xbox One it will plummet to dangerous sales levels within a couple months and stay low.  publishers will take that as a sign of lack of interest and therefore no compelling content will support it past the first wave of launch titles.  due to a lack of content even the most ardent supporters will stop using the devices after a year or so.

i forgot to add it to the OP but a dirth abundance of device choices is also a hinderance as what little userbase there will be early on will be split across too many ecosystems making VR development even more expensive or exclusive,.. take your pick.




so direct question,..  are you supporting OR, PM, ect with vizioneck?


I plan to support PM with VizionEck, but post launch. Right now I'm just busy finishing the game.

Dr. Pezus


i really like how optimistic you guys are but you are in such a bubble.  it will launch with some good perception but even the most optimistic reviews will be pepper with "buts" just like every review i've read so far.   "it's an amazing experience but...".  the initial units will probably have a huge bust of purchases but like Xbox One it will plummet to dangerous sales levels within a couple months and stay low.  publishers will take that as a sign of lack of interest and therefore no compelling content will support it past the first wave of launch titles.  due to a lack of content even the most ardent supporters will stop using the devices after a year or so.

i forgot to add it to the OP but a dirth abundance of device choices is also a hinderance as what little userbase there will be early on will be split across too many ecosystems making VR development even more expensive or exclusive,.. take your pick.




so direct question,..  are you supporting OR, PM, ect with vizioneck?
A bubble which most major gaming companies believe in. We haven't seen stuff like this since...erm I don't even know

Dr. Pezus


Mmm_fish_tacos

I think you're completely overlooking what VR really is. It's not simply strapping a screen to your face and playing a game nor is it just a game controller. There are some types of games that will excel with VR and others won't. Oddly enough it's not your first person shooter that will benefit from it, unless they really slow it down, and stop using camera gimmicks they currently use now, like step sway and cursor sway. Games like racing sims, or flight sims will certainly be a game changer.

Nobody is going to care what they look like when it's on. Thats like saying nobody is going to ride a roller coaster because they might look like an idiot when the coaster drops. simply, when people are having fun they don't care what they look like.

The anti social comments that come along with VR has simply got to be the most near sighted view one can have. In fact I'd argue that it can be just as social as going to a bar. Just because your body is alone doesn't mean your mind is. Sure, without extra consoles and headsets you won't get to play in a vr world at the same time as your kid, but you can still play a game together as they can control elements of the game or even just watch on tv. And lets be real, outside of a few games here and there, you're not playing the game at the same time. Making it a "take turns" event anyway.

Support is plenty and it will only get better, to many companies are  jumping on board for the support to be dry. Will it be slow? Sure, for a time.  Then just like gaming today there will be more games or experiences that you can shake a stick at.

Expensive, yes. There's no argument there. But Isn't a defining factor of a flop. Everything was expensive at one point. DVD players where over a grand when they first came out, now they are about 25.  Same thing could happen with vr.

@ B) or..   you map movement to a button. I feel the best vr experiences are ones that you don't move, that you're plaster in a chair and forget your body is there. Which will lead us to the next explosion in vr tech is controlling everything you do by just thinking about it. And believe that will be the ultimate goal for vr. It's what many have dreamed about for as long as we can remember.



BananaKing

it can go either way, i personally believe and largely hope its here to stay. comparing it to TV isnt fair, btw. as 3D tvs used to cost around what? 800$ or higher? when everybody already had an HD TV. VR on the other hand doesnt make you ditch your current TV like 3D ones did. also, VR is being built from the ground up for games, the effect it has on games is massive, unlike 3D.

7H3

"It's hip to be square." - Eurogamer<br />"Shut up its art!" -Legend

BananaKing


AR for the win :P


Welcome to the party microsoft

7H3


Welcome to the party microsoft

I dunno I think MS lives in an augmented reality
"It's hip to be square." - Eurogamer<br />"Shut up its art!" -Legend