Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#31

Post by vundercind »

It’s because the sets are expensive for something you can only use solo at home, mostly for video games.

Compare to the price of a Switch, which is portable (or the smartphone you already have…) or to a TV, which is usable by multiple people at once.

And then if you still get one, gaming alone at home in a way that’s more isolating than the stereotypical nerd basement gaming dungeon, while also forcing you to worry about the environment around you so you don’t bump into things or people, turns out to suck. A lot.

So even if you get a headset, good odds you won’t use it much.

That’s putting aside discomfort or motion sickness.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#32

Post by AdammadA »

kemiller wrote: post #3

I don't think it's a content issue as much as a comfort issue. Literally everyone I know who bought a VR headset, high-end or low-end, has said more or less the same thing: It's impressive, but it starts to hurt after an hour or so. Hard to get and stay immersed when you're in physical discomfort.

I agree with this being a user and a VR dev myself. A couple of things that make the experience somewhat tedious is that you can't really get comfortable if you are on a sofa and then decide to lay down and turn side-to-side. Which you can just watching a movie or playing a game casually using a TV etc.

  Another reason personally also, it is more tedious to develop games for VR wearing and taking off the HMD all the time. I can imagine this would deter other developers not wanting to make VR games, it's already a slow painstaking process to make games already.
 
  I think also the amount of apps you have to switch on your desktop if using PC also means you keep taking the HMD on and off before you begin to play. Too many barriers to entry when it should be a convenience thing, wear and go!
 
 Not everybody is physically fit/young/healthy or wants to just do physical gaming which i think leads to lack on incentive to use VR too. I personally play most games now via my monitor or projector screen and use VR for simracing as there really is no comparisson here. So VR Great for sim cockpit type games, flying and racing but for everything else, it's back to good old pancake mode monitor instead.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#33

Post by jncfhnb »

There is some irony in one of the largest companies in the world changing their name to Meta; and hordes of people preaching about the metaverse and the brilliance of Neal Stephenson and Snowcrash and then all at the end of the day paying basically no attention to the part of the book where he explains the thing that made the meta verse popular in universe (it was high fidelity facial expression copying).

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#34

Post by taeric »

I think there are plenty of fun VR games. Beat Saber is quite entertaining. As is Walkabout Mini Golf. Both of those can keep me entertained for longer than makes sense.

Gran Turismo is also very fun. Though, honestly, the steering wheel kit will do more to build that experience than the VR headset.

I think the biggest thing killing VR for many otherwise great games, is that I really can't just walk around. Maybe if the "treadmill" options pan out, that can be solved. As things are, though, it is very jarring to have to pen yourself in, or to rely on controller for walking. Shame, as otherwise it works really well.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#35

Post by oidar »

t-writescode wrote: post #13

In my very limited experience, the main things I greatly enjoy in VR are: * social interaction * games that are improved by deep immersion, like horror games. For social interaction, our tools are getting better every day. VRChat and its similars really are very, very good. A very real downside of it, though, is just how much money you need to spend to get "everything working". At every stage, you'll want to spend mo…

> games that are improved by deep immersion, like horror games.

There are so, so many horror games. I really just want WoW on the quest - all of the MMORPG things are so clunky atm.

>I think the PSVR2 would FLY off the shelves for a bit if they unlocked its best features for PC

You are in luck for this one: https://www.reddit.com/r/PSVR/comments/15139hs/full_psvr2_he...

Edit: That's an old post, I was certain that the iVRy devs had unlocked eye tracking using their app, but I can't seem to find that post atm.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#36

Post by wpietri »

I think there's a much simpler explanation here, one that covers all of the other failed stereoscopic 3D products: It's a cool novelty effect, but people's brains are already pretty good at reconstructing 3D from 2D, so there's little lasting value. Once the novelty wears off, most people stop caring.

I believe that explanation also covers the Brewster Stereoscope (500k units sold in the 1850s), the ViewMaster (the US DOD bought 100k units alone as part of the future of education), the 1950s wave of 3D movies, the 1990s wave of VR, the 2010s wave of 3D movies, and the rapid rise and fall of 3D TV.

It also covers my experience every time I try this stuff. A while back I rented an Oculus Quest. For the first week, everybody was super into it, and I really loved some of the games. By the end of the second week, nobody even noticed when I mailed it back; we had all returned to playing games on Switches and the consoles.

I think the reason we keep having this problem is that a mixture of the concept (3D is obviously better that 2D, right?) plus the wow from a novelty experience suffices to attract investor money. This time, gobs and gobs of it.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#38

Post by cwillu »

t-writescode wrote: post #13

In my very limited experience, the main things I greatly enjoy in VR are: * social interaction * games that are improved by deep immersion, like horror games. For social interaction, our tools are getting better every day. VRChat and its similars really are very, very good. A very real downside of it, though, is just how much money you need to spend to get "everything working". At every stage, you'll want to spend mo…

Which gets at the thing that bugs me about the article: “developers are focused on hard-core gamers” is not a root cause.

Why would a casual-game developer waste time on a VR effort, when the only people who already have the $1000+ worth of necessary VR equipment are the hardcore gamers. The “casual” crowd (i.e., people with other hobbies) would much rather upgrade their phone, or buy a new stand mixer for their kitchen, or go on a vacation, or whatever. They are specifically not going to go out and buy a expensive piece of equipment in order to try PokemonVR (in large enough numbers to matter), and when they do, it will sit unused for months at a time. You can't monetize a casual player who doesn't have the headset on long enough to want to buy in-game improvements to the experience.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#39

Post by diggan »

wpietri wrote: post #36

I think there's a much simpler explanation here, one that covers all of the other failed stereoscopic 3D products: It's a cool novelty effect, but people's brains are already pretty good at reconstructing 3D from 2D, so there's little lasting value. Once the novelty wears off, most people stop caring. I believe that explanation also covers the Brewster Stereoscope (500k units sold in the 1850s), the ViewMaster (the U…

> It's a cool novelty effect, but people's brains are already pretty good at reconstructing 3D from 2D, so there's little lasting value. Once the novelty wears off, most people stop caring.

This might be true for some categories of games, and not true for other categories.

For example, I've played VR on/off since I think the first version of Oculus Rift, until now using a HP Reverb G2. For action games and most categories of games, it is just fun and useful for a small amount of time.

But when it comes to simulators like flight simulators and (realistic) racing games, I literally cannot go back to faux-3D anymore. The sense of depth you get when flying/driving and being able to turn your head around helps so much that going back to non-VR is just impossible now, there is no comparison.

I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling like this regarding simulators and VR. But can it hold up a whole market segment with just this? Unsure, but not impossible either, simulator rigs/hardware seems to be doing more-or-less OK even though it's very niche.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#40

Post by jedberg »

kemiller wrote: post #3

I don't think it's a content issue as much as a comfort issue. Literally everyone I know who bought a VR headset, high-end or low-end, has said more or less the same thing: It's impressive, but it starts to hurt after an hour or so. Hard to get and stay immersed when you're in physical discomfort.

To give you one counterpoint, I can wear my Quest 2 (with upgraded head strap) for hours and not get tired or uncomfortable, and I suffer from motion sickness normally too.

The one trick though is that I drink about a liter of water every hour I'm using the headset, even when doing low impact games like golf. The headset is super dehydrating, and I suspect that is the cause of many people's discomfort.

You have to have a bottle nearby that you can drink by feel.

Post reply on HN