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

51–60 of 96 posts

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#51

Post by crooked-v »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #2

I don't know. Author complains devs are targeting "hard core" game culture with violent games. But my instinct is that only "hard core" gamers are going to want to stick a thing on their head (that they had to pony up large amounts of dosh for, BTW). I also believe in The Market. With the number of years VR headsets have been one the market I am quite confident no one somehow missed a lucrative genre. I see a lot of…

I think the overlap between "hard core" flatscreen gamers and "hard core" VR gamers isn't a given.

I mean, look at VRChat. People spend thousands of dollars on gear (before even getting into the physical space needed for full immersion) to... wander around talking to each other and play low-quality clones of minigolf and Among Us games.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#52

Post by crooked-v »

karurosu wrote: post #42

I think the main point is not emphasized enough: VR is physically exhausting. Unless you are playing with stick control (which is nice but nauseating) you will be moving a lot, I am a big guy that can barely kneel and you expect me to do super soldier stuff? yeah, no I find the best experiences for me are those that require less "getting your VR legs": puzzling places, zombieland or that kayak infiltration game. Of c…

I feel like the other obvious area that VR games have barely touched on is simulation games. Think of Theme Hospital, Rollercoaster Tycoon, and the like as floating dioramas you can manipulate and zoom in and out of.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#55

Post by crooked-v »

georgeecollins wrote: post #27
swatcoder wrote: post #10

Beat Saber and Walkabout Mini Golf are hardly "hyper-realistic and violent immersive games" and there are no shortage of other extremely popular (within the market) titles along those lines. VR gaming faces a low ceiling because (a) VR headsets present a challenge to how our eyes, neck, and proprioceptive systems are accustomed to working and induce a associated fatigue, and (b) VR gaming is more isolating than any o…

It seems like they set up a straw man to make the points about gaming they wanted to make. In fact the most popular things on Quest are either various movie streamers or various 3D chat program. Neither of those things are particularly hard core or hyper realistic. I love when academics take on a medium. Those who can't do teach.

I think it still makes for an interesting contrast when you look at what's got the most ongoing users (VRChat, Gorilla Tag, Bigscreen, Beat Saber, etc), and then compare to the endless parade of devs trying to make yet another direct VR port of FPS game design.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#56

Post by vineyardlabs »

What is the point of the question being asked by the title, and why do things have to take off?

I think VR is super cool. Playing an hour of beatsaber, pistol whip, or superhot is tremendously entertaining. I also get why people aren't flocking to VR in droves. Compared to other forms of entertainment it's expensive, clunky, isolating, and potentially causes motion sickness. I don't believe in the metaverse / AVP future where your average person is going to work 40 hours a week with a headset on or whatever. My fear is that Meta is going to wake up to the fact that the returns for the billions of dollars per year they're burning trying to make Metaverse a thing are never going to materialize and then give up on the whole thing. Why can't VR just be a niche subdomain of the games industry?

If they just accepted it for what it is, VR could be a small but profitable business within Meta's portfolio or a profitable/sustainable spinoff.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#57

Post by Animats »

Weak article. Rehash of VR history from other articles. Then author's guesses.

For a good overview of VR today, see Phia's "The Virtual Reality Show."[1] There really are "VR natives", and she is one of them. She's tried almost all the available hardware and environments, including full body and face tracking, and even the omnidirectional treadmills. She's very critical of flaws in hardware and software. Cost is a big issue. The headset isn't all you need. For real immersion, you need face, eye, and body trackers and controllers, all of which cost extra. The good ones aren't cheap. The cheap ones aren't good. She posts videos of her live self and her VR self side by side so you can check the tracking quality.

All this gear provides good social VR immersion if you're in good shape, have good balance, a mobile face, an extroverted personality, a sizable hardware budget, plenty of free time, and an interest in virtual worlds. That's a niche.

Watching Phia does show that except for cost, weight, and complexity, VR does currently work. The original article claims it doesn't, but that probably reflects too much attention to Facebook/Meta's rather weak system.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/@TheVirtualRealityShow

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#58

Post by wpietri »

diggan wrote: post #39
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 categ…

Oh yeah, I totally believe there are niches. And I know the simulator crowd has some people who will go to great lengths to get more of the real feel. E.g., the multi-monitor setups: https://help.realsimgear.com/en/articles/4162793-recommended...

But I'll note that as entertainment experiences, plenty of people are happy to play flying and racing games on a 2D screen, so I suspect that this particular niche is quite small, similar to the fraction of dedicated fans who insist on 3D screenings of movies.

I'm sure it's not big enough to justify the billions spent on R&D, and I suspect it's too small to interest the major players in the long term. But perhaps the niches are enough to justify continued production of 3rd-party headsets.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#59

Post by crooked-v »

danielodievich wrote: post #24

I bought a Valve VR headset just to play Half Life Alyx. It was beyond awesome. My son and my wife also played it and also thought it was very, very cool. I played a few more games since then, nothing as good as HL-A (I haven't heard that anything is as good as that is...). My eyesight isn't great so I have to wear glasses inside. I only have one pair of glasses that fit okay. Getting focus on glasses + lenses + adju…

Getting clip-in lenses designed for the headset should improve the experience a fair bit, both from ease of use and because it allows for a tighter fit.

For the movement, try out Gorilla Tag. For most people, it turns out that arm-swing movement eliminates nausea; it's just enough to convince the brain that you're the one doing it and not something else.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#60

Post by wpietri »

p1esk wrote: post #43
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…

people's brains are already pretty good at reconstructing 3D from 2D But we do prefer stereo over mono in audio domain, right?

I mean, I do! But I see plenty of people listening to stuff from their phones or mono Bluetooth speakers, so I don't think it's a strong preference. Heck, I'd rather have stereo, but my workshop speaker is mono and I don't care enough to upgrade it for the casual listening I do there.
Post reply on HN