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

71–80 of 96 posts

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#71

Post by stvltvs »

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?

The question isn't if people prefer it, it's if they prefer it enough to spend the time, money, and energy it currently requires to get that experience. I'd prefer lots of things if they were cheap and easy, but they aren't, so I don't bother.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#72

Post by wpietri »

GuB-42 wrote: post #69
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…

VR is not that much about stereoscopic 3D, it is more about the 360° environment. You can get most of the immersive effect of VR with a large enough 2D display. 3D is an improvement, but not the most important one. A VR headset works by putting small displays very close to the eyes to achieve a wide field of view, which is cheaper and more convenient than using large displays further away (like in CAVE system). But f…

I understand the argument, but I think the 360° environment came along in the era of Quake. In contrast to the 2D environment of platformers or top-down games, I think the true 3D environments of the Quake era were a big leap forward in terms of giving people a 3D experience. That it was seen through a flat monitor didn't much matter once you were in motion.

I think what VR adds to that is a more natural way of experiencing that 3D environment. But I'm not convinced that makes much of a difference to gaming audiences. The hardcore gamers were always fine with learning less-natural controls. And I don't think casual gamers care much about the 3D environments; quite a lot of popular games are 2D and people seem happy with it.

I also think the novelty 3D experience is more central to the gee-whiz appeal of VR than you do. It's really cool! Just like every stereoscopic 3D experience is really cool. Albeit briefly.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#73

Post by jwells89 »

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…

As someone who's spent a large amount of time in Beat Saber I think half the problem is that as good as VR headsets have gotten since the introduction of the original Rift, they're still full of compromises. None of them do everything well, and so you have to pick the one that sucks the least for a single use case (fitness games, racing/flight sims, VRChat, etc), and that's really bad for something as expensive as VR headsets are (even the cheaper quests).

In the case of Quest stuff, PC link users being treated somewhat as second class (no direct DisplayPort input) and the lock-in of the crappy Quest desktop software doesn't help matters.

I agree that VR will always be a niche, but I would also say that there's a good chance of the niche growing with the introduction of a well-built, affordable, well rounded headset that's built on the SteamVR ecosystem.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#74

Post by gilbetron »

My son is an anomaly and loves, loves VR (Oculus Quest 2). He'll play Ghost of Tabor all day long if he can. He played Compound a ton, played the hell out of Boneworks during the pandemic, and generally just loves it more than regular 2D games. However, it is hard to get anyone to play with him, which limits his enjoyment. A big part is that when he played a ton of Boneworks during the pandemic, he pushed beyond his VR sickness and was able to build up a hell of a tolerance and so nothing phases him in VR anymore. By far it is his favorite form of entertainment and it sucks that it hasn't taken off more.

It certainly limits my enjoyment, because I don't have the time to build up the tolerance and I can go max 30m, whereas he can go 3+ hours easy.

I do admit though, that played even the limited amount I have has somewhat ruined the 2d experience of games for me - VR is just so much more visceral!

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#75

Post by outcoldman »

Have VR headset from almost of the original, was not part of the kickstarter, but got the first on (Rift?), and have now Quest 3 and Apple Vision Pro. Also tried PSVR1/2 but returned them.

The only reason I would use Quest 3 only for fitness. I actually very like it, really entertaining, and keeps you motivated.

The only reason I would use AVP just to see new Apple TV Shows (Immersive) which are only 5-6 minutes long, and watch videos/photos in Spatial format, that really give me some emotions. I have tried to use it as external display, hard to compete with setup of 2 5K/6K monitors. Also, it is so easy to get out of the Mac, and come back without putting headset on. Sure, you can walk with the headset, but why would you.

What I really like right now is Meta AI glasses. I can snap a photo of my dogs on the walk, without taking my phone out, I can talk to AI while visiting museum without trying to get through the crowd to the sign. That device really amazed me. And it just a simple sunglasses, with being a bit more annoying, just because they weight a bit more, only after 3-4 hours I start noticing them on my nose.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#76

Post by grumbel »

spondylosaurus wrote: post #17
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.

It's also way harder to jump in/out of a game session. I have to take a dramamine, clear the area, put on the damn thing, make sure my focal calibration didn't get messed up, then actually play... and if something beckons me mid-session it's a chore to take off the headset and put it back on again. Versus with regular gaming, if my phone buzzes or the laundry goes off, pausing the game and putting down the controller…

One thing I also miss is being able to just jump from the regular game on a monitor into VR and back. Star Wars: Squadrons is the only game I can think of that even has VR as an in-game option to toggle. Everything else requires a full restart of the game to switch to VR or even the purchase of a separate VR version of the game.

That's something that should have been handled much smoother, especially given the comfort issue that might force people to not play everything in VR. But alas, VR support in regular monitor games is extremely rare to begin with and that area of VR never really got much support.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#77

Post by lupusreal »

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…

The "targeting "hard core" game culture with violent games" thing is quite silly. Many of the most mainstream games around, played by average Joes, are very violent games. I am thinking particularly of the Call of Duty and Halo franchises. Meanwhile many "hardcore gamers" making a lifestyle out of it are into games like Mario.

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#78

Post by your_drunk_dad »

Headsets are big and heavy. Now imagine that some outdated (hardware-wise) popular headsets like PSVR/PSVR2 are additionally attached to a cable which makes the experience even worse especially in dynamic games. I can't imagine going back to my wired headset, I would rather not use it at all. Another thing is VR needs some free space which is not available to everyone, however wireless headsets can at least partially help with this issue (you can take it outside or move to another room and play wirelessly either streaming from your PC or natively on Quest).

Re: Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

#80

Post by D13Fd »

> Striking a box releases a note in the accompanying song, resulting in an experience that is half playing an instrument, and half dance.

I get the feeling the author has never actually played Beat Saber.

But I do agree it's a great example of a VR game that's accessible and fun, and that you can play for hours.

Post reply on HN