cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

More myopic reporting from pundits

cybernettr
Superstar

Opinion piece onCNET:

It's time to break up with VR
Commentary: More than two years into the current virtual reality era, it feels like we've hit a brick wall.
From the article: 
Virtual reality may yet become a massive mainstream hit, but it's not going to happen with this generation of tech”
The author makes two false assumptions in this article:

1: That the current generation of VR has to be a “massive mainstream hit” right from the beginning; and

2: If it isn’t a massive mainstream hit from the beginning, then it’s a failure. (Well, those aren’t the only false assumptions he makes, but those are the main ones.)

Reality: The personal computer (originally called the “home computer” or the “microcomputer”) was for several years the exclusive domain of geeks and tinkerers. Early cellphones were so expensive with such crappy service that they faced stiff competition with pagers and were originally used only by businessmen. 

As is is increasingly common with articles in the mainstream media, which are afraid of dissenting opinion, the original story doesn’t allow reader comments. 

https://www.cnet.com/news/its-time-to-break-up-with-vr/
62 REPLIES 62

Zenbane
MVP
MVP
Great points, DaftnDirect.

I will say that we just hit the 2 year anniversary of consumer VR, and I still stand by my 2016 rhetoric which revolves around the fact that "top games" maintain a 3-5 year development cycle.

Cryengine V does have VR Support,
http://docs.cryengine.com/display/CEMANUAL/VR+Support

And Crytek not only has more projects coming to VR, but there are independent developers using the Cryengine that are openly discussing bringing their games to VR.

I think that's a interesting point @Mradr, I can understand HTC promoting the Vive as being better for a large play area as that must have seemed like a good selling point.


But are people drawn towards kit that can apparently cope better large areas... or are they put off by not having large areas to play in if they think that's what VR needs! I think Oculus probably got the emphasis right.

Zenbane
MVP
MVP
btw, I love this video where Neil Patrick Harris and Dave Franco are talking about VR, and name-dropping some of my favorite titles: Obduction, The Invisible Hours, Wilson’s Heart


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIvwVCoVUes


Zenbane said:

Great points, DaftnDirect.

I will say that we just hit the 2 year anniversary of consumer VR, and I still stand by my 2016 rhetoric which revolves around the fact that "top games" maintain a 3-5 year development cycle.

Cryengine V does have VR Support,
http://docs.cryengine.com/display/CEMANUAL/VR+Support

And Crytek not only has more projects coming to VR, but there are independent developers using the Cryengine that openly discussing bringing their games to VR.


Yep, that's why I want to see more from Crytek, because they've emphasised the V in their V engine... but my concern is they stick to producing great but short experiences along the lines of The Robinsons, rather than include VR as on option within full-blown games like Crysis.... I guess we'll see!

Anonymous
Not applicable

Zenbane said:

btw, I love this video where Neil Patrick Harris and Dave Franco are talking about VR, and name-dropping some of my favorite titles: Obduction, The Invisible Hours, Wilson’s Heart



LMAO that was who I was watching xD A Series of Unfortunate Events

Zenbane
MVP
MVP
Same here, I finished Season 2 on Friday lol

JakemanOculus
Heroic Explorer




He's not wrong.  But this reads distinctly like some one who had incorrect expectations for VR.

I knew from day negative 120 that I would only use my Rift for stationary experiences and 3D movies. 


i am not sure why you would think this........ there are some games where locomotion is not great but others where it works superbly well...... From other suns is a good example.  expected to have to use comfort mode but ended up going full loco and will never look back.

other games not so good... my experience is generally steamVR is more prone to sickness (in the rift) than native oculus but this could just be the game s i have tried, that is not to say steamvr cant do proper locomotion


For me the primary concern is immersion which is hurt by stationary locomotion.  You can decouple virtual from physical locomotion and have a good game experience, but you might as well just be sitting in front of a 3D monitor.  For me that disconnect means I am not feeling immersed at all despite what might be a quality game experience.

When you compromise at the cost of immersion you are undermining the main value proposition for VR.  I would rather play in 2D at that point.

bigmike20vt
Visionary

Atmos73 said:

If your outside VR looking in you can say so far VR is s failure. If Oculus and HTC are selling 500,000 units a year that in itself tells you PCVR is not doing well. 

Reasons? Price of GPU are at record highs forcing gamers on limited budgets to choose 2D gaming over VR. The majority of PC gamers run 1060s and that’s just not cutting it for VR.

Fresnel lens are horrible it’s enough to put anyone off and shocking we went from DK2 clear lens to CV1 and Vive with horrible artifice such as Godrays and rings. People are modding their Vives with Gear VR lens so theirs no reason why we needed Fresnel in the first place.

Games are coming now with Bethesda leading the way but all future games need a VR mode. Relying on VR only games is bad for VR. We need to get out of this 2D v VR mentality. A game is a game wether it’s 2D or VR. One if Oculuses failures for example is its VR only and does nothing for PC in general. Sony on the other hand are doing it right with VR modes on existing AAA games like RE7.

Expecting people to make the leap from 2D to VR overnight isn’t going to happen.

This is why Oculus can’t deliver PCVR to the masses. They’re VR only. They’re business model is to ignore half the VR community. They promote exclusivity and have a disregard for the other 99.5% of PC gamers.

Flame suit on. Extinguishers at the ready.


no flames from me...just mild disagreement. i agree with *some* of your points, however you seem to forget this "open" company bethesda you talk of do not even support the biggest selling HMD on steam for 2 of their 3 VR titles......

sure, it does seem they learned their lesson with skyrim but it still shows a huge lack of forsite... either that or they are not as open as you think.
I do agree with you that hopefully more mainstream games will support VR from the get go - games like Elite, pCARS, AC have been doing this for years now, it is nothing new.... but that does NOT mean therir isnt a place for proper VR experiences without the limitations that most of the bolt on VR games have.

compare fallout or even the much love skyrim to from other suns for instance...... yes Fallout may be by far the better game, but its VR implementation is seriously lacking, you cant grab items with you hands, or open doors etc, you couldnt even look down the scopes of guns at 1st (later patched in after much complaint).

so yes, definitely more of these kinds of things please AS WELL AS proper built for VR games which actually use the tech fully and are not artificially limited by having to support a flat screen too... and if this means a more limited VR title with 100% vr support, but with less out and out content or a shorter experience, personally i am fine with that. there is room for both types of experience in my library.

As of right now btw steam (valve) doesnt make games they just sell em, so they are not doing much at all to support VR. At least Oculus are giving something back to VR.... and IME revive is every pit as good as steamVR is - indeed possibly better, imo steamVR on the rift is a bit pants, and i hear its even worse on windows VR.

BTW a gtx 1060 offers a great experience for just about every single title on the oculus store. i cant comment about the vive however.....
Fiat Coupe, gone. 350Z gone. Dirty nappies, no sleep & practical transport incoming. Thank goodness for VR 🙂

Anonymous
Not applicable

Mradr said:
Then again, I just watch 5hrs of netflix in my headset with out having to get out of bed:) so I can happily say VR is not a waste at all and is the future for people like me that want to watch something in peace instead of having everyone over your shoulder watching with you:)


I watch a movie or TV shows in VR every night - usually about 2 to 3 hours worth. It is hugely addictive - and was one of the main reasons I bought the Rift. I will say that it makes drinking a chore - but with a straw it's not to bad and eating candy isn't to bad either, but I can't imagine eating anything like chips, pop corn or something messy like pizza in VR as I wouldn't want my headset ending up looking like a greasy nightmare. LOL


Mradr said:


That is one of the reasons a lot of companies want to wait. Gen One has a few problems that gen Two really needs to fix such as lowering the requirements to run VR in the first place, looking better over all, easy setup, and something everyone will want to run out and buy on.

How can we make the setup easier for people, but still allow the same play area that outside in tracking allows? Right now we are still fighting the idea that VR needs a big play area to be in compare to sitting down game that we currently.


I think the requirements for entering PC VR will eventually get lower but I doubt that will be in the 2nd generation - as far as easy setup, I didn't really have any issues setting up my Rift sensors or play area. Mind you I don't have 3 sensors and just did the standard 2 sensor desk setup for 180 degree standing VR.

I honestly think that room-scale has scared some people away from VR though - I mean I had to rearrange my room entirely to make sure I had enough room to play (I have a 5ft by 5ft play area) and I had no problem doing so. But I know a lot of people that are pickier about the arrangement of their living / working space than I am.

Besides - I find that walking around in my small space really doesn't feel that great, I mean I am always conscience of my cable and room when I try it and I don't think that a bigger play area would necessarily negate my misgivings about it. I much prefer just free locomotion using the thumb stick and standing in place - it takes me about 10 minutes to get immersed in the experience and forget that I am in my room but because I am not having to worry about the cord, walls, my desk, etc. once I do get immersed I am able to stay in that zone for a good while.

Obviously sit down experiences like Big Screen do not have any of the problems that standing / roomscale VR has in as far as they don't take a long time to immerse yourself in and I have never found myself worrying about the outside world while in them.

That's
why, for CV2, I'm a firm believer in not wanting the huge FOV and
resolution increases we're seeing touted for some next-gen headsets.
Reasonable increases yes, but not the FOV leaps of the Pimax... or 4K
that some are touting, not unless fovated rendering keeps the PC load
down to the levels that current top-range PCs are capable of.


I think that FOV improvements could be made without huge
resolution increases. I personally would love to have my peripheral
vision fully encompassed by the headset - but I don't see it happening
in the 2nd generation to the degree that I want it.

Unfortunately
I probably will not buy into the 2nd generation at launch -
skyrocketing GPUs means that I am likely going to have to shell out more
than I'd like to upgrade my GPU either at the end of this year or
beginning next and the thought of having to buy another VR headset right
away isn't something I can really make a good case for. So I am mostly
looking forward to the gains I will see in my current Rift when I
upgrade my graphics card.

Besides I am due to upgrade my
recording equipment - and the Midas M32 is not a cheap upgrade and at
this point in time I want that more than I want a new GPU or better VR
headset.


I think that's a interesting point @Mradr, I can understand HTC promoting the Vive as being better for a large play area as that must have seemed like a good selling point.

But are people drawn towards kit that can apparently cope better large areas... or are they put off by not having large areas to play in if they think that's what VR needs! I think Oculus probably got the emphasis right.



Yep I think that Room Scale is almost the most gimmicky thing about VR at the moment - I just don't find walking around in VR very realistic feeling and it breaks my own immersion a little. I do think there are experiences that could be developed for it that would be cool - but I think that they would need to be smaller well produced experiences for VR Arcades more so than anything for HomeVR

I don't have a very large area to play with so all of my thoughts on it are based on being able to walk with in a 5ft by 5ft area which is limiting - but I really do find walking around in VR distracting from immersion because I am consciously aware of my physical surroundings and I don't think that a larger play area would make me any less conscious of them.


Atmos73 said:

If your outside VR looking in you can say so far VR is s failure. If Oculus and HTC are selling 500,000 units a year that in itself tells you PCVR is not doing well. 

Reasons? Price of GPU are at record highs forcing gamers on limited budgets to choose 2D gaming over VR. The majority of PC gamers run 1060s and that’s just not cutting it for VR.

Fresnel lens are horrible it’s enough to put anyone off and shocking we went from DK2 clear lens to CV1 and Vive with horrible artifice such as Godrays and rings. People are modding their Vives with Gear VR lens so theirs no reason why we needed Fresnel in the first place.

Games are coming now with Bethesda leading the way but all future games need a VR mode. Relying on VR only games is bad for VR. We need to get out of this 2D v VR mentality. A game is a game wether it’s 2D or VR. One if Oculuses failures for example is its VR only and does nothing for PC in general. Sony on the other hand are doing it right with VR modes on existing AAA games like RE7.

Expecting people to make the leap from 2D to VR overnight isn’t going to happen.

This is why Oculus can’t deliver PCVR to the masses. They’re VR only. They’re business model is to ignore half the VR community. They promote exclusivity and have a disregard for the other 99.5% of PC gamers.

Flame suit on. Extinguishers at the ready.

I agree that the crypto currency market that has caused sky high GPU costs have hurt the market a little - but I don't think it is killing PC VR.

I don't think many major developers are going to just tack on VR to their 2d games - and I don't think that Oculus should focus any of their VR only experiences into a 2d experience with VR included. There are huge differences between what you can do in a 2d game and what you can do in a VR game.

Bethesda has shown that it is possible to create an immersive VR experience built on systems that work in a 2d game - but I haven't seen a VR game that has been brought back to the 2d space in a way that has captured all the nuances possible in a VR space.

falken76
Expert Consultant

Atmos73 said:

If your outside VR looking in you can say so far VR is s failure. If Oculus and HTC are selling 500,000 units a year that in itself tells you PCVR is not doing well. 

Reasons? Price of GPU are at record highs forcing gamers on limited budgets to choose 2D gaming over VR. The majority of PC gamers run 1060s and that’s just not cutting it for VR.

Fresnel lens are horrible it’s enough to put anyone off and shocking we went from DK2 clear lens to CV1 and Vive with horrible artifice such as Godrays and rings. People are modding their Vives with Gear VR lens so theirs no reason why we needed Fresnel in the first place.

Games are coming now with Bethesda leading the way but all future games need a VR mode. Relying on VR only games is bad for VR. We need to get out of this 2D v VR mentality. A game is a game wether it’s 2D or VR. One if Oculuses failures for example is its VR only and does nothing for PC in general. Sony on the other hand are doing it right with VR modes on existing AAA games like RE7.

Expecting people to make the leap from 2D to VR overnight isn’t going to happen.

This is why Oculus can’t deliver PCVR to the masses. They’re VR only. They’re business model is to ignore half the VR community. They promote exclusivity and have a disregard for the other 99.5% of PC gamers.

Flame suit on. Extinguishers at the ready.



Does this forum have a block feature that will omit everything a particular poster posts?  I'm getting sick of reading some peoples broken record nonsense.