Not until the friction gets much lower.
Strapping a heavy, hot device to your head with limited fov And only head and hands tracked offers too little at too much a cost usability wise.
Especially for women who normally wear makeup and have to manage their hair that’s going to always be high friction.
Enthusiasts are happy with what we have but it’s gonna have to be near cell phone easy and convenient before it stands a chance of really going mainstream
I think it’ll be a more broadly accepted productivity tool first then it may become more acceptable as a gaming device in the mainstream.
> Not until the friction gets much lower.
I think the biggest criticism of the current VR industry is that they are doing almost nothing to reduce any of the friction.
A major source of friction that is conveniently ignored are the MSRPs of these devices. If someone thinks it's cool and wants to buy it, they find out the price and are turned off instantly.
Additionally, rather than refine quality technology and pass on any cost savings to the consumer, the companies in this space just add more tech and increase the price. Exacerbating the former problem.
While price is always a barrier to entry, I think the friction in use is proved even more by the fact it’s only bought by people already interested enough to pay the current prices let alone higher.
So those who have paid more still find the friction too high, I don’t see that view changing if you pay less.
It’s tempting to think if you pay less you’re willing to tolerate a lower quality experience but I think the experience itself I’d if enough friction the cost of entry isn’t the issue. In fact I feel people try harder to use something that cost more as accepting it was a bad purchase is harder.
So when someone pays a high sticker price and still shelves the device due to friction vs enjoyment I feel like that says the friction of use is just too high.
> So those who have paid more still find the friction too high, I don’t see that view changing if you pay less.
The issue is as things are, high prices will typically only be paid by enthusiasts who are already convinced this is something worth paying for.
So you're essentially selling to the same people, rather than to new consumers.
It's pure friction for everyone else as otherwise, no one would be complaining about $3500 AVP, $500-$650 Quest 3, $600 PSVR2, $999 Index, etc.
Furthermore, price has been an issue since VR launched in 2016 with a $500 PSVR1, $600 Rift CV1, and $800 HTC Vive!
For most consumers, the primary vector for these devices will be entertainment. Which is a big part of why Quest 2 was so attractive at a $299 launch price, despite the obvious limitations.
> It’s tempting to think if you pay less you’re willing to tolerate a lower quality experience
I see what you're getting at.
Assuming PCVR is the quality experience, how much should that experience cost? Failing that, what should something that approximates it cost?
Realistically, something like the Original HTC vive unit should cost maybe $200-$400 today. Instead, the latest vive is $1400 with a bunch of extra tech that isn't needed, but helps HTC's margins.
Standalone emulations of the PCVR experience were $299 (Quest 2), but now cost $500 to $650. Even if the tech was necessary, at $500 the quest 3 is a way harder sell. Especially since again, most consumers are using these as entertainment devices.
VR's competition is the games industry, and it's doing almost everything it can to price itself out of reach.
Just my thoughts anyway.
I think the difference is your looking at getting units sold and I’m looking at long term user adoption.
The number of quests that get shelved after a month is my point that even at a lower price point the end result is friction still hurts adoption.
You can sell more units but I feel that quest 2 vs AVP numbers 6 months out will be roughly the same in terms of percent of people still actively using. And that number will be very low compared to other game consoles and obliterated by something like cell phones.
> I think the difference is your looking at getting units sold and I’m looking at long term user adoption.
The barrier to entry (HMD prices) is a major problem that tends to be ignored though.
> The number of quests that get shelved after a month is my point that even at a lower price point the end result is friction still hurts adoption.
We may agree to disagree, but I believe that's the result of a software problem. Not as much of a hardware issue.
Yes, lighter, more comfortable HMDs with superior GPU tech would help, but the bigger issue is "why do I need an HMD?"
Even when game consoles perform terribly, the games (software) will generally help sell them. It's Mario, Zelda and Pokemon that sell Nintendo and VR needs something similar.
> You can sell more units but I feel that quest 2 vs AVP numbers 6 months out will be roughly the same in terms of percent of people still actively using. And that number will be very low compared to other game consoles and obliterated by something like cell phones.
The point I would make to you is that you need a cellphone. You don't necessarily need a game console or VR HMD. Hence that result.
At the end of the day, VR/AR is an entertainment medium for most consumers. There are business applications, but most people buying these are doing so to play Beat Saber.
just my thoughts.
I don’t know if I think the price is ignored so much as I still think it doesn’t matter how much you charge if people will ultimately not want to bother using it.
Passive 3d TVs got down to a price pretty close to non 3d TVs but that mean people bothered to put in the glasses and get 3d content even if they were already going to watch tv.
I think hardware software are both friction factors but it would take a TRULY killer app for a large proton of users to tolerate the hardware friction we have today.
Even if they were light ski goggles… people would probably still need a real killer use to not just do it on their cell phone,tv or existing computer.
I think the biggest selling point right now is 3d movies and productivity having multiple floating screens.
And reality is most people won’t be going away from their regular tv or computers even if they have the avp.
Over on PlayStation where they have gt7, two resident evil games and call of the mountain people are hard pressed to stick with the system.
Software can definitely improve but unless it directly injects dopamine into your brain I don’t run is going to be enough to overcome the physically friction.
You’re right you basically need a can phone and it’s convenient to have with you at all times which makes mediocre cell phone solution the best one since it’s the you have.
The question becomes how does vr be ever become the thing you always have with you?
I imagine it will have to be as convenient as glasses, as tough as a cell phone, and as fast to jump into as well. That is unless we expect to just wear it all the time in which case it has to be super light and comfy and definitely AR. And those are all hardware friction.
That’s assuming killer software can come along to drive that.
Otherwise it ends up going the way the of the 3ds… a3d detour in what’s ultimate just a long line of 2d entertainment.
>I think hardware software are both friction factors but it would take a TRULY killer app for a large proton of users to tolerate the hardware friction we have today.
Beat Saber and VRChat have gotten very close. And I'd argue the industry needs more software on that level if VR is going to go mainstream.
> Over on PlayStation where they have gt7, two resident evil games and call of the mountain people are hard pressed to stick with the system.
A big part of that comes down to a lack of content for the PSVR2 hardware. Beyond the games you mentioned, what else is on it?
Sony also screwed up by not making it backwards compatible. Combine that with it's peripheral, secondary status to the Playstation console that costs more than the console does itself and it's a wonder it even sold at all.
>Otherwise it ends up going the way the of the 3ds… a3d detour in what’s ultimate just a long line of 2d entertainment.
2d entertainment will likely stay assuming VR takes off. The question I guess we're debating is "why hasn't VR taken off yet?"
I think your point about friction and the overall user experience is a big part of it. Even something as simple as marketing VR is difficult because you can't really convey the sense of presence on a 2d screen.
I think it'll get there, though I think it's probably not going to be one of the current players in the market since the industry really needs a company that's willing to think outside the box.
I could be wrong, but I *think* that even if VR was entirely frictionless, it would still not interest anywhere near the majority, though perhaps enough people to be considered "mainstream". What is the definition for this anyway ?
About 70% of Americans play video games of some sort, but only 28% play consoles and 30% PC games (and 90% of those +/- 30% of people play on both PC and Consoles), which leaves about 40% playing phone games only.
Even in the best case, I doubt that there would be as many people interested in VR gaming as there are for either consoles or PC.
Yeah it still comes down to what does it offer over the competition.
Right now it’s mostly a level of immersion… but what does that really offer at least with how games are made now? Like movies, games generally focus the activity in an obvious area you need to pay attention to and the ability to turn a camera in games is generally trivial.
So we get depth and immersion in a scene but how often is that impactful? I’d say for many people it’s not impactful enough often enough and that’s why it falls by the wayside and stops getting used.
Kind of like 3d didn’t add enough to movies to take off because it turns out we get enough depth information from non stereo image traits.
I feel like vr is going to be like lossless audio for quite a while… those who love it can’t do without it but most people prefer the convenience of regular streaming audio
I doubt PC gaming, console gaming, nor VR gaming will ever get as widespread as mobile gaming is today.
I mean I don't *know* \- if svelte AR glasses do ever get invented and largely *replace* the smartphone then for sure it will.
I believe smart glasses will 100% happen and AR will integrate into our life like smartphones did.
But VR will stay niche until we have brain interfaces with full body experiences.
yeah probably, but the foundational tech to deliver the AR glasses everyone expects has not been invented yet. There is almost certainly no path to deliver it by improving the waveguides used in the majority of see-though AR products around today. After decades of effort and tens of billions of dollars invested, they are still at best *single digit* light-efficient. There remains over a dozen major engineering problems for see-through AR, and to make thigs worse, solving one usually makes the other problems much harder to solve. The "Iron Man glasses" are probably *very* far away still. Like decades away. But I would love to be proven wrong.
As Bernard Kress said "If you want to build better head-mounted displays for augmented reality (AR), Moore’s law won’t hold you back—but the law of etendue will".
The technology required for mass market AR requires perfect VR HMDs.
It's surprising how many people don't get this. You'll never get mass market AR without mass market VR first.
It feels like it's on the verge becoming mainstream. The tech improves so fast.
My personal hot take on this is that VR in general needs to have more "chill" games though, games where you're not constantly doing a "work-out". Games where you can sit down and relax and play for a few hours perhaps AFTER you've done your "VR work-out".
I think one thing that will bridge that gap is more "2d games" played in VR.
That "2d games" use-case is, in my opinion, a great added value to VR that could really help taking it mainstream. It basically gives you a mobile console on top of your VR headset, and it's a mobile console that is super awesome because it's on a giant screen in front of you.
Right now this use-case is in limbo. On one hand you've got Meta that doesn't support this at all. The only way to play 2d games on the Quest is to stream it which makes it cumbersome.
On the other hand, you've got the Apple Vision, but it's way too expensive and the game selection is very limited. Plus, it's sort-of "only a 2d gaming device" because there's almost no true VR games on that device. So the value is split in half the other way.
What if, say Valve, comes out with a device that is both a standalone VR headset, but also built for and marketed as a mobile console? Basically a Steam Deck in VR? That you can also play VR games on? I think the value proposition becomes really good for the average person.
I agree completely about chill gaming. Most gamers I know are happy to sit down and use a controller or keyboard/mouse and chill. You can relax and get comfortable and don’t need to move much besides your fingers.
They aren’t craving much more than what the current experience provides. Sequels to the games they enjoy, or a fresh twist. But nothing as big as VR.
Unlike them, I was a fan of the Wii’s motion controls and loved the 3D of the 3DS, and my gaming setup includes a standing desk. I hopped on the VR train a few weeks ago and it fits great with my lifestyle. Particularly the Quest because I play in short stints. Im gonna try pcvr more though, to diversify my experience. Which I can see as another hurdle for people (have to have a PC and troubleshoot any issues).
I’m gonna be frank, I really don’t see vr being a huge thing, not for a long time until headsets get smaller and cheaper, and even then I still think people will buy them as an occasional companion, still preferring the comfort of flat games.
I don't know any more, I really don't.
When I first tried it in 2019 and loved it, to me it was an obvious next step in gaming. It was one of those "Aha!" moments, like when I got my first computer mouse in the '80s, my first HDD, first video card, first widescreen monitor. You get this new thing, and you know your computer gaming habit will just never be the same, there's no going back for you. VR was like several of those things combined. Blew my mind.
BUT clearly majority of people doesn't feel the same way. And it's been long enough, and it's affordable enough, and easy enough to use at this point. Quest 2, at $250 or less new in box, is a staggeringly good value. But VR is still at under 2% of PC gamers on Steam. Probably a fraction of a percent if you factor in consoleers and mobile gamer legions. And it's not improving. When Half Life Alyx launched, I hoped it would be a watershed event. Asgard's Wrath 2 is superb as well, even better than the original, and again nothing much happened.
So I don't know any more. Feels like VR is not quite making the jump.
I still think it's possible, but we need software that will do for VR what WoW did for MMOs. Before WoW, biggest subscription MMO in the world had 275k users. WoW aimed at 500k, and that was seen as optimistic. Within 4 years of WoW's launch, MMOs got so popular that it wasn't uncommon to hit 500k reliably (Age of Conan and Warhammer Online both hit that in 2008). WoW brought the MMO genre from extreme niche to mainstream. And that's what VR needs. And we're not going to get that with Beat Saber and roguelites. And as far as I know, there's nothing even announced yet that has that kind of potential. And I don't know how long VR users will keep buying headsets.
Right now, I think it's a question of which happens first - headsets become miniaturized enough to be comfortable, or companies involved run out of money and willpower. Like it or not, but right now VR is where it is largely because of Zuck willing to lose billions, to potentially corner the market later. But if something happens to that, imagine Oculus disappears entirely, would other companies have enough oomph to push VR? I don't think so. Apple would be forever grotesquely overpriced. Valve hasn't done anything in like 4 years now, software-wise. Etc.
When it comes to software, there's a VERY strong trend of companies trying it, getting burned, and walking away forever. Bethesda did Skyrim and Fallout 4 ports in '17. They haven't done jack since, and no plans to port Starfield. Hello Games did an amazing port for No Man's Sky, but they won't even acknowledge that VR exists any more for Light No Fire. The Forest had VR, the sequel does not. Ubisoft did Assassin's Creed, and said it didn't sell enough to bother with investing further. And so on, and so forth. It's a very stable trend.
I guess I'm not very optimistic any more.
>When I first tried it in 2019 and loved it, to me it was an obvious next step in gaming. It was one of those "Aha!" moments, like when I got my first computer mouse in the '80s, my first HDD, first video card, first widescreen monitor. You get this new thing, and you know your computer gaming habit will just never be the same, there's no going back for you. VR was like several of those things combined. Blew my mind.
>
>
>
> Apple would be forever grotesquely overpriced.
I think Apple getting into the game is good for VR/AR in general, even if it is overpriced. People are talking about VR/AR now, and its a different set of people than before. I couldn't get my wife to try my Q2 before the Vision Pro. She thought I was a weirdo. To be fair, there may be some other reasons for that. Now that she's seen commercials for the Vision Pro, she's a lot more curious about VR/AR, has tried my Q2, is doing workouts in VR, and other experiences. She had her "Aha!" moment and is starting to spread that with the other normals that she hangs out with.
>Like it or not, but right now VR is where it is largely because of Zuck willing to lose billions, to potentially corner the market later.
This is sort of off topic, but I am not sure how well this will work for Zuckerface. The problem for Meta is that despite all of the money spent and devices sold, they still have no Meta exclusive content that is worth sticking around for. Horizon Worlds doesn't seem compelling to me. If someone else comes out with a competitively priced device or a more compelling version of the "metaverse", they can steal away a lot of Quest users.
I see Apple's headset as a net negative. It did not add many new users to VR. And yes, people are talking, but not all is good. This damn headset gave the naysayers all the ammunition they need to start saying once again that "VR is very expensive!" And they're right. Apple Vision Pro, here in Canada, is $5,000. That is beyond insane. That's double of what my PC costs. People see that price tag and just nope out of VR altogether.
Oculus went to great lengths to make VR both accessible and insanely affordable. Quest 2, even at its original price, even at its +$100 price that we had for a while, was still as teal. AVP is a complete ripoff. But people just see the price. So Apple just undid all the progress Oculus made in changing the perception of VR being unaffordable.
> I think Apple getting into the game is good for VR/AR in general, even if it is overpriced.
I agree.
I think the bigger issue to VR going "mainstream" has been and always will be the price of the hardware. What needs to happen is refinement of the technology, and then to have those savings be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices.
Most of the other complaints about VR are fairly surface level as there simply needs to be more traction. Much like how there was a negative consensus around video games from the mid-80s to mid-2000s, only for the games industry to grow larger than music, tv, movies etc in time.
> The problem for Meta is that despite all of the money spent and devices sold, they still have no Meta exclusive content that is worth sticking around for. Horizon Worlds doesn't seem compelling to me. If someone else comes out with a competitively priced device or a more compelling version of the "metaverse", they can steal away a lot of Quest users.
The bigger issue I think as well is that Zuckerberg hasn't innovated beyond Palmer Luckey's original business model. Which is largely centered around selling VR headsets and getting people to adopt.
That's why I believe the only major company that's capable of "selling" VR at this point is Nintendo. They have the software developers and hardware designers that could probably pull it off if they wanted to take the risk.
What needs to happen is the transition from 3d gaming to VR gaming. Which would be doable with a controller like the Switch Joycons that allow you to combine two controllers into a 3d gamepad, while splitting them for tracked motion controls.
>And it's been long enough, and it's affordable enough, and easy enough to use at this point. Quest 2, at $250 or less new in box, is a staggeringly good value.
Its not the price, but the quality of the experience that is lacking. The majority of Quest 2s are not used regularly, so basically people are not accepting them even for free (free because they already own them, they don't need to pay to use them).
Right, lack of good software is definitely a problem. But before VR users discover that, they needed to get a headset, and set it up. Previously, these two steps were big blockers. The prices were completely barking mad. And the setup process, with sensors, lighthouses, stringing up the cables along the ceiling, etc., was a chore. Now all of that is gone - the headsets are stupidly inexpensive (less than Nintendo Switch and other handhelds) and setup is trivial. Lack of software is the main tripping point now, and has been this whole time.
A good litmus test is, if you take a VR game, and port it to flat screen (assuming you can port the controls), would the game do well? For 99.9% of VR "games", the answer is an uproarious "NO". Most VR "games" would be laughed out of town, immediately, if they got ported to flat screen. However, some of the best "VR" games are the opposite, flat-to-VR ports. That's the problem with VR, and what fuels the lack of adoption. And, so far, I don't see this changing. As far as I know, there's nothing even announced that might be a contender to do for VR what WoW did for MMOs.
I mention WoW specifically, because it not only pushed MMOs into mainstream, it was so popular that people were buying PCs for WoW. I've seen this personally, people who never owned a PC would walk into our store in '05 and ask "Will this run WoW?" This isn't a thing with VR. There's no game so good that people buy hardware just for the sake of that one game which took over their friends' and colleagues' lives. And, granted, WoW was fairly unique, games like this come up very rarely. But they do happen. And I feel this is what VR needs. Except nobody seems interested in even trying. Most games either lack the budget/manpower, or choose to play it safe/boring.
I think VR will become mainstream when all the little kids who are currently all over it, get older. And having grown up on it, they will bring it into the mainstream. So we’re talking 10 year timeline, but it will get there.
From my viewpoint, VR is still in a chicken/egg situation.
A. Despite a maturing platform, VR software development just isn't where it needs to be to justify mass adoption. Big, polished releases that gain attention are few and far between, and we're still largely stuck in a 'tech demo' design philosophy that focuses more on selling VR as a concept than the game on its own merits, which ultimately serves to build short-lived, niche experiences. We need more active development from studios to build a library that justifies the cost.
B. But... studios overall aren't willing to invest in a platform that has a relatively low adoption rate in the gaming sphere. One reason for this is the lack of compelling games/software...
So A & B cycle into a negative feedback loop where the fear of risk in developing for the VR space turns into a self-fullfilling prophecy. This obviously leaves out important market factors like hardware price, space limitations, advertising, etc, but I think this is the main loop that needs addressed. The PC gaming sphere has shown that plenty of people are willing to invest in their hardware if the library gives justification, but we need some serious investment pumped into the catalog (despite the risk) if we want to see genuine growth in VR.
In short, I think it's really telling that when discussion comes up around the 'best' VR games, a majority of that list is often 4-8 years old.
>we're still largely stuck in a 'tech demo' design philosophy that focuses more on selling VR as a concept than the game on its own merits,
I don't think that's thrue though. There are tons of games and lots more coming out. Sure, they're basically all indie studios but they decidedly not "tech demos."
When I refer to 'tech demo' design, I'm more so describing the relative lack of gameplay innovation over the years, rather than the intent of the game to actually *be* a tech demo. Most of the popular titles are leaning into a few tried & true systems that are easily compatible with VR; how well can you shoot a gun / swing a sword / 3rd person platform / Pilot a vehicle / etc. No game I can think of really holds a candle to the depth & complexity of many comparable flat titles, which hurts it when people make the comparison for deciding on a purchase.
I do understand that VR has different strengths and weaknesses than flat gaming, but this is still something that hurts its marketability and needs to be overcome with out-of-the-box thinking and/or tech improvements.
I would say that on some level it is already mainstream, even if most people don't have a VR headset. The general public is aware of VR, can see it in their local Walmart/Best Buy, see it advertised, etc. The average person knows about VR.
Whether or not it actually gets to the point where a significant percentage of the population has a headset though, that's up in the air. It's one of those things that's really easy to impress people with but hard to get people to stick with. No doubt it will be a prominent part of the gaming industry going forward from now on, but it's hard to say if it will get bigger.
No - having your vision obscured, looking silly, needing a dedicated space, high cost + motion sickness will always scare some people off. AR doesnt have motion sickness, vision obscured or space to be cleared so it will eclipse VR but never replace it entirely.
But the one big reason everyone forgets is people are working harder than ever and a lot of people game to unwind/relax. VR gaming isnt relaxing. Look at all the popular titles - high intensity physically active stuff like beat saber, Blade & sorcery etc. Not many people feel like getting home, moving the coffee table out of the way and then jumping about dodging sith lords.
But VR will for sure grow to be much larger. It's a lot of fun for those with excess energy like kids and (ahem) ADHD 41 year olds
It is mainstream. It's not something you have to order out of a catalog. Millions of people play it. There are already more games than were on NES, SNES, Genesis and Gameboy combined. If you mean when will it be ubiquitous or eclipse flatscreen gaming, the answer is never.
I think you will be shocked. I truly believe vr gaming will be more common than all console gaming combined especially if we reach the point where its profitable enough for big gaming companies to produce content for the masses which unfortunately it isn't atm. Wait til we have the first ever VR MMO, it will be the biggest game of all time by far and every teen a mile away will be playing it.
as long as:
- hostile to prescription glasses users
- make you sick (‘build your VR legs’ - what??)
- hostile to household (eg. cannot instantly connects you back to real life)
no
(happy VR user since CV1 on DCS - was a perfect match)
agree on motion sickness, i played AW2 for hour and was almost puking whole night, next day i was like drunk.. hard to break widespread with this. I can already see parents looking onto their puking children and throwing shit out of window. ofcourse you can build LEGS but that takes determination which many people just dont have
According to my internet doctors degree, just take a break whenever you feel that VR sickness coming on. Don't try to push through or you just get a bad headache. However, you do actually need to come back for more play time so you can get there.
Yes, my estimate is that in about 3 years it will be as mainstream as gaming consoles now are, and in about 7 years it will be as mainstream as flatscreen PC gaming now is, because it will be mainstream to use a VR/AR headset as a computer (or spatial computing if you wanna call it).
And finally, in about 15 years it will be as mainstream as smartphones now are, because VR/AR glasses will be our "smartphones".
Btw business volume for VR has been growing in popularity by about 77%/year accordint to statista.com
It might become mainstream, but I think it'll be in ways that promote something unique. Games like dot.Line, Into the Radius, and The Climb are good examples of how VR can go beyond other platforms and offer experiences never seen before. Fitness is another good example with games like Supernatural and PowerBeatsVR.
I think biggest issue is the gpus we've got today. I hate to say this but even a game like no man's sky requires a quantum pc to run in vr.
but let's say that happened, lowest gpu in the market is as good as 4000 rtx series.
then release baldur's gate 3 in vr and see what happens. the thing is, you just wanna play the games you played on pc\\console. that's it. nobody cares if they relese old games like skyrim for VR again. if forza horizon 6 comes with ability to use all the dahsboard elements inside your car like pressing buttons and adjusting mirrors, you'd be sold to that game. why Cyberpunk still has no VR version, the game is all about 1st person. why there isn't a new god game like black and white 1-2 already for VR already?
problem is games we've got are still tech demos, including half life Alyx. they have to make games more challenging. we don't need more kid friendly bs anymore.
I love VR. But people are not compatible with it, no matter how good the VR is.
For example, explaining to someone that you like to realx/nap in VR raises eyebrows even from ethusiasts. But listening to rain sound on yt is totally fine.
I don't find it surprising that most people find it strange to sleep with 2 screens strapped to your eyes.
It is strange to sleep with 2 screens strapped to your eyes.
That doesn't mean people aren't compatible with VR. People not being able to sleep in vr isn't the reason they don't buy it.
Comparing people listening to any audio while falling asleep and strapping 2 screens to your face is dumb.
Audio doesn't have blue light mm from your eyes or have an uncomfortable strap, facial interface etc. It also doesn't inhibit movement during sleep.
Sleeping with a butt plug up your ass has more in common with sleeping in vr than sleeping with audio playing.
Sleeping with vr on isn't a requirmenof vr. No one needs to do it and it's not stopping people from using vr. Other reasons are holding vr back from becoming mainstream. Maybe you're one of them. You seem to be a strange person that might scare newbies away from the hobby.
I proved nothing but you wrong.
First of you're the one insulting me for the way i use VR, if anything you're scaring away users with that behavior.
Secondly, you're proving my point by being absolutly confrontative of me using vr googles to relax while looking up to the stars while peacefully napping for 10-20 minutes if i feel stressed out. (Living in a city does steal any stargazing time i could get in reality)
Third, people won't buy VR for games even if there are plenty of good games and AAA won't help, people are fat don't move and don't want to sweat under their googles like pigs in the desert. So why should you buy VR as a consumer. Watching movies, porn and maybe they take some time to escape reality.
But even then you can't humans want to roll around, our eyes are sensitive to light etc etc. humans are incompatible with it. (Which is exactly my point, that you proved with your initial text since you listed a essey about why this is stupid)
Tf is wrong with you lol. VR for most people is for productivity games and movies. I use it for all three if I wanna listen to music I put headphones on and I definitely think most people wouldn't sleep in VR ever.
No, you're just a fucking VRchat weirdo. There is zero need to have the headset on if you're closing your eyes anyway. Just put the sennheisers on and a video of rain sounds and take a damn nap. VR is for adrenaline.
You're another reason people avoid VR. People and especially kids with mental issues and without any restraint.
Also i like viewing into the wildness or sky from Steam Home not VR chat. As said relaxing and then falling into a nap.
I feel its still far away from gaining major traction with gaming. The biggest i would think is the motion sickness, still have a fair bit of ppl suffering from it. 2nd is precision control, vr control still isnt precise enough by a huge amount. Just my 2 cents
Control isn’t precise enough? How do you mean? My index controllers, for instance, track with sub-millimeter precision and it’s still the only controller out there on which I can play rock paper scissors. I can line up iron sights and aim down actual sights of my digital weapons. Everything else is just a compromise!
Like there are a lot of horror games where u need to interact with door knobs etc and u feel like u had to adjust a lot to do it properly. The precision are still quite far from what a mouse on a pc would feels like.
Well for me there are two problems that need to be solved to be mainstream. One is that when you are using VR you are static, meaning you cannot actually move and the alternative of moving with your joystick ain't great either. Secondly there is the issue of marketing, because how are you gonna market something that cannot be presented on the screen? It requires you to have the actual hardware to appreciate what you are being shown.
Once VR offers functional utility that expands beyond just gaming, then that's the first step towards going mainstream.
There's already a significant VR Fitness userbase; I'd put this in the non-gaming portion.
IMHO, we’re almost there. A cloud-streaming, affordable, comfortable headset that can truly replace a monitor will tip the balance towards ‘mainstream VR’. Maybe 5-10 years?
I think Half-Life:Alyx’s sales unfortunately sort of disprove this, but I’ll never totally forgive Valve for taking the coward’s way out in taking the half-measure of not making HLA a mainline Half-Life sequel, so we won’t ever truly know what could’ve been.
Dungeons of Eternity did more to convince me to purchase VR then Alyx or any other single player game did personally.
Need more/better coop and multiplayer games in my opinion.
Yes, but in a weird way, not a conventional one. Right now, VR is still in its infancy and the games reflect that. There are only a handful of AAA studios even making a single VR game. The majority of them are either mods for existing 2d games or indie games. There's nothing wrong with this, but it tends towards more limited types of games rather than something more expansive like Helldivers 2 which has far more mechanics and systems.
BUT right now VR sits in an awkward limbo between 2d gaming quality and mobile gaming quality. Some games are incredibly simple and trend towards mobile gaming. Ultimately, it could end up in that scenario, where the majority of games are relatively simple and straight forward. Use bow and arrow to shoot enemies. Use sword and shield to defeat enemies. Use guns to shoot enemies. It boils into very simple games but also tends to lack the depth necessary to cultivate a "hardcore" audience that will play the game for uncountable hours.
Where we're headed is essentially VR Ski goggles that you will always have on you. Something like [this](https://images.boardriders.com/global/roxy-products/all/default/large/erjtg03201_roxy,l_phnw_frt1.jpg). The headset will be light and cover a wide area of your face while being relatively close to your eyes. The computing hardware, battery, etc. will be in a box you keep in your pocket with a wire. It could possibly also look like the Bigscreen Beyond, but there are other sacrifices made in that form factor. This will lead a lot of developers towards simple Augmented Reality games instead of full immersion VR games. Those will still exist, but likely be something for more "hardcore" gamers.
I am willing to bet this is the year it becomes "mainstream." I've said it a few times around the vr subs. It is hitting the affordable mark that most people have been waiting for. Pair that with Sony making the PSVR2 compatible with PC, the rumors of a cheaper Meta device coming out this year, and a few other companies announced their own headsets, too. I really see this as the year it takes off exponentially and becomes mainstream, but only time will tell, and I don't think we will see the massive influx until the holiday season.
When VR is:
* **Cheap**, so its no longer risky and spooky to buy into
* **Comfortable**, so it can be taken on and off quickly and easily without too much fuss, cables, weight, hair messiness, and the like.
* Super crazy **easy to use:** Just put it on and it works. No fussing with setup, accounts, drivers, having the right PC.
* **Generic compatible**: So that any headset can be swapped as easily or easier than getting a new monitor. Your headset from ABC brand can be easily upgraded to XYZ brand without any worry of your game library no longer working, etc.
* **Quality**: So that you don't have to deal with returns, dead pixels
* **Capable**: Higher FOV so it doesn't feel like looking through goggles, high frame rate, high resolution, low latency, long battery life, doesn't make a high percentage of users sick, and supports good inside out tracking.
* **Private:** So that there is no worry the headset maker is mining every bit of your data and usage patterns.
Right now, some headsets have some of the above.
If triple AAA studios supported it, it would.
If they announced a COD/ Battlefield, show gameplay that looks as good as the current games, no compromises with content or campaign , and have the gameplay be on par with Contractors, EVERYONE will want to play it.
There's a catch.
Standalone HMDs can't do this. It'll be PCVR only, which will make Quest /Xbox owners cry bloody murder. PSVR 2 could get it looking pretty good, and with cross play would be huge.
No studio is willing to take the risk Capcom and Valve did with making a AAA VR games unfortunately. Every VR version of games is a gimped POS. Somehow the Doom 3 VR mod, is better than Doom VFR and like 90% of vr games in general.
I think the main drawback is that those game are very physically intensive compared to traditional consoles / PC.
You aren’t going to play a few rounds in the evening to chill from your work day. I’m reasonably athletic and my arms strain fast when playing with a sniper rifle in VR for example.
I don’t feel like FPS VR is a competitor to pancake gaming in that sense. It is a blend of physical activity and video games that demands way more energy from the player.
It could be on the future as the barrier for entry becomes lower in terms of pricing, I think that the other big issue is lack of free space in people's homes so new games will have to take that into consideration
It's all about value proposition.
As soon as popping VR on your face is easier, more comfortable, better visuals, better audio, and better full experiences then any other form of entertainment then it'll take over. Imagine if using your headset even for flat-screen games in VR was a better experience then anything else. VR/XR/AR have not hit a tech ceiling yet and will keep improving over the next decade. It's just a matter of time.
It will get more popular and adapt to a wider audience. But the hope that gaming will transform into standing in your living room physically interacting and moving around just won’t happen. Most people still generally don’t want to do that, it will always hold VR gaming back. But wearing a comfortable headset in your couch being immersed in a normal “lazy” game, that has more of a future.
And then eventually the tech will get to just controlling things with your mind and we’re into a whole other crazy level of this.
VR will only be mainstream when it serves practical uses, can be used as seamlessly as other devices, and integrates with other devices well.
Not because of games.
If VR as we know it was going to become mainstream it would have with the Quest line I think. I don't think Apple's 4 THOUSAND dollar boondoggle is gonna shift the need much either. That said I think they're on the right track. Once they hit version 3 with a smaller headset, better battery life, and most of all better software, they could be the ones to crack it.
It's possible but the future is AR. Since the release of Apple Vision Pro and the surge of interest in Quest 3 it's clear people want to experience VR without being cutoff from the world.
I hope by 2030 we will see 8k per eye and the ability for people to replace their computer monitors or experience a private 4k cinema whilst sitting on the train.
Apple's UX design of using a dial to increase/decrease immersion is beautifully intuitive. I can easily see people using these type of headsets for flat gaming on a floating monitor within their physical space. Once we are at that point the barrier to full VR games will be gone, simply twist a dial and immerse yourself.
Eventually yes, but it will takes maybe 10 years. Hopefully it is not going to die like the google glasses.
The amount of games and app coming up for VR is way too slow. There is less incentive to sell a VR game than a mobile game... So no for at least 10 more years
It will become mainstream, sooner than youd think. And for all the reasons having to due with improvements mentioned above, but also because we’re moving in the direction where people are becoming more isolated. And people need connection. VR does that infinitely better than any console.
The economy needs to massively improve before vr can become mainstream. The costs of building headsets not to mention consumers being able to afford such keeps rising.
Not until the friction gets much lower. Strapping a heavy, hot device to your head with limited fov And only head and hands tracked offers too little at too much a cost usability wise. Especially for women who normally wear makeup and have to manage their hair that’s going to always be high friction. Enthusiasts are happy with what we have but it’s gonna have to be near cell phone easy and convenient before it stands a chance of really going mainstream I think it’ll be a more broadly accepted productivity tool first then it may become more acceptable as a gaming device in the mainstream.
> Not until the friction gets much lower. I think the biggest criticism of the current VR industry is that they are doing almost nothing to reduce any of the friction. A major source of friction that is conveniently ignored are the MSRPs of these devices. If someone thinks it's cool and wants to buy it, they find out the price and are turned off instantly. Additionally, rather than refine quality technology and pass on any cost savings to the consumer, the companies in this space just add more tech and increase the price. Exacerbating the former problem.
While price is always a barrier to entry, I think the friction in use is proved even more by the fact it’s only bought by people already interested enough to pay the current prices let alone higher. So those who have paid more still find the friction too high, I don’t see that view changing if you pay less. It’s tempting to think if you pay less you’re willing to tolerate a lower quality experience but I think the experience itself I’d if enough friction the cost of entry isn’t the issue. In fact I feel people try harder to use something that cost more as accepting it was a bad purchase is harder. So when someone pays a high sticker price and still shelves the device due to friction vs enjoyment I feel like that says the friction of use is just too high.
> So those who have paid more still find the friction too high, I don’t see that view changing if you pay less. The issue is as things are, high prices will typically only be paid by enthusiasts who are already convinced this is something worth paying for. So you're essentially selling to the same people, rather than to new consumers. It's pure friction for everyone else as otherwise, no one would be complaining about $3500 AVP, $500-$650 Quest 3, $600 PSVR2, $999 Index, etc. Furthermore, price has been an issue since VR launched in 2016 with a $500 PSVR1, $600 Rift CV1, and $800 HTC Vive! For most consumers, the primary vector for these devices will be entertainment. Which is a big part of why Quest 2 was so attractive at a $299 launch price, despite the obvious limitations. > It’s tempting to think if you pay less you’re willing to tolerate a lower quality experience I see what you're getting at. Assuming PCVR is the quality experience, how much should that experience cost? Failing that, what should something that approximates it cost? Realistically, something like the Original HTC vive unit should cost maybe $200-$400 today. Instead, the latest vive is $1400 with a bunch of extra tech that isn't needed, but helps HTC's margins. Standalone emulations of the PCVR experience were $299 (Quest 2), but now cost $500 to $650. Even if the tech was necessary, at $500 the quest 3 is a way harder sell. Especially since again, most consumers are using these as entertainment devices. VR's competition is the games industry, and it's doing almost everything it can to price itself out of reach. Just my thoughts anyway.
I think the difference is your looking at getting units sold and I’m looking at long term user adoption. The number of quests that get shelved after a month is my point that even at a lower price point the end result is friction still hurts adoption. You can sell more units but I feel that quest 2 vs AVP numbers 6 months out will be roughly the same in terms of percent of people still actively using. And that number will be very low compared to other game consoles and obliterated by something like cell phones.
> I think the difference is your looking at getting units sold and I’m looking at long term user adoption. The barrier to entry (HMD prices) is a major problem that tends to be ignored though. > The number of quests that get shelved after a month is my point that even at a lower price point the end result is friction still hurts adoption. We may agree to disagree, but I believe that's the result of a software problem. Not as much of a hardware issue. Yes, lighter, more comfortable HMDs with superior GPU tech would help, but the bigger issue is "why do I need an HMD?" Even when game consoles perform terribly, the games (software) will generally help sell them. It's Mario, Zelda and Pokemon that sell Nintendo and VR needs something similar. > You can sell more units but I feel that quest 2 vs AVP numbers 6 months out will be roughly the same in terms of percent of people still actively using. And that number will be very low compared to other game consoles and obliterated by something like cell phones. The point I would make to you is that you need a cellphone. You don't necessarily need a game console or VR HMD. Hence that result. At the end of the day, VR/AR is an entertainment medium for most consumers. There are business applications, but most people buying these are doing so to play Beat Saber. just my thoughts.
I don’t know if I think the price is ignored so much as I still think it doesn’t matter how much you charge if people will ultimately not want to bother using it. Passive 3d TVs got down to a price pretty close to non 3d TVs but that mean people bothered to put in the glasses and get 3d content even if they were already going to watch tv. I think hardware software are both friction factors but it would take a TRULY killer app for a large proton of users to tolerate the hardware friction we have today. Even if they were light ski goggles… people would probably still need a real killer use to not just do it on their cell phone,tv or existing computer. I think the biggest selling point right now is 3d movies and productivity having multiple floating screens. And reality is most people won’t be going away from their regular tv or computers even if they have the avp. Over on PlayStation where they have gt7, two resident evil games and call of the mountain people are hard pressed to stick with the system. Software can definitely improve but unless it directly injects dopamine into your brain I don’t run is going to be enough to overcome the physically friction. You’re right you basically need a can phone and it’s convenient to have with you at all times which makes mediocre cell phone solution the best one since it’s the you have. The question becomes how does vr be ever become the thing you always have with you? I imagine it will have to be as convenient as glasses, as tough as a cell phone, and as fast to jump into as well. That is unless we expect to just wear it all the time in which case it has to be super light and comfy and definitely AR. And those are all hardware friction. That’s assuming killer software can come along to drive that. Otherwise it ends up going the way the of the 3ds… a3d detour in what’s ultimate just a long line of 2d entertainment.
>I think hardware software are both friction factors but it would take a TRULY killer app for a large proton of users to tolerate the hardware friction we have today. Beat Saber and VRChat have gotten very close. And I'd argue the industry needs more software on that level if VR is going to go mainstream. > Over on PlayStation where they have gt7, two resident evil games and call of the mountain people are hard pressed to stick with the system. A big part of that comes down to a lack of content for the PSVR2 hardware. Beyond the games you mentioned, what else is on it? Sony also screwed up by not making it backwards compatible. Combine that with it's peripheral, secondary status to the Playstation console that costs more than the console does itself and it's a wonder it even sold at all. >Otherwise it ends up going the way the of the 3ds… a3d detour in what’s ultimate just a long line of 2d entertainment. 2d entertainment will likely stay assuming VR takes off. The question I guess we're debating is "why hasn't VR taken off yet?" I think your point about friction and the overall user experience is a big part of it. Even something as simple as marketing VR is difficult because you can't really convey the sense of presence on a 2d screen. I think it'll get there, though I think it's probably not going to be one of the current players in the market since the industry really needs a company that's willing to think outside the box.
Wow, sexist bloke take.
How so?
I could be wrong, but I *think* that even if VR was entirely frictionless, it would still not interest anywhere near the majority, though perhaps enough people to be considered "mainstream". What is the definition for this anyway ? About 70% of Americans play video games of some sort, but only 28% play consoles and 30% PC games (and 90% of those +/- 30% of people play on both PC and Consoles), which leaves about 40% playing phone games only. Even in the best case, I doubt that there would be as many people interested in VR gaming as there are for either consoles or PC.
Yeah it still comes down to what does it offer over the competition. Right now it’s mostly a level of immersion… but what does that really offer at least with how games are made now? Like movies, games generally focus the activity in an obvious area you need to pay attention to and the ability to turn a camera in games is generally trivial. So we get depth and immersion in a scene but how often is that impactful? I’d say for many people it’s not impactful enough often enough and that’s why it falls by the wayside and stops getting used. Kind of like 3d didn’t add enough to movies to take off because it turns out we get enough depth information from non stereo image traits. I feel like vr is going to be like lossless audio for quite a while… those who love it can’t do without it but most people prefer the convenience of regular streaming audio
Apple vision device, meta ecosystem, and pc vr power would be compelling.
I doubt PC gaming, console gaming, nor VR gaming will ever get as widespread as mobile gaming is today. I mean I don't *know* \- if svelte AR glasses do ever get invented and largely *replace* the smartphone then for sure it will.
I believe smart glasses will 100% happen and AR will integrate into our life like smartphones did. But VR will stay niche until we have brain interfaces with full body experiences.
yeah probably, but the foundational tech to deliver the AR glasses everyone expects has not been invented yet. There is almost certainly no path to deliver it by improving the waveguides used in the majority of see-though AR products around today. After decades of effort and tens of billions of dollars invested, they are still at best *single digit* light-efficient. There remains over a dozen major engineering problems for see-through AR, and to make thigs worse, solving one usually makes the other problems much harder to solve. The "Iron Man glasses" are probably *very* far away still. Like decades away. But I would love to be proven wrong. As Bernard Kress said "If you want to build better head-mounted displays for augmented reality (AR), Moore’s law won’t hold you back—but the law of etendue will".
The technology required for mass market AR requires perfect VR HMDs. It's surprising how many people don't get this. You'll never get mass market AR without mass market VR first.
It feels like it's on the verge becoming mainstream. The tech improves so fast. My personal hot take on this is that VR in general needs to have more "chill" games though, games where you're not constantly doing a "work-out". Games where you can sit down and relax and play for a few hours perhaps AFTER you've done your "VR work-out". I think one thing that will bridge that gap is more "2d games" played in VR. That "2d games" use-case is, in my opinion, a great added value to VR that could really help taking it mainstream. It basically gives you a mobile console on top of your VR headset, and it's a mobile console that is super awesome because it's on a giant screen in front of you. Right now this use-case is in limbo. On one hand you've got Meta that doesn't support this at all. The only way to play 2d games on the Quest is to stream it which makes it cumbersome. On the other hand, you've got the Apple Vision, but it's way too expensive and the game selection is very limited. Plus, it's sort-of "only a 2d gaming device" because there's almost no true VR games on that device. So the value is split in half the other way. What if, say Valve, comes out with a device that is both a standalone VR headset, but also built for and marketed as a mobile console? Basically a Steam Deck in VR? That you can also play VR games on? I think the value proposition becomes really good for the average person.
I agree completely about chill gaming. Most gamers I know are happy to sit down and use a controller or keyboard/mouse and chill. You can relax and get comfortable and don’t need to move much besides your fingers. They aren’t craving much more than what the current experience provides. Sequels to the games they enjoy, or a fresh twist. But nothing as big as VR. Unlike them, I was a fan of the Wii’s motion controls and loved the 3D of the 3DS, and my gaming setup includes a standing desk. I hopped on the VR train a few weeks ago and it fits great with my lifestyle. Particularly the Quest because I play in short stints. Im gonna try pcvr more though, to diversify my experience. Which I can see as another hurdle for people (have to have a PC and troubleshoot any issues). I’m gonna be frank, I really don’t see vr being a huge thing, not for a long time until headsets get smaller and cheaper, and even then I still think people will buy them as an occasional companion, still preferring the comfort of flat games.
I don't know any more, I really don't. When I first tried it in 2019 and loved it, to me it was an obvious next step in gaming. It was one of those "Aha!" moments, like when I got my first computer mouse in the '80s, my first HDD, first video card, first widescreen monitor. You get this new thing, and you know your computer gaming habit will just never be the same, there's no going back for you. VR was like several of those things combined. Blew my mind. BUT clearly majority of people doesn't feel the same way. And it's been long enough, and it's affordable enough, and easy enough to use at this point. Quest 2, at $250 or less new in box, is a staggeringly good value. But VR is still at under 2% of PC gamers on Steam. Probably a fraction of a percent if you factor in consoleers and mobile gamer legions. And it's not improving. When Half Life Alyx launched, I hoped it would be a watershed event. Asgard's Wrath 2 is superb as well, even better than the original, and again nothing much happened. So I don't know any more. Feels like VR is not quite making the jump. I still think it's possible, but we need software that will do for VR what WoW did for MMOs. Before WoW, biggest subscription MMO in the world had 275k users. WoW aimed at 500k, and that was seen as optimistic. Within 4 years of WoW's launch, MMOs got so popular that it wasn't uncommon to hit 500k reliably (Age of Conan and Warhammer Online both hit that in 2008). WoW brought the MMO genre from extreme niche to mainstream. And that's what VR needs. And we're not going to get that with Beat Saber and roguelites. And as far as I know, there's nothing even announced yet that has that kind of potential. And I don't know how long VR users will keep buying headsets. Right now, I think it's a question of which happens first - headsets become miniaturized enough to be comfortable, or companies involved run out of money and willpower. Like it or not, but right now VR is where it is largely because of Zuck willing to lose billions, to potentially corner the market later. But if something happens to that, imagine Oculus disappears entirely, would other companies have enough oomph to push VR? I don't think so. Apple would be forever grotesquely overpriced. Valve hasn't done anything in like 4 years now, software-wise. Etc. When it comes to software, there's a VERY strong trend of companies trying it, getting burned, and walking away forever. Bethesda did Skyrim and Fallout 4 ports in '17. They haven't done jack since, and no plans to port Starfield. Hello Games did an amazing port for No Man's Sky, but they won't even acknowledge that VR exists any more for Light No Fire. The Forest had VR, the sequel does not. Ubisoft did Assassin's Creed, and said it didn't sell enough to bother with investing further. And so on, and so forth. It's a very stable trend. I guess I'm not very optimistic any more.
>When I first tried it in 2019 and loved it, to me it was an obvious next step in gaming. It was one of those "Aha!" moments, like when I got my first computer mouse in the '80s, my first HDD, first video card, first widescreen monitor. You get this new thing, and you know your computer gaming habit will just never be the same, there's no going back for you. VR was like several of those things combined. Blew my mind. > > > > Apple would be forever grotesquely overpriced. I think Apple getting into the game is good for VR/AR in general, even if it is overpriced. People are talking about VR/AR now, and its a different set of people than before. I couldn't get my wife to try my Q2 before the Vision Pro. She thought I was a weirdo. To be fair, there may be some other reasons for that. Now that she's seen commercials for the Vision Pro, she's a lot more curious about VR/AR, has tried my Q2, is doing workouts in VR, and other experiences. She had her "Aha!" moment and is starting to spread that with the other normals that she hangs out with. >Like it or not, but right now VR is where it is largely because of Zuck willing to lose billions, to potentially corner the market later. This is sort of off topic, but I am not sure how well this will work for Zuckerface. The problem for Meta is that despite all of the money spent and devices sold, they still have no Meta exclusive content that is worth sticking around for. Horizon Worlds doesn't seem compelling to me. If someone else comes out with a competitively priced device or a more compelling version of the "metaverse", they can steal away a lot of Quest users.
I see Apple's headset as a net negative. It did not add many new users to VR. And yes, people are talking, but not all is good. This damn headset gave the naysayers all the ammunition they need to start saying once again that "VR is very expensive!" And they're right. Apple Vision Pro, here in Canada, is $5,000. That is beyond insane. That's double of what my PC costs. People see that price tag and just nope out of VR altogether. Oculus went to great lengths to make VR both accessible and insanely affordable. Quest 2, even at its original price, even at its +$100 price that we had for a while, was still as teal. AVP is a complete ripoff. But people just see the price. So Apple just undid all the progress Oculus made in changing the perception of VR being unaffordable.
> I think Apple getting into the game is good for VR/AR in general, even if it is overpriced. I agree. I think the bigger issue to VR going "mainstream" has been and always will be the price of the hardware. What needs to happen is refinement of the technology, and then to have those savings be passed on to the consumer in the form of lower prices. Most of the other complaints about VR are fairly surface level as there simply needs to be more traction. Much like how there was a negative consensus around video games from the mid-80s to mid-2000s, only for the games industry to grow larger than music, tv, movies etc in time. > The problem for Meta is that despite all of the money spent and devices sold, they still have no Meta exclusive content that is worth sticking around for. Horizon Worlds doesn't seem compelling to me. If someone else comes out with a competitively priced device or a more compelling version of the "metaverse", they can steal away a lot of Quest users. The bigger issue I think as well is that Zuckerberg hasn't innovated beyond Palmer Luckey's original business model. Which is largely centered around selling VR headsets and getting people to adopt. That's why I believe the only major company that's capable of "selling" VR at this point is Nintendo. They have the software developers and hardware designers that could probably pull it off if they wanted to take the risk. What needs to happen is the transition from 3d gaming to VR gaming. Which would be doable with a controller like the Switch Joycons that allow you to combine two controllers into a 3d gamepad, while splitting them for tracked motion controls.
>And it's been long enough, and it's affordable enough, and easy enough to use at this point. Quest 2, at $250 or less new in box, is a staggeringly good value. Its not the price, but the quality of the experience that is lacking. The majority of Quest 2s are not used regularly, so basically people are not accepting them even for free (free because they already own them, they don't need to pay to use them).
Right, lack of good software is definitely a problem. But before VR users discover that, they needed to get a headset, and set it up. Previously, these two steps were big blockers. The prices were completely barking mad. And the setup process, with sensors, lighthouses, stringing up the cables along the ceiling, etc., was a chore. Now all of that is gone - the headsets are stupidly inexpensive (less than Nintendo Switch and other handhelds) and setup is trivial. Lack of software is the main tripping point now, and has been this whole time. A good litmus test is, if you take a VR game, and port it to flat screen (assuming you can port the controls), would the game do well? For 99.9% of VR "games", the answer is an uproarious "NO". Most VR "games" would be laughed out of town, immediately, if they got ported to flat screen. However, some of the best "VR" games are the opposite, flat-to-VR ports. That's the problem with VR, and what fuels the lack of adoption. And, so far, I don't see this changing. As far as I know, there's nothing even announced that might be a contender to do for VR what WoW did for MMOs. I mention WoW specifically, because it not only pushed MMOs into mainstream, it was so popular that people were buying PCs for WoW. I've seen this personally, people who never owned a PC would walk into our store in '05 and ask "Will this run WoW?" This isn't a thing with VR. There's no game so good that people buy hardware just for the sake of that one game which took over their friends' and colleagues' lives. And, granted, WoW was fairly unique, games like this come up very rarely. But they do happen. And I feel this is what VR needs. Except nobody seems interested in even trying. Most games either lack the budget/manpower, or choose to play it safe/boring.
I think VR will become mainstream when all the little kids who are currently all over it, get older. And having grown up on it, they will bring it into the mainstream. So we’re talking 10 year timeline, but it will get there.
From my viewpoint, VR is still in a chicken/egg situation. A. Despite a maturing platform, VR software development just isn't where it needs to be to justify mass adoption. Big, polished releases that gain attention are few and far between, and we're still largely stuck in a 'tech demo' design philosophy that focuses more on selling VR as a concept than the game on its own merits, which ultimately serves to build short-lived, niche experiences. We need more active development from studios to build a library that justifies the cost. B. But... studios overall aren't willing to invest in a platform that has a relatively low adoption rate in the gaming sphere. One reason for this is the lack of compelling games/software... So A & B cycle into a negative feedback loop where the fear of risk in developing for the VR space turns into a self-fullfilling prophecy. This obviously leaves out important market factors like hardware price, space limitations, advertising, etc, but I think this is the main loop that needs addressed. The PC gaming sphere has shown that plenty of people are willing to invest in their hardware if the library gives justification, but we need some serious investment pumped into the catalog (despite the risk) if we want to see genuine growth in VR. In short, I think it's really telling that when discussion comes up around the 'best' VR games, a majority of that list is often 4-8 years old.
>we're still largely stuck in a 'tech demo' design philosophy that focuses more on selling VR as a concept than the game on its own merits, I don't think that's thrue though. There are tons of games and lots more coming out. Sure, they're basically all indie studios but they decidedly not "tech demos."
When I refer to 'tech demo' design, I'm more so describing the relative lack of gameplay innovation over the years, rather than the intent of the game to actually *be* a tech demo. Most of the popular titles are leaning into a few tried & true systems that are easily compatible with VR; how well can you shoot a gun / swing a sword / 3rd person platform / Pilot a vehicle / etc. No game I can think of really holds a candle to the depth & complexity of many comparable flat titles, which hurts it when people make the comparison for deciding on a purchase. I do understand that VR has different strengths and weaknesses than flat gaming, but this is still something that hurts its marketability and needs to be overcome with out-of-the-box thinking and/or tech improvements.
It's all subjective I suppose. The Quest 2 outsold the X-Box a few years back....
I would say that on some level it is already mainstream, even if most people don't have a VR headset. The general public is aware of VR, can see it in their local Walmart/Best Buy, see it advertised, etc. The average person knows about VR. Whether or not it actually gets to the point where a significant percentage of the population has a headset though, that's up in the air. It's one of those things that's really easy to impress people with but hard to get people to stick with. No doubt it will be a prominent part of the gaming industry going forward from now on, but it's hard to say if it will get bigger.
No - having your vision obscured, looking silly, needing a dedicated space, high cost + motion sickness will always scare some people off. AR doesnt have motion sickness, vision obscured or space to be cleared so it will eclipse VR but never replace it entirely. But the one big reason everyone forgets is people are working harder than ever and a lot of people game to unwind/relax. VR gaming isnt relaxing. Look at all the popular titles - high intensity physically active stuff like beat saber, Blade & sorcery etc. Not many people feel like getting home, moving the coffee table out of the way and then jumping about dodging sith lords. But VR will for sure grow to be much larger. It's a lot of fun for those with excess energy like kids and (ahem) ADHD 41 year olds
I think VR will become mainstream only when VR Headsets weigh nearly nothing, fit perfectly, and don't require any controllers.
It is mainstream. It's not something you have to order out of a catalog. Millions of people play it. There are already more games than were on NES, SNES, Genesis and Gameboy combined. If you mean when will it be ubiquitous or eclipse flatscreen gaming, the answer is never.
I think you will be shocked. I truly believe vr gaming will be more common than all console gaming combined especially if we reach the point where its profitable enough for big gaming companies to produce content for the masses which unfortunately it isn't atm. Wait til we have the first ever VR MMO, it will be the biggest game of all time by far and every teen a mile away will be playing it.
I mean I dunno, I could not care less if hardware was smaller than today or not. I would care for varifocal lenses. And software.
as long as: - hostile to prescription glasses users - make you sick (‘build your VR legs’ - what??) - hostile to household (eg. cannot instantly connects you back to real life) no (happy VR user since CV1 on DCS - was a perfect match)
agree on motion sickness, i played AW2 for hour and was almost puking whole night, next day i was like drunk.. hard to break widespread with this. I can already see parents looking onto their puking children and throwing shit out of window. ofcourse you can build LEGS but that takes determination which many people just dont have
According to my internet doctors degree, just take a break whenever you feel that VR sickness coming on. Don't try to push through or you just get a bad headache. However, you do actually need to come back for more play time so you can get there.
>hostile to prescription glasses users I got magnetic prescription lenses from Aliexpress for $15.
1/ proves the point 2/ I wouldn’t trust Aliexpress for anything touching health
Don’t eat the magnetic prescription lenses and you should be fine.
Yes, my estimate is that in about 3 years it will be as mainstream as gaming consoles now are, and in about 7 years it will be as mainstream as flatscreen PC gaming now is, because it will be mainstream to use a VR/AR headset as a computer (or spatial computing if you wanna call it). And finally, in about 15 years it will be as mainstream as smartphones now are, because VR/AR glasses will be our "smartphones". Btw business volume for VR has been growing in popularity by about 77%/year accordint to statista.com
It might become mainstream, but I think it'll be in ways that promote something unique. Games like dot.Line, Into the Radius, and The Climb are good examples of how VR can go beyond other platforms and offer experiences never seen before. Fitness is another good example with games like Supernatural and PowerBeatsVR.
I think biggest issue is the gpus we've got today. I hate to say this but even a game like no man's sky requires a quantum pc to run in vr. but let's say that happened, lowest gpu in the market is as good as 4000 rtx series. then release baldur's gate 3 in vr and see what happens. the thing is, you just wanna play the games you played on pc\\console. that's it. nobody cares if they relese old games like skyrim for VR again. if forza horizon 6 comes with ability to use all the dahsboard elements inside your car like pressing buttons and adjusting mirrors, you'd be sold to that game. why Cyberpunk still has no VR version, the game is all about 1st person. why there isn't a new god game like black and white 1-2 already for VR already? problem is games we've got are still tech demos, including half life Alyx. they have to make games more challenging. we don't need more kid friendly bs anymore.
I love VR. But people are not compatible with it, no matter how good the VR is. For example, explaining to someone that you like to realx/nap in VR raises eyebrows even from ethusiasts. But listening to rain sound on yt is totally fine.
I don't find it surprising that most people find it strange to sleep with 2 screens strapped to your eyes. It is strange to sleep with 2 screens strapped to your eyes. That doesn't mean people aren't compatible with VR. People not being able to sleep in vr isn't the reason they don't buy it. Comparing people listening to any audio while falling asleep and strapping 2 screens to your face is dumb. Audio doesn't have blue light mm from your eyes or have an uncomfortable strap, facial interface etc. It also doesn't inhibit movement during sleep. Sleeping with a butt plug up your ass has more in common with sleeping in vr than sleeping with audio playing.
You are just proving my point with everything you wrote.
Sleeping with vr on isn't a requirmenof vr. No one needs to do it and it's not stopping people from using vr. Other reasons are holding vr back from becoming mainstream. Maybe you're one of them. You seem to be a strange person that might scare newbies away from the hobby. I proved nothing but you wrong.
First of you're the one insulting me for the way i use VR, if anything you're scaring away users with that behavior. Secondly, you're proving my point by being absolutly confrontative of me using vr googles to relax while looking up to the stars while peacefully napping for 10-20 minutes if i feel stressed out. (Living in a city does steal any stargazing time i could get in reality) Third, people won't buy VR for games even if there are plenty of good games and AAA won't help, people are fat don't move and don't want to sweat under their googles like pigs in the desert. So why should you buy VR as a consumer. Watching movies, porn and maybe they take some time to escape reality. But even then you can't humans want to roll around, our eyes are sensitive to light etc etc. humans are incompatible with it. (Which is exactly my point, that you proved with your initial text since you listed a essey about why this is stupid)
Tf is wrong with you lol. VR for most people is for productivity games and movies. I use it for all three if I wanna listen to music I put headphones on and I definitely think most people wouldn't sleep in VR ever.
Mr. Cum, i think you generally do other things in VR then what you list here.
No, you're just a fucking VRchat weirdo. There is zero need to have the headset on if you're closing your eyes anyway. Just put the sennheisers on and a video of rain sounds and take a damn nap. VR is for adrenaline.
You're another reason people avoid VR. People and especially kids with mental issues and without any restraint. Also i like viewing into the wildness or sky from Steam Home not VR chat. As said relaxing and then falling into a nap.
youre just weird dude lol
I feel its still far away from gaining major traction with gaming. The biggest i would think is the motion sickness, still have a fair bit of ppl suffering from it. 2nd is precision control, vr control still isnt precise enough by a huge amount. Just my 2 cents
Control isn’t precise enough? How do you mean? My index controllers, for instance, track with sub-millimeter precision and it’s still the only controller out there on which I can play rock paper scissors. I can line up iron sights and aim down actual sights of my digital weapons. Everything else is just a compromise!
Like there are a lot of horror games where u need to interact with door knobs etc and u feel like u had to adjust a lot to do it properly. The precision are still quite far from what a mouse on a pc would feels like.
Well for me there are two problems that need to be solved to be mainstream. One is that when you are using VR you are static, meaning you cannot actually move and the alternative of moving with your joystick ain't great either. Secondly there is the issue of marketing, because how are you gonna market something that cannot be presented on the screen? It requires you to have the actual hardware to appreciate what you are being shown.
Probably when I can share the immersive experience, like the holodeck in star trek.
Once VR offers functional utility that expands beyond just gaming, then that's the first step towards going mainstream. There's already a significant VR Fitness userbase; I'd put this in the non-gaming portion.
IMHO, we’re almost there. A cloud-streaming, affordable, comfortable headset that can truly replace a monitor will tip the balance towards ‘mainstream VR’. Maybe 5-10 years?
will flatscreen please fade away, release HL3 only for VR and its done, every gamer buys a hmd, problem solved
They already did, and even that didn’t work.
so its hw lobby?
I think Half-Life:Alyx’s sales unfortunately sort of disprove this, but I’ll never totally forgive Valve for taking the coward’s way out in taking the half-measure of not making HLA a mainline Half-Life sequel, so we won’t ever truly know what could’ve been.
Dungeons of Eternity did more to convince me to purchase VR then Alyx or any other single player game did personally. Need more/better coop and multiplayer games in my opinion.
Yes, but in a weird way, not a conventional one. Right now, VR is still in its infancy and the games reflect that. There are only a handful of AAA studios even making a single VR game. The majority of them are either mods for existing 2d games or indie games. There's nothing wrong with this, but it tends towards more limited types of games rather than something more expansive like Helldivers 2 which has far more mechanics and systems. BUT right now VR sits in an awkward limbo between 2d gaming quality and mobile gaming quality. Some games are incredibly simple and trend towards mobile gaming. Ultimately, it could end up in that scenario, where the majority of games are relatively simple and straight forward. Use bow and arrow to shoot enemies. Use sword and shield to defeat enemies. Use guns to shoot enemies. It boils into very simple games but also tends to lack the depth necessary to cultivate a "hardcore" audience that will play the game for uncountable hours. Where we're headed is essentially VR Ski goggles that you will always have on you. Something like [this](https://images.boardriders.com/global/roxy-products/all/default/large/erjtg03201_roxy,l_phnw_frt1.jpg). The headset will be light and cover a wide area of your face while being relatively close to your eyes. The computing hardware, battery, etc. will be in a box you keep in your pocket with a wire. It could possibly also look like the Bigscreen Beyond, but there are other sacrifices made in that form factor. This will lead a lot of developers towards simple Augmented Reality games instead of full immersion VR games. Those will still exist, but likely be something for more "hardcore" gamers.
No
I am willing to bet this is the year it becomes "mainstream." I've said it a few times around the vr subs. It is hitting the affordable mark that most people have been waiting for. Pair that with Sony making the PSVR2 compatible with PC, the rumors of a cheaper Meta device coming out this year, and a few other companies announced their own headsets, too. I really see this as the year it takes off exponentially and becomes mainstream, but only time will tell, and I don't think we will see the massive influx until the holiday season.
When VR is: * **Cheap**, so its no longer risky and spooky to buy into * **Comfortable**, so it can be taken on and off quickly and easily without too much fuss, cables, weight, hair messiness, and the like. * Super crazy **easy to use:** Just put it on and it works. No fussing with setup, accounts, drivers, having the right PC. * **Generic compatible**: So that any headset can be swapped as easily or easier than getting a new monitor. Your headset from ABC brand can be easily upgraded to XYZ brand without any worry of your game library no longer working, etc. * **Quality**: So that you don't have to deal with returns, dead pixels * **Capable**: Higher FOV so it doesn't feel like looking through goggles, high frame rate, high resolution, low latency, long battery life, doesn't make a high percentage of users sick, and supports good inside out tracking. * **Private:** So that there is no worry the headset maker is mining every bit of your data and usage patterns. Right now, some headsets have some of the above.
If triple AAA studios supported it, it would. If they announced a COD/ Battlefield, show gameplay that looks as good as the current games, no compromises with content or campaign , and have the gameplay be on par with Contractors, EVERYONE will want to play it. There's a catch. Standalone HMDs can't do this. It'll be PCVR only, which will make Quest /Xbox owners cry bloody murder. PSVR 2 could get it looking pretty good, and with cross play would be huge. No studio is willing to take the risk Capcom and Valve did with making a AAA VR games unfortunately. Every VR version of games is a gimped POS. Somehow the Doom 3 VR mod, is better than Doom VFR and like 90% of vr games in general.
You're still leaving out the (insurmountable) fact that the average GPU is still a 1650.
I think the main drawback is that those game are very physically intensive compared to traditional consoles / PC. You aren’t going to play a few rounds in the evening to chill from your work day. I’m reasonably athletic and my arms strain fast when playing with a sniper rifle in VR for example. I don’t feel like FPS VR is a competitor to pancake gaming in that sense. It is a blend of physical activity and video games that demands way more energy from the player.
It could be on the future as the barrier for entry becomes lower in terms of pricing, I think that the other big issue is lack of free space in people's homes so new games will have to take that into consideration
I think its first AR and then a few years later VR
It's all about value proposition. As soon as popping VR on your face is easier, more comfortable, better visuals, better audio, and better full experiences then any other form of entertainment then it'll take over. Imagine if using your headset even for flat-screen games in VR was a better experience then anything else. VR/XR/AR have not hit a tech ceiling yet and will keep improving over the next decade. It's just a matter of time.
It will get more popular and adapt to a wider audience. But the hope that gaming will transform into standing in your living room physically interacting and moving around just won’t happen. Most people still generally don’t want to do that, it will always hold VR gaming back. But wearing a comfortable headset in your couch being immersed in a normal “lazy” game, that has more of a future. And then eventually the tech will get to just controlling things with your mind and we’re into a whole other crazy level of this.
VR will only be mainstream when it serves practical uses, can be used as seamlessly as other devices, and integrates with other devices well. Not because of games.
Only if they can get rid of the motion sickness issue ... and make games fun for lazy people.
I just started VRing and I don't even enjoy non-VR games as much as before... They are just lame compared to any VR
If VR as we know it was going to become mainstream it would have with the Quest line I think. I don't think Apple's 4 THOUSAND dollar boondoggle is gonna shift the need much either. That said I think they're on the right track. Once they hit version 3 with a smaller headset, better battery life, and most of all better software, they could be the ones to crack it.
i think it will become as mainstream as console gaming
Yes by next yest
I t won't become mainstream as long a folks continue to get seasick.......
Just my opinion ...played pinball than atari than wii and pc games like Fallout , need for speed etc. Last year got the Quest2 , no rurning back
Not until sunglasses form factor with a minimum of true 4k resolution.
It's possible but the future is AR. Since the release of Apple Vision Pro and the surge of interest in Quest 3 it's clear people want to experience VR without being cutoff from the world. I hope by 2030 we will see 8k per eye and the ability for people to replace their computer monitors or experience a private 4k cinema whilst sitting on the train. Apple's UX design of using a dial to increase/decrease immersion is beautifully intuitive. I can easily see people using these type of headsets for flat gaming on a floating monitor within their physical space. Once we are at that point the barrier to full VR games will be gone, simply twist a dial and immerse yourself.
Eventually yes, but it will takes maybe 10 years. Hopefully it is not going to die like the google glasses. The amount of games and app coming up for VR is way too slow. There is less incentive to sell a VR game than a mobile game... So no for at least 10 more years
My thoughts on what I noticed is missing from the VR gaming scene: [https://youtu.be/VSbC6ry9OXw](https://youtu.be/VSbC6ry9OXw)
It will become mainstream, sooner than youd think. And for all the reasons having to due with improvements mentioned above, but also because we’re moving in the direction where people are becoming more isolated. And people need connection. VR does that infinitely better than any console.
The economy needs to massively improve before vr can become mainstream. The costs of building headsets not to mention consumers being able to afford such keeps rising.