# Has VR and 3D failed again?



## The Minish LAN (Dec 6, 2018)

I still see VR making waves every so often, with stuff like Talos VR, Accounting+, hell, even Skyrim VR, but 3D displays seem like they've faded out entirely.
EDIT: Oh, forgot about PlayStation VR. PSVR's alive and well seems, see games coming out for it all the time.


----------



## radicalwookie (Dec 6, 2018)

Id like to try VR like playstation one or Vive at least once heh, that Star Trek captain game looks like what I’ve been dreaming of since 80s. Sometimes I really wish I wasn’t this piss poor lad -.-


----------



## Localhorst86 (Dec 6, 2018)

People in 2010: "3D is here to stay forever. This time for real!"

2018: 3D has vanished

People:


----------



## Baoulettes (Dec 6, 2018)

I actually own Oculus and it does not get that dust issues.
I do not play that much with VR but I watch with it.
You can watch 3D movie on it and trust that so amazing.
Also yeah I own some game and unity test on it and really I hope soon or later more people will own it to be able to share things in vr exclusive 
What I want for VR now would be maybe VR website (yeah sound stupid but just imagine it like a museum ? you walk in room with website content. I would love a GBA Temp maze !)
And VR in 3Ds max would be neat imagine having possibility to view viewport as fullscreen on VR headset and preview your model there (I know software exist to show model in the headset but that no 3ds max and it's shader and it require exporting etc)
I do not think VR will be for Gaming use only.


----------



## kumikochan (Dec 6, 2018)

I think VR is still in its infancy. I see it catching on fully 10 years from now and not any sooner. The VR scene isn't becoming bigger like most people thought it would but instead it's shrinking again. That is not a good thing at all


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 6, 2018)

radicalwookie said:


> Id like to try VR like playstation one or Vive at least once heh, that Star Trek captain game looks like what I’ve been dreaming of since 80s. Sometimes I really wish I wasn’t this piss poor lad -.-



Have a look around to see if there are any "gaming bars" or similar near you. Such places will often have a setup there you can rent for a while, possibly even the really fancy stuff. Rent an hour or so at one and you can say you have. I have seen them in lots of places in the UK, and a few options in Washington state a few months back (did not travel far this last time so no idea about "nowhere, middle of" somewhere in the "does not touch water or Canada" places).


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Dec 6, 2018)

I'd say it's right on time--Virtual Boy to 3DS took awhile, but it happened.

This VR/3-D is in prep for _Ready Player One: The movie: The game: The moviegame._

Comparable: "Video killed the radio star."......tell Sirius.


----------



## shaunj66 (Dec 6, 2018)

Astro Bot Rescue Mission is my GOTY 2018 and simply one of the most enjoyable and fun games I've ever played. 

Sure, RDR2 and GOW are masterpiece games but Astro Bot is just pure fun and joy. Every level offered a new experience and left me wanting more.

It's been called VR's Mario 64 and I couldn't agree more. It harks back to the hay day of 3D platformers whilst also feeling like a game from the future. Even the excellent soundtrack brings back David Wise vibes with tunes that have stuck in my head.

I'd write a review on it if I had the time.

There are a couple other top notch VR games that I'd consider great (Super hot, Moss, Resident evil) and though I don't think VR has hit it's stride and will probably take another generation or two to be perfected; I certainly don't regret purchasing mine.


----------



## Zense (Dec 6, 2018)

Half a year ago I was also under the impression that VR was slowly fading away, however lately I've seen many uses for it outside of gaming (like how clothes shops use it to let you try on clothes). On a different note Ikea seems to be embracing AR for their shopping apps.

I also hear a lot of non-gamers talk about it and tell me about different uses for it that I didn't know about, so I guess my impression has changed to it still being in an early stage of gaining popularity. However, I personally haven't tried it and I'm not closely following development done in its scene.


----------



## BORTZ (Dec 6, 2018)

I remember around 2012 I was visiting my cousin who is pretty well off lets just say lol. He had 2 or 3 3D capable TVs around his house. As well as a member of the IT team at the university I attended. Now? 3D is nowhere to be found, save the 3DS. Which even the 3DS fails to deliver games that actually take advantage of the 3D functionality. Now this is where I kinda get weird. I don't really care about 3D TVs but when it comes to 3DS games, I love keeping that slider all the way up. We all know that the 3DS screens have a misnomer of a 800 x 240 resolution that is really highlighted when playing games with the 3D off. Games look pretty bad without any 3D effects and I would consider the argument that they look bad either way. 

VR has always felt like a fad to me. And it keeps coming back, but still never able to really hook its claws into anyone for long. I seem to remember hearing that Sony isn't done with VR and I feel like we are going to see the PS5 launch with some sort of ambitious push to get people into VR... again.


----------



## Pleng (Dec 6, 2018)

Baoulettes said:


> Also yeah I own some game and unity test on it and really I hope soon or later more people will own it to be able to share things in vr exclusive
> What I want for VR now would be maybe VR website (yeah sound stupid but just imagine it like a museum ? you walk in room with website



This doesn't strike me as a productive use of VR. Websites are information tools first and foremost. Abstracting it out into 3D world that you have to walk around and locate things as opposed to just scrolling down a list of topics is counter-productive to the design goal.

I haven't personally tried VR, but when playing my Switch I do miss the 3D effect from the 3DS - everything looks so flat without it!From browsing these forums, though, it seems like I'm in a minority, considering all the comments along the lines of "who ever even uses the 3D feature these days anyway?" etc


----------



## proffk (Dec 6, 2018)

3D was ok for 2 minutes then it gets boring. VR is good for gaming if manufacturers fix the problems with it. PSVR seems to have too much shovelware or limited uses in mainstream games.The problem with the camera & motion has put me off.Not to mention the amount of wires to mess about with. Alot of games are online & not physical.


----------



## H1B1Esquire (Dec 6, 2018)

One thing all of you are forgetting:




It's fuckin promised to us.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Dec 6, 2018)

The issue with VR is, that it requires a lot of physical space to play them. Now, with us millenials drowning in debt, most probably don't have the space to actually play it.


----------



## proffk (Dec 6, 2018)

Localhorst86 said:


> The issue with VR is, that it requires a lot of physical space to play them. Now, with us millenials drowning in debt, most probably don't have the space to actually play it.


a lot of space and a lot of messing about with the camera.


----------



## Baoulettes (Dec 6, 2018)

Pleng said:


> This doesn't strike me as a productive use of VR. Websites are information tools first and foremost. Abstracting it out into 3D world that you have to walk around and locate things as opposed to just scrolling down a list of topics is counter-productive to the design goal.
> 
> I haven't personally tried VR, but when playing my Switch I do miss the 3D effect from the 3DS - everything looks so flat without it!From browsing these forums, though, it seems like I'm in a minority, considering all the comments along the lines of "who ever even uses the 3D feature these days anyway?" etc



I do not mean all website and not important ones, just some are made to give ''one time'' or ''static'' content this would make it a bit ''playable'' 
As well as gallery website where they show off things I think it could turn out to be nice museum, is this userful probably not as it required hardware but that would be fun.

But totally agree with you that would be against information at first glance.



proffk said:


> a lot of space and a lot of messing about with the camera.


Actually about space I just own a tiny 2.5x2.5m and it work flawless (just make a proper guardian )
About camera that hard to understand them how to properly place it but once you get how it work you can move your setup and re-setup it in like 10 minutes (Excluding the demo to test the setup just to place and make guardian system)?


----------



## sharkie545 (Dec 6, 2018)

Don't forget borderlands vr is coming out so hopefully that helps push.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 6, 2018)

shaunj66 said:


> It's been called VR's Mario 64



Can I put in a request to be woken up when we get to VR's Banjo Kazooie?


----------



## smf (Dec 6, 2018)

Localhorst86 said:


> The issue with VR is, that it requires a lot of physical space to play them. Now, with us millenials drowning in debt, most probably don't have the space to actually play it.



Not all millennials are drowning in debt and not everyone from the older generations has a huge mansion. That is and always has been about where you choose to work, live and spend your money on (or inherit money if you're lucky).

I'd probably argue that if you are that seriously in debt then you don't have enough money for a VR headset, or enough time to play them.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Dec 6, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Can I put in a request to be woken up when we get to VR's Banjo Kazooie?


Lula 3D VR wen?


----------



## eyeliner (Dec 6, 2018)

3D was never supposed to be mainstream. It couldn't, right from the start.

A 3D screen, like the 3DS is almost impossible to use except you are smack in the center position. The usage of glasses (to me) is the killing factor.

3D was mostly for the movies, but obviously, the gaming world went on and expanded the concept to VR, that, for some simulations, has never faded. Military and Scientific arms use it often.

The usage of cumbersome/impractical devices kills mass adoption by the market. But that was something everyone knew, except those who invested in it blindly. Also, in order to have a moderate experience in 3D you have to own a very decent (and expensive) rig.

Remember the red/green glasses we used to have as kids? Cheap as hell, but it still didn't lift off. The experience isn't there.


----------



## smf (Dec 6, 2018)

eyeliner said:


> A 3D screen, like the 3DS is almost impossible to use except you are smack in the center position. The usage of glasses (to me) is the killing factor.



Passive glasses like you get at the cinema would have been fine.

I hate 3d movies that go to great lengths to remind you that you're watching a 3d movie.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Dec 6, 2018)

Never liked 3D. Glad that it was vanished!! For VR.. I am not so sure about it. One thing I dislike is.. a huge VR headset like PS4, SMH.


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 6, 2018)

The problem is that the only way 3d will ever truely take off is when we can figure out real, full fledged holograms. Everything else takes some bullshit peripheral or looks like ass. If you're like me, you cant use 3d in the cinemas because you need to wear your glasses. And even with them on, the combination of the two glasses layered on one another doesn't work well. At all.

On VR, I believe its still going strong. IT'S problem is that it takes incredibly high end hardware to use, and its a very anti-social system. Worse still is that just a decent headset sucks, and moving in vr is donkey balls.

I'm a believer in VR, but 3d..... nah. This "convert 2d to 3d" just never works out. It's too deeply flawed.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Dec 6, 2018)

smf said:


> Passive glasses like you get at the cinema would have been fine.
> 
> I hate 3d movies that go to great lengths to remind you that you're watching a 3d movie.


There were plenty of tvs available with passive 3d glasses yet the technology is simply dead today. The fact that 3D is still available in cinemas only shows that people simply were not interested in 3D in their home at all.


----------



## JoeBloggs777 (Dec 6, 2018)

since the days of the Sinclair zx81 I was hooked on video games, even learnt to program in machine code on the Vic 20 and had some games published. But for some reason I just stopped playing video games after finishing resident evil 3 on the original psx. since then I've hardly ever played any games for more than a few mins. now i get games for my son who is addicted like i was at his age.

I bought him a rift last month for his birthday, now when i first tired his rift i was amazed by the experience, it kinda relighted my interests from years ago, going from a flat tft screen to actually feeling like your in the game in. games like  sky rim and superhot have relighted my fire


----------



## Kallus (Dec 6, 2018)

Valve will save the day for VR. Just you guys wait


----------



## comput3rus3r (Dec 6, 2018)

are you making a distinction between 3d and vr? because 3d panels and lcd glasses are dead. the way we're going to have 3d now is in the form of vr. Also VR won't become mainstream until the price drops as you already need a vr ready pc on top of the expensive vr itself. I'm looking forward to using vr in the future though.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Dec 6, 2018)

3D is a useless gimmick that offers nothing more than additional depth perception, something that doesn't really add any meaningful data important to what you're viewing (for consumers, that is). 3D was DOA, and will only ever be enjoyed as an occasional "treat" at the movies, not a household staple.

VR, on the other hand, doesn't just give you that additional depth perception, it gives you the ability to _interact_ with that additional data. The only problem with modern VR is that it's still in its infancy and lacks monumentally good software to make it worth a purchase to the average consumer. Once the technology improves and becomes cheaper to manufacture in another generation or two, I imagine we'll be seeing VR becoming one of those household staple products, and not some expensive tech demo like it is now.


----------



## smf (Dec 6, 2018)

Localhorst86 said:


> There were plenty of tvs available with passive 3d glasses yet the technology is simply dead today. The fact that 3D is still available in cinemas only shows that people simply were not interested in 3D in their home at all.



I was interested, I just wasn't interested enough to replace a tv that still worked. I've not upgraded to 4k either, there are only a small number of people who would upgrade just because something new comes out.

It would be like car manufacturers deciding to stop selling electric cars, because it's clear people don't want them. Look how many non electric cars are still out there.

Cinemas still show 3d because they only had to convince the cinema owners to buy into it & there are far fewer of those and they saw it as a way to make money. I don't think you can infer that people have made a decision that 3d in cinema is good, 3d at home is bad.



Tom Bombadildo said:


> 3D is a useless gimmick that offers nothing more than additional depth perception, something that doesn't really add any meaningful data important to what you're viewing (for consumers, that is).



I don't think it's completely useless & for single viewers it would be possible to add head tracking, which wouldn't have all the advantages of a headset but it also wouldn't have all the disadvantages. It's a pity that it didn't stay around long enough that it could reach critical mass.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Dec 6, 2018)

smf said:


> I was interested, I just wasn't interested enough to replace a tv that still worked.
> 
> It would be like car manufacturers deciding to stop selling electric cars, because it's clear people don't want them. Look how many non electric cars are still out there.


A TV is a considerably cheaper purchase than a car, therefore your comparison simply doesn't work that well. Smartphones are in the same ballpark like a TV and people are happy to throw out their old smartphone every 1-2 years.

I know a lot of people that purchased a TV when Smart 3D TVs were "the thing to have" (it was pretty hard to find a TV that didn't have either Smart, 3D or both features) and yes, most people still have their TV. The "Smart" features now no longer work because the TVs are no longer supported but obviously, their 3D functionality is still operational. Yet, no one uses it anymore, be it active 3D (shutter glasses) or passive (polarization glasses). People used it once or twice, then got bored of it.


----------



## raxadian (Dec 6, 2018)

VR and 3D fail so much the surprise would be it not failing.  

Heck not even Google Cardboard made VR popular enough and the more expensive alternatives are more expensive and so  even less popular.


----------



## UltraHurricane (Dec 6, 2018)

yeah, 3D support is kinda dead, not only cause people got bored easy but it was also a major hassle to set-up with not a lot of payoff, i can still remember how much of a pain it was to set up my Nvida 3D Visions monitor and it still took awhile to adjust and tinker with specific games so that it wasn't a total eyesore

VR on the other hand i still i can still see sticking around as it's got a ton of potential and offers a lot more immersion and interactivity then 3D could ever offer, it's just the hardware is still too clunky and pricey for mass adoption, but once companies fix both of those problems i can easily see it actually taking off


----------



## RattletraPM (Dec 6, 2018)

3D? Yes, it's dead. Aside from blu-ray and, generally speaking, movies there was poor software support back then and virtually zero nowadays. No new 3D capable hardware is being produced. Hell, even the 3DS has somwhat dropped 3D yet most don't notice. The fad has lost its charm and now 4K/Ultrawide/Curved TVs are all the rage. People simply weren't all that much interested in it back then and won't care about it now.

VR? Not really, I think it still has a chance. People _are_ interested in it, it's just that a VR setup costs too much. Yes, recently some "budget" VR headsets have been popping up but keep in mind that we're still talking about 250+ EUR for a new one, plus you'd still need a somewhat beefy computer anyways so it's still out of reach for many people. Space is also an issue of course but you could still play most games seated: it's not as immersive, but it's still better than nothing. It just needs some more time, if GPU prices drop down and some proper budget VR headsets show up (even used DK1/2 headsets when newer and better headsets show up, for example) it might catch on.


----------



## RedoLane (Dec 6, 2018)

That really depends on the definition of 3D, since different people intercept it in different ways.
Personally, 3D already became a common feature in society when it comes to movies, but it was pretty short-lived with gaming.
VR on the other hand, seem to be gathering more attention very slowly, and I do see a lot of VR attractions in malls and other big places in my country.
I'm not the kind of person who gets any motion sickness from video games, which is why I could sit with a VR headset for plenty of hours every week with only feeling a bit tired.
That's quite weird, since the 3DS for example, who implemented more accessible 3D effect, and movies in 3D, both seem to make me waaay more tired.
I guess it all comes to how the brain interprets the vision and radiation from the screen, but since i'm using a VR headset, maybe the brain intercepts it as actual vision, and it isn't affected by it's radiation? I dunno, i'm not an expert.
But yeah, just like how it took quite a long time for video game consoles in general to become a common thing in society(I mean, I heard about more people who know what is a PlayStation, than people from Gen X and Y who knows what are the arcades or the Atari.), VR gaming might take a while to become a well-known gadget for entertainment, and especially for gaming.
HOWEVER, compared to previous attempts(**COUGH COUGH** virtual boy **COUGH COUGH**), I feel like this arsenal of headsets and current lineup of VR games, are going in a decent direction.

One of the best VR games I ever played was Tetris Effect, and as a die-hard tetris fan and player, this gave me literally the best "Tetris effect" ever.
Too bad it belonged to my friend since I don't have a PS4, but I hope it'll get a Steam release!!


----------



## raxadian (Dec 6, 2018)

UltraHurricane said:


> yeah, 3D support is kinda dead, not only cause people got bored easy but it was also a major hassle to set-up with not a lot of payoff, i can still remember how much of a pain it was to set up my Nvida 3D Visions monitor and it still took awhile to adjust and tinker with specific games so that it wasn't a total eyesore
> 
> VR on the other hand i still i can still see sticking around as it's got a ton of potential and offers a lot more immersion and interactivity then 3D could ever offer, it's just the hardware is still too clunky and pricey for mass adoption, but once companies fix both of those problems i can easily see it actually taking off



And there also was 3D TV... the failture of that thing left many people with a sour taste in their mouths. Not to mention the 3D TV Blue Rays only work on 3D mode... so no one wanna buy them unless you still are stuck with a 3D TV thing.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Dec 6, 2018)

VR hasn't reached a point where it's good enough to become mainstream. There are a couple things that need to improve:
Headsets need to become higher resolution, and higher FOV. 4K is a must here.
Mainstream PC hardware needs to get powerful enough to actually drive these 4K (or higher) VR headsets. Even a 1080Ti would struggle with this, the RTX 2080Ti might be able to do it, but then again that is hardly mainstream at the moment, and due to the high price is not something most people are going to prioritize.
All that while lowering the price for both high refresh rate 4K-optimized PC hardware and the headsets themselves, so it's not such a huge investment if you want to get a VR headset and also need to upgrade your rig to be able to run it.
And even when those two things happen, it will still take years to come before most people have upgraded their rigs to something that can run 4K VR.
They also have to do something about the motion sickness. It's a tough thing to solve entirely, so that might never happen, but they have to improve it to the point where the majority can play without experiencing anything more than maybe a little light headedness after a few hours of playing.

But there is the catch 22 issue that as long as it isn't mainstream, most games aren't going to support it, which makes it tougher for it to go mainstream. You can get support for many games through 3rd party software but the support is never as good as something natively made for VR and it always feels tacked on. This is not what is going to sell VR to the mainstream. It's a nice bonus, but that's all it is.
That catch 22 could end up being what kills VR for another decade or two until someone decides it's time to try again. But no doubt we will have mainstream VR sooner or later, it may take 20 years and it may be in a completely different form than what we have today, but make no mistake, VR (and also AR) is the future. It's far more than just a 360 view of the environment, it's an entirely new way to interact with and experience games and software, something you simply can't get with a regular screen, and that sets it apart from fads that have come and gone such as 3D.


----------



## Raverrevolution (Dec 6, 2018)

It's going to take a long long time for VR to be commonplace in society.  Humans need to get used to more information (depth, z-axis) hitting their brain.

I bought the PSVR blind, never having tried modern VR, and I can tell you that it single-handedly revitalized video gaming for me.  Old school VR always looked like this primitive laggy mess.  Modern VR is legit!!  It's mindblowing being IN the game!

Console manufacturers will be stupid if they don't hop onto VR, keep improving it, and cheapen it up.  After having played with the PSVR I can tell you that this is in fact the inevitable future of where gaming heads to.  We have already reached the pinnacle of 2D graphics.  VR feeds candy to the brain, the candy that it's been craving.


----------



## Maximilious (Dec 6, 2018)

I have a 3D TV and it is great for movies, not for games. Movies look great on it, even though I seldom use the feature. Gaming however is very hard to do with the 3D feature turned on, at least for me. Playing Sonic Generations in 3D makes me want to go into seizure's, and I'm not even epileptic. I do hope they keep maintaining 3D displays as I do really enjoy movies in 3D that are worth it (Transformers 3, any animated movie, some Marvel or any high-CGI movie typically have amazing 3D, even if it is post-production and not 3D camera filmed).

As for VR, I have a Samsung Gear for my S7 and tried it out for a bit and also enjoyed it. Lack of the controllers limited my use of the functionality but I can definitely see potential in it once the price-point is right.


----------



## Kraken_X (Dec 6, 2018)

I have two 3D TVs: one that's 1080p from when 3D was mainstream, and one of the only ones ever made that is also 4k and HDR.  I really like 3D, and Citra, PCSX2, and Dolphin all have support for 3D, so I can play old console games in 3D.  These emulators display side-by-side and let the TV convert to 3D, so even 4k is supported.  Support for PC games is terrible though.  Very few games support it nativly, and the ones that don't rely on NVIDIA's $200 dongle, which limits output to 720p for some reason.  There might be something generic that does the side-by-side without NVIDIA's DRM, but I haven't found it.   

My local movie theater decided to stop showing 3D movies a while ago.  I complained to the manager and explained that if I'm paying $40+ for two tickets, it better match the quality I have at home.  Now I just wait 6 months for the 3D Bluray.  They are getting more expensive and hard to find though.  Eventually, they probably won't be available at all.  It doesn't help that most movies that are "3D" are mediocre 2D->3D translations that aren't impressive.  In most cases, it isn't worth the hassle of wearing the glasses, but for some it's a whole different experience.  

I also have a Vive.  It's cool, but I don't use it much.  After a hard day at work, I generally don't want to jump around.  The quality is also much worse than the TV since it's an original Vive.  The setup is annoying too since I have to clean up a large area to use it and frequently need to readjust the lighthouses.  I'm always getting tangled in the wires too.  I do hope that VR takes off, but until there is an option that is wireless, 4k and doesn't offer Mark Zuckerburg a live video stream into my house, I don't expect I'll use it much.  I haven't played any of the VR games released this year besides Fallout 4, so even people who have the setup aren't engaging.


----------



## YetoJesse (Dec 6, 2018)

I think it's a Quality x Pricing issue.
3D and VR are shown to be quite immersive, yet you still can't walk around with you own two legs in a world with super powers..

Might sounds stupid, but there was a period where there were quite a lot of anime's and manga's that did the neuro-gaming concept. 

but still... you know....
VR (and 3D, yet imho 3D is just fucking up human vision...) are not quite on that quality and pricing level.
Not just talking about the fact that a good VR (and I'm talking about a VR that's close to handling it now, or so people say), costs quite a bit of money on its own. 
Take in mind the VideoCard you are required to have. and in all honesty, there's a reason for the resolution upgrades... 

It'll probably take atleast 4k textures with 4k visuals. refresh-rate will have to be pushed to the 120fps minimum, even if it's just for rendering strands of hair flowing in the wind. 
just imagine that pricing. Now all that's left is letting me move and feel like I'm moving without having me to actually move. 

And it might be a lot, but to be fair, I think a lot of people invision this as true VR gaming. 
as long as that isn't affordable on a private basis, I don't think it'll be such a giant succes, but more of a niche thing. 

Also, forcing VR exclusive sequels isn't 'The Way'. 

That said, anything worth the evolution of technology and gaming has my attention. 
_I just wish there was a game where I could use these handsigns and actually create a giant fireball to kill something_


----------



## radicalwookie (Dec 6, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Have a look around to see if there are any "gaming bars" or similar near you. Such places will often have a setup there you can rent for a while, possibly even the really fancy stuff. Rent an hour or so at one and you can say you have. I have seen them in lots of places in the UK, and a few options in Washington state a few months back (did not travel far this last time so no idea about "nowhere, middle of" somewhere in the "does not touch water or Canada" places).


Love the suggestion mate but where I live there is like 1 bar in the freaking town. And no it's not a gaming bar, it's more of a get-molested-or-robbed type of a bar


----------



## Ryccardo (Dec 6, 2018)

As I suspect a two-digit percentage of its owners also do, the only 3D product I own is a 3DS...

Most 3D games I do indeed find enjoyable in 3D (in fact, I find Mario 3D Land almost unplayable without), and my favorites are New Leaf and Xenoblade; however, it's clear that a non-negligible number of games didn't even try, while some tried and failed (those, though, I blame on Game Freak's continued exhibits of incompetence in programming and quality control, while at the same time driving the entertainment value of their famous series into the ground)

The 3DS also holds the questionable record of being the best selling 3D camera: if more attention had been paid on that point (better dynamic range and noise, instead of remaining DSi compatible; how about the shutter sound which is not mandatory in 95% of the countries the console is officially sold in?) I bet it would have attracted significant more mainstream success...


----------



## smf (Dec 6, 2018)

Localhorst86 said:


> A TV is a considerably cheaper purchase than a car



That isn't always true and it's not relevant. Very few people will replace either just because a new model has come out.



Localhorst86 said:


> Smartphones are in the same ballpark like a TV and people are happy to throw out their old smartphone every 1-2 years.



The mobile operators sell the idea that everyone changes their phones every year or two sp they can lend you the money to buy one at a huge interest rate. It's fine if that is what you want, but don't fall into conformity bias and think that it's a good idea.

I keep phones for as long as they last, I don't think I'm unique as the smartphone industry is now in decline. Phones don't last as long as tv's though.


----------



## |<roni&g (Dec 6, 2018)

It’s irritating to me when people say “I don’t like wearing the 3D glasses” 

I think that’s just a stupid statement since that is the only way at this time to see true 3D.
I’m sad to see that 3D videos and TVs have disappeared, I rarely used the 3D feature but if I was to watch toy story for example, I’d want to see it at home in 3D


----------



## thorasgar (Dec 6, 2018)

FYI: With easily obtainable referral codes on reddit a new Rift is available for $312 delivered/no sales tax in the US direct from Oculus.  $12 more than a Switch, of course you need a decent PC but you don’t need a 1080ti unless you are going for the big games, a 980 or 390x level card will do for most of the games.  

This price point made me jump on it.  

One area that will really help it take off is fitness.  Excercise can be really boring, but I am really looking forward to some quick 15 sessions of Beat Saber.


----------



## the_randomizer (Dec 6, 2018)

I fail to see the appeal for either one.


----------



## Localhorst86 (Dec 6, 2018)

smf said:


> Very few people will replace either just because a new model has come out.



I can not agree to this in general. I've seen people regularly aroundhere driving new cars, simply because they lease them for 4 years, then get a new one. They don't drive it until it breaks anymore but only untill the leasing contract runs out and they can get a new one. Yes, they don't own these cars, but they can be seen with them. The reason this is not happening with TVs is because a TV is not as big of a status symbol as a car or a smartphone that you are seen with. But the point is - and I might simply not have made this clear, that's on me: A lot of people (over here) were in for a new TV when 3D was the hype, almost every TV had it. It was when I switched from a CRT to an HDTV. And a lot of TVs had it. And most people still have their 3D TVs. But customers didn't really care for the feature. It was "nice to have" but only a gimmick they never used.

If it was an technology to stay, TVs nowadays would still have 3D, either passive or active. But they don't - not because people don't buy new TVs or the technology wasn't ready but because the consumer simply didn't care for it at all. it was a fad that has gone by. It sold a few bluray players and discs and now it's gone. 



smf said:


> I keep phones for as long as they last, I don't think I'm unique as the smartphone industry is now in decline. Phones don't last as long as tv's though.


That's perfectly fine, I know lots of people who are just as reasonable. I myself use mine as long as they last too, but since I am going for the midrange phones (less than 200€) they are usually done for after a maximum of two years. But a lot of people want the latest and greatest and it has to be the new Galaxy S10++UHDMega and it always baffles me how many people sell their 1 year old phone just to get the latest itteration of whatever they currently use.

Maybe we're just not as big of consumers as others.

either way. What was the question?


----------



## D34DL1N3R (Dec 6, 2018)

Sold the PSVR bundle I won from Taco Bell because the majority of "games" just felt like tech demos to me. That and the terrible camera drifting. I couldn't deal with the drifting.


----------



## KiiWii (Dec 6, 2018)

@FAST6191 the irony of you posting this topic is I was inspired to get littlstar NO PSN 5.05 working on PSVR and quite comfortably watched a 3D copy of The Nightmare Before Christmas


----------



## burial (Dec 6, 2018)

Yes and they always will....


----------



## Deleted User (Dec 6, 2018)

Imo the biggest thing hindering VR currently is the required "tether", them not being as friendly for us that need glasses(uncomfortable) and the fact that you need an above average PC to get an enjoyable experience 

Yes there's PSVR which is a step in the right direction but that only solves 1/3 points. 

As for 3D..unless I'm just a weirdo I still have yet to experience 3D that doesn't cause motion sickness. So there's that


----------



## Xzi (Dec 6, 2018)

Actually VR use just saw a huge jump on Steam after Black Friday.  Samsung Odyssey+ HMDs were only $300.  In terms of new hardware, Pimax is just starting to ship their 200 degree FoV headsets, and there have been pictures floating around the net for Valve's prototype HMD as well.

3D is garbage because it's not really 3D.  You can't walk around images and the images have no depth to them.  It's just one flat image popping out from another flat image.  Not remotely in the same league as VR.


----------



## smf (Dec 6, 2018)

Localhorst86 said:


> I can not agree to this in general. I've seen people regularly aroundhere driving new cars, simply because they lease them for 4 years, then get a new one.



Without the minority of people wasting money leasing cars there wouldn't be cheap cars for the rest of us.

I'm not sure I'd buy a second hand tv


----------



## tbb043 (Dec 6, 2018)

VR will always fail so long as you have to put goofy shit on your face. Forget "trying" it and all the germs spreading that entails (particularly at this time of year) or the smelly disinfectant sprays too close to you in a store display, they're just uncomfortable and awkward. Get them from headsets to something more the size of glasses and you might get people to use it.

3d, meh, other than 3ds just another cyclical fad that Hollywood had a hard on for to try and squeeze out higher prices at the theater without actually "raising the price" just adding an extra fee.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 6, 2018)

With cheap sets like the PSVR the barrier for entry has never been lower and it's reflected in sales figures. I think Rift and Vive are doing this wrong - it's nice to have a premium headset, but dedicating a room as a VR space is not something people want to do. They should aim a little lower and slash prices, just like Sony did. As for 3D screens, they went the way of the dodo bird and I'm not too bothered about that, the tech was gimmicky anyways.


----------



## nando (Dec 6, 2018)

how about them curved televisions?


----------



## Xzi (Dec 6, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> With cheap sets like the PSVR the barrier for entry has never been lower and it's reflected in sales figures. I think Rift and Vive are doing this wrong - it's nice to have a premium headset, but dedicating a room as a VR space is not something people want to do. They should aim a little lower and slash prices, just like Sony did. As for 3D screens, they went the way of the dodo bird and I'm not too bothered about that, the tech was gimmicky anyways.


Low cost of entry is fine, but I have to disagree on room-scale.  VR HMDs aren't a simple replacement for your monitor and shouldn't be treated as such.  You lose out on a lot of the appeal of VR by sitting still faced forward with a standard controller in hand.  At that point you really might as well have a 3D TV instead.

I realize not everybody has the space for full room-scale play, but 360 degree tracked standing play still needs to be a standard feature.  That's the one area that PSVR fails hard in.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Low cost of entry is fine, but I have to disagree on room-scale.  VR HMDs aren't a simple replacement for your monitor and shouldn't be treated as such.  You lose out on a lot of the appeal of VR by sitting still faced forward with a standard controller in hand.  At that point you really might as well have a 3D TV instead.
> 
> I realize not everybody has the space for full room-scale play, but 360 degree tracked standing play still needs to be a standard feature.  That's the one area that PSVR fails hard in.


You have to take step 1 before you take step 6. First you need to get a headset in the living room, then you can expect people to buy upgrades and transform their house. Right now they're not asking people to give it a try, they're asking them to lunge off a cliff in hopes of content coming later. With PSVR I can just play on my couch, I don't need a dozen satellites, special controllers or any other assorted nonsense, that's a good point of entry. Vive and Rift setups aren't, they're prohibitively expensive on top of inconvenient. Budget version of the Rift and Vive would do wonders in spreading the trend, that breeds demand, and demand sells premium sets. Starting with the premium just limits the appeal, people already aren't sure if they'll like it or not, they're not going to drop half a grand and redesign their house for the vague promise of immersion.

Sitting down play is nothing like a 3D screen - you can actually look around, which is the entire point of VR. Standing up play is great, but it's expensive to implement and you're better off treating all the satellite sensors as add-ons, not a core part of the set.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 6, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> You have to take step 1 before you take step 6. First you need to get a headset in the living room, then you can expect people to buy upgrades and transform their house. Right now they're not asking people to give it a try, they're asking them to lunge off a cliff in hopes of content coming later. With PSVR I can just play on my couch, I don't need a dozen satellites, special controllers or any other assorted nonsense, that's a good point of entry. Vive and Rift setups aren't, they're prohibitively expensive on top of inconvenient. Budget version of the Rift and Vive would do wonders in spreading the trend, that breeds demand, and demand sells premium sets. Starting with the premium just limits the appeal, people already aren't sure if they'll like it or not, they're not going to drop half a grand and redesign their house for the vague promise of immersion.


This is a lot of exaggeration.  Nobody needs to re-design their house to put down a couple of tracking devices which are like 2-3 square inches, and Sony really missed out because they could've had one wired tracker you place on top of the console, and one wireless tracker you place behind you.

Vive and Rift haven't been "prohibitively expensive" for some time now, either.  They're as cheap as $300 in sales, while PSVR sits at $200.  An extra $100 for a pair of proper VR controllers and trackers is definitely worth the price.  The only prohibitive cost to PC VR is the PC itself, but that's a whole other set of considerations given that PCs are modular and upgradable, while a new generation of consoles drops every 4-5 years and will definitely give you worse image quality/FPS in VR regardless.

When it comes down to it these are two separate markets anyway.  Enthusiasts who value the quality of the experience and the ability to customize it over price considerations, and casual gamers who want a plug and play option with some key features stripped out.


----------



## thorasgar (Dec 6, 2018)

You don’t need a 12’x12’ play space for VR and there are only a few games that can utilize that kind space anyway.  A 5x6’ space is just fine, just enough to be able to spin around with your arms out and take a couple of steps left or right.  All I needed to do was take move a bookshelf and file cabinet out of my office room and I have a 7x8’ area to work with.  Move a chair or coffee table temporarily and most living room/family rooms have plenty of space. 

Lots of people have 5.1 and 7.1 sound systems in their living room and they either fished the walls or ran some wiremold over the cables.  What is 3 little additional sensors? 

This is not as hard as many make it out to be.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> This is a lot of exaggeration.  Nobody needs to re-design their house to put down a couple of tracking devices which are like 2-3 square inches, and Sony really missed out because they could've had one wired tracker you place on top of the console, and one wireless tracker you place behind you.
> 
> Vive and Rift haven't been "prohibitively expensive" for some time now, either.  They're as cheap as $300 in sales, while PSVR sits at $200.  An extra $100 for a pair of proper VR controllers and trackers is definitely worth the price.  The only prohibitive cost to PC VR is the PC itself, but that's a whole other set of considerations given that PCs are modular and upgradable, while a new generation of consoles drops every 4-5 years and will definitely give you worse image quality/FPS in VR regardless.
> 
> When it comes down to it these are two separate markets anyway.  Enthusiasts who value the quality of the experience and the ability to customize it over price considerations, and casual gamers who want a plug and play option with some key features stripped out.


Not sure where you're getting those sales but here in the UK the basic Rift set is £399, the Vive is £499 and the Vive Pro is £1299, meanwhile the PSVR was £179 on Black Friday and now it's £229 with 5 games in a bundle (Astrobot + Doom VR + Skyrim VR + Wipeout + PSVR Worlds) and 1 extra game, either Resident Evil or Superhot. It's not even a contest in terms of value.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 6, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Not sure where you're getting those sales but here in the UK the basic Rift set is £399, the Vive is £499 and the Vive Pro is £1299, meanwhile the PSVR was £179 on Black Friday and now it's £229 with 5 games in a bundle (Astrobot + Doom VR + Skyrim VR + Wipeout + PSVR Worlds) and 1 extra game, either Resident Evil or Superhot. It's not even a contest in terms of value.


It's definitely not a contest since the Move controllers are absolute trash compared to the accuracy of Vive controllers.  And the image quality of the Samsung Odyssey+ HMD ($300 this last Black Friday) is a lot better than PSVR or Vive/Rift.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> It's definitely not a contest since the Move controllers are absolute trash compared to the accuracy of Vive controllers.  And the image quality of the Samsung Odyssey+ HMD ($300 this last Black Friday) is a lot better than PSVR or Vive/Rift.


I'm not saying that the Rift or the Vive aren't better - they are, but the initial investment is too large and too demanding on the user to opt for it. Cheap VR that's "good enough" has to popularise the platform first, and that's the shortcoming of PC VR - the only cheap alternatives are knock-offs made of Chinesium materials that nobody's ever heard of, ones only found online, and of dubious quality and compatibility. A $200 budget Vive or Rift would make a killing, people can upgrade later once they get a taste of VR.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 6, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> I'm not saying that the Rift or the Vive aren't better - they are, but the initial investment is too large and too demanding on the user to opt for it. Cheap VR that's "good enough" has to popularise the platform first, and that's the shortcoming of PC VR - the only cheap alternatives are knock-offs made of Chinesium materials that nobody's ever heard of, ones only found online, and of dubious quality and compatibility. A $200 budget Vive or Rift would make a killing, people can upgrade later once they get a taste of VR.


That's assuming anyone is impressed enough with entry-level VR to put more money into it, though.  My concern is that people will try out phone VR and assume that's the pinnacle of the technology.  Your average consumer isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, and VR being harder to demo than other gaming tech just exacerbates the issue.


----------



## raxadian (Dec 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's assuming anyone is impressed enough with entry-level VR to keep investing in it, though.  My concern is that people will try out phone VR and assume that's the pinnacle of the technology.  Your average consumer isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, and VR being harder to demo than other gaming tech just exacerbates the issue.




But if every smartphone or at least most of them can use entry level VR that's a huge market to exploit.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> That's assuming anyone is impressed enough with entry-level VR to keep investing in it, though.  My concern is that people will try out phone VR and assume that's the pinnacle of the technology.  Your average consumer isn't exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, and VR being harder to demo than other gaming tech just exacerbates the issue.


Around here this problem was solved by the resurgence of arcades. There are game stores with VR stations, they charge a small entry fee and every customer is free to try the sets out. Once the consumer tries it out and learns that they can have the same experience at home, you've made the first step.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 6, 2018)

raxadian said:


> But if every smartphone or at least most of them can use entry level VR that's a huge market to exploit.


Not really, as many are going to be unimpressed by the lack of controllers, poor tracking, and poor image quality.  Phone HMDs are like $20-$30 and phone apps are expected to be free or damn close to it, so software quality suffers too.  Until someone finds a magic loophole which makes VR rendering a lot less demanding on hardware, phone VR is going to keep being somewhat detrimental to the VR market as a whole IMO.


----------



## Magnus87 (Dec 6, 2018)

People want eighth generation experiences in Virtual Reality but it is in a "second generation".
It's like asking an NES for games the size of PS3.


----------



## Foxi4 (Dec 6, 2018)

Xzi said:


> Not really, as many are going to be unimpressed by the lack of controllers, poor tracking, and poor image quality.  Phone HMDs are like $20-$30 and phone apps are expected to be free or damn close to it, so software quality suffers too.  Until someone finds a magic loophole which makes VR rendering a lot less demanding on hardware, phone VR is going to keep being somewhat detrimental to the VR market as a whole IMO.


Lowering expectations is the magic loophole. 4K is great, 2x2K is "good enough". And then there's RTX taking a lot of the grunt work off CUDA cores in terms of the nitty gritty of lighting and reflections, that will give VR a boost.


----------



## Xzi (Dec 6, 2018)

Foxi4 said:


> Lowering expectations is the magic loophole. 4K is great, 2x2K is "good enough". And then there's RTX taking a lot of the grunt work off CUDA cores in terms of the nitty gritty of lighting and reflections, that will give VR a boost.


We're talking about people who have no expectations because it's their first experience with VR.  In general I think they're still going to be disappointed by phone VR, but if their first experience is high-end PC VR, they're likely to be blown away.


----------



## Treeko (Dec 6, 2018)

The industry needs to set a standard before trying to delve into new technology, VR was doomed from the beginning when companies like htc started making 3-4 different kinds of sets for a more "premium" option for VR, let alone the costs of maintaining a "good enough" pc to try out a new fad, the best approach for me was from sony, a cheap and easy entry into the VR technology, I loved the experience I had with RE7 on psvr, probably the best gaming experience I've had in a long time, but the problem now is that the technology is way too taxing to develop for, way too many variables that can effect someones experience negatively, that alone pushes people away, it lacks the consistency that normal gaming provides, I called VR a fad from the beginning even though the technology for tech savvy people is very interesting, it lacks the appeal for the masses which always meant it would have a short lived life, VR, xbox kinect, 3D gaming, you can all rest in peace in your corner of cool but unnecessary fads.


----------



## phalk (Dec 6, 2018)

3D yeah.
VR is dying but somewhat alive.


----------



## urherenow (Dec 6, 2018)

both the Oculus Rift and the Vive still sell pretty well. I just bought one myself, although I can't use it until later this month when I finally get home to Japan (where my desktop is... my laptop can't use the Rift...)

Oculus Go, although not quite the same as playing full-fledged PC games, is fairly new and also selling well because it's cheap. More and more malls have these single ride/game kiosks popping up, almost all exclusively using the Rift. No, VR is certainly not dead. Even if all else eventually fails, PORN WILL KEEP IT ALIVE! 

And face it: 99.999% of people who don't own a VR headset, don't keep tabs on the Oculus Store OR Steam VR. If you did, this wouldn't even be a question.


----------



## Delerious (Dec 6, 2018)

phalk said:


> 3D yeah.
> VR is dying but somewhat alive.



3D is pretty much dead everywhere but in movie theaters.

Interest in VR certainly has died down, but don't think it's entirely dying, so much as it's remaining stagnant. For good reason, too, since the tech is not especially where it needs to be at to captivate audiences and keep developers interested in investing, both of which go hand-in-hand. The cost of VR for PC is not exactly cheap. PSVR is generally pretty affordable, but most console players buy consoles because they're affordable, and tacking on another ~200-300 bucks for peripherals that aren't going to be used for a whole lot of games isn't exactly a worthwhile investment. Maybe in another decade, things will be better, with better and more affordable tech. But right now VR is still very much in its infancy. I imagine interest will slowly creep back up over time, but that upward creep probably won't start happening for another few years as tech finally starts to look more promising while also becoming more minimalist this terms of the amount/size of the equipment.


----------



## aofelix (Dec 6, 2018)

VR has not failed at all.
I have a Rift and it provides my best GAMING moments.


----------



## gudenau (Dec 7, 2018)

The Vive pro came out recently, also had new lighthouses added since that.


----------



## DrkBeam (Dec 7, 2018)

Well, there is a 3ds, as well with movies in theaters, and vr has 3d , so 3d has more appeal.
They were fads like the kinect and 2.0, ps move, and motion  Controllers, if vr goes mainstream after another boom in interest, it need to be practical, affordable and self sufficient,  optional accessories always fall under popularity after some time,  it needs popular games too, but right now, is tailored to enthusiasts market.


----------



## MENTALDOMINANCE (Dec 7, 2018)

*I think it's absolutely stupid that companies purposely killed 3D!
*
The new HD specs (4k,UHD,etc.) do not even contain 3D capabilities!
They could have done it easy and been ready for the 48fps 3D stuff which is coming soon.
James Cameron is considering high frame rate for the Avatar sequels and Peter Jackson already did the last Hobbit in 48fps 3D.
I saw Hobbit in the theater. I can't stand the movies but I went to check out the new format as it was the only way to see 48fps 3D.
It was _not_ very impressive, it looked awful. However, maybe Cameron will figure out how to make it work in the future.
All I know is, it was stupid to not include 3D in the new UHD format. Absolutely STUPID!

I love my 3D TV. I think 3D looks amazing when done properly.
The unfortunate thing is, they started post-converting 2D films to 3D and the market became glutted with sub-par crap.
They didn't keep the standards high enough and they didn't market it properly.
Many people were confused, they didn't understand why some stuff looked amazing and other things looked terrible.
Furthermore, many of these people only saw the terrible stuff and wrote off the format without giving it a further chance and discovering the awesome stuff.
It was so mishandled, and then it seems they purposely killed it off. What other reason to not even include 3D in the new UHD specification?

As for VR, I believe one of the main reasons it has not taken off is it's simply too expensive!
_WAAAAYY too expensive!!!_ Not only do you need to buy the VR gear, you need a killer CPU, lots of ram and a killer graphics card.
Then you need to buy all the extras that you thought you could do without as well, like the controllers, motion sensors, cameras and all that crap.

They're also trying to kill the format in a similar way they did with 3D by releasing sub-par versions as well.
Not only do we have all the horrid cel phone based so-called VR setups which will confuse people, but we also have cheap low end models of certain VR setups being sold as well.
So someone who doesn't have all the money in the world will invest in one of these lame setups and be disappointed, not realizing they could have waited and saved up their money
for a few more months and actually got a real good setup. I'm an expert with technology and it takes me quite a bit of research to catch up on VR gear and all the evolving tech.
I can't imagine how hard it would be for the average Joe. No wonder most people just buy PSVR and play on console, which is sad, as VIVE and OCULUS are the best.

However, I believe the #1 reason VR has not taken off is due to lack of a killer app!
If there was a must-have VR game or app, people would buy the gear for that game or app!
They simply don't exist. Yeah, I'm sure there are some good VR games but there is no killer app, like a Mario or Zelda game is to Nintendo systems.
Most of the VR stuff I've seen almost seems like homebrew, like they're just satisfied with getting something working in VR but they aren't really being innovative with it.
I want a game that's fun and uses the VR in a way which is creative, addictive and literately can not be played_ outside_ of VR.

- MD -


----------



## orangy57 (Dec 7, 2018)

just waiting patiently for HLVR


----------



## Hells Malice (Dec 7, 2018)

VR never entered the mainstream, which is effectively the requirement to become commonplace. It's still sitting too high for average consumers to buy and use the technology. But it's doing just fine where it is. It's thriving, and lots of very cool games have come out to show what VR is capable of.

It's still early, and with the technology being so fresh it's not hard to understand why devs creating "big" titles for VR may be taking a more cautious approach to try and properly utilize the technology. Plenty i'm sure are also waiting for a bigger boom before they jump in. But as it stands it has done very well for itself. As I said before, seeing two giants like Google and Microsoft endorse and support such a movement is a strong indication they believe and understand the capabilities of VR, and that we're more than capable of realizing them.

As for 3D by itself, that has always just been a fad that swings in and out. It doesn't contribute a whole lot and is a very difficult tech to create for. I don't really forsee 3D monitors really being a big thing any time soon.


----------



## FAST6191 (Dec 7, 2018)

urherenow said:


> people who don't own a VR headset, don't keep tabs on the Oculus Store OR Steam VR. If you did, this wouldn't even be a question.



Is that not much like saying if you had trawled moddb, X3 forums... then you would not have said space sims were dead between 2003 and 2014?


----------



## urherenow (Dec 7, 2018)

FAST6191 said:


> Is that not much like saying if you had trawled moddb, X3 forums... then you would not have said space sims were dead between 2003 and 2014?


Probably. I don’t play SIMs, so I couldn’t make an intelligent comment on the subject. VR, however has always been interesting to me. I still see stores sold out of the Rift a lot, and good luck getting extra sensors for it anywhere but online... I only waited this long because $600 when it was introduced was too damn much. $350 now, and it seems I’m not the only one who thinks it’s worth it. And, there is a steady stream of new content.


----------



## johnboyjr (Dec 7, 2018)

Just wait for Oculus quest


----------



## aofelix (Dec 8, 2018)

I think VR's main issue is big studios apart from Bethesda not actively supporting it with VR ports of their games. 

A good VR port of a title is guaranteed around 1M sales I'd say which they may just think isn't enough. However as VR expands, that title will still be very relavant and pick up a very steady stream of VR revenue. 

For example, anyone buying a VR headset in 2-3 years time is DEFINITELY going to pick up Skyrim VR & Beat Saber & Lone Echo etc. They're just classics. Much alike how Nintendo will never need to price cut BOTW, Mario Kart, Smash Bros or Odyssey  [until the generation ends]. 

A few developers are definitely missing a trick in not investing in VR ports of their games now. 



------
From an indie perspective, developers are doing great jobs at experimenting with the tech but they're not solid enough in Art direction/Lore/Character Design/Story; which sadly severely lack in a lot of smaller VR titles. If you want to build a top tier franchise, you need these things and it can compensate for being a crap game (I mean look at Uncharted 1 and how bad the platforming and performance is). 


-----



Still, VR offers some of the BEST gaming experiences of ALL time.



Superhot VR - the most interactive and awesome shooter ever... basically you are a character in the matrix. Be prepared to Smash walls
Gorn - please mind furniture 
Skyrim VR - IMO, the best RPG experience on the PC given you can mod it to hell and back, and import some AWARD winning DLC from amazing modders
Resident Evil 7 VR - the scariest experience I've had so far. Still haven't completed it. 
Astrobot - the Mario of VR. 
Firewall Zero Hour  - the most fun and intimate online shooter I've played
Lone Echo - no words needed
Robo Recall 
Beat Saber  - the most fun interactive rhythm game whilst training to be a jedi
The Climb - now THIS is platforming
Space Pirate Trainer - better than every single arcade game in pancake/2D form


I can go on but basically, I believe SOME of the best experiences now reside in VR. The best horror game is a VR game. The best single player shortish experience is a VR game. The best arcade game is a VR game. The best rhythm game/experience is a VR game. The best shooter especially in regards to immersion is a VR game. The best wave shooter is a VR gamer.

There is a big difference between pressing triangle and grabbing a shotgun physically from behind your shoulder with one arm whilst withdrawing a pistol from your holster in a another and then physically shooting someone.  Or grabbing a robot from the head and ripping it apart [Robo Recall].

Similarly in SkyrimVR PC, being able to say summon flames and then flames come in your hand and point them in any direction is WAYYY better than having to get open up the menu and equip it. Also I have a 65 inch TV and seeing a dragon on there was a tiny bit daunting.. but seeing a big ass dragon infront of your face is a completely different experience


-----
Some genres are obviously NOT meant for VR. Games like Divinity Origin Sin 2, Witcher 3 (third person games), Tactical RPGs, Football manager will probably always be better in 2D unless a very smart game developer can find tangible benefits to porting it to VR. 



----- 
Limitations are graphics and price.

I think the graphics are a non-issue. I would prefer a VR game to a 4k game. I have an RTX 2080, a PS4 Pro so I like 4k gaming... but I'd take a VR port of a title over a 4k experience any day. 




----
In conclusion, I don't see how VR is dead at all. Its just very inaccessible  due to price and room requirements; hopefully Oculus will eventually fix that as they like to price their hardware very comfortably with a lot  of software optimisation for weaker PCs and game bundles [the Current rift comes with like 8 games??? and ASW on a Rift works really well which means u can 45fps and feel like its around 90] 





3D is dead tho.


----------



## Taleweaver (Dec 11, 2018)

Interesting topic (on VR, that is). And as someone who has yet to experience it, it's hard to give an opinion. So take this with a grain of salt.


My main problem is my desktop PC is _just _below the minimum specs for either. And that poses more than a personal problem. PC gaming got big on systems that also benefit work. Basically: gamers wanted to upgrade their PC saying that it was for work-related things. Potential gamers tried some games on their machine and sticked longer than they intended to. Unfortunately: laptops (and even tablets) have surpassed that. Plain old office workers simply have no reason to buy a dektop PC with the horsepower that a vive or oculus needs, which means the cost of entry is larger than "just" the device. It's the device AND a computer.
I'm fairly sure I'll upgrade PC's once this one wears down (which...admittedly takes years longer than back in the nineties  ), and...no, sorry: I'm lying. Yes, some games look pretty fun to play. But the problem can be described in 3 letters: wii. Yes, I know: these things are miles and miles above the wii. The problem is that technology isn't why the wii "thing" wore off. When it comes down to it, gamers are lazy as fuck. I remembered the first time I took my wii to friends and the son just "flicked" the wiimote rather than bowling: all of the sudden it felt embarrassing making bowling moves on wii sports. 
Likewise: it's only in commercials that a rainbow coalition of friends stands in awe as one robocop-geared guy spasms around to make something change on a television screen.

Now...sony at least has the right idea: it needs to be cheaper and plug & play. My nephews got one for st Nicolas a week back, so I might see it in action in a few weeks. they're enthusiast about it, but of course: that's children for you.

Either way: I think at worst, VR has "not succeeded yet". VR is this dream that's been thought up since the mid nineties. Technology has increased to a position where actual uses start to pop up (like virtual tours in musea). Perhaps that is the sort of innovation that will make VR really mainstream. I mean...about half a year ago, my girlfriend and me visited a technology park/playground thing. One of the few things that had a queue was a virtual reality parachute glide. The line would've been considered long even if everything had queues. in other words: people were willing to forego about a dozen other things, just to try out that virtual reality thing. So it's not like there isn't any interest in it. It's just not within reach (mostly meaning: too expensive).




On 3D, I can be short: be more specific. 3D in games is as standard as it can get. The 3D effect on the 3DS was a fad that has worn out. And the 3D on televisions is something I leave to movie fanatics (I have honestly no idea on that).


----------

