So I was searching for a replacement touchscreen for a client's laptop and recalled that I had similarly not seen much from 3d displays or virtual reality companies of late. No new hardware, no games that percolated up into the public awareness (Resident Evil 7 was nearly two years ago at this point, stereoscopic games were never amazingly popular but seemed to fall off a cliff after 2012), no real buzz in any conventions or events, if I look today there are still some gaming focused vendors that list VR fairly prominently but I have to go out of my way to find 3d screens and films and so forth. Both of those technologies have been seen as fads in the past; things that rise up, only for the market, current technology or something similar to smack them back down. In this case 2012 saw a massively successful crowdfunding effort for the Oculus Rift, a couple of years later Facebook of all people purchased the company for some 2 billion, a month or two back though the second iteration of the device was cancelled, and nobody mentioned whatever the big tech company equivalent of creative differences is which leads one to wonder if it is more that it is not seen as a viable project any more. Throughout it all many other big tech firms released hardware and attached industry luminaries to it and have similarly gone somewhat quiet.

Ordinarily for a thread like this we might have a look at possible stats and some reasoning for things, however a discussion of the mindshare the likes of virtual reality and 3d displays occupy at present is what we shall seek to find and contemplate here.

While reasons are not going to be delved too deeply into did the rush to include DRM and proprietary connectors/software/features cause you concern? Did any content find itself massively improved by it? Did you invest into any VR or 3d setups, only for them to gather dust? Did you get the motion sickness some experience or were you spared that (or selectively spared that)? There are all sorts of cool things (6:45 if you want to skip) researchers are doing so is such tech likely to remain that? Is it just that it was an expensive peripheral that not everybody had? If it has failed again do you expect to see it back sooner than the usual 20 year cycle as tech just needs to get that little bit better?

This is part of series on GBAtemp where we have some discussion of aspects of the game industry, game design and related topics. Previously we discussed the last game skill you unlearned.

Spoiler: earlier editions

The game you invested the most money in, times where people said gameplay styles would not work for a platform, the value of online play, emulation vs hardware, a favoured game style that might have become less common in recent times, skills one might have learned or honed because of a game, games on the PS4 and Xbone that will stand the test of time, games that got better after launch, cancelled games and shuttered devs, and story canon in games.

You are then invited to talk some about the current state of VR as well as stereoscopic 3d in games.

 

[Xzi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

3D yeah.
VR is dying but somewhat alive.

 

[urherenow]

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]

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]

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

 

[gudenau]

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

 

[DrkBeam]

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]

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 -