​

Once again E3 has come and gone, and we’ve had time to digest some of the year’s biggest gaming highlights. One aspect that stands out is that the major gaming companies seem to be investing heavily on a technology in particular. Yes, you’ve guess it; Virtual Reality. About a year ago, as part of my first editorial I wrote an article about VR and the future of gaming and boy, has the scene evolved since! As such, it inspired me to write a followup on the current state of VR, what has changed since and what needs to be changed.

​

We’ve moved from the Oculus’ DK2 to actual (not cheap, $599) retail hardware, the Microsoft Hololens is now shipping its dev edition, Valve reportedly has a third (!) of its employees engaged in VR and more prominent figures are jumping into this newly found reality. These efforts seem to bring the technology to a wider audience, giving shape to John Carmack’s prediction on the matter that VR technology requires at least a billion users to take off.

​

We’ve now passed the stage of demos and concepts to actual, full-blown games many of which have been released (Chronos is a thing now!) and many more exciting titles are around the corner. Even renowned titles like Resident Evil and Final Fantasy are integrating the technology in their next title.

​

All of these aspects sound fascinating and indeed promising on paper. Or in writing, for that matter. However, one thing that most of us are not discussing about is the inevitable hazards that accompany VR gaming. Maybe not enough gamers have experienced it to voice it out or maybe it’s just us practicing the ostrich policy in favor of the much coveted immersive gaming. This lack of focus on VR hazards (VzaRds?) is actually concerning, considering the serious impact it can potentially have on our health and the industry itself. Forget tripping over wires or punching the wall or hitting your head on furniture. There are more pressing issues.

The problem at hand is VR sickness. Similar to motion sickness and seasickness, the mechanism behind VR sickness lies in the inconsistencies between the visual and vestibular systems. In virtual reality, however, "the brain is expecting everything to be in sync, but things are not in sync,” says Mayank Mehta, a neuroscientist at UCLA studying the effects virtual reality exposure on the brain; the virtual world is "incomplete.” And you most likely know what ensues; headache, nausea, which culminate into emptying your stomach’s content. Now with titles like Resident Evil 7, you can literally puke and soil your pants at the same time. Sounds funny in writing but understandably horrible to experience, and not an inviting one at that. Such side effects may effectively turn-off your VR-gasm, ward off potential adopters and on a global scale, not a lucrative investment for gaming companies.

However, the major concern is that when it comes to understanding VR’s effects on the brain, scientists "don’t really know what’s going on". That’s basically what Mayank Mehta confessed in a Live Science interview. Recent studies of lab rats at the UCLA Keck Center for Neurophysics have revealed negative side effects including "cybersickness" and abnormal patterns of activity in rat brains, including 60 percent of neurons that simply shut down in virtual reality environments. How bad is this? "We don't know the long-term consequences," Mehta says. If a new technology’s influence on our biology isn’t totally clear, and has even showed side-effects, doesn’t it call for wariness? "I would say this is reason for caution, not business-as-usual," Mehta advises.

Speaking of business, what about the financial aspect of VR? Quite literally, it is an investment from the part of the gamer, costing almost as much as current-gen consoles, not to mention that you need one to enjoy high-end VR. Take a look at the infographic below:

The cheapest way to VR high end as of now (soon) is the PSVR. However, with only a bunch of games available at launch, does it justify investing in an add-on? Moreover, the lack of cross-play could hinder the growth of the VR in terms of fanbase. VR gamers are currently divided between the PSVR, Oculus Rift and Vive and soon, the XBox’s own VR will join the race and possibly Nintendo too! If you own more than one current-gen console/PC, your investment goes up and up if you you want to experience VR on each. Thankfully, Oculus recently ditched its DRM check so you don’t need both Oculus and Vive for your PC… Oh and what about Project Socrpio’s VR? That too shall have a dedicated headset? My, my! The prospect of all those spending might drive gamers away from embracing those headsets altogether or more viciously, set up breeding grounds for piracy...

​

Nonetheless, the side-effects of VR gaming are known and some steps have been taken to make the user experience more enjoyable. Some of these measures include restricting the time spent with VR headsets, lengthy disclaimers à la Samsung Gear VR and increasing the screen’s refresh rate. These are hopefully early signs of improvement in this mostly unknown industry.

VR has, and will, undeniably influence the way we game for years to come. But high headset price, known side effects and basically venturing in uncharted areas, could these mean a short lifetime of such a promising gaming method? Do these foretell a similar fate to yesteryear’s popular self-igniting “hoverboards”? Most likely not. Gamers have been dreaming of such immersive gaming ever since gaming was a thing. And they won’t let go of such an anticipated gaming experience. At its core, the aim of gaming is to have fun and if VR is the new way to game, then the whole experience has to be an enjoyable one. Allow extended periods of play, remove the nausea-inducing causes and lower the entry-point costs, then it’ll readily be adopted. Else, only those who can afford VR headsets and make do with the side effects will adopt it and create a gaming community segregated into the VR haves and have-nots... Okay. That’s too apocalyptic of a scenario, but you get the gist.

________________________
​

As a final note, if you are curious about this article’s title, it’s an anagram for "Virtual Reality", as is "fed us its 'real’ touch" for "Oculus Rift headset" but also "caused truth of lies”. Which one will it be, or more verbosely, what will you make of it?

 

[HaloEliteLegend]

A gimmick and a fad. Give it a few years and it will be as relevant as kinect or waggle controls.

I think we saw something similar with the 3DTV fad. Remember all those games that started having 3D support, and all those 3D Vision monitors, and those 3D Blu-Ray players? That all went awry pretty fast. I'm kinda scared to admit that VR may be heading down that path, since I think VR is quite cool and has some cool uses. Only time will tell, I suppose. Also, it's sometimes quite hard to tell a fad/gimmick from something that'll stay for a long, long time. Television itself used to be considered a fad and a gimmick, with people saying no one would have time to sit and stare at a screen. Even 1080p screens were fads, just like 4K screens are nowadays.

 

[Prans]

@leon315 *cough*easiest way is through Google Cardboard*cough*

_________________
​

@Cyan VR is indeed a way to game that has been longed-for by many considering its "immersiveness" and very often depicted in sci-fi movies as the future of gaming. It's still in its early stages and has yet to be adopted globally but with major companies backing it, it shouldn't be too late before they bring it to the mass. But then again, some downsides have to be addressed beforehand. Guess only time will tell how VR will fare, as @HaloEliteLegend put it.

 

[supergamer368]

Am I the only one here waiting for Virtual reality and headsets for 20 years?

Of course it's "just screen in front of your eyes", that's what VR is....
that's what it is, and what I wanted for a long time. I tried it 20 years ago and it was very bad. I can now see the potential and hope it won't end like virtual boy. It's up to end users and developers to make it a reality (hint )

VIRTUAL BOY *shudders*

 

[dimmidice]

As a final note, if you are curious about this article’s title, it’s an anagram for "Virtual Reality", as is "fed us its 'real’ touch" for "Oculus Rift headset" but also "caused truth of lies”. Which one will it be, or more verbosely, what will you make of it?

i only now saw this bit. it's completely unreadable to me. what does that even mean?

 

[Prans]

i only now saw this bit. it's completely unreadable to me. what does that even mean?

Well an anagram is a rearrangement of the letters of a word or phrase. (Keep in mind that I did not make them up myself) For "Virtual Reality", "Arty, Ultra, Evil, I" as a title is a deconstruction of the new gaming method, showing what it can be "arty" for artistic, "Ultra" can be applied to the other words to lay emphasis, "evil" as a negative connotation and "I" as in the end it is up to you to make what you want of it. As for "Oculus Rift headset", "fed us its 'real’ touch" sort of means that it allowed people to enter a new "reality", "feeding" us with this reality's new touch or "caused truth of lies" here can imply that it did not live up to its expectations. But it's too early to decide on the latter, so we're free to make our own speculations.

 

[TehCupcakes]

I received a Samsung Gear VR thanks to a promotion when I bought my Galaxy S7. After experiencing it, I now understand a bit better what VR is about and where we stand. Now keep in mind, the Gear VR is definitely low-end compared to the other options... But even still, I think VR is here to stay.

Why?
Well first of all, let's look at similar technology that has failed to take off.

First, Virtual Boy. Do a search for snapshots of Virtual Boy games. Now search for SNES screenshots. The graphics here pretty much say it all. Keep in mind that the Super Nintendo was released 4 years before Virtual Boy. You can see what a drastic downgrade it would have been in regards to graphics, so no wonder consumers didn't buy into it. Graphics aren't everything, granted, but consider what VR is all about: immersion. Realistic graphics play a BIG part in bringing an immersive gaming experience.

Second, 3D TVs. A few of the biggest arguments against 3D TVs was the high initial cost, limited content, and the need for special glasses. In particular, this makes watching 3D TV difficult in social situations. If you are a single individual with lots of disposable money, 3D might be for you; but if you plan to watch TV with a group of people, it's not exactly practical. In contrast, 3D movies are still VERY popular at movie theaters. The best explanation I have for this is that consumers see the value in 3D content, so long as they do not have to throw away the social aspect; and since the movie theater pays for all the glasses, everyone can watch together without a problem.

Our third and final point of reference will be the Amazon Fire phone. This phone uses multiple cameras to track your head/eye position and adjusts the field of view dynamically. It's a pretty nifty feature that sounds an awful lot like VR, but it was pretty much written off as a gimmick and Amazon had to massively discount their phones to get rid of left over stock. What crime did this smartphone to commit to be so dejected, you ask? It wasn't different enough. (You could even argue that this is part of the problem with 3D TVs, as well.) I can do all of the same things on an Amazon Fire tablet or an Android smartphone, minus the dynamic perspective which just comes off as a "bonus" and not really a game-changer; it doesn't change the way you interact, just what you see. This phone was competing with a market that is already flooded with options, and as a phone it just failed to surpass the heavy competition from Apple, HTC, Samsung, and other competing phone designers.

So how is this wave of VR any different? Well for one, the graphical quality is up-to-par with everything else that is on the market. PC-based VR devices are only limited by the power of modern graphics card, which means they will continue to see improved performance as graphics cards improve over the years. The only way it could fall short here is if PC technology ceased to continue improving, but you'd be a fool to think that will happen any time soon. VR also provides not only 3D images, but a 360-degree range of view. You've probably seen a few 360-degree videos on youtube or Facebook if you're tech-savvy, and you've certainly seen 3D images on a flat-screen... But combining the two together provides a wow-factor that one feature alone cannot achieve. It feels more real. You actually have precise control over what piece of the VR-world you are looking at, and you see it with amazing depth perception.
One of the biggest hurdles, however, is the social aspect of VR. Putting a giant screen 2 inches from your face kind of blocks out the real world, so it could be seen as an activity only for solitude... But almost ironically, VR allows us to connect with people in a way we never have before. Just as video games have been criticized for being "anti-social", we are brought together by shared experiences. Even in its infancy, there are some VR apps that allow you to move around a virtual space and interact with the avatars of other real-life people who are also playing in VR. This experience will only be amplified as technology develops and we add on physical movement detection to our VR-capabilities.
The way we interact with games is changed by VR, even if we have only begun to see what this means. For example, moving your head and using your eyes to aim is a completely different feeling from moving a thumbstick. It's even different enough from the gyroscope features many are familiar with in smartphones and the Wii U. Augmented reality has a lot of potential for blending games into the real world, and that changes the way we interact with games whether the very first games of this type are amazing or not. As with all things, they will continue to be refined over time, and there is no reason for VR to fade away when there is plenty of room for future improvement. Motion controls carried the Wii to success, and it's easy to see how they can adapt well to the VR-space for a more realistic experience. Imagine how much better Pokemon Go would be if you had to actually find the Pokemon at a precise location in a yard, tree, bush, building... This is not a reality for VR yet because of limited portability, but it certainly is a potential development for the future.
Let's not forget: VR is competing in a new space, not directly against existing video games. Smartphones proved that there is room for an additional source and style of gaming because it appeals in different ways than a traditional console does. VR also appeals in a new way, even if not everybody can justify the purchase right now. There are always early adopters with every kind of new technology. It will take some time to work its way into mainstream, but all the signs are there that it will continue to grow, especially since there are multiple companies competing to be the best and outperform each other. (Competition drives improvement.)

And that concludes my rant. I'm sure there are all kinds of points and arguments that I have left out. Sure, the cost of entrance is an inhibitor, but let's assume that will go down over time. I think these reasons are enough to show that this is not just another fad that will go away. Which VR platform is the best? Well, that's anybody's guess. In fact, it may be that none of the current ones ever becomes wildly successful, but what's important is that they exist to pave the way for what will be in the future.

 

[Prans]

Thanks a lot for your thorough input @TehCupcakes! I found it really interesting the way you compared other "failed" technologies and why they met such an end.

It's especially true that VR is competing in a new space, so it has no limits and we can't even fathom how this technology will evolve, which makes it all the more interesting to be witnessing this in real time.

 

[AyanamiRei0]

You gotta have that free Xbox One controller.