I haven't tried the new VR (back in the day I tried playing Doom on some kind of VR goggles in a fair, but it was shit, like playing Doom through inverted binoculars or something), but I feel:

- Probably allows more immersion in 3D games, so could certainly be interesting in some flight sims, space combat games, many FPS games or first person RPGs etc.

- I don't like the idea of keeping small LED screens (or whatever they are) very close to my eyes for hours every day.

- I think my wife would find me a super-dork if I donned a VR headset whenever I come home from work and want to relax playing something. She might even consider divorcing me. Also if some of her friends visited us, I wouldn't dare to let them see me wearing goggles; I don't mind if they see me sitting at my PC playing something.

- I want to be aware of my surroundings even when playing games, in case some darn ninja tries to assassinate me from behind or something.

- In general, I feel it takes maybe a bit too much effort to connect, power up and wear such goggles, if I just want to hop in to e.g. playing an online shooter for 30 minutes or so. It is a bit like the steering wheel and pedals system that I bought for my PC and PS2 console in order to play racing games with it: in the end I never used it with any games, not even once. I just never could be arsed to connect it and put on the table etc., meh, too much effort just to play a game...

- Since I am not that much a Steam gamer, I fear there is still too much competing VR goggle "standards", ie. some games will work with certain goggles, others with another etc. Not sure if that is settled already; I guess PS5 or Steam users don't have to think about it as they play only games on their selected platform/service.

So, yeah, I am mildly interested in trying it out, but not super keen on getting one right now. Gaming is fun even without.

I'm exactly with you on that. At least in all its current iterations, I see VR the same way that I did the 3D movies. A gimmick that may or may not catch on, but is completely unnecessary as it stands today. It would be cool if they continue developing it and see where it goes though. The same would apply to any tech really, regardless of current applications.

Tried VR myself a few times. Even briefly played a shooter. It is the type of gaming that's definitely not for me. I wouldn't even call it immersive... it's just an experience. It does not make me appreciate any game on it more, but rather highlights the deficiencies in VR as it stands today. Wonder if they ever solved the jerky camera situation, since that was always a huge problem for a lot of people (myself included).

I'm sure that if they continue investing and developing the VR tech it may give way to something truly incredible. That or go the way of 3D movies, like in my example above. At this point any improvements to strapping a toaster to my face would be welcome.

I haven't tried 'modern' VR, although it looks interesting. Although, I think it's going to stay a relatively niche gaming option for the foreseeable future, for a number of reasons (many of which have already been mentioned):

- Only a certain subset of game genres really benefit from it, which already leans it towards being a niche product.

- The inconvenience of having to put on a headset, clear space around you etc. to play a game. Often when I have time to play a game, I just want to flop down in a chair and relax, not have to stand up with a heavy device on my head.

- Possible health-related issues that others have pointed to.

One interesting quote I read recently is from Steven Kent's Ultimate History of Video Games, where he points out that no gaming peripheral that costs over $100 has ever had mass market success. The lowest-cost VR options are currently over that threshold, which is another factor weighing against them.

So, I think as long as VR headsets are seen as 'peripherals' and their game library is fairly niche, they will continue to struggle. Although, it might be interesting if, for example, Nintendo were to release a VR-based console where you just slot a cartridge into the headset and play. That would solve the 'peripheral' problem and would mean anyone could just buy a VR-console and play. I think something like that might be needed for VR to really take off (plus a big player like Nintendo going in heavy on it).

That's just more reasons to pass on VR. My house mortgage is finally below $100k. At $4k for VR, I'm going to start looking at in terms of the fact that would be half a years worth of mortgage payments plus money left over. There's also the fact that my cat is going to be 16 in May plus he has both diabetes and kidney disease.

Instead of purchasing VR, I could make a couple of mortgage payments, buy a fancy new laptop, clear out the wishlist, and set aside money for trips to the cat ER.

Should be already achievable with good enough eye-tracking to only need to render in full detail the small areas our eyes are actually focusing on, but as long as the drivers for VR glasses come with any mandatory online requirements or time limited certificate issues, I am going to stick on using traditional, more general purpose display devices.

I don't understand why we abandoned Google Cardboard as a concept. I enjoyed these when I played them, and I found a few Android apps that were awesome in VR (Doom 93 in VR was an experience I had been yearning for and I FINALLY got to experience it, and it was AWESOME). Also, Quake 1 looks great in VR.

It is accessible, inexpensive, good for short sessions. I hope it comes back sometime.

Because Google likes to start cool projects and then kill them in infancy. Either because they're evil or their estimated prognosis suggest unviability, we don't know.

Still, there are other options. I might have bought a Samsung if they kept that going, but Oculus went to Meta. I don't see why they couldn't still do VR anyway, but whatevs.

I think low-poly VR has a niche.

Like the early 90's VR, where it was lower than N64... and ran about 12 frames a second. Last i saw it was used in therapy to simulate things like height to help people overcome phobias, but i'm sure had limited potential.


Like a number of things it was probably a prototype. And you can still get google cardboard kits, i got a couple to try out. But how blurry it was says to it's limits; Though Doom and Quake i'm sure would be just fine on it :) And if you take a 3D movie and encode it to play in a lower resolution you can just put it on and watch it privately without disturbing anyone.

My personal take on VR has always been, it's a good technology, but it lacks the polish and investment that it needs to shine.

Meta is the primary cause of that state of things. They bought up Occulus with practically no future plans for the tech beyond cash in on the fad of VR. Then when that didn't pan out so well for them, despite their massive marketing push for the headset, they got desperate and started throwing everything at the wall hoping something would stick. (Cloning the Vive's lighthouses, trying to make a standalone headset using phone tech, selling infinite amounts of isolated and worthless virtual land, etc.) About the only thing Meta did succeed in was convincing shareholders that VR / AR was a blackhole for money, and convincing the public that the most heavily marketed VR product (I.e. the one they could all reference by name) was half-baked and not very useful.

Despite this, there are good VR products out there. Both on the software side (Boneworks, various RPG titles, etc.) and hardware side. (See also those hand controllers with haptic feedback some youtuber made.) When these are paired properly the experience can be far more than you could ever get with traditional gameplay methods. (I've actually found myself feeling shy walking around a crowd of unknown NPCs in RUINSMAGUS, laying on the radioactive gound looking up at the night sky in Fallout 4 and feeling a sense of wonder to the point of tears, or just having fun with proper cover tactics that many games fail to implement properly if at all.)

The problem is that it's inconsistent. There's not a steady stream of quality products coming out, and making matters worse, most of it is tied to one platform / headset without hacks and workarounds. (Don't even try to get it running under Linux unless you're willing to use Steam or not have motion tracking.) There's also no real push by headset makers to do away with the "magic wands" that are ubiquitously used all over VR / AR to retrofit button controls on an environment that was built for human hands. (I.e. They are trying to retrofit the Use key workaround made for lack of a proper 3D input device, on to an environment where said youtuber above already demonstrated a viable proper solution.) The teleporting mechanic is even worse. Because it completely breaks immersion when used, and the entire point of VR along with it. In addition to encouraging people to avoid getting used to smoother motion controls. (Don't even get me started on using a virtual keyboard with a laser pointer....) All of these problems and more lead to a product that is so inconsistent, the average person has no idea what they are going to get when they start their first VR diving session. Nor do they know what should expect from the technology. So the result is very nuanced and can often boil down to pure chance as to whether or not a newcomer to VR / AR is getting the best of what's available and the best bang for their buck.

All of this can be fixed, but it requires some standards to be established that paints VR / AR in it's best possible light for the product / platform being used. It also requires proper investment to the technology, and proper commitments to using the correct tech and design for the job. Finally it requires that the platforms be more inclusive about what products can be used with what platforms. (I.e. If I want to play a VR game I shouldn't need to avoid Linux and GOG just because VR is not available for that platform and retailer.) OpenXR is a good step in the right direction, but we need the middleware drivers to support more OSes by default, and we need more VR games available on more store fronts.

Fully agreed. My kingdom for a Holosuite.

I'm not laughing at you, but I have my doubts that the universe is going to organize itself so neatly while capital is the key of the table.

If natural altruistic and pragmatic standards were at the forefront of companies, we'd all be on fiber optics for Internet, Display, and Audio, and the standards would both be open and quite open to suggestion.

I hopped into VR in July 2019 with the Valve Index and had two experiences with VR before. One was a VR escape room, one was a presentation for a training scenario.
VR is more or less dead for me (or at least in a deep sleep) since 2021. Not because VR is bad but the fact that Facebook destroyed the market with exclusivity - an already niche market seperated even more. Instead of games like HL Alyx we got more and more N64-like games beacuse they need to run on an extended smartphone, the Quest.
Sony has neither any strategy nor interest to do something with PSVR (the second isolated VR market with exclusivity).
Companies who have the resources to make VR games aren't interested. So it's the indie scene again who is solely able to push VR.

Well, looks like Sony is not totally averse to the idea of using its PSVR 2 on PC:

https://blog.playstation.com/2024/02/22/coming-soon-to-ps-vr2-zombie-army-vr-little-cities-bigger-wanderer-the-fragments-of-fate-the-wizards-dark-times-brotherhood-and-more/

Quote: "Also, we’re pleased to share that we are currently testing the ability for PS VR2 players to access additional games on PC to offer even more game variety in addition to the PS VR2 titles available through PS5. We hope to make this support available in 2024, so stay tuned for more updates."

What's in the interest of consumers and the market as a whole? --> an open standard for VR

What's in the interest of corporations/manufacturers? --> closed/proprietary standards

Guess which one's going to win ...