VR - What are your thoughts?

[ukxenon]

I have used dk1 and dk2 and gear vr and all I can say is roll on 2016
I have the money put to one side to buy it already

 

[NirK]

Short of full-on Matrix style VR, I can't imagine anything worse.

Current VR, and the VR of the near future, is full of compromise. Whether it's bulky headsets, or only being able to look but not move, it's neither one thing nor the other.

I don't understand why you would want to move around, do you really want to play a game where you are on a treadmill walking around?

 

[Seanspeed]

I think it's more hype than substance and tbh I can't imagine how it's going to be all that good anyway whilst games still look very much like games. For instance, you're hardly going to get fooled into thinking the world of GTA V or Skyrim is real life so what's the point? and if you're just going to be sat in a chair holding controllers it's even more pointless, you might as well just play on a monitor.

Assuming graphics do eventually become lifelike, for virtual reality to become successful they're going to have to trick the whole brain into accepting it as real, not just the eyes and ears. We're really going to need some kind of interface that paralyses the human body (like sleep does) and then responds to mental stimulus such as moving your arm in the game world. I suspect that's centuries away.

This is how I feel. It's amazing the number of people who will actually attack you for voicing this sentiment.

Once again, how you feel is based on zero experience with the technology you seem to be so assured isn't actually that good. Doesn't take a wild leap of logic to conclude that mmj hasn't tried a modern VR headset, either. People that haven't always stick out like a sore thumb when they post their 'concerns'.

Anyways, to address the comments about graphics needing to look like real life to be convincing - it is not the case at all. In fact, low geometry environments with half decent lighting and shaders can create a massively convincing experience. You don't need life-like graphics for your brain to accept the world around you. The sense of scale and depth cues and the low latency of the head tracking all combine to trick your brain into saying, "Ok, yes, this is what is around me."

100% full sensory presence wont be possible til we have holodeck-style VR, but seriously, current VR is much, much more powerful than you guys realize. Our brains are softwired machines that *can* be fooled fairly easily.

I really urge you guys to take breather from the negativity til you've tried it. I don't think VR, at least in this initial form, will be for everybody, but to see people so assured of it not being anything worthwhile without having even experienced it is frustrating to see. It is like that 10 year old that refuses to try curry because he thinks it looks gross and 'knows he wont like it'.

 

[FoxEye]

I really urge you guys to take breather from the negativity til you've tried it. I don't think VR, at least in this initial form, will be for everybody, but to see people so assured of it not being anything worthwhile without having even experienced it is frustrating to see. It is like that 10 year old that refuses to try curry because he thinks it looks gross and 'knows he wont like it'.

You haven't addressed any of the concerns presented. You keep saying, "Trust me guys, this is the future". "Everybody will love it - if they try it." No, no we won't. It is most certainly not for everyone at all.

There are many, many people who can't use these things for more than 20 mins without feeling sick. This is a common complaint.

There are plenty of reports that the resolution is far too low when you put the devices up so close to your eyes. Even 1080p that close looks like ****.

There are people who don't want to control their games with motion sensing wii-like controllers.

What about people who wear prescription glasses? From what I'm reading they say you should try to wear contact lenses, because also wearing prescription glasses doesn't work so well (they're a last resort). So that's a whole group of people who aren't going to find these things so wonderful.

Plenty of us just don't want VR headsets on our heads either. Not for any length of time. For comfort reasons. For convenience reasons.

We think this is a fad, another in a long list of technological fads that were supposed to change the world. And maybe for a few select people it will. But you guys are expecting far, far too much if you think VR will become mainstream.

It doesn't even matter how good it is, really. And with that, I'm out.

 

[almoststew1990]

Oh good I didn't know this thread existed! I have a theory I'd like to share (run for cover)...

With graphics and animation of people (e.g. in games) there is the uncanny valley effect, where the closer to a realistic human you get, the more you know it isn't a real human. In games, I think this is because 10 years ago the graphics were poor and our imagination would fill in the blanks left out by the PC graphics, allowing us to get immersed in a game as our imagination can achieve total 100% human images. Now, we don't really use our imagination because the graphics are really good, so we notice where the graphics can't quite keep up a lot more, breaking immersion.

I think there is the same thing with VR and motion controls. A normal controller is nothing like the real life actions needed to shoot a dude, and is simply designed (when designed well) to minimise the amount of physical movement and thought needed to make a protagonist do something on screen. So much so, we rarely think about what buttons we're pressing, we just do it automatically, allowing us to concentrate on the game world etc, and get immersed. We open a door or relead with no thought at all.

With VR, you'll be much closer to doing the think you would be doing if it was real life, but you won't be able to do it automatically like you do in real life (e.g. opening a door). You'll need to think about it a lot more and do a large physical movement which makes you a lot more aware you're in a game and break the immersion.

Until VR can reach that 100% "real life" likeness that makes you forget you're in a game I am not sure that it is for me. And I'd also be really worried if it ever did reach that 100% likeness as the matrix would be possible so we could already be in a matrix creating another matrix

Edit- it seems I'm several months late, I'll go to bed now!

 

[Seanspeed]

You haven't addressed any of the concerns presented. You keep saying, "Trust me guys, this is the future". "Everybody will love it - if they try it." No, no we won't. It is most certainly not for everyone at all.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I even specifically said in the post you quoted that it *wont* be for everyone.

But I think you definitely need to try it before throwing around criticisms of the technology. Because you clearly don't understand it very well. I'm happy to discuss the limitations and negatives of VR with those who know what they're saying. I've done it quite a bit and it's an interesting topic. But people who spout ignorant claims about what it can and cant do without really having any reasoning behind some preconceived notions is not really the best foundation for constructive discussion.

But anyways, here's a few things to address your specific comments.

1) Many people cant use them for more than 20 minutes - largely app-dependent. Lots of bad practices being used and some of the more popular demos that provide the more 'shocking' reactions for good YouTube viewing like rollercoaster rides and certain horror demos are not good VR experiences.

Motion sickness is definitely a concern, though. Won't deny that for a second. But a lot can be done about that through good design practices and also improvements in the technology, with improved tracking, latency and performance and whatnot.

2) Resolution isn't high. What is 'too' low is subjective, obviously. My personal experience is that most people are very forgiving of the lower perceived resolution in light of the other benefits that VR provides.

3) Not all VR games will require motion controls. That said, I think people are going to like motion controls a hell of a lot more than in VR than they did with the Wii or Kinect or whatever. It's a whole different ballgame when you're not interacting with a flat window at a distance in front of you. It feels far more natural and intuitive in VR.

4) People who wear glasses have been a big focus for the design of consumer headsets. It's been an issue with DK1 and DK2, absolutely. But CV1, Vive and Morpheus have all been reported to work just fine with glasses. They've been specifically designed so that not only is there more room between your eyes and the optics(which wasn't there in DK1/DK2), but the optics have been designed to take the extra space into account to deliver the same field of view as before, which is a pretty impressive achievement.

5) If you don't want a VR headset on your head, ok. But you really wouldn't know that until you've tried one. Not that you've even tried the previous versions, but the Rift consumer version has undergone a ton of ergonomic and weight-saving design changes to make it far more comfortable to wear for long periods of time.

You call it a fad, but you really don't even know what the technology is. I find that a completely illogical stance to take. Like I said, it's like a 10 year old saying they don't like curry even if they haven't tried it because 'they know they wont like it'. That is the perfect comparison. You are making assertions about something you are quite ignorant about. Not only that, but you are arrogantly assuming that your assertions are representative of some wider audience as well. Which ironically has some truth, as you are not the only person who is strongly arguing against VR despite not knowing what they're talking about, but really, I cant take your claims seriously.

Just try it first. Is it really that difficult? Afterwards, if you *honestly* still think it's nothing special and that everyone will reject it, we'll talk again. But I cant take your perspective seriously until you get a grasp on what it is you're talking about. I'm not guaranteeing you'll like it, but it's patently obvious you have some very wrong assumptions about what VR is and what it's capable of.

 

[Joe!]

Some good info there cheers Andy. At least I will be prepared for the first iteration of headsets and by the time the next models come out, hopefully we have hardware that can cope easily with decent 4K settings.

^^ & Thanks to Andy, too.

I mainly play racing games (albeit with an xbox controller) and I'm sort of excited about VR. I have been thinking about snagging a DK2 'just to try' and then selling it on, much like you plan to do with CV1, Andy.

It's definitely something I am going to try before saying 'no way', and I am pretty interested in it.

Hopefully Elite: Dangerous takes my fancy the second time around because I'd imagine that is pretty fun in VR too.

 

[Seanspeed]

Oh good I didn't know this thread existed! I have a theory I'd like to share (run for cover)...

With graphics and animation of people (e.g. in games) there is the uncanny valley effect, where the closer to a realistic human you get, the more you know it isn't a real human. In games, I think this is because 10 years ago the graphics were poor and our imagination would fill in the blanks left out by the PC graphics, allowing us to get immersed in a game as our imagination can achieve total 100% human images. Now, we don't really use our imagination because the graphics are really good, so we notice where the graphics can't quite keep up a lot more, breaking immersion.

I think there is the same thing with VR and motion controls. A normal controller is nothing like the real life actions needed to shoot a dude, and is simply designed (when designed well) to minimise the amount of physical movement and thought needed to make a protagonist do something on screen. So much so, we rarely think about what buttons we're pressing, we just do it automatically, allowing us to concentrate on the game world etc, and get immersed. We open a door or relead with no thought at all.

With VR, you'll be much closer to doing the think you would be doing if it was real life, but you won't be able to do it automatically like you do in real life (e.g. opening a door). You'll need to think about it a lot more and do a large physical movement which makes you a lot more aware you're in a game and break the immersion.

Until VR can reach that 100% "real life" likeness that makes you forget you're in a game I am not sure that it is for me. And I'd also be really worried if it ever did reach that 100% likeness as the matrix would be possible so we could already be in a matrix creating another matrix

A complicated, but interesting subject.

At the moment, the gist of it is that we're not nearly close enough to true, real-life replication that falsification of little details are completely deal breakers.

That said, it is true that the more you get right, the more that anything you don't get right sticks out and can break immersion.

I'd say the best mindset to approach this is with realistic expectations. VR right now is not the holodeck. Wont be for a very long time. But that doesn't mean it cant provide a hugely engaging and impactful experience like never before. There will times where you experience presence in your environment, and there will times that it will be broken. But even in those times where it's broken, it doesn't mean such a jarring 'break' that you can't enjoy yourself anymore. VR experiences are still compelling even without striving for perfect realism. Just seeing an environment as if it's in front of you, in real scale with proper depth, is super, super impressive. It's going to drop a lot of people's jaws, regardless of how much people feel actual presence.

 

[FoxEye]

@Seanspeed: could you possibly be /more/ condescending? I don't think so.

VR is not a mystery. We know what it is on a conceptual level. It's a freakin' screen that you wear in front of your eyes. Sheesh, you talk about it like it's impossible to understand "until you've experienced it, maaan." Right.

I can read. I read a lot. I've read a lot of common complaints about VR, which you by your own admission have stated are serious problems yet to be overcome. Would me trying one of the prototype HMDs make these issues less real?

I also have reasonable judgement, like it or not. The (entirely reasonable) conclusion of many people is that VR headsets will be a very, very hard sell to the general public. Like I said, the tech may get much better; it may be pretty good now - but this may not matter a whole lot.

The concept of wearing one of these things is simply not going to be appeal to a large percentage of the population. "Why do we need this thing in front of our eyes?" A fair question. Most people won't need it. Or want it. Unless it becomes cheap enough to be an impulse purchase. Not likely for some time - these units aren't cheap at several hundred dollars each.

 

[FoxEye]

Here's a nice problem which exposes some of the difficulty with VR headsets.

Take a flight sim. Something that VR is probably well suited to. With a normal monitor, you can still see your keyboard, and can control the (myriad) cockpit switches with key combos.

Now, stick a VR headset on, and you can no longer see your keyboard. But you can have a proper virtual cockpit with switches all around you. So how do you use those switches...?

Well now you need a motion sensor, and one which is able to accurately track your hands such that it can precisely calculate where your hand is in the virtual world.

Since you're holding a yoke/joystick you aren't going to be holding wii-style controllers, but perhaps you could wear some kind of special tracking glove... This is more stuff to wear tho.

And it is all going to add up to a pretty damned expensive setup. VR headset, motion sensor and/or tracking gloves...

All because you can't see anything in the real world. Good job flight simmers tend to spend big on their hobby

VR is going to need a lot of complimentary technology, like motion sensors, like other wearables. True/false in your estimation?

 

[Joe!]

A friend raised that concern with me, too - That you have no real life peripheral vision.

For me that is no object as I know my Xbox controller off by heart, and I'd know my steering wheel (if I had one) off by heart too.

VR can be suited to some people, but others not so much. It does seem a rather niche concept at the moment.

 

[flopper]

5 years to go for VR.
need lot more gpu power,low latency to be viable.

 

[Seanspeed]

@Seanspeed: could you possibly be /more/ condescending? I don't think so.

VR is not a mystery. We know what it is on a conceptual level. It's a freakin' screen that you wear in front of your eyes. Sheesh, you talk about it like it's impossible to understand "until you've experienced it, maaan." Right.

I can read. I read a lot. I've read a lot of common complaints about VR, which you by your own admission have stated are serious problems yet to be overcome. Would me trying one of the prototype HMDs make these issues less real?

I also have reasonable judgement, like it or not. The (entirely reasonable) conclusion of many people is that VR headsets will be a very, very hard sell to the general public. Like I said, the tech may get much better; it may be pretty good now - but this may not matter a whole lot.

The concept of wearing one of these things is simply not going to be appeal to a large percentage of the population. "Why do we need this thing in front of our eyes?" A fair question. Most people won't need it. Or want it. Unless it becomes cheap enough to be an impulse purchase. Not likely for some time - these units aren't cheap at several hundred dollars each.

Yes, I could be far more condescending, definitely. I wont be, cuz it's not productive or respectful, but I am going out of my way to highlight that your perspective is coming from a position of great ignorance. That might offend you, but it is not meant as an insult. It is meant to point out how you are misled and things are not as you think they are, no matter how arrogantly you think your judgement about things you don't know about is still somehow impeccable.

Basically, you are not being rational here. And all I ask is that you try it before continuing to berate VR and talk as if you know what it can and cant do without really having any personal experience with this technology you seem to have such strong opinions towards. You THINK you know what VR is and what it can/cant do, but you don't. You've demonstrated that clearly already, with your arguments that you cant move and that RTS's don't work and that it's just a 'screen in front of your eyes' and whatnot.

5 years to go for VR.
need lot more gpu power,low latency to be viable.

We already have low latency VR running on cell phones.

We need a lot more GPU power to run ever higher resolutions, graphics, field of view and framerates though, sure. But what exists now is still 'viable'.

 

[FoxEye]

LOL Seanspeed, you are so defensive about your precious VR. I'm wondering now if you have some stake in VR being successful.

Anyhoo, the specific points I raised you admitted were big flaws with the tech. I don't care how ignorant or arrogant you think I am, it's irrelevant. The specific points I raised you have no answer to, except "It will get better!". Which it may do. It still won't become mainstream.

You and a few other VR enthusiasts will continue to hail it as the best thing ever, and I expect in a few years from now you'll still be calling us all names because we aren't all blown away by your favourite toy.

"You can't move." I said you still need to use a controller to move around, as you would move in an FPS using WSAD. This is correct, since a VR headset only allows you to /look/ around, not move. My point was that VR is a compromise technology. It is.

"RTS don't work." Well technically you can play an RTS on VR. You can probably also play a party-based RPG on VR. Will it be a good idea? I doubt it. Do you expect people who enjoy RTS and other non-1st person games to jump on the VR bandwagon? Of course you do, silly question.

Unable to see real controllers in the VR world. Need for motion tracking to use VR controls instead. Lack of tactile feedback. You didn't touch on this.

"It's just a screen in front of your eyes." Well yes, it is. But I did say an ecosystem will need to grow up around VR headsets. Like motion sensing tech, because the headset on its own is next to useless without specifically designed control methods to work with VR.

 

[Catanonia]

I have been on the Oculus Bandwagon for ages and here are my views which some have mentioned.

• If you haven't tried it, you are in no position to comment really as it is not 3D or other gimmick stuff. I have seen so many dismiss it and then want to buy once they have tried it.
  
• It only really works if you have a stationary reference point such as a flight / car sim. Games that require you to "walk" around with wasd are horrid and can make you sick.
  
• If done correctly the immersion is unreal and adds many layers to the experience. Eg looking over your shoulder during an overtake in a race or looking up above your canopy in a dogfight
  
• You "really" need "good" CPU and GPU power to get the best out of it and that costs a lot
  
• There are limited games out there that have a good implementation. I would list, iRacing, Elite Dangerous, Assetto Corsa

To sum up, it has it place for limited games, for example Ark Survival has DK2 support, but I play on monitors as the DK2 support is crap. But ED and iRacing is just not in the same league as the DK2

VR is here to stay I reckon and it will only get better.

 

[~>Dg<~]

5 years to go for VR.
need lot more gpu power,low latency to be viable.

id say even more tbh. probably 10 years.

units are still to big. we don't have powerful enough equipment mainstream.

so buying anything vr related now is pretty much money down the drain.

 

[andybird123]

HTC vive supports full room movement

id say even more tbh. probably 10 years.

units are still to big. we don't have powerful enough equipment mainstream.

so buying anything vr related now is pretty much money down the drain.

Foveated rendering would massively cut the power requirements, one headset is actively looking to release so I would imagine the other are not far behind, even mixed resolution rendering which concentrates detail on the centre of the screen can make a huge difference

Gen1's will be pretty crap, but I can see big improvements over the following couple of years

They aren't just looking at gaming but movies and sports as well, and in places like the US sports are massive massive money makers, but they need a big resolution jump for that

For gaming it is definitely the sim/cockpit type games that have the biggest appeal, I cant see wanting to play a twitch shooter at all, it will need to be more sim like fps developed specifically for VR, mixed desktop and VR multiplayer would not work at all

 

[FoxEye]

I have been on the Oculus Bandwagon for ages and here are my views which some have mentioned.

It only really works if you have a stationary reference point such as a flight / car sim. Games that require you to "walk" around with wasd are horrid and can make you sick.

Do you think this is even fixable? What if it's a fundamental problem that can't be overcome with higher refresh rate, more resolution...

What if the sickness is entirely due to the conflicting inputs coming to your brain... ie your eyes see one thing, your inner ear and other senses tell you another.

Some people will /never/ be able to read on a train (bus/car). They have to look out the window. Because when they look down at their book their eyes tell them they aren't moving but their body can sense the movement. Hence sickness. Clearly that's not a problem with refresh rates or anything!

This could literally be such a big issue that VR is a non-starter for many gamers.

 

[Catanonia]

Do you think this is even fixable? What if it's a fundamental problem that can't be overcome with higher refresh rate, more resolution...

What if the sickness is entirely due to the conflicting inputs coming to your brain... ie your eyes see one thing, your inner ear and other senses tell you another.

Some people will /never/ be able to read on a train (bus/car). They have to look out the window. Because when they look down at their book their eyes tell them they aren't moving but their body can sense the movement. Hence sickness. Clearly that's not a problem with refresh rates or anything!

This could literally be such a big issue that VR is a non-starter for many gamers.

I would agree with you, it is not refresh, hardware or other stuff banded about.

Personally I don't think it is fixable as your brain needs a reference point. VR is a form of reality and you don't walk whilst sitting or standing still with a keyboard. But add a cockpit and it moves, such as a racing sim or flight sim and your brain understands / is fooled and adjusts very easily as "reality" looks and feels like this.

Some people can cope with VR in non sims, but most can't as it is not really designed for it.

However this area is progressing with walking platforms, or wireless VR headsets, but then these do have their obvious drawbacks such as space and degrees of movement limitations.

VR will be niche market for those games where it works such as sims for the foreseeable future in this guise. Of course there will be a load of tat implementations out there and some may work well for some people.

I don't think VR will take over "normal" gaming any time soon, just certain parts of it and there will always be those that never try and diss it, those that don't like it, those that love it (sim players) and all variations in between.

 

[Seanspeed]

LOL Seanspeed, you are so defensive about your precious VR. I'm wondering now if you have some stake in VR being successful.

No, I don't. But I do feel compelled to respond and correct people like who you go around spreading negativity based on ignorance.

Anyhoo, the specific points I raised you admitted were big flaws with the tech.

I did not say they were 'big flaws'. Drawbacks and room for improvement, sure. But they are not dealbreakers and aren't as bad as you've tried to make them out to be(which I have no idea how you profess to know since you haven't tried it).

You and a few other VR enthusiasts will continue to hail it as the best thing ever, and I expect in a few years from now you'll still be calling us all names because we aren't all blown away by your favourite toy.

I'm not calling you anything except ignorant and arrogant, which you are being. I specifically said that it wont be for everybody, but I at least think people should try it before saying it is not for them. Said that a couple times, I think. Please quit exaggerating.

"You can't move." I said you still need to use a controller to move around, as you would move in an FPS using WSAD. This is correct, since a VR headset only allows you to /look/ around, not move. My point was that VR is a compromise technology. It is.

There will be several methods of movement within VR. Gamepads, motion controls, physical movement, and any combination of.

"RTS don't work." Well technically you can play an RTS on VR. You can probably also play a party-based RPG on VR. Will it be a good idea? I doubt it. Do you expect people who enjoy RTS and other non-1st person games to jump on the VR bandwagon? Of course you do, silly question.

Why is it not a good idea? You're just throwing blanket statements around without knowing what you're talking about again.

I think playing certain 3rd person games will be very compelling. Like I said, VR wont be for everybody, but I'm sure that it will appeal to quite a few people that will want to play certain styles of games with VR. Why wouldn't they? You haven't given the slightest reasoning for why you think it's not a good idea. I'm guessing you're just going by some gut instinct that tells you that, but I think if you understood how VR worked a bit better, you'd be better able to imagine why it could actually be quite awesome.

Unable to see real controllers in the VR world. Need for motion tracking to use VR controls instead. Lack of tactile feedback. You didn't touch on this.

Complex subject, but again, nothing here is anything close to what you're thinking. People have been using VR headsets using gamepads for a couple years now. Not being able to see the controller is hardly an issue. Nor do you *need* motion controls. People who use kb/m while in VR sometimes have problems obviously, and that's a legit issue. Not an impossible one to solve, but right now, it is difficult.

Lack of tactile feedback - something that would be nice to have, sure. It's something that many people are working on. But it is not some 'huge flaw' like I'm sure you will try and paint it like you've found some 'A HA!' moment that proves VR is terrible and nobody will like it.

"It's just a screen in front of your eyes." Well yes, it is. But I did say an ecosystem will need to grow up around VR headsets. Like motion sensing tech, because the headset on its own is next to useless without specifically designed control methods to work with VR.

No, it is not just a screen in front of your eyes anymore than a computer is just a box.

As for the motion tracking technology, that's quite advanced already. I recommend reading up about Oculus' Constellation tracking system and especially Valve's Lighthouse tracking technology. Really impressive stuff, with nearly impeccable 1:1, ultra low latency tracking capabilities.

I mean, I'm definitely a VR enthusiast. But I'm not some blind fanboy who has to get all riled up anytime somebody says something critical about VR. Very far from it. But I will happily correct people who have inaccurate preconceptions about what it is or what it can do. And it's no surprise that 99% of the time, that is from people who haven't tried it.