
Valve’s Gabe Newell: VR could “turn out to be a complete failure” - shawndumas
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/02/valves-gabe-newell-vr-could-turn-out-to-be-a-complete-failure/
======
nilkn
I invested a lot in VR in 2016. I got both a Vive and a Rift (with Touch too
when it launched late last year).

It was a lot of fun at first. I don't use it at all anymore and am selling all
my equipment. Not even the potential of upcoming VR titles is enough to tempt
me to keep it.

None of my friends even ask to demo any of it. They lost interest faster than
they did for Wii Sports years ago.

* Image quality is bad.

* Hardware requirements are still very high. I have a very high-end machine and VR titles like Raw Data still do not run very well.

* The locomotion problem is not being solved. It's been a year. I never adapted to it either.

* The headsets are not comfortable. Both of them are painful for me to wear after ~30 minutes.

* Rift+Touch tracking is bad and more or less completely broken for many users.

* The front-facing configuration championed by Oculus is not enough. You'll instantly want more.

* Clearing out space for room-scale is a big pain. I'm looking at new apartments and am facing up to the reality that the Vive is a huge constraint.

* It's very anti-social. Honestly my SO does not like it when I use a VR device because it completely shuts her out.

* The base equipment is still far too expensive for the quality of the experience.

* There's very little worthwhile content. People are still talking about Space Pirate Trainer. That's a little demo that has been available for a year, but it's still considered one of the main titles.

* I was most excited about Budget Cuts when I got the Vive. It was heavily hyped months before the Vive was even available for preorder. It's still not out with no announced release date either. That'll be an amazing title for sure, and I will regret not being able to play the finished version whenever it does finally come out.

I encourage everyone to try it. It's a ton of fun at first. But think hard
about whether you'll stay interested after a few months and whether it's worth
the effort of setting up, clearing out space, keeping your gaming machine up-
to-date with the latest hardware, etc.

~~~
beachbum8029
Your second to last point seems to be the biggest problem right now, and
that's not going to change until requirements have come down to what the
average pc gamer can reasonably be expected to have available. No one wants to
make games for a platform with such a low adoption rate.

~~~
nom
I think his first three points are the main problem. Image quality, latency
and systems requirements. They are all linked.

VR hardware is great step-up from the common gaming setups, where you only
have to render a single scene @ 30-60 FPS and display it on a monitor @
>1080p. VR is much more involved than that. Not only do you need to render the
scene twice, but you have to do it at a resolution >4k per eye (which probably
isn't even enough to satisfy all users), and on top of you should do it in
<20ms or something in that order, to be sure nobody gets sick. _including_
position tracking.

The rest of your points can be solved, once we can mass-produce hardware that
meets the specs.

~~~
majewsky
> you have to do it at a resolution >4k per eye

I'm sure there's someone working on a headset that tracks eye movements and
adjusts the rendered resolution of the image on the fly. The human eye has
something like 4-5 megapixels worth of photo receptors, but the absolute
majority of them are located in a relatively tiny area of your FOV where your
eyes focus on.

------
GuiA
VR is bulky, expensive, technologically still very rough, and there is
currently no content that makes anyone excited to get home to get a few more
hours of it every night.

These are all issues that can be solved by technology - a lightweight wireless
HMD with 8k per eye that requires no other device for full body tracking would
tell a much more compelling story, but we are probably many many years away
from that.

But that doesn't solve the core problems with such a device: it is inherently
antisocial (who wants to watch a movie with their boyfriend with the two of
you having a HMD strapped to your head, even if it gives you an amazing IMAX
like experience?) and would be dangerous to wear anywhere but in the comfort
of your couch. This guarantees that there'd never be any consumer use for it
beyond hardcore movie/video game enthusiasts. Some interesting niche
industrial applications are emerging, and that is likely to continue, but my
mom won't buy one like she bought a Nintendo DS.

The usual counter argument to this is "well AR solves all of that!" \- but
then the required technology puts us decades away from any realistic product.

~~~
overgard
The problems with VR can be solved of course, but does VR itself solve any
problems? (other than niches like flight simulators). I'm not writing it off
just yet, but being myself a huge nerd that could program VR stuff, all I can
think is like "ok but what do I use this for?" and I keep drawing a blank.

~~~
GuiA
_> all I can think is like "ok but what do I use this for?" and I keep drawing
a blank._

If you spend a lot of time thinking about this question and can come up with a
few compelling answers, there might be a lot of money in it for you :)

------
FeatureRush
Compare with this "Valve CEO: 'We're comfortable with the idea that VR will
turn out to be a complete failure'" as it was titled on reddit which is much
less clickbaity but still cuts off important part of the full quote...

~~~
ghaff
It's not so much that either cuts off the quote. It's a quotable soundbite
within the context of a longer discussion about how many VR predictions are
overhyped, especially in the short term.

Headlines are always "clickbaity" whether they're online or in a dead tree
newspaper. They exist to grab your attention and make you read. If I were
writing a headline based on this topic, I'd choose something along the same
lines. It's not nuanced but it's not misleading either.

~~~
randyrand
You're describing the problem.

~~~
ghaff
I guess I don't see the problem. Articles are not scientific papers. Opinions
can differ but "Gabe Newell gives his views on VR" as a headline will be
rewritten by approximately every editor on the planet.

~~~
FeatureRush
Maybe it's because I'm not a native speaker, but for me the quote was all
about Valve and was not giving bleak predictions about whole market as the
headline implies.

Here, for comparison, the way I parse the quote:

    
    
       A) "We're optimistic. We think VR is going great" - overall assessment of the situation, WE think = Valve perspective
    
       B) "It's going in a way that's consistent with our expectations," - OUR expectations were realistic and not overhyped, it's going as planned
    
       C) "we're also pretty comfortable with the idea that it will turn out to be a complete failure." - because A and B we expect VR to do well, but as a company Valve is ready to face the risk of VR being failure
    
       D) "Some people have got attention by going out and saying there'll be millions of [VR unit sales] and we're like, wow, I don't think so," - slow initial growth is within Valve's expectation
    

Later some issues with current state of the technology as well lack of killer
app are mentioned, but [B] Valve expected VR to be not perfect at the start
and [A] it's doing well by their criteria. [C] is for me only about Valve the
company being OK if VR fails not about VR actually failing.

------
Animats
I've been saying this for about a year, and getting angry replies. The problem
is not the clunky headgear, poor resolution, and dangling cables. It's the
lack of a killer app for VR. The hardware has been available for years now,
yet there's still no killer app.

There are FPS games for VR. They're OK. VR gear may just be an optional
accessory for hardcore FPS gamers. Virtual worlds? Well, you can connect into
High Fidelity right now. Few people do, and it's boring in there anyway.
Teleconferencing? Get real.

(And yes, fanboys, I've tried the things. I've used an HTC Vibe, a Microsoft
HoloLens, and most of the earlier VR gear back to Jaron Lanier's original demo
rig. The resolution has improved, and the head tracking is far better. But
there's not much compelling to do in there.)

~~~
Shorel
The killer app is, for me, SimRacing.

But I agree with other posters about low resolution being an issue.

Also: the Facebook factor. Oculus has been a couple orders of magnitude less
interesting since it was acquired by Facebook. I don't give a crap about
avatars and VR chat, and I don't think anyone I know does, either.

------
no1youknowz
As a developer a killer app for this would be telepresence.

I envision a time where I can just put on a headset and I'm in the companies
virtual coding room. Other developers join in whatever timezone they are in.
You could have developers who are in company HQ and remote all over the world.

Each developer could be locked into what ambient sound they are in and then
can connect to 1 or more people in the room to talk.

Want to screen share between 1 or 2 people, then a screen pops up virtually
and these people could debug code, diagrams, whatever it may be.

When I'm coding, it's on my laptop but simultaneously coding on the VR one as
well. I could share that screen and a coder in another country in real-time
could collaborate or have a fresh pair of eyes immediately.

Imagine being on a viral IRC with coders all over the world, working on an
open-source project as if they were right there next to you?

When I say this, everyone is connected to the virtual world. Not as a floating
orb, but an actual body. They can see your face, emotions, hear your voice.

I think it would be a game changer!

\------------

Other uses could be 360 degree concerts. Where you can choose whatever vantage
you want.

The possibilities are endless for VR, it really just takes someone to keep
polishing that use-case. It's not going to be a home run for another few
iterations at least!

~~~
jayjay71
What resolution is necessary to read standard text with VR? I'd imagine it
would start to become usable for this at 4k per eye, and even then I suspect
it would be limited.

~~~
harpastum
4k per eye would definitely be good enough. Text still wouldn't be crisp and
clean, but it would be very readable.

VR headsets don't distribute pixels evenly across the entire view-space, the
lenses concentrate the pixels toward the middle of your vision. So if for
example you had a display that took up the center 25% of your vision in VR, it
might have 50% of the actual display pixels. 50% of 4k is 1080p.

So you'd end up with a display that looks pretty large, but is only 1080p. Not
optimal, but definitely usable.

------
6stringmerc
As somebody with extensive ties to both Tech and Content Creation spheres, I
can tell you right away the killer app for VR is in Episodic Entertainment
Experiences.

Not games. Not business applications. Not practicing open heart surgery or
bomb defusing.

No, the intersection of VR and Mass Interest will be something a lot closer to
YouTube-Meets-Network-TV-Meets-James-Cameron. "Hardcore Henry" for other
genres like Comedy, Drama, Romance...There's a big problem though. The Tech
Industry and Content Creation Industry fight each other like petulant, smart-
ass, greedy siblings.

So it ain't going to happen any time soon. AR will, in the meantime, become
extremely compelling through Content Creation Applications. Microsoft is
screaming ahead in this realm, with the Surface Pro platform edging into
Education and the Surface Desktop likely a contender for studios worldwide in
all sorts of areas (Visual, Film, Music). Microsoft, unless their compass is
totally out of whack, will eventually have a compelling reason to add AR into
a high power workstation.

------
dkonofalski
I know that everyone wants to dump on Valve because of the HL3 situation, but
these kinds of interviews always end up bringing me back around to Valve's
side. If there's one thing I really respect about Gabe Newell, it's his Steve
Jobs-ian dedication to making sure that he doesn't release something until
it's good enough for him. I also happen to think that he's totally right, in
this particular case.

I probably spent about $5k+ on VR between the Oculus, Vive, my PC hardware,
and a few games. I was lucky enough to be able to get in early so I got
discounted pricing on a lot of the stuff and made some money back selling old
dev kits and whatnot. VR is absolutely not within reach of the average
consumer in any kind of palatable way. Sony VR, IMO, is just not compelling
for users when you factor in that you have to buy a PS4, the camera, some move
controllers (potentially) and all for a pretty cool but ultimately short-lived
experience. Until we get some games, apps, and experiences that are repeatable
and re-usable, VR is just going to be this niche thing. I can see exactly
where Gabe is coming from and, like some other comments have said, I think
he's going to be ready to sing the success of VR when there's a very low
barrier of entry - wireless HMD, body tracking, prop tracking, and, most of
all, when it's comfortable and an actual experience.

------
aresant
Or, in an alternative universe of content accurate headlines:

"Gabe Newell on VR: "We're optimistic. We think VR is going great. It's going
in a way that's consistent with our expectations"

That's a direct quote from the same story that more accurately reflects his
position.

~~~
ghaff
I disagree that's any more accurate. It doesn't capture his other comments
about the irrationality of over-optimistic forecasts or his acknowledgment
that VR could be a dead-end. I read that (overly long for a headline) quote as
VR is going gangbusters--which I don't think really distills his opinion.

ADDED: It's also not especially newsworthy that the CEO of a company
developing VR says VR is doing great. It is far more newsworthy for him to
acknowledge that VR might not succeed.

------
erikpukinskis
My prediction is that VR will teach us absolutely critical things about human
computer interaction, and that some people will literally live in their
headsets, but that a large group of people will almost never use them, and
phones will continue to be the dominant computing platform.

My reasoning is this: imagine the perfect phone VR viewer.

It would be something like a much improved Google Tango. You hold your phone,
and it is a true 3d view into virtual reality, the refresh rate is 90hz, and
tracking is perfect. It literally just looks and feels like a little window
into VR.

Like opera glasses.

And in fact, if you watch people using VR for the first time, many people try
to keep a hand on the headset. I wonder if there is some deep desire there, to
maintain separate control of your viewpoint and the line where the virtual and
physical intersect.

I suspect that in the long term, many people will be happy to watch what's
happening in VR from a bit of a distance.

And big downside a headset has is transition cost. You can text me a VR link,
and I can put down my french fry, pull phone phone out of my pocket, hold it
near my face, and look around. With a headset, I need to get it out of my bag,
strap it on, adjust it, etc. And that's assuming full mobility.

The other consideration is that we've already fairly carefully titrated our
interest in realism vs abstraction as a society. People still read books,
people still watch cartoons. These are not seen as lesser artistic experiences
than a gritty realistic film. They are just different. VR will be the same,
some works will be amenable to immersion, but people will still keep writing
novels and cartoons and VR will be a niche too, to the extent cartoons are a
niche.

I think there is also a gap forming between the "anything is possible" crowd
and the "no, common sense is real, men are men, dirt is dirt, god is god"
movement. Public spaces in VR will look pretty unappealing to the latter. VR
will be a godsend to trans people of all stripes, but not everyone wants to
transition somewhere.

------
lazyjones
I'm pretty sure that, apart from niche applications like NSFW stuff and 3D
work done while sitting, VR will be replaced by advanced AR. Main reason:
people bumping into walls, tripping over things...

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm pretty sure that, apart from niche applications like NSFW stuff and 3D
> work done while sitting, VR will be replaced by advanced AR.

I'm not sure 3D work done while sittings really a particularly niche
application, unless you interpret "work" narrowly (in which case, I just think
it's wrong.)

And, in any case, advanced AR is many years behind VR and mostly builds on top
of it (it requires solving a super of the problems required for successful VR)
so VR could be quite successful even if that was true in the long term.

~~~
majewsky
> I'm not sure 3D work done while sittings really a particularly niche
> application

Makes me wonder if programming could benefit from the 3D screen that a VR
headset effectively provides. (And I mean this in a completely neutral way: I
really wonder, and need to think about it.)

------
timdeneau
Here’s the full (37 min) interview at Valve:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMpQWSqQFK0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kMpQWSqQFK0)

------
timdiggerm
It's so nice to hear someone in the industry not be so optimistic about the
latest cool new thing.

~~~
badlucklottery
If you watch the interview, Valve is still pretty damn optimistic about it.

It's just that they see it as an ongoing experiment so they're okay with this
iteration of it failing probably because they haven't bet the farm on it.

------
ihenriksen
I've been kind of negative to VR until I worked on the Microsoft HoloLens for
some clients, and now I'm convinced that Mixed Reality(MR) is the way of the
future and not VR. Sure, the current HoloLens has some disadvantages like a
small field-of-view and a high price tag, but I'm sure that these things will
be improved in future editions. This video shows someone playing Portal using
the HoloLens, which also shows off its spatial awareness capabilities:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk-_4yIE6Cs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rk-_4yIE6Cs)

------
theparanoid
Atwood's essay from 2014 was very prescient
[https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-road-to-
vr/](https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-road-to-vr/).

~~~
Impossible
Much of what he was talking about in 2014 has come true now. If we see the
same rate of progress VR will actually be in a pretty good spot to be
successful in 2020. Many of the complaints about VR now are solvable problems,
specifically:

\- It's too bulky or uncomfortable \- It's too expensive \- There isn't enough
good content \- There aren't any killer apps \- Resolution is too low (and
relative optics, screen quality and FOV issues) \- Its not wireless

All of these problems are actively being worked on. I'd argue that there is
core tech missing from the current round of VR headsets that will come later
and enable exciting applications.

My future concerns with the VR market are consumer perception, which might
cause people to reject VR or AR even if a killer device with a killer app
comes to market, and the larger existential issue of people will never want to
interact with software in 3D space, and something about 2D (or text, or
speech\audio) is inherently more convenient or easier to grasp. The former
issue can be solved by good marketing, word of mouth, but the later can't.

On HN the most commonly mentioned "killer app" for VR is infinite 2D screens,
which is one of the most boring and unimaginative thing you can do with VR. AR
"killer apps" tend to be equally boring, floating notifications and maps.
Occasionally people mention telepresence, but its largely still
straightforward applications like live event streaming or teleconferencing.

A high quality AR\VR device with the proper infrastructure could essentially
give people limited super powers, think time travel, teleportation,
conjuring\illusion, being in multiply places at the same time, reality remix,
etc.

------
emeraldd
To me, make VR available as the primary "desktop" for a system and you might
have a better market. Why buy more monitors when you can just look sideways?

~~~
slantyyz
I would love to see a system like that and I would likely buy one if it costed
less than 2k.

The only caveat is that the implementation doesn't give me any motion
sickness.

~~~
harpastum
Nearly zero people get motion sickness in VR if there is no locomotion
involved. Sitting still, looking side to side at virtual monitors in front of
you will feel great for pretty much everyone.

In terms of actually having a viable workstation, you'll need to wait until
the resolution of these headsets gets high enough for easy text reading, which
is 2-3 years out at this point.

~~~
majewsky
Also, a lot of people are having trouble wearing the current generation of
headsets for more than an hour or so. Now imagine an 8-hour workday. So in
addition to more pixels, the weight and bulkiness also needs to come down. The
HoloLens is going in the right direction there, but weight could still be
less.

------
daemonhunter
I recently got a PlayStation VR. I was completely thrilled by the
possibilities of games like Eve: Valkyrie. So far I find the games awesome
save 1 thing: motion sickness. When I got the VR I expected to spend the
weekend with the headset on playing Eve... nope. I can only go 30 or so
minutes without the motion sickness kicking in. I am trying to build a
tolerance up.

~~~
arielweisberg
You might be less motion sick with the Rift on a PC. Consistent high frame
rates make a huge difference.

Locomotion methods are also a big problem, but Eve is a cockpit game which
usually doesn't trigger people.

~~~
daemonhunter
I find the more I look around the scene vs direction of travel the worse it
gets. Have the same issue with Battlezone and Scavengers Odyssey. Driveclub
and some of the others haven't caused it yet.

------
Keyframe
Who knows. IMO, VR needs a huge technological advance (or multiple of) and low
price in order to start making advances. Content potential is great,
technology still isn't and is expensive. It won't replace all media, it has
it's own content scheme. People talking about watching movies in VR doesn't
make sense. Some will, yeah. Some new types of movies will be there, but VR
has it's own thing content-wise.

There's this other thing though. Augmented reality. Technology is kind of here
and inexpensive. If you have a relatively modern phone you have AR access,
maybe not the latest and greatest, but it's there. Yet, I think that one is a
complete failure so far. So many false starts! Content is gimmicky at best and
it seems people don't care at all about the technology or potential about it.
It's commodity now. When AR happens, it's great (see Pokemon Go, Eyetoy,
etc.), but it doesn't live for long (see Pokemon Go, Eyetoy, etc.). Where's AR
headed?

~~~
bfuller
While I agree VR isn't the be all end all for cinema, I kind of hope you are
down playing the medium of VR film. Being present in a scene rather than being
forced a perspective has some very cool possibilities.

It may turn out to be a novelty, but it may be an important one.

I do agree that AR is a huge gimmick that probably won't be solved until VR is
firmly established

~~~
Keyframe
I'm not downplaying VR film at all. I just think it is (will be) its own
thing. In fact, it will be a new type of theatrical expression in its own
right. Somewhat more akin to theatre, street theatre and probably interactive.
It will not supplant film at all, it's a different thing. Camera placement and
lens choice is one of THE tools director has at his disposal. For example,
well at least to the one school of film (to which I belong to), when you
direct a scene, one of the first question you ask is whose scene is it and
depending on that you decide on the placement of the camera, height, lens,
movement. You can then, due to conflict/drama, in the same scene change the
fulcrum point to tip the scene to be someone else's and change the camera
angle and lens... all in the same scene. This is one of the examples where,
due to directing, camera placement with lens plays a significant and key role
in storytelling. With VR, in described manner, you lose that. However, you
have other things at your disposal. So, you see, it's not really a film, it's
something else. Which is exciting! We're still a long way from there though.

------
ffn
Honestly, having experimented extensively with VR, I highly doubt its best
applications will be in gaming. At its core, gaming draws people for at least
one of the following reasons:

1\. engaging story-line

2\. flow-inducing gameplay

3\. social involvement

4\. sheer boredom while on public transit

Because VR is so new, no artist has yet created the "epic" story or "flow"
game-play that requires VR. Social with VR is potentially revolutionary, but
currently, the multi-camera setup required to full mo-cap yourself properly
and the lack of tactile output means social interaction in VR is not quite
there yet. And because of the setup required, one can't exactly play VR while
in public transit.

On the other hand, I do see VR having a lot of work-related applications like
3D modeling and architecture... it's just that no one has written those
programs yet.

~~~
drusepth
I really, really, really hope VR doesn't fail if only for the artistic
applications of it. I used to play Tilt Brush for hours every day, but don't
have the space for the equipment anymore so I just watch people play Tilt
Brush on YouTube. IMO, it's a legitimate "next generation" for artists that's
still almost entirely undiscovered (and unfortunately out of reach from most).

------
Tloewald
Oculus got a lot of traction fro finding a good solution to VR's glaring
obvious first order problem — bad, super expensive goggles. But that's kind of
like inventing the first reasonably decent facemask and thinking you're ready
to live underwater.

------
andrewclunn
The military and other industries that rely on expensive training simulators
are where the market for this stuff is at right now. Going for the consumers
first is / was a mistake. VR will make it, but it's going to take longer than
the "next big thing" crowd anticipated (like most hings do).

~~~
dragonwriter
> The military and other industries that rely on expensive training simulators
> are where the market for this stuff is at right now.

I dunno, I think that consumer sit-and-consume is more viable than most
"expensive simulator" applications: VR isn't useful for things where either
more-than-audiovisual interaction is important, and it's arguably lower
quality than a high-rise little physical mock-up with a flat 2D display for
most vehicle, etc., simulators.

Now, if we were talking AR, I'd agree that the military and other expensive
simulator market is where AR's big initial market is, because AR can layer on
top of and enhance the best-available conventional training systems.

------
overgard
Here's the thing that worries me about VR despite it being obviously cool.

It's:

\- Inconvenient

\- Expensive

\- Doesn't solve a direct need

I don't think VR is going to disappear or anything, but I can't think of
anything with the above three traits that has been a mainstream success

~~~
drusepth
What direct need do video games solve?

~~~
overgard
I would argue: a lot of them! Need for the feeling of accomplishment and
mastery, need for social interaction, need for learning. VR is undeniably
really cool, but, all these needs can be filled without it.

I'm not hating on VR, I just am skeptical that wearing a face helmet and
ignoring your surroundings is going to be a mainstay in our culture.

------
65827
I preordered an HTC vive and sent it back two weeks later because the
experience was so awful. Graphics are terrible, frame rates chug, and the flat
lit low polygon textures everywhere look worse than PS1 era graphics. It's
just awful, awful, awful.

Need to double the resolution in each eye and improve optimization by A MILE
to fix those minimum framerates. The experience is just terrible, you kind of
need to drink the kool aid to think otherwise. Nice to see Gabe leading the
charge for better tech here.

------
abandonliberty
I suspect we'll see an ipad launch.

Tons of sales because it's cool, then people realize they have no idea what do
with it.

~~~
harpastum
The iPad was and is one of the most successful electronic products _ever_.
It's growth has absolutely slowed down, and is in a slight contraction right
now, but it's still selling over 40 million units per year (from a peak of
~70M per year). To compare, Apple sells about 19M Macs per year.

The iPad can only be claimed as a failure compared to investors' expectations,
or compared to the iPhone. In the most recent quarter (Q1 2017), Apple sold
13.1 MILLION of them. Over 6 billion dollars of product sold in one quarter
sounds pretty great to me.

~~~
abandonliberty
In spite of explosive sales and growth, hours/day usage of tablets is
declining.

Significant US Ownership Growth:
[http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-
owne...](http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/29/technology-device-
ownership-2015/)

Minutes spent using tablets: [https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/03/death-
desktop-65-d...](https://www.wirelessweek.com/news/2016/03/death-
desktop-65-digital-media-consumed-mobile)

Sure, from a capitalist perspective it was a great product. It created an
entire market and earned lots of revenue.

However, ownership more than doubled and internet usage stayed flat/declined.
We succeeded at making people want something, but it was not something they
needed.

------
mtkd
the killer app for me on this will be telepresence at music or sport events -
without the planning/travel/parking etc. also ability to control volume and
possibly even stadium/venue position

------
WillyOnWheels
I really like the bow and arrow demo game included with the Vibe

------
nogbit
Original backer of the rift, sold my the day it arrived, unopened for 3x the
purchase price. VR did well for me.

VR is clunky and unless its as simple and sleek as wearing eyeglasses it will
go nowhere.

------
Bombthecat
The only thing I hear vr is good for is... Stuff :)

~~~
simlevesque
You mean porn right ?

