
Why we've never fallen in love with virtual reality - pmoriarty
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50265414
======
iguanayou
As a pilot, I use VR with the XPlane flight simulator and it seriously feels
like I'm in a real Cessna. True, the flight controls are a little off (for
example, stalls and landings don't feel like a real plane), but other than
that, everything is absolutely spot on.

It's a great way to scratch my aviation itch and is also great for practicing
procedures, especially when paired with a live air traffic control network
like PilotEdge. My brain seriously forgets that it's a simulation when I'm in
it.

This could be a way to revolutionize flight training, and make it more
accessible. The entire cost of my PC build including VR gear and software is a
fraction of what real-life flight training costs.

~~~
bronco21016
Since the release of the original Oculus I’ve been curious about this. I fly
for a living which is a very rewarding and satisfying way to earn a paycheck
but it does come with some monotony and takes away some of the ‘fun’ that can
really only be had from GA flying low and slow and taking in the scenery. I’m
not able to afford an actual aircraft yet but I’m wondering if a good VR
simulator set up could scratch that itch.

I guess it depends what kind of flying you do in the sim but do you find it
still provides a fun factor? Like is it immersive enough to go fly around in
the mountains? Or hop around some lakes in a seaplane? Is manipulating
switches and buttons other than the primary controls cumbersome within VR? I
remember the original ‘virtual cockpits’ in MS Flight Sim and planning around
go find the right switches and buttons to click really took away from the
experience.

I’m really interested in this idea but haven’t found a setup to try out and
I’m hesitant to spend a bunch on it just to test it out.

~~~
iguanayou
You don't get any of the "seat of the pants" feeling of course, and the
graphics, while super impressive, don't compare to real-life low and slow VFR
flying (although hopefully MS Flight Sim 2020 changes that). It doesn't
replace the real thing.

BUT I enjoy flying VFR in busy airspace with the PilotEdge network, and also
IFR flying. For the communications and IFR flying, the mental tasks you do in
the sim are identical to what you do for real. After an ILS approach to
minimums in the sim, I feel like I got a workout. It definitely keeps my head
in the game.

The controls become second nature very quickly.

~~~
saganus
What is VFR and IFR??

I know nothing about flying but it's something that I am always thinking about
learning, but if VR is good enough to scratch that itch, I'm up for it.

~~~
iguanayou
Briefly, VFR = Visual Flight Rules. You control the aircraft by looking
outside. IFR = Instrument Flight Rules. You control the aircraft strictly by
reference to instruments (you need to do this in clouds, for example, when you
can't see the horizon).

------
gwbas1c
I find that playing a game in VR is like listing to music in 5.1: It requires
a lot of physical space and setup, which then limits the audience to a
dedicated niche.

The limitation, in this case, is being affluent enough to have a large empty
indoor space to dedicate to VR so you don't bump into things as you walk
around; and the desire to calibrate the thing correctly. It's like setting up
a really good sound system to listen to music in 5.1; really fun if you like
that kind of thing, but "meh" to most people who are happy with a smart
speaker.

In my case, when I played a friend's VR setup, he had to have his entire
living room completely empty and the system calibrated correctly. Even though
his living room was rather large for a Boston-area apartment, it just wasn't
large enough, and I kept bumping into a specific wall where his system was
miscalibrated.

Such a system will never work in a typical tiny Tokyo, NYC, or Hong Kong
apartment; but I could see it selling being a good niche in suburban areas
where it's common to have large basements.

~~~
codingmess
That'S not an issue with the Occulus Quest anymore. You need a little space,
but setup is very easy and requires no extra arrangements.

~~~
deskamess
Can you project what you see on the headset only Oculus Quest to another
screen? For example, if I am playing Beat Saber, can I project my view to TV
so that family can watch? Or to a Chromecast/Alex/similar tech?

~~~
codingmess
Yes and no - unfortunately the individual apps have to allow it, and Beat
Saber doesn't allow it yet. It works for other apps, though (with Chromecast).

I really don't know why Beat Saber doesn't allow it, it would make so much
sense.

~~~
warp
Casting has been enabled in Beat Saber since june: [https://uploadvr.com/beat-
saber-oculus-quest-casting/](https://uploadvr.com/beat-saber-oculus-quest-
casting/)

~~~
codingmess
Hm OK I didn't know, I was under the impression I tried it later than that,
though.

------
aurbano
I used to be a casual PC gamer, with a fairly good spec build. Then one day I
played some VR games at a friend’s house on PSVR, which blew my mind - not
only how much fun I had, but how much fun our non gamer friends had!

After that my wife and me got a second hand Vive for 350, and it’s been
amazing. I never play regular games any more, and even she (who never played
any games) now enjoys it a lot and plays with me from time to time.

All this is to say that I do think VR is here to stay, it just blows regular
gaming out of the water... but it definitely is at its infancy - games look
and feel the way PC games did 10 years ago..

~~~
majewsky
The most accurate description that I've heard is that we're at the point where
GUIs were in the 80s. The tech was just good enough for it and there were
already several products on the market, but designers were still exploring the
space and had not agreed on common metaphors yet. Which is exciting to
witness, but shows that we're still squarely in the "early-adopter" phase of
the curve.

(As for myself, I tried a friend's Oculus Quest extensively two weeks ago. Now
I'm sitting at home, drawing up plans in Inkscape for how to rearrange my
furniture to accommodate a room-scale VR area.)

------
scottlocklin
"Why we've never fallen in love with 3-d glasses" -fixed the title.

Science fiction predictions of the future are almost universally comically
bad. People should know this by now; we completely lack positronic brains,
warp drives, moon bases and tricorders. VR is a science fiction prediction of
the future, just like positronic brains. The fact that people won't pay lots
of money for a cheesy 3-d glasses experience as a proxy for science fiction VR
shouldn't surprise anyone.

~~~
gwd
But we do have personal communicators, which are _way_ better than sci fi ever
depicted.

~~~
scottlocklin
I never saw captain Kirk recharging his, nor fiddling with it when he was
bored. Space1999 commlocks were also way better than an ipotato.
[http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umcomlock.html](http://catacombs.space1999.net/main/cguide/umcomlock.html)

~~~
oblio
> I never saw captain Kirk recharging his

Well, if the current trend of battery improvements holds, and considering the
unfathomable amounts of money and time thrown at the problem, we're hopefully
about 10 years away from devices that can last 1 week on a single charge. Not
quite Captain Kirk material, but we have about 240 years to get there.

> nor fiddling with it when he was bored

Do you consider this a minus? Most people consider it a huge plus :-)

~~~
ggreer
The iPhone 11 Pro Max has a 15 watt-hour battery. If it lasted a week on a
single charge, it would need a 105 watt-hour battery. That's the same amount
of energy in 90 grams of TNT.

~~~
scottlocklin
>it would need a 105 watt-hour battery. That's the same amount of energy in 90
grams of TNT.

It's the same amount of energy as 11 milliliters of gasoline or a third of an
ounce of fat on a piece of steak. Batteries (and explosives) are shitty at
storing energy compared to hydrocarbons.

~~~
ggreer
Danger comes from energy density and ability to release that energy quickly.
Fat doesn't explode. Neither does gasoline, though I wouldn't be comfortable
carrying 11ml of gasoline in my pocket. Existing batteries sometimes _do_
explode and cause injury. The problem would be far worse if they had 7x more
energy in them.

~~~
scottlocklin
I did use the example of gasoline, but I don't know why you'd be uncomfortable
carrying 11ml of it in your pocket. Let's change it to 11ml of ethanol which
is basically the same energy density. In principle you should be able to
extract the energy using a fuel cell or even a heat engine. Since we're
talking about futuristic cell phones, it seems more than possible to squeeze
more energy into Captain Kirk's federationphone.

------
FractalParadigm
> A major issue is that the price of headsets has remained very expensive.

They mention it in passing in a later paragraph, but the cost of the headset
is peanuts compared to the cost of a system that can provide a consistent,
high-framerate, high-quality image. While cheaper options exist (Daydream/Gear
VR, Oculus Quest, PSVR) they just don't have the quality or framerate to
really send home the "future of gaming" VR has been sold as.

I'd argue we're still _minimum_ three years away from seeing mass adoption of
VR in the household/consumer market. With raytracing still being in its
infancy and software optimizations for many-core CPUs just beginning, it'll
still be some time before mid-level <$800 systems are capable of providing a
_good_ VR experience.

~~~
donkeyd
> they just don't have the quality or framerate to really send home the
> "future of gaming" VR has been sold as

Have you actually played with the Quest? I've had many people use mine, also
people who used Vive or Rift before and nobody was disappointed with the
quality of it. If realism and frame rate were the most important part of
gaming, then Pokemon Go and Candy Crush wouldn't be as profitable as they are.
The majority of people want simple, arcade style entertainment, not hyper
realistic sagas that take hours to finish.

~~~
roenxi
> The majority of people want [X current product] not [Y under active
> development].

I've lost count of the number of times people have used that template and
turned out to be humerously wrong. My favourite is probably when people tried
to use it for Japanese phones > iPhones then the next generation iPhone wiped
the competition in Japan.

People want good entertainment more than they want their senses stimulated,
but it seems very likely that good entertainment which stimulates the senses
more effectively will have a massive market.

We're dealing with something where the output can be strictly better than
video in a fairly meaningful way. It'll turn out people want that when someone
makes a compelling and high quality game/app. Sure, nobody is going to move
over just because the visuals are good; but there is artistic space in VR that
hasn't been touched before and some of it is going to be amazing.

I suppose the short version is you are right but we've seen people say that
before and it presaged massive changes.

~~~
donkeyd
I'm not predicting though, I'm just observing. The most popular free games on
mobile are consistently low quality arcade games. Also, I'm not saying it's
the only thing people play, GTA and RDR are super high grossing franchises and
they are high quality sagas. I'm mostly rebutting against the notion that lack
of quality is holding back consumer grade VR.

~~~
kipchak
I think performance in terms of keeping things consistent and smooth is really
important, but visual realism or duplicating reality is overrated. Not only do
you get into uncanny valley territory but more stylized art is often more
compelling than imitation of reality. Beat Saber, Superhot, Sprint Vector, or
I Expect You To Die for example have varying levels of unrealistic
stabilization but are still immersive.

Call of Duty on consoles has long been described as feeling better than other
shooters, partially because of it's 60fps target since Call of Duty 2. At the
time few people would care if "60fps!" was a feature printed on the box, it
was more behind the curtain magic.

------
utf985
"We've never fallen in love"? Really?

This is he first time for me where an emergent new technology in the gaming
world feels like a proper thing with actual potential, and not a just a
novelty gimmick like motion controls, 3D and previous attempts at "VR" were. I
had the chance to try the new Oculus Rift S and the HTC Vive over the holidays
with some Beat Saber and Superhot and it was a really amazing experience. I
have honestly never felt such awe for a game since my childhood days where I'd
witness a brand new graphics engine like Source for the first time.

There is definitely a bright future for VR as the technology will only get
better, cheaper and more accessible with time.

~~~
ekianjo
> "We've never fallen in love"? Really?

Yes, really, You are the exception. By now there is quite a few people who
have tried VR in some place or another and the market has clearly shown sales
are not skyrocketing at all. It's a very slow growth, we are talking about a
few millions headsets per year, which is just pocket money market wise
compared to smartphones or even PCs at large. Also, most of the software is
utter crap (with a few exceptions like Beat Saber, Tetris Effect) and not
convincing enough for anyone who cares about their spending.

~~~
marliechiller
there is no space for gaming to evolve at the moment without VR. The only
thing that next generation consoles are bringing to the table is more advanced
graphics. VR offers a truly innovative space for gaming to move into and
whilst its not there yet in terms of hardware and software, I can see it being
'the future' as it were.

~~~
schmichael
I think there's potential for things like Apple's U1 chip and Google's Soli
chip to add cheap and accurate gesture control to consoles without the need to
hold controllers at all. Add an array of mics and the next gen of Guitar Hero
can be based on a group's singing and dancing but graded on a per-voice / per-
body basis.

Because of a console's placement in front of a group instead of attached to a
single person's head, I think it's better positioned for a wide variety of
entertainment experiences.

Large TVs are now cheap enough that they can fill an entire group's field of
vision with a shared experience as opposed to having to buy 1 headset per
person. Obviously turning your head ruins the immersion of a TV, but I would
argue that's not always a bad thing. Sometimes it's fun to be "trapped" in VR,
but sometimes it just makes the experience more isolating and difficult to
operate (eg how do I watch my kids playing on the other side of the room while
I have a headset on?).

------
tentboy
Sim racing, or for those unaware of it: basically racing games with realistic
physics and usually a competitive online racing field, is incredible in VR.

The sense of speed and immersion with a good wheel and pedal setup in VR is
unmatched by a monitor based setup. I tried it at a VR arcade and kept adding
time to my session to keep playing.

I have a fairly nice and expensive sim racing setup at home right now, but my
PC cant run any of the current sims in VR well enough for me to justify
getting a headset. Between PC upgrades and headset im looking at $500+ in
upgrades that I just haven't gotten around to doing, but you can bet its on my
list

~~~
mhh__
VR simracing can be hit and miss i.e. rf2 looks amazing but is rough around
the edges (Hungaroring in the wet in a GT3 car is amazing in VR) but assetto
Corsa looks awful.

Don't bother with anything worse than an Index these days, the Vive is amazing
in beat Sabre but awful if you want to read the dials.

~~~
blackearl
assetto corsa is great because of the modding community. there are some hybrid
fantasy/real life maps that are amazing. You can have these great casual
drives through "California" mountains that are inspired by real life. I had a
blast playing it with a wheel setup

If you want a more realistic sim, iRacing is supposedly top dog, but it's
subscription based.

~~~
brozaman
I have both assetto corsa and iracing and high end equipment (fanatec highest
end pedals, fanatec DD2 wheel and fanatec gearbox) and I'm not going to renew
iRacing.

I enjoy Asetto Corsa better, regarding the physics, I consider they are about
as good, graphics are so much better. The good thing of iRacing is the online
competition, which is simply superior on every single aspect, but not worth
the subscription model nor the costs.

It may make sense if you run ovals, dirt ovals or rally cross, but since I
only run on circuits, it's not worth the money to me.

------
rkho
Truly immersive VR experiences are great. The park I went to in Tokyo recently
had some fun licensed ones:

\+ A Shin Godzilla themed helicopter raid which required a customized
"cockpit" to ride in with rumble capabilities, \+ A Dragon Quest free-roaming
VR adventure which required a LOT of space to enable \+ A Mario Kart race
which, again, required a customized "kart" to ride in which simulated the
physics of every sharp turn I took.

The first and third attractions were about five minutes long each. I don't
doubt that there was a lot of engineering effort required to even get to that
much content nor the fact that I would likely grow very tired of having to
play an extended version of each for, say, an hour or two.

I think for at least the time being, this is how VR is going to be adopted: As
a theme park experience where short novelty experiences people want to have is
made available with the space and props already provided to enjoy it.

~~~
aedron
Yes, this seems obvious to me.

Stuff like The Void[1], where a complete arena is built to supplement the
visuals, with physical features that match the VR ones (like physical buttons
on walls that match the VR projected ones, moving platforms), smells, wind,
sounds, etc.

The future of this is going to be incredibly cool, I think. Just subtle stuff
like blowing cold air on your face when you're standing on top of a VR
mountain, will do wonders for the immersion.

[1] [https://www.thevoid.com/](https://www.thevoid.com/)

------
tomclive
I had a GearVR and it was pretty fun for a while but the battery life,
overheating and lack of great apps made me lose interest.

I then got a mixed reality headset and Beat Saber was a game-changer for me.
The controls are so simple and are perfectly suited to VR. No motion sickness
etc. It's a great game. I've picked up loads of the best selling VR games on
Steam and although some have been fun, none quite match up to Beat Saber.

Google Earth with room-scale VR is stunning. Being able to walk around your
hometown as if you were a couple of hundred feet tall is an incredible
experience.

I'm looking forward to MS Flight Simulator 2020 and it looks like the devs are
making VR a priority. This could be a winner for me.

------
bykhun
Really, what a bad time to publish such article. Oculus Quest hit records with
its' sales for Christmas, and out of stock for two months ahead.

~~~
degenerate
Also, Valve will release _Half-Life: Alyx_ [1] in March 2020. It's the first
game in the much-loved HL series released since Portal 2 in 2011.

I don't own a VR headset and I don't intend to any time soon - it's too
expensive and nothing looks enjoyable enough to justify the cost. But once
enough big-name games like Alyx get released, gamers previously on the fence
(like me) will start to purchase VR headsets, and VR will eventually become
the new gaming platform that publishers wants to release on.

[1]
[https://store.steampowered.com/app/546560/HalfLife_Alyx/](https://store.steampowered.com/app/546560/HalfLife_Alyx/)

~~~
ekianjo
> and VR will eventually become the new gaming platform that publishers wants
> to release on.

I predict the opposite. It will sell a few headsets maybe (a peak), but that
alone will not change the course of the technology at all in 2020. Plus, Half
Life's popularity in 2020 has nothing to do with its popularity 20 years ago.

~~~
war321
It pretty much stole social media headlines with just a post saying "tune in a
few days for our next VR game". Valve have plenty of clout still, and Half-
Life still draws plenty of eyes.

~~~
ekianjo
Social media fanatism or outrage hardly reflects the market as a whole.

------
mdorazio
Really surprised that neither the article nor the comments here mention the #1
barrier to entry. Your average person doesn’t want to strap a big, heavy,
sweaty contraption on their face that blocks their vision entirely. Analysts
and enthusiasts seem to miss this point constantly.

~~~
chrischen
People will do things that they aren't used to if the benefits outweigh the
costs.

And of the list of things preventing people from doing VR right now, I doubt
strapping the headset on is anywhere near the top (things like cost, PC,
space, etc are).

~~~
untog
> I doubt strapping the headset on is anywhere near the top

For me personally, a side effect of that is the reason I'm not excited about
VR: it's anti-social. I'm shutting myself off from anyone else in my apartment
in a way a normal video game doesn't do. It makes me way, way less excited
about the potential of VR.

~~~
baby
Interestingly, I've had the most impressive social experience in VR. I got the
Oculus Go when it came out and bought Catan (the board game, but in VR). I
then launched a game online, and ended up playing for an hour with a finish
kid and a canadian dude. We talked like we were all together, and at the end I
couldn't just leave without saying goodbye (usually I just quit a game, but
here I felt some social pressure to do the right thing). We even shook hand.

~~~
untog
That's a very different social experience, though. You're still blocking
yourself off from other people in the room with you.

~~~
baby
Sure but don’t you do the same when you are watching a movie or playing a
videogame?

There are games to interact with other people in the room btw and they are
super fun as well! Check “keep talking and nobody explodes” and “acron: attack
of the squirels ”.

------
epaga
I agree with everyone here who is praising the Quest.

How they’d write an article like this and not mention the Oculus Quest even
once is beyond me. It is a game changer and two of my friends have bought one
after trying it out once. No cables, no PC, minimal setup, and incredibly
immersive.

~~~
zmmmmm
Yep. I have a friend who simply mocked my Gear VR who was looking up the price
on Amazon minutes after trying out the Quest. Anybody trashing VR needs to try
the Quest. Trash it afterwards if you like, but don't trash it based on the
previous gen (either high end or low end) because they are not comparable.

------
lasagnaphil
What I think virtual reality would be immediately useful right now: for anyone
working on 3D modeling/animating/CAD. It is very finicky to view and
manipulate 3d data on a flat 2d monitor, VR headsets and manipulation devices
should be a godsend to those professions. (Also, they have a lot more money to
throw than ordinary consumers, they would be willing to pay thousands on a
superior workflow.) If VR software developers would focus on those programs
first, I would see VR being a must-buy for certain niche groups of people
(which would be a solid foundation for the VR industry.) Too bad that many of
the VR developers are tunnel-visioned and only care about flashy
games/entertainment, where the real gold might be somewhere else.

~~~
gmueckl
I currently hack together a mini mesh modelling tool in VR for very specific
reasons. I find that creating a UI for something moderately complex isn't all
that easy. The common idiom is to treat your controllers as laser pointers,
but precision is limited. So you need big UI elements to have easy to hit
targets. With the number of simultaneous UI elements thus limited, you need to
create hierarchies and menus fast, making interaction cumbersome.

Also, using VR controllers in thin air for a prolonged time becomes a workout.
The human body isn't quite made for keeping arms in these poses for extended
periods of time.

However, being able to view and manipulate a virtual object directly in 3d
space is pretty darn sweet. Just bending your head or moving your hand beats
manipulating virtual canera perspectives and gizmos for precision 3d
interaction on a screen.

I nearly forgot: the Unreal Engine editor has a VR mode that brings in the
nornal 2D GUI as floating windows. I didn't like that very much, but people
seem to be OK with it. I don't know any other DCC software that has VR
support.

~~~
jkestner
Good observations. CAD users typically have one hand on the keyboard and one
on the mouse or 3D mouse. If you took out the mouse-screen translation and
directly manipulated the object/scene with your mouse hand, I think you'd have
the best of old and new. This calls for mixed reality, or visibility of your
keyboard in VR.

------
rafaelvasco
The price. That's the only reason for me. Other than that it's wonderful; Once
the prices reach affordable for the masses level, it will surely blow up,
given the right apps come with it. People yearn to fantasize, break away from
reality, new sensorial experiences etc. If VR offers that at good prices it'll
be an explosion. That's my view on it.

~~~
xyzzyz
Oculus Quest is $400, which is cheaper than original NES.

~~~
rpdillon
Yeah, it's weird how everyone is talking like it's a multi-thousand dollar
investment. Even TFA, it closes with:

> "Mass adoption remains impeded by the hardware required to run it, in my
> opinion. Take videogames - you need a very powerful PC, a good amount of
> space, sensors set up around it, and of course the VR helmet itself.

> "The cost runs to thousands and for most it is completely impractical not to
> mention too expensive.

I appreciate the space concern (I live with others in a condo), but the cost
is 1/5th or 1/10th of what they suggest, and they are completely ignoring
inside-out tracking with obviates the need for a dedicated room with a sensor
setup.

------
specialp
For me personally I have tried it, and it gives me a headache and makes me
feel bad. Now this could be like anything else that causes motion sickness
where one would get accustomed to it, but I am not prepared to spend a lot of
money on a headset not knowing if it ever would not give me a headache.

Also the experience isn't really mind-blowing either. We are still in a
physical space where I'll walk into a wall. Virtual reality is far from
reality and constrained by reality at the same time. I'd rather game with a
large HD screen and use input devices so I still have my senses if I have to
respond to the real world.

------
armitron
Sensationalist article that is completely out of touch with reality on both
social and technical levels. Oculus quest is a game changer - obvious to
anyone that puts it on - and the fact that it’s not even mentioned says a lot.
I doubt she has even tried it.

On a social level, it is comical how myopic her vision for VR is and how far
off the mark the focus on VR arcades lies. The big selling point of VR in the
near and not so near future is not expensive social experiences on somebody
else’s commercial infrastructure but escapism and social experiences including
work in the comfort of your own home.

Global warming, rising populations, terrorist attacks, widespread decoherence,
pollution and decay in our urban centers are all powerful accelerators and
extremely synergistic for the future of VR.

~~~
ergl
Are those use cases supposed to make VR sound good?

------
kstenerud
Another issue is motion sickness. For a significant portion of us this is a
huge problem.

~~~
aepiepaey
Most people can reportedly get used to the discrepancy between the vision and
balance senses and be rid of the motion sickness (with some training: keep
playing until you start feeling uncomfortable, wait until the next day, go
again).

Ginger can also help delay onset.

It can also be noted that motion sickness really only is a problem where the
game character moves while you stand still physically (e.g. using a joystick
to move around). Other forms of locomotion (like teleportation) are usually
fine.

~~~
kstenerud
These are, unfortunately, falsehoods that keep getting perpetuated despite
efforts to the contrary.

While you can become slightly more tolerant with repeated exposure (as you can
with anything noxious), the the discomfort never goes away.

And it's not just game character motion. Any camera movement can trigger it,
at different levels for different people. If you don't get triggered, count
yourself lucky, and don't tell the rest of us to "just practice" or attempt to
explain away that it's only X and not ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYZ. Listen to
what we're actually SAYING.

I still remember Valve responding to complaints of motion sickness in Half
Life 2 with the lame excuse "It's because our technology is so amazingly
lifelike." I wanted to punch the guy in the face and ask him if that was
lifelike enough for him.

~~~
GuB-42
> I still remember Valve responding to complaints of motion sickness in Half
> Life 2 with the lame excuse "It's because our technology is so amazingly
> lifelike."

That's interesting you bring adaptation and immersion together. I do feel
motion sickness in VR in extreme cases. Interestingly I managed to become more
tolerant of it but it came with a significant loss of immersion.

Oh and the "amazingly lifelike" argument for justifying motion sickness is
indeed complete bullshit. If you experience motion sickness, it is because it
is _not_ lifelike. Bad framerates, high latency, unnatural camera movement,
etc... all contribute to motion sickness.

------
eddhead
There are so many problems in this article.I don't know where to begin.
Obviously she doesn't mention the Oculus Quest and Obviously she doesn't even
mention popular VR games that everybody is actually buying.

There are VR devices for everyone and she seems to be basing her entire
article on the shoddy VR mall experience she once got to try out.

The Quest is the best VR experience today for casual and semi-hardcore users
and it changes the game entirely.

------
jdlyga
I own an Oculus Quest, and it's not bad. But it does take up too much room to
play, it's isolating, there's not enough content yet besides glorified tech
demos, and both the hardware and the games are too expensive.

------
grawprog
About the only VR game that's ever seemed appealing to me is that table top
simulator game.

[https://store.steampowered.com/app/286160/Tabletop_Simulator...](https://store.steampowered.com/app/286160/Tabletop_Simulator/)

Personally, I'd love to get a group of people together and play a DND campaign
or something with it, but other than that, I don't have any interest in VR
games.

If anything, these days, I prefer quicker, less immersive games I can pick up
and play and put down again. VR's the opposite of that in just about every
way.

~~~
wayoutthere
Personally, I find Elite: Dangerous to be the best, most immersive VR game
I've played. It's a 6DOF space sim set in a 1:1 scale version of the Milky Way
that puts you in the pilot's seat, with a few dozen ships to choose from. The
insides of the cockpit (or bridge on the larger ships) are fully modeled.
Paired with a decent HOTAS or dual-stick setup, it's about as close as you're
going to get to flying a futuristic spaceship. The game offers combat,
trading, exploration, mining, rescue missions, surface exploration and you can
have friends join you on your ship as either a gunner or ship-launched fighter
pilot.

Development has stalled somewhat over the last 6 months -- the developer is
actively releasing updates, but mostly catching up on bugfixes in anticipation
of a new expansion later this year. But if you're new to the game, there are
easily 100+ hours of gameplay available as long as you're ok that it's not a
narrative-driven game. The community is very active, with player factions
driving many of the activities in the game from public Discord servers, so the
lack of content updates isn't necessarily as bad as it would be in other
games. Only like 0.5% of the systems in the galaxy have been explored, so
plenty left to discover!

~~~
grawprog
I have to admit, a vr space sim could be pretty awesome. I've played a lot of
oolite and I used to play another space Sim pretty heavily the name which
escapes me right now.

>surface exploration and you can have friends join you on your ship as either
a gunner or ship-launched fighter pilot.

This seems like it would be pretty fun. I find space Sims get boring though,
they tend to get really repetitive. How does elite dangerous do with mission
and system variety? I find in the end, with most games like that, different
systems tend to boil down to different numbers on the trade screen, maybe a
random event or two and a lot of flying around empty space to get to a planet
or stations, load up on some trade goods or get a mission, head to the next
system, repeat. Maybe mine an asteroid or two for minerals in between.

These things would definitely be prettier and more immersive in VR, but are
they any more fun?

~~~
wayoutthere
System variety is great; you can fly between the various stars / planets in a
system, you can land on any rocky / ice planets without an atmosphere. They're
all randomly generated when you get outside the "bubble" (a few hundred LY
around Sol), but bound by the currently-understood laws of physics. I can't
tell you how cool it feels to zoom around various star types in hyperspace or
supercharge your jump drive in the jet cone of a neutron star. Asteroid mining
is also really cool and engaging, especially in VR.

Mission variety is not-so-great, but I haven't taken an official mission in
over a year. There is plenty to do if you're self-directed or you participate
in community-driven content.

But yeah, ultimately it is a space sim and it can be played without VR (though
a significant percentage of players do use VR). It's still by far the most
immersive VR game I've ever played. It's also really pretty, especially with
some of the shader mods applied (look up some screenshots for an idea).

------
d--b
FIELD OF VISION.

Why can’t VR people understand that humans are used to ultra wide vision
angle? Peeping into a VR headset removes all peripheral vision, meaning you
have to rotate your head all over to see things. It’s like playing quake with
your neck.

Make a 180 angle headset and maybe people will feel transported to another
place. Right now it’s more like looking into a doll’s house.

No wonder immersive rooms are better

~~~
wayoutthere
The Valve Index is actually pretty good at this. It's not quite 180, but
somewhere around 130 which is good enough to give you decent peripheral
vision. I feel like the next generation of VR will be a lot closer.

Also, the main thing holding back VR right now is the amount of graphics
horsepower required to run complex games at high resolutions and refresh rates
of 90-120fps. I don't think there are any cards on the market that can run the
Index at native resolution in most games (the software will scale the
resolution to your hardware).

------
mrfusion
Something about vr systems makes it not feel real to me. I’m thinking it’s
that I can’t change the focus of my eyes. Everything is in the same focus. I
forget what that’s called but it makes it feel fake to me.

~~~
cybwraith
Varifocal VR headsets are in the R&D stage. A year or two ago Oculus showed
off a headset called Half-dome that had varifocal displays. It'll get there.

------
Kiro
I'm a firm believer that Oculus Quest is the new beginning of VR. I used to be
a real skeptic but now I've turned.

I think it's futile to analyse the market pre-Quest and I'm excited of what's
to come.

~~~
nottorp
It sends everything you do to Facebook right? Occulus products are the one
thing I'll never consider buying.

~~~
draugadrotten
it evens transmits telemetry to facebook 24x7 when you are not using the
headset itself. I have no idea what it is saying, but since I got an oculus, I
can see traffic to graph.oculus.com more or less constantly.

------
Gunax
I am long on VR. It really does look good.

I think everyone's experience has been ruined by crappy. The 90s had a VR far
but they sucked. Of you're putting a phone across your face, it sucks. The
market was spoiled by crappy imitators and gimicks.

Anytime someone tries a real VR headset for the first time, they are usually
amazed. I have personally sold 3 headsets just by having friends of mine try
mine for a few minutes.

------
zaphod420
I really enjoy VR games.

The problem I have is motion sickness. I can only play for very short periods
of time, and I feel sick after playing.

I've had the Rift for about a year, and despite people telling me I would get
used to it, I still get motion sickness.

Because I've had the experience so many times, now just thinking about playing
the game will trigger the sensation of nausea, which prevents me from even
wanting to play.

------
berdon
I have the Quest and an empty basement set up for it. The games are all still
too indie feeling but with the focus dialed in the experience is truly
remarkable. Oculus is pushing in the right places too - standalone device with
PC support, hands free capability (for older/elderly), and hopefully guardian-
less mode (outside play).

I've had a number of friends and family members of different ages try it. The
older ones struggled with the controls but once they got into Beat Saber they
enjoyed it. With better content and games I see it finally taking off. I dream
of the day we have parking lots/warehouses where people play MMOs on VR and
stay fit.

------
flyGuyOnTheSly
I put a PS4 VR set on my head at my relatives over the holidays and I could
not have been more disappointed.

They had just been gifted it for Christmas and were trying out all of the
demos.

I put it on and while I could rotate my head in any direction like I was
living inside some google maps experiment almost...

The picture was extremely blurry and the entire experience gave me a
headache... after probably only 10 minutes of use.

I am not surprised that experience hasn't "taken off" yet. It was terrible.

I can't believe somebody paid good money for that.

As soon as I put it on all I could think was "damnit, we're still 20 years out
from this actually working like we expect it to".

~~~
cybwraith
The PSVR is the lowest-resolution "high end" VR headset out there, and is on
the underpowered PS4 hardware, with poor controller tracking and lots of
motion blur and downsampling to make the games even run.

You really ought to try an Oculus Quest or Rift S/Vive Pro. PSVR has 1080
vertical pixels, Quest has 1600 vertical pixels, much better lenses, and much
better controllers. Not to mention the games run much more smoothly

~~~
flyGuyOnTheSly
Alright thanks for that! My hopes for an impending VR future are no longer as
dim. I didn't realize the PSVR came out in 2016 when I tried it. I figured it
was brand new this year.

------
ilikehurdles
It seems like a bulky novelty. Like something we would very much enjoy but
because of the cost and involved setup I'd rather go to an arcade to
experience VR than throw it into a room and turn gaming into an even more
socially isolated thing than it already is. I also don't know how often I'd
use it past. Seems fun for racing and flight games, but I also can't justify
keeping a ton of simulation racing/flight gear around in my house. A simple
handheld controller seems "good enough" for achieving 90% of the fun.

I do wish there'd be more VR availability in arcade-style places.

------
PetitPrince
> "Mass adoption remains impeded by the hardware required to run it, in my
> opinion. Take videogames - you need a very powerful PC, a good amount of
> space, sensors set up around it, and of course the VR helmet itself.

> "The cost runs to thousands and for most it is completely impractical not to
> mention too expensive.

The Oculus Quest is about 50$ more than a PS4 Pro / Xbox X at launch. Still
expensive but not in the thousands.

~~~
donkeyd
I think it's the same issue that's happening with electric cars. People
remember only the disadvantages of old technology and aren't aware of new tech
being much better and more user friendly. With VR, people think it's cables,
bulky PC's and complex setup, because that's their first and only experience
with it. With electric cars, it's range anxiety, slow charging and degrading
batteries. Meanwhile, the media tends to strengthen this bias with articles
like this one and reporting every single incident with a Tesla.

The only way to change people's minds is to let them experience the
alternative, I see this both with my Quest and my Tesla. We recently had a
game night at work, where multiple people brought VR headsets, but mine was
the only tetherless one. I let people play Tea for God, which is a
procedurally generated game that lets people walk a long distance in a
restricted play area. Many of them had played VR games before, but nobody
experienced anything like this and many people asked me more about it, even
days later, because they weren't aware that the technology existed.

------
arminiusreturns
I hope to build a system primarily for a Valve Index this year. I think VR is
here to stay, and it reminds of the early days of PC's and pc gaming, when a
PC could be 4k (I mean they still can be, but you get what I am saying), and
games required the top level hardware and didn't always try to run on
yesterdays potato, an artificial limitation put on way to many things today.

------
bartread
I have the PSVR and in many ways it's great.

For example, it's tough to beat Wipeout VR as a future racing experience. The
fact that you can look around/through the corners the way you do in the real
world when you're driving a vehicle really changes the way the game plays and
makes it much more immersive.

OTOH some games do seem to cause quite severe motion sickness (I forget the
name of the one I'm particularly thinking of because I haven't played it in
ages, for obvious reasons).

The other problem is that ergonomically it's an absolute arse-ache. I have the
first gen PSVR which is just an festooning nightmare of cables. The lenses are
also way too prone to fogging.

I believe the second gen headsets are better but there are still cable
management issues.

It's also, frankly, not that comfortable to wear. It's not painful or anything
like that, but I'm no fan of wearing hats because they tend to make me feel
too hot, so you can imagine what having a bulky conglomeration of plastic and
electronics strapped to my face for long periods feels like.

Really these things need to be wireless and rechargeable but then, of course,
you open the system up to more latency issues.

One area I haven't had so many issues, which is touched on in the article, is
the drop in quality, and in particular graphical fidelity.

Wipeout VR, I think, runs at 4K on a PS4 Pro but only 1080P with PSVR. I
haven't found this to be something that bothers me at all, or at least not
with this game.

On the other hand I have found the drop in quality with Driveclub VR to be
noticeable to the point where it does detract from the experience.

It really does very much depend on the game though.

Still, overall impressions of the experiences on offer are fairly positive.

~~~
meesterdude
> but then, of course, you open the system up to more latency issues.

Nope. Maybe "of course", if they just lazily hack something together. But the
tech is there, today, for low latency.

------
CM30
I suspect the software has an effect too. There's certainly some neat stuff
you can experience with VR headsets now, and apps have been made for it, but
none of the things released so far have been a big enough hit to make people
want go out and buy the systems to experiece them.

They just don't have their Super Mario Bros/Tetris/Wii
Sports/Minecraft/whatever equivalent yet, the thing that'll set the world on
fire enough that people will be all like "I'll have to buy a VR headset now,
to experience this product everyone else is talking about"

~~~
Outpox
The Valve Index (by Steam) has been sold out in December after they announced
Half-Life Alyx which is included with every Index. This is won't be the time
everyone goes VR yet but the market is expanding.

~~~
CM30
Yeah, the market certainly is. And Valve making a Half-Life game for their
system was probably the best move they could make as far as increasing demand
goes too.

------
dade_
It isn't ready yet. We have come a very long way, but the hype always sets
expectations - too soon for the quality and price consumers demand.

Compare what was an amazing experience in 1995 with MechWarrior 2 VR ($3000
headset + $3000 PC in 1995 dollars) to the experience that Sony offers with
the PS4 for less than 1/6th the cost today. I am still excited to see what
comes next.

~~~
shostack
IMHO nothing matches the truly immersive experience of Battletech that they
had at North Pier in Chicago when I was growing up.

It was a fully themed space and you'd walk into a room full of pods (cockpits)
and they'd slide the hatch closed on you. Then lights and multiple monitors
would come on and you had a joystick, throttle, foot pedals for rotating your
turret, and a massive array of switches, buttons, and their associated little
red digital displays for weapon assignments, etc.

It was unbelievable and at the end you all went into a room to watch a
spectator view of the match and got a printout with every blow of the match
described in log format.

I think I still have my membership card somewhere.

------
kevinmgranger
These comments (and inevitably, anywhere else there's discussions of VR)
always find themselves with a 50/50 split on:

"Most people I know (love it / hate it / don't get motion sick / get motion
sick), those who (hate it / love it / get motion sick / don't get motion sick)
are the minority."

Does anyone have real data on this, or just anecdata?

------
sundvor
Elite Dangerous. There, now that's been said. Brilliant experience.

------
timwaagh
vr is just expensive and requires fairly high end hardware still. There are
also are all kinds of software issues with it. like when i was playing a well
known racing game, very often the camera would be somewhere other than the
driver's seat. And those are the kind of games that really are quite heavy on
vr adoption and are the natural fit for this type of control.

many games do not naturally lend themself to vr, and by those i mean the most
popular genres, like fps, rpg, action-adventure. Basically every game that
requires your feet to move about in a virtual world. I don't think it is
suitable for strategy or management games either. So that leaves simulation,
racing and some very old genres like on-rails-shooters. which is a sizeable
market, but not the mainstream gaming market.

~~~
Kiro
> requires fairly high end hardware still

Not true with Oculus Quest which completely turned me from a skeptic to a
believer. Just put it on and start playing. No external hardware required.

~~~
Fabricio20
Not exactly sure why you are being downvoted here.

Oculus Quest really does not require an external computer (ie High-End
Hardware), and it _is_ a really good experience (it's also really cheap
compared to alternatives), specially the "tetherless" part of it. [You can see
a lot of people in this exact thread talk about their experiences with it]

While there is still a lot to improve in terms of quality, not every game
needs to look realistic (see: Fortinite - cartoon style).

------
Digit-Al
We need these[0], but better.

[0] [https://www.slashgear.com/panasonic-vr-glasses-are-a-
steampu...](https://www.slashgear.com/panasonic-vr-glasses-are-a-steampunk-
dream-for-5g-09606466/)

------
unnouinceput
For me personally VR it feels still weird, too cartoonish, not an immersive
experience as expected. What I'd argue people would want is AR instead. That
one is way more fun when done right

~~~
krapp
One big problem is what people expect, and what VR advocates describe, is
basically the Holodeck from Star Trek. The immersivity of the experience is
basically like being there. That's what people want, to jack in to the Matrix
or some kind of old-school cyberpunk experience.

Except your brain _knows_ it's looking at a display and not an actual 3D
space, and the cognitive dissonance between what it sees and proprioception
are always going to limit how immersive VR can be. And that's not even getting
into the other senses that VR can't simulate. Sight and sound are actually
less important in terms of immersion than taste, touch and smell.

------
bitwize
Rez Infinite was, alone, enough to sell me on having a VR headset. But Rez
Infinite and maybe Tetris Effect were the only applications so far to really
hold my interest in VR also.

------
overcast
VR is only going to become an obsession when we're jacked into it like the
Matrix or The Beam. Otherwise it's just you wearing a screen on your face.

~~~
taloft
Saying it’s just a screen on your face is an oversimplification. While that
may be a somewhat accurate physical description, it doesn’t capture the actual
experience, anymore than saying a smart phone is just a phone in your pocket.

I’ve had vr sets since the oculus dk2, and admit that I probably haven’t used
it in over a year, because it’s a bit cumbersome, locks you into a single
experience, removes you from your environment, and the relatively lower
quality of applications that are available.

There are some really great immersive applications though such as subnautica,
google earth, and elite dangerous.

------
SirHound
It’s a simple matter of price performance ratio. Price meaning comfort and
money. At some point that ratio will tip.

------
WhompingWindows
I've gotten nauseous every time I put on a VR headset...no wonder I haven't
fallen in love with it.

------
hutzlibu
"This could be a way to revolutionize flight training, and make it more
accessible. "

I rather think this could revolutionize any expensive training. Everything
with heavy machines would benefit. And every other sector where a beginner
misstake can literaly blow something up.

------
HellDunkel
Uncomfortable to the point of sickening. Space and price are valid point but
for me its the sickening impression of fake motion, staring at screen so close
to your eyes, burrliness, wheight of the headset and silly looks.

~~~
war321
Looking silly is the one critique of VR I just don't get. Your in the safety
of your own home and either A) live alone or B) live with a significant
other/parents/roommates. In which case, who cares what they think you might
look like while enjoying yourself?

~~~
HellDunkel
Years ago i remember working at a company where a vr presentation was
cancelled because some high level automotive management folks refused to wear
a headset because it might mess with their hair. Thats just one example. I
personally dont like to put on these headsets too.

------
newzombie
The very main reason VR isn't taking off is because it has no _killer app_ ,
that is, an app that other platforms can't have, and that people love. End-of-
story.

What's to understand here is that it's not said that this killer app "exists".
If VR is only a cooler screen, then it will sell like cooler screens. Now
maybe it's a killer screen, that is a screen that everybody wants. I guess
there is a competitive advantage of thinking like that, but right now, vendors
think they are making a software/hardware platform when they have no killer
app.

~~~
zmmmmm
I don't know if it will happen, but a killer app that _ought_ to exist is
exercise. I've never found anything that gamified exercise the way the Occulus
Quest does. The kind of full body workout I get from ducking, weaving, dodging
and swinging at fast moving opponents, all at 6:30am in the morning without
leaving my home, is simply amazing.

~~~
rubinelli
You don't need VR for that, only motion controls. Some people have exercise
streaks that go on for years on Nintendo's Wii Fit, and Ring Fit Adventure is
on the same path.

~~~
ceejayoz
I've never managed to stick with exercise until the Beat Saber (upper body)
and Pistol Whip (lower body) combo. There's something particularly compelling
about it - I can get my heart rate waaaaaay up without really noticing I'm
working hard.

------
skizm
VR won’t ever be more than niche because there is no way to fake tactile
feedback or motion. Games need to design around this. Beat Sanger is the best
selling VR game because your character doesn’t move and there is nothing to
touch. God games, like black and white or the sims, and 4x games might work
well too. Also if graphics get better people can set up virtual desk spaces
and get rid of screens. Ultimately though the reason most games don’t work is
the tactile feedback and motion issues, which I can’t imagine ways of solving
at the moment.

~~~
falcor84
>there is no way to fake tactile feedback or motion

Why not? There are quite a few companies working on these with some success.
Virtuix for example (disclosure: I'm an investor) are seeing some steady
commercial success in regards to addressing motion[0]. And in terms of
feedback, there's a lot of interesting work done Fl around gloves in
particular, including by Apple [1].

[0] [https://www.virtuix.com/](https://www.virtuix.com/) [1]
[https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-
apple/2020/01/apple-a...](https://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-
apple/2020/01/apple-adds-an-optical-sensor-to-its-optical-imaging-system-and-
more-to-its-haptic-feedback-vr-gaming-gloves.html)

~~~
skizm
I meant more like swinging a sword will never meet another sword. Punching
someone in the face will never hurt your hand, etc. and then when you swing
through air as your in-game hand stops, it feels kinda lame.

~~~
falcor84
I don't quite understand what you mean. I can come up with several different
engineering approaches to make a sword controlle suddenly stop. And I can come
up with even more ways to inflict mild pain (e.g. electrical stimulation).

What makes you say "never"? If there are people willing to pay for better
immersion, I believe the technology won't be that far behind.

~~~
skizm
How would you make a "sword" stop mid-air? A companion sword-fighting robot
that mimics the movements of the enemy you're seeing? I'm not saying never,
just without nano-bots and a fully mutable IRL environment to go with the
headset. Electrical stimulation wouldn't stop your hand moving forward, nor
would it simulate hitting something in any way (unless it was stimulating your
brain's pain and motor centers I guess).

~~~
falcor84
How about this as a very early idea: start with something like the Virtuix
Omni that allows the player to freely move and rotate. Add 3 thin metallic
pillars surrounding the device, going up to about 2m, which would rotate with
the player. At 2 different heights on each of these pillars there would be a
pully controlling a slightly elastic cord via fast acting actuators. The other
end of each of these ropes would be connected to the sword controller.

Most of the time, there wouldn't be much tension coming from the cords (other
than perhaps representing gravity pulling on the sword's mass), but when a hit
needs to be simulated, the right cords would rapidly tense, according to the
simulated properties of the object being hit.

------
mlang23
I am concered about the upcoming accessibility disaster. Granted, most games
are likely not really essential for say, blind people, to play. But the future
will bring UIs to VR. And I doubt that companies will think about
accessibility from the start. It is already hard to maintain screen readers
for typical GUIs. But it will be almost impossible to have meaningful
assistive technologies in VR as long as they are designed as add-ons.

------
lowdose
Anyone coming up with a Ted like teddy bear conversational experience in AR.
Cracking jokes at consumed content at hand will make a killing and will
silence all critics. This is an article from a conservative that could have
written an article like why the Electronic vehicle will never be a car 5 years
ago. We know nay sayers do not have the power of imagination they just consume
the fruit when it's ripe.

------
Kaiyou
If I could pay $200 to get the full experience, I'd already have paid. I
can't, so I haven't. Unless they can get the price for the whole package
including a game to below $500, it won't reach the masses and unless they get
below $200 they won't reach me, because I'm a cheapskate that is satisfied
with playing 30 year old games.

~~~
cybwraith
It'll get there. Oculus Quest is $400 and games can be had for pretty
reasonable prices. In a few years I wouldn't be surprised to see an even more
streamlined Quest reintroduced at $200.

~~~
Kaiyou
Included in that price must be a PC that can handle VR, though.

------
throwawaaaayvr
i have an oculus go that I got for christmas. the one that got me: vr porn. it
is very immersive. next level when your partner gets involved. having only
been with my one partner, it is like experiencing other people and that is
very exciting.

------
jjtheblunt
I saw the title, and thought "because real reality is more engaging".

