Carmack is 100% correct in his assessment that software is holding VR back way more than hardware. The software is cumbersome, difficult to use, non-intuitive, confusing for newcomers, and glitchy. This is all even though you have a device as powerful as a laptop strapped to your face.
Other than a few games (Alyx, Beatsaber, maybe a few others), VR gaming is awful. "Productivity" software is even worse. I regret spending $1500 on my Quest Pro given that I've only used it for like a dozen hours.
VR Operating Systems and UI/UX concepts need to be re-thought from the ground up.
The worst part of VR games is the ongoing obsession of developers with trying to replicate FPS games in the worst possible vomit-inducing way, while completely ignoring all the interesting potential in things that barely anyone has even touched yet, like simulation games with virtual dioramas, small-scale games with shared social lobbies, games that play with size/perspective differences, and so on.
Even with the FPS adjacent games there's a lot of untapped potential there since your input is so much more rich.
For a along time I had the idea to create some FPS rogue type game (because I was more interested in the mechanics to follow than the game itself) for VR, where your skill level in a specific aspect affected your perception of the world. High sword skill? While you're swinging a sword the world slows down. High block skill? Same when blocking with a shield. High evasion? When you move while there's a projectile/weapon swinging within a certain distance, same thing. You can apply the concept to many things.
I know I'm never going to have the time and attention to do it, but it would be cool to see the idea explored at least, and it's something it's hard to do unless you're actually doing a good approximation of the fidelity of actual movements of a person so the time time difference actually gives them a chance to take advantage of it.
I think people focus too much on the 3D aspects of VR and not enough on the interactions, and ways in which those interactions open up completely new gameplay mechanics, not just aping what people can do in real life now that you can see arms and hands.
The thing is Wii and Kinect already tried that stuff 15 years ago and although they were fun novelties at first, neither really changed the industry in the long term.
It's no surprise to me that the most popular VR game is a rhythm game, because the latest hype cycle of VR is following the same trajectory as "novelty input device" arcade games whose most lasting hits were rhythm games too.
It seems that the group of people who a) are interested in physically moving their body around in their spare time, and b) prefer indoor environments to outdoor ones, and c) prefer virtualized spaces to physical spaces, and d) prefer the privacy of their own home to third places, and e) also have a home big enough to dedicate space to this hobby... is a relatively small group with a rather specific taste in games.
A much larger group of gamers already has an exhausting physical job, or a preexisting workout schedule, or prefers to go hiking in the woods, and so when they get back to their home to game they just want to plop down and zone out.
> The thing is Wii and Kinect already tried that stuff 15 years ago and although they were fun novelties at first, neither really changed the industry in the long term.
I'm not looking to see something change the industry, I'm looking for interesting and novel.
> It seems that the group of people who...
I don't disagree, but people are writing games for the platform. I just want to see people lean into the strengths of what they're targeting. Some of the most fun and interesting games for the wii did exactly that. Boom Blox for the Wii was extremely simple in concept and execution, and was also more fun than most Wii games I played.
> A much larger group of gamers already has an exhausting physical job, or a preexisting workout schedule, or prefers to go hiking in the woods, and so when they get back to their home to game they just want to plop down and zone out.
All the more reason to lean into new and novel ideas, because as I know, when your time for playing games is limited you're often going to stick with the known quantity that can provide enjoyment (which is likely some AAA title that is good enough) unless there's a very good hook.
That may be true, but most aspects of hardware exist just below a very exciting threshold right now.
* The resolution in commodity headsets is just low enough that text is barely legible. Productivity apps become suddenly practical when you can render good-looking text.
* It's been years since the announcement of holographic lenses, which will remove the headache-inducing fixed-focal-length and pupil misalignment; significantly reduce headset size/weight; and increase the brightness and color gamut, and make the headset cooler, because the display backlights are replaced with lasers.
Most of the tech stack for SteamVR just needs to be semantically moved from "game engine library" to "HID & UI/UX framework".
Where are the designers? Expected some novel UX that I never considered to emerge but really hasn't outside the ubiquitous movement in games where you point an arcing arrow to move. Apple's gaze and pinch is sort of thing I expected more of from normal, non-giant-company designers.
Yes, for the most part VR gaming is awful. Sometimes in a kinda fun way. I wonder if we'll look back with nostalgia on some of these weak games like we do with weird old turbografx platformers.
I believe that VR/AR will become popular after the popularization of general use BCI's.
To me, it's just a gaming console with mediocre games in the form of an awkward hat, and I don't like hats. The UI is definitely a place I could be won over. Maybe someone will do something undeniably revolutionary without drilling diodes into my head. Who knows? Until then, my wallet will certainly override any peaked interest, so it better be cheap enough to not have buyer's remorse like described.
I dunno, Carmack's take seems weird to me...there are tons and tons of games and apps made by tons of different companies and people, what would the common thing be that is holding them back? The OS is not that hard to use, you can pick up the Quest and be playing a game in 10 seconds. It makes more sense to me that the burden of using the hardware is making it so the bar is much higher for games and apps in VR.
Most of the games are just tech demos without any depths or length. Many of the goods ones aren't even on Quest, but on PC. There is also no steady stream of new high quality content, every year or two something interesting comes out and then nothing for months. Ports of existing 2D games or franchises into VR are extremely rare. 3D and VR movies are still largely ignored by Meta as well. The promised "Metaverse" is nowhere to be seen.
The whole thing is just a bit "meh". If you dig deep enough, you can find some interesting stuff, but it feels so far less interesting than it could be.
Just look back at all the stuff that happened back when Oculus was still in charge, we had Oculus Medium and Quill for content creation, we had Oculus Story Studios, we had numerous good games released in short order and so on. It felt like VR was expanding, the last few years in contrast it felt like the thing was just shrinking down. And a lot of that was not by accident, but Meta's conscious effort to turn VR into "Metaverse" and move away from games. Which in turn was a flop, so Quest is back doing games, but it all feels very half-hearted.
VR has been hyped up since the 90s and when you look at what Quest delivers today, 35 later, it just doesn't feel like it's actually delivering on the potential of VR.
Other than a few games (Alyx, Beatsaber, maybe a few others), VR gaming is awful. "Productivity" software is even worse. I regret spending $1500 on my Quest Pro given that I've only used it for like a dozen hours.
VR Operating Systems and UI/UX concepts need to be re-thought from the ground up.