VR games can absolutely be played sitting down, whoever says otherwise has yet to even put on a headset. Forced standing and movement are not even close to the issues vr is facing.
When the vive first launched along with the rift that was suppose to be the high point and eventually over time as generations released the price was suppose to come down. That has yet to happen. All of the must play games are from indie developers which isn't far off from regular gaming honestly but they lack the draw of AAA companies and releases even if the games end up sucking or the companies are terrible, they bring the crowds. All these companies were suppose to be onboard with vr but they haven't really shown it.
The space requirement for vr is also a factor, even sitting, if you have a dedicated office that has nothing in it but a desk your good. Any other space that is "normal living" and you rearranging each time you set up and re-rearranging when you finish. That's cool for a few times but gets old really fast.
VR games are also really hard to show on a video, some games that "look" boring, crappy, lame are actually really fun but you cant see that from the screens or videos.
VRs price point needs to go down, visibility up, cords need to go and companies like steam need to actually release games for it. Also selling points like "you can play seated" need to be made known cause its obvious some people don't know much about vr.
There's some misconceptions here. Vive's price used to be $800. It's now $500. Rift used to be $800 with the full touch bundle. It's now replaced with the Rift S at $400.
Space while seated is barely a concern unless you are using motion controls. If you are using a gamepad, then any normal desk space regardless of how messy it is will do. I know this because I used to have a claustrophobic desk and still managed fine.
Some of the best games are actually AA games like Astro Bot, Lone Echo, Robo Recall, so indies don't only comprise of the best.
Yes 1st gen price will go down of course that's obvious but the notion at the start was come 2nd, 3rd, 4th gen the price would be more consumer friendly. VR will not be mainstream by having to build a 1200 PC then buy a 900 headset. You can adjust the price of the pc down a little bit but not much, you don't want low frames in vr.
I actually agree with you on the games being AA, that was my point, they are the good games. What I was saying is the bigger publishers have a bigger draw. If they get into making more VR games(in most cases start) It would bring more people to vr.
And space.. yes I like room scale with motion controls, it adds a level to gaming you cant get anywhere else so when my space turns into a office after starting a business then turns into a office/homeschool room when we took that route with my son space becomes an issue :-) I do agree though sitting with a headset on playing a game like elite dangerous takes that game from a B to an A+. The scale of the ships added in VR is unmatched.
Not saying any of those are bad in any way, im just saying certain things need to happen to bring more appeal for buying into vr.
LackingMMO While you may know this already I thought I would mention it in case you don't. Sometimes when quoting others it doesn't let you go below the quote so you end up typing inside the quote itself.
To fix this hit the </> button to change the posting box to see tags like <blockquote> and add this <br> after the the </blockquote> at the very end of all the text and hit </> again to go back to the normal posting box. This will add a space or line after the quote that you can click on to then be able to type outside the quote.
Fixed your post in my quote btw but can't fix it in your post.
For the pricing of VR HMD right now I think the tech is changing too fast which is why we are not seeing prices come down very quick. Once we get at a HMD that can do great blacks, vivid colors, a good enough fov (say 150 or so) and decent fps of 60+ using a mid tier gpu like say the rtx2080 then I think we will see new HMD versions slow down a little and then we will see prices come down I think.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Can somebody link the new account guy the conversations and specs and links and everything from the past 2 years? The whole "people are being misled by the media" retort is extra moldy at this point too.
But yeah, VR is going to be in the "hasn't failed yet" phase for quite some time. At least the VR zealot from before has a new tag team partner . Good luck in your battles against the inner ear and sensory perception.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Y'know, after reading this thread I feel like I'm in some minority for considering physical activity fun. I mean, people who regularly commit to physical activity/exercise releases endorphins, which can help boost the perception of enjoyment and reduce depression. VR incorporating that into itself can lead to an active style of gameplay being quite comfortable so long as the gear doesn't get in the way.
I played basketball and volleyball competitively most of my life and I'm still quite physically active at 69.
This has nothing to do with lifestyle but rather with the point that changing the gaming billions as a whole from a habit of playing games sitting down for decades is a very tough uphill struggle for anyone wanting to do that. Wii did it for a small minority for a while but it didn't take, it wasn't emulated seriously by anyone and was just a blip.
The emphasis and focus needs to be on seated VR for it to have a chance of becoming anything other than the niche it currently is.
And loud protestations from fans in this thread notwithstanding that is not its focus. Not the focus in development nor marketing,
Yes PS4 VR has sold more than 4 million units and that sounds great in isolation. Doesn't sound quite as good when you consider more than 100 million PS4s have been sold. I don't know what to call a 4% adoption rate other than niche. I can't imagine that the adoption rate of the pricier PC solutions is any better than that.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Can somebody link the new account guy the conversations and specs and links and everything from the past 2 years? The whole "people are being misled by the media" retort is extra moldy at this point too.
But yeah, VR is going to be in the "hasn't failed yet" phase for quite some time. At least the VR zealot from before has a new tag team partner . Good luck in your battles against the inner ear and sensory perception.
Please don't tell me you've been brainwashed by the media too? Do you really think that all these crazy sales projections were sane? Remember how VR/AR was supposed to be a 160 billion dollar market by 2020? Remember how Google Cardboard was supposed to sell 88 million units? Remember how PSVR was supposed to sell 2.6 million units in the year it released, somehow outpacing supply by enormous margins?
All of those are analysts that didn't have a clue about technology adoption, and the media bought every word of it, which means people like yourself bought every word of it. The media ignored everything that Sony, Oculus, HTC, Valve, Samsung and others had to say on the matter.
What about the other misconceptions? You need a whole room, there's nothing that can't be done without it, it's anti-social, it's all tech demos, it costs thousands, few genres work and on and on.
Again, you almost certainly bought into this stuff didn't you?.
Sports are games, VR sits in a similar vein to them when it comes to being a physical form of entertainment. There's no massive leap in my head from enjoying one form of gamepaly to the next as a result.
The schism only rests on the assumption that VR gameplay is beholden to desktop/console gameplay just because it is a piece of technology or something, rather than taking advantage of physical sport-styled gameplay.
The Wii example kind of falls prey to several hard mechanical limitations of the Wii itself. The only sensing the controllers from the screen perspective, and consequently everything having to happen from a fixed facing position meant the amount of physical activity involved had to cater to a finite window. Same problem with the PSVR honestly. That technology is just a stop-gap. While modern VR tech is also semantically a stop-gap, it already stands well past that limitation by having the ability to move and face 360 degrees to see and interact with stuff.
So of course sitting benefits the Wii, because it's gameplay had a forced narrow scope for how to leverage the tech. And Of course the mass-consumer lazy-gamer will want seated VR, and that will limit the scope. But that isn't all VR is and can improve upon, because the physical element is a natural extension of already existing, and older, forms of entertainment.
Y'know, after reading this thread I feel like I'm in some minority for considering physical activity fun. I mean, people who regularly commit to physical activity/exercise releases endorphins, which can help boost the perception of enjoyment and reduce depression. VR incorporating that into itself can lead to an active style of gameplay being quite comfortable so long as the gear doesn't get in the way.
...snip....
The emphasis and focus needs to be on seated VR for it to have a chance of becoming anything other than the niche it currently is.
...snip...
While I can agree that more focus on seated gaming needs to be made for VR to become mainstream the whole point some of us are making is that VR doesn't need to be mainstream anytime soon. This statement from you also keeps on ignoring the fact that you can use VR while seated btw...lol which is why I don't think it's as big a deal as you are trying to make it out to be.
If the niche is big enough and it has proven so, as by reports from VR companies themselves adoption has went better than they expected it to be then that's good enough for now till the tech matures.
As to the rest of your post it explains much and why it comes across as just so much "get off my yawn" yelling.
As someone that's no longer a young whipper snapper in their 30's I know it's easy to fall prey to that sort of attitude.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Can somebody link the new account guy the conversations and specs and links and everything from the past 2 years? The whole "people are being misled by the media" retort is extra moldy at this point too.
But yeah, VR is going to be in the "hasn't failed yet" phase for quite some time. At least the VR zealot from before has a new tag team partner . Good luck in your battles against the inner ear and sensory perception.
Please don't tell me you've been brainwashed by the media too? Do you really think that all these crazy sales projections were sane? Remember how VR/AR was supposed to be a 160 billion dollar market by 2020? Remember how Google Cardboard was supposed to sell 88 million units? Remember how PSVR was supposed to sell 2.6 million units in the year it released, somehow outpacing supply by enormous margins?
All of those are analysts that didn't have a clue about technology adoption, and the media bought every word of it, which means people like yourself bought every word of it. The media ignored everything that Sony, Oculus, HTC, Valve, Samsung and others had to say on the matter.
What about the other misconceptions? You need a whole room, there's nothing that can't be done without it, it's anti-social, it's all tech demos, it costs thousands, few genres work and on and on.
Again, you almost certainly bought into this stuff didn't you?.
Yes, I'm an NPC that was brainwashed by the media. Mission failed. Abort. Abort. Self-destruct sequence initiated.
I did that in my "Danger Will Robinson" voice just for you.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
VR is amazing and the MMORPG's and multiplayer games available are coming along at leaps and bounds. Personally I think VR Dungeon Knight might be the beginning of a whole new era for Warcraft or RPG fans.
The funny thing is that once you start playing in VR you kinda loose track of all of the flat stuff going on and I think that actually may be hurting its marketing. Once you have experienced this new generation of VR gear available you don't ever go back, there is no going back but it's ok because there is tons of content and the future is looking amazingly fun.
The previous poster is correct about the spread of VR. I cant wait to see what we can play even 24 months from now. I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky in a few weeks.
Why are VR MMORPG's and not listed on this site? Granted the true MMORPG's like Orbus are very alpha but still surprisingly popular and fun.
VR is amazing and the MMORPG's and multiplayer games available are coming along at leaps and bounds. Personally I think VR Dungeon Knight might be the beginning of a whole new era for Warcraft or RPG fans.
The funny thing is that once you start playing in VR you kinda loose track of all of the flat stuff going on and I think that actually may be hurting its marketing. Once you have experienced this new generation of VR gear available you don't ever go back, there is no going back but it's ok because there is tons of content and the future is looking amazingly fun.
The previous poster is correct about the spread of VR. I cant wait to see what we can play even 24 months from now. I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky in a few weeks.
Why are VR MMORPG's and not listed on this site? Granted the true MMORPG's like Orbus are very alpha but still surprisingly popular and fun.
It's probably because there's only one VR MMO released right now which you just mentioned and it's indie.
It will change though. If the site is still around in 10-15 years then most of it's coverage will be on VR since most MMOs will be VR at that point. Pretty easy to see that.
Can somebody link the new account guy the conversations and specs and links and everything from the past 2 years? The whole "people are being misled by the media" retort is extra moldy at this point too.
But yeah, VR is going to be in the "hasn't failed yet" phase for quite some time. At least the VR zealot from before has a new tag team partner . Good luck in your battles against the inner ear and sensory perception.
Please don't tell me you've been brainwashed by the media too? Do you really think that all these crazy sales projections were sane? Remember how VR/AR was supposed to be a 160 billion dollar market by 2020? Remember how Google Cardboard was supposed to sell 88 million units? Remember how PSVR was supposed to sell 2.6 million units in the year it released, somehow outpacing supply by enormous margins?
All of those are analysts that didn't have a clue about technology adoption, and the media bought every word of it, which means people like yourself bought every word of it. The media ignored everything that Sony, Oculus, HTC, Valve, Samsung and others had to say on the matter.
What about the other misconceptions? You need a whole room, there's nothing that can't be done without it, it's anti-social, it's all tech demos, it costs thousands, few genres work and on and on.
Again, you almost certainly bought into this stuff didn't you?.
Yes, I'm an NPC that was brainwashed by the media. Mission failed. Abort. Abort. Self-destruct sequence initiated.
I did that in my "Danger Will Robinson" voice just for you.
I was hoping you'd actually address my points. Nothing to say on them?
With more money then common sense I am looking at an Oculus S right now. What´s stopping me is the knowledge that my wife will strangle me when she sees it and my two little girls scream in bewilderment. Still, some sweet, albeit limited, tech. 449 ain´t too bad in all fairness.
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
VR is amazing and the MMORPG's and multiplayer games available are coming along at leaps and bounds. Personally I think VR Dungeon Knight might be the beginning of a whole new era for Warcraft or RPG fans.
The funny thing is that once you start playing in VR you kinda loose track of all of the flat stuff going on and I think that actually may be hurting its marketing. Once you have experienced this new generation of VR gear available you don't ever go back, there is no going back but it's ok because there is tons of content and the future is looking amazingly fun.
The previous poster is correct about the spread of VR. I cant wait to see what we can play even 24 months from now. I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky in a few weeks.
Why are VR MMORPG's and not listed on this site? Granted the true MMORPG's like Orbus are very alpha but still surprisingly popular and fun.
It's probably because there's only one VR MMO released right now which you just mentioned and it's indie.
It will change though. If the site is still around in 10-15 years then most of it's coverage will be on VR since most MMOs will be VR at that point. Pretty easy to see that.
Vendetta Online is very much a 'real' MMORPG by way of design, class of '04 and all that, and the devs have enthusiastically supported VR since 2013.
It's a VR MMORPG.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Can somebody link the new account guy the conversations and specs and links and everything from the past 2 years? The whole "people are being misled by the media" retort is extra moldy at this point too.
But yeah, VR is going to be in the "hasn't failed yet" phase for quite some time. At least the VR zealot from before has a new tag team partner . Good luck in your battles against the inner ear and sensory perception.
Please don't tell me you've been brainwashed by the media too? Do you really think that all these crazy sales projections were sane? Remember how VR/AR was supposed to be a 160 billion dollar market by 2020? Remember how Google Cardboard was supposed to sell 88 million units? Remember how PSVR was supposed to sell 2.6 million units in the year it released, somehow outpacing supply by enormous margins?
All of those are analysts that didn't have a clue about technology adoption, and the media bought every word of it, which means people like yourself bought every word of it. The media ignored everything that Sony, Oculus, HTC, Valve, Samsung and others had to say on the matter.
What about the other misconceptions? You need a whole room, there's nothing that can't be done without it, it's anti-social, it's all tech demos, it costs thousands, few genres work and on and on.
Again, you almost certainly bought into this stuff didn't you?.
Yes, I'm an NPC that was brainwashed by the media. Mission failed. Abort. Abort. Self-destruct sequence initiated.
I did that in my "Danger Will Robinson" voice just for you.
I was hoping you'd actually address my points. Nothing to say on them?
'You are brainwashed for not wanting to wear this sci-fi looking device on your head'...
Probably not the best approach, unless you are recruiting for a cult or something.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
VR is amazing and the MMORPG's and multiplayer games available are coming along at leaps and bounds. Personally I think VR Dungeon Knight might be the beginning of a whole new era for Warcraft or RPG fans.
The funny thing is that once you start playing in VR you kinda loose track of all of the flat stuff going on and I think that actually may be hurting its marketing. Once you have experienced this new generation of VR gear available you don't ever go back, there is no going back but it's ok because there is tons of content and the future is looking amazingly fun.
The previous poster is correct about the spread of VR. I cant wait to see what we can play even 24 months from now. I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky in a few weeks.
Why are VR MMORPG's and not listed on this site? Granted the true MMORPG's like Orbus are very alpha but still surprisingly popular and fun.
It's probably because there's only one VR MMO released right now which you just mentioned and it's indie.
It will change though. If the site is still around in 10-15 years then most of it's coverage will be on VR since most MMOs will be VR at that point. Pretty easy to see that.
Vendetta Online is very much a 'real' MMORPG by way of design, class of '04 and all that, and the devs have enthusiastically supported VR since 2013.
It's a VR MMORPG.
Well I meant a full blown built from the ground up VR MMORPG. Only Orbus fits that bill so far.
Can somebody link the new account guy the conversations and specs and links and everything from the past 2 years? The whole "people are being misled by the media" retort is extra moldy at this point too.
But yeah, VR is going to be in the "hasn't failed yet" phase for quite some time. At least the VR zealot from before has a new tag team partner . Good luck in your battles against the inner ear and sensory perception.
Please don't tell me you've been brainwashed by the media too? Do you really think that all these crazy sales projections were sane? Remember how VR/AR was supposed to be a 160 billion dollar market by 2020? Remember how Google Cardboard was supposed to sell 88 million units? Remember how PSVR was supposed to sell 2.6 million units in the year it released, somehow outpacing supply by enormous margins?
All of those are analysts that didn't have a clue about technology adoption, and the media bought every word of it, which means people like yourself bought every word of it. The media ignored everything that Sony, Oculus, HTC, Valve, Samsung and others had to say on the matter.
What about the other misconceptions? You need a whole room, there's nothing that can't be done without it, it's anti-social, it's all tech demos, it costs thousands, few genres work and on and on.
Again, you almost certainly bought into this stuff didn't you?.
Yes, I'm an NPC that was brainwashed by the media. Mission failed. Abort. Abort. Self-destruct sequence initiated.
I did that in my "Danger Will Robinson" voice just for you.
I was hoping you'd actually address my points. Nothing to say on them?
'You are brainwashed for not wanting to wear this sci-fi looking device on your head'...
Probably not the best approach, unless you are recruiting for a cult or something.
That has nothing to do with what I just said. I was talking about figures and statements that can be quantified. What you're talking about is subjective. What I'm talking about is objective.
If the media says that all the games available are tech demos and someone believes them, they have been brainwashed. It doesn't matter if they hate or love the tech.
VR is amazing and the MMORPG's and multiplayer games available are coming along at leaps and bounds. Personally I think VR Dungeon Knight might be the beginning of a whole new era for Warcraft or RPG fans.
The funny thing is that once you start playing in VR you kinda loose track of all of the flat stuff going on and I think that actually may be hurting its marketing. Once you have experienced this new generation of VR gear available you don't ever go back, there is no going back but it's ok because there is tons of content and the future is looking amazingly fun.
The previous poster is correct about the spread of VR. I cant wait to see what we can play even 24 months from now. I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky in a few weeks.
Why are VR MMORPG's and not listed on this site? Granted the true MMORPG's like Orbus are very alpha but still surprisingly popular and fun.
It's probably because there's only one VR MMO released right now which you just mentioned and it's indie.
It will change though. If the site is still around in 10-15 years then most of it's coverage will be on VR since most MMOs will be VR at that point. Pretty easy to see that.
Vendetta Online is very much a 'real' MMORPG by way of design, class of '04 and all that, and the devs have enthusiastically supported VR since 2013.
It's a VR MMORPG.
Well I meant a full blown built from the ground up VR MMORPG. Only Orbus fits that bill so far.
I would argue that Vendetta laid the foundations for being awesome in VR long before this current crop of headsets came up.
I wrote a piece here on mmorpg.com prior to the Oculus Kickstarter even being announced, pining for an affordable head-mounted-display to play it on.
As such, it is designed "for" VR, ground-up. A fortunate anachronism, I suppose, but try it and then tell me...
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
VR is amazing and the MMORPG's and multiplayer games available are coming along at leaps and bounds. Personally I think VR Dungeon Knight might be the beginning of a whole new era for Warcraft or RPG fans.
The funny thing is that once you start playing in VR you kinda loose track of all of the flat stuff going on and I think that actually may be hurting its marketing. Once you have experienced this new generation of VR gear available you don't ever go back, there is no going back but it's ok because there is tons of content and the future is looking amazingly fun.
The previous poster is correct about the spread of VR. I cant wait to see what we can play even 24 months from now. I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky in a few weeks.
Why are VR MMORPG's and not listed on this site? Granted the true MMORPG's like Orbus are very alpha but still surprisingly popular and fun.
It's probably because there's only one VR MMO released right now which you just mentioned and it's indie.
It will change though. If the site is still around in 10-15 years then most of it's coverage will be on VR since most MMOs will be VR at that point. Pretty easy to see that.
Vendetta Online is very much a 'real' MMORPG by way of design, class of '04 and all that, and the devs have enthusiastically supported VR since 2013.
It's a VR MMORPG.
Well I meant a full blown built from the ground up VR MMORPG. Only Orbus fits that bill so far.
I would argue that Vendetta laid the foundations for being awesome in VR long before this current crop of headsets came up.
I wrote a piece here on mmorpg.com prior to the Oculus Kickstarter even being announced, pining for an affordable head-mounted-display to play it on.
As such, it is designed "for" VR, ground-up. A fortunate anachronism, I suppose, but try it and then tell me...
I get your point, but to me, and this is where subjectivity comes in, I think of a VRMMORPG as one that only supports VR, because that's how the full potential of the medium gets used.
Though that is more in reference to what we typically think of in MMOs, where we play as characters running around rather than engaged in space combat.
I have a Vive but rarely touch it anymore, and wont be upgrading until the software moved beyond arcade and little gimmicky party games into true AAA games built only for VR. Not sure when/if that will happen. Like the last few comments I'm waiting for a real VR mmo, not the crap like Orbus.
Iunno, I don't mind an abstraction between VR and game if it means cross-compatibility. Like having gestural actions within a certain range triggering different attacks, abilities, and emotes that to other viewers gets translated into preanimated elements like in more traditional games.
Keeps the trolling down a bit, and gives a clear framework for player skills and abilities to operate within. Primarily though, could still offer what would functionally be a full-featured VR experience while having cross-compatibility.
Iunno, I don't mind an abstraction between VR and game if it means cross-compatibility. Like having gestural actions within a certain range triggering different attacks, abilities, and emotes that to other viewers gets translated into preanimated elements like in more traditional games.
Keeps the trolling down a bit, and gives a clear framework for player skills and abilities to operate within. Primarily though, could still offer what would functionally be a full-featured VR experience while having cross-compatibility.
That would be really limiting the scope though to be honest. VR MMOs should be true livable worlds with full physics simulations where you can basically do anything you can think of rather than be restricted by game mechanics. You obviously need mechanics, and a lot of them, but I want to be able to fight Blade and Sorcery style. I want to be able to climb anything. I want to be able to pick up anything. I want everything to be natural.
It will be pretty immersion breaking once we get into hyper-realism territory if VR players run up against non-VR players that rely on animations. It's fine in VRChat and Rec Room because they use unrealistic art styles and themes, but the more believable everything else becomes, the more tinier details stand out.
VR isn't going to find mass appeal, not now, not in the near future. If you look at how the entire industry of gaming is going, it's mobile. Not even mobile in the sense of phones (though thats the driving hardware) but we've had some pretty stellar devices that are gearing stronger play in a mobile environment.
The switch is a great console geared for mobile, and Microsofts Surface Books are looking better to me with every new iteration. This series is supposed to have a 2060 in it, which is pretty decent for what is essentially a "tablet" style PC.
Regardless, one of the biggest "innovations" in the mobile space are the AR stickers and breakout AR games. While we're a few years from a standout consumer AR set, if you want to see a broader HMD revolution, it won't be in VR, it will be in that AR space.
This post will age badly. VR HMDs are still a good 5 years ahead of AR. The adoption rate of VR will be ahead because of that, especially because you'll have even better AR functionality in dedicated VR headsets than AR HMDs themselves.
Why do you have to pit the two against each other though? Everyone knows that they are going to combine anyway, and then kaboom, the mobile market is replaced by VR and AR since smartphones will be superseded.
VR sets have a higher adoption rate, but VR applications already have lower usage statistics than "AR" applications.
They are both HMD, so they will be compared to each other. All it takes is a single breakout device, and the facts of the matter are, more people are more likely to buy devices that reaffirm what they are currently doing than finding a "new" experience.
You won't get better AR functionality in VR headsets, because in order for VR (MR) sets to function currently as an AR set, they still require that users be in a completely closed environment with a video feed. There are TOO many problems when you get into latency and application building in a completely closed and pixelated environment.
Nobody will ever wear an MR device outside of their computer room. MR devices already exist, and in most cases, anything that is even remotely "mobile" uses the camera as a passthrough so people don't hurt themselves or it's used for room tracking.
Real AR devices will be much different, you'll see people wearing them, you'll wear one and see other people wearing them. Not being closed off or relying on a virtual representation of a pixelated world is going to appeal to a much broader audience. I've worn real AR sets before, in a room with other people wearing the same devices, these types of shared experiences are why AR is going to be the more popular HMD.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for nearly 7 years... and usage isn't really driving a surge or purchases. The growth is slow, even in software sales, but AR games are 100% software sales at the moment and roughly account for half of VRs total market which includes hardware.
VR isn't going to find mass appeal, not now, not in the near future. If you look at how the entire industry of gaming is going, it's mobile. Not even mobile in the sense of phones (though thats the driving hardware) but we've had some pretty stellar devices that are gearing stronger play in a mobile environment.
The switch is a great console geared for mobile, and Microsofts Surface Books are looking better to me with every new iteration. This series is supposed to have a 2060 in it, which is pretty decent for what is essentially a "tablet" style PC.
Regardless, one of the biggest "innovations" in the mobile space are the AR stickers and breakout AR games. While we're a few years from a standout consumer AR set, if you want to see a broader HMD revolution, it won't be in VR, it will be in that AR space.
This post will age badly. VR HMDs are still a good 5 years ahead of AR. The adoption rate of VR will be ahead because of that, especially because you'll have even better AR functionality in dedicated VR headsets than AR HMDs themselves.
Why do you have to pit the two against each other though? Everyone knows that they are going to combine anyway, and then kaboom, the mobile market is replaced by VR and AR since smartphones will be superseded.
VR sets have a higher adoption rate, but VR applications already have lower usage statistics than "AR" applications.
They are both HMD, so they will be compared to each other. All it takes is a single breakout device, and the facts of the matter are, more people are more likely to buy devices that reaffirm what they are currently doing than finding a "new" experience.
You won't get better AR functionality in VR headsets, because in order for VR (MR) sets to function currently as an AR set, they still require that users be in a completely closed environment with a video feed. There are TOO many problems when you get into latency and application building in a completely closed and pixelated environment.
Nobody will ever wear an MR device outside of their computer room. MR devices already exist, and in most cases, anything that is even remotely "mobile" uses the camera as a passthrough so people don't hurt themselves or it's used for room tracking.
Real AR devices will be much different, you'll see people wearing them, you'll wear one and see other people wearing them. Not being closed off or relying on a virtual representation of a pixelated world is going to appeal to a much broader audience. I've worn real AR sets before, in a room with other people wearing the same devices, these types of shared experiences are why AR is going to be the more popular HMD.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for nearly 7 years... and usage isn't really driving a surge or purchases. The growth is slow, even in software sales, but AR games are 100% software sales at the moment and roughly account for half of VRs total market which includes hardware.
We're really only waiting for a consumer set.
You're comparing mobile AR usage rates to VR HMD rates. It's no wonder that the everyday now-mature device most of us use is winning out in usage.
Pass-through AR has less limitations than see-through. The issues with latency aren't as bad as you are making them out to be. Even the head of the R&D team at Oculus says that AR will be best in a pass-through view for a long time to come. That doesn't mean most convenient, but it does mean best functionally. True blacks, full pixel control, full opacity, less jittery, doesn't care about lighting conditions as much.
You can get the same shared experiences using this proposed MR headset as what you got using your AR HMD. If you can mix real and virtual to any degree, than you can see others in the room with you and others across the planet at the same time. It's ideal for home use. Yes, see-through will be much more prevalent outside but I was talking about the functionality of pass-through.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for 3 years roughly. 7 years includes the first dev kits of the modern era, which means we have to include old AR HMD dev kits too if you want to go that route.
As for VR vs AR, it doesn't even matter if we talk about pass-through or see-through. They will combine either way by going opaque/transparent or by switching to a camera feed. All of this is inevitable and MR headsets will be the dominate form of HMDs.
Iunno, I don't mind an abstraction between VR and game if it means cross-compatibility. Like having gestural actions within a certain range triggering different attacks, abilities, and emotes that to other viewers gets translated into preanimated elements like in more traditional games.
Keeps the trolling down a bit, and gives a clear framework for player skills and abilities to operate within. Primarily though, could still offer what would functionally be a full-featured VR experience while having cross-compatibility.
That would be really limiting the scope though to be honest. VR MMOs should be true livable worlds with full physics simulations where you can basically do anything you can think of rather than be restricted by game mechanics. You obviously need mechanics, and a lot of them, but I want to be able to fight Blade and Sorcery style. I want to be able to climb anything. I want to be able to pick up anything. I want everything to be natural.
It will be pretty immersion breaking once we get into hyper-realism territory if VR players run up against non-VR players that rely on animations. It's fine in VRChat and Rec Room because they use unrealistic art styles and themes, but the more believable everything else becomes, the more tinier details stand out.
You have to push things far enough for that to be a viable concern first. Even in the case of Blade and Sorcery, the AI is still using a set of animations. While you as an individual have greater freedom of control, until you have enemies and mobs that can respond to that with a comparable degree of freedom, will that actually matter.
So it's not just VR hardware you'd need to catch up there, but also complexity and depth of AI and environment.
Don't see why we can't have some games in the mean time that make reasonable compromises to allow for a broader user experience (as the tech allows).
Iunno, I don't mind an abstraction between VR and game if it means cross-compatibility. Like having gestural actions within a certain range triggering different attacks, abilities, and emotes that to other viewers gets translated into preanimated elements like in more traditional games.
Keeps the trolling down a bit, and gives a clear framework for player skills and abilities to operate within. Primarily though, could still offer what would functionally be a full-featured VR experience while having cross-compatibility.
That would be really limiting the scope though to be honest. VR MMOs should be true livable worlds with full physics simulations where you can basically do anything you can think of rather than be restricted by game mechanics. You obviously need mechanics, and a lot of them, but I want to be able to fight Blade and Sorcery style. I want to be able to climb anything. I want to be able to pick up anything. I want everything to be natural.
It will be pretty immersion breaking once we get into hyper-realism territory if VR players run up against non-VR players that rely on animations. It's fine in VRChat and Rec Room because they use unrealistic art styles and themes, but the more believable everything else becomes, the more tinier details stand out.
You have to push things far enough for that to be a viable concern first. Even in the case of Blade and Sorcery, the AI is still using a set of animations. While you as an individual have greater freedom of control, until you have enemies and mobs that can respond to that with a comparable degree of freedom, will that actually matter.
So it's not just VR hardware you'd need to catch up there, but also complexity and depth of AI and environment.
Don't see why we can't have some games in the mean time that make reasonable compromises to allow for a broader user experience (as the tech allows).
Enemies in Boneworks all run off physics. I still think that players are more important to nail than NPCs though because that's where more of your interactions will be.
Comments
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
But yeah, VR is going to be in the "hasn't failed yet" phase for quite some time. At least the VR zealot from before has a new tag team partner
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This has nothing to do with lifestyle but rather with the point that changing the gaming billions as a whole from a habit of playing games sitting down for decades is a very tough uphill struggle for anyone wanting to do that. Wii did it for a small minority for a while but it didn't take, it wasn't emulated seriously by anyone and was just a blip.
The emphasis and focus needs to be on seated VR for it to have a chance of becoming anything other than the niche it currently is.
And loud protestations from fans in this thread notwithstanding that is not its focus. Not the focus in development nor marketing,
Yes PS4 VR has sold more than 4 million units and that sounds great in isolation. Doesn't sound quite as good when you consider more than 100 million PS4s have been sold. I don't know what to call a 4% adoption rate other than niche. I can't imagine that the adoption rate of the pricier PC solutions is any better than that.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
All of those are analysts that didn't have a clue about technology adoption, and the media bought every word of it, which means people like yourself bought every word of it. The media ignored everything that Sony, Oculus, HTC, Valve, Samsung and others had to say on the matter.
What about the other misconceptions? You need a whole room, there's nothing that can't be done without it, it's anti-social, it's all tech demos, it costs thousands, few genres work and on and on.
Again, you almost certainly bought into this stuff didn't you?.
Sports are games, VR sits in a similar vein to them when it comes to being a physical form of entertainment. There's no massive leap in my head from enjoying one form of gamepaly to the next as a result.
The schism only rests on the assumption that VR gameplay is beholden to desktop/console gameplay just because it is a piece of technology or something, rather than taking advantage of physical sport-styled gameplay.
The Wii example kind of falls prey to several hard mechanical limitations of the Wii itself. The only sensing the controllers from the screen perspective, and consequently everything having to happen from a fixed facing position meant the amount of physical activity involved had to cater to a finite window. Same problem with the PSVR honestly. That technology is just a stop-gap. While modern VR tech is also semantically a stop-gap, it already stands well past that limitation by having the ability to move and face 360 degrees to see and interact with stuff.
So of course sitting benefits the Wii, because it's gameplay had a forced narrow scope for how to leverage the tech. And Of course the mass-consumer lazy-gamer will want seated VR, and that will limit the scope. But that isn't all VR is and can improve upon, because the physical element is a natural extension of already existing, and older, forms of entertainment.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I did that in my "Danger Will Robinson" voice just for you.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The funny thing is that once you start playing in VR you kinda loose track of all of the flat stuff going on and I think that actually may be hurting its marketing. Once you have experienced this new generation of VR gear available you don't ever go back, there is no going back but it's ok because there is tons of content and the future is looking amazingly fun.
The previous poster is correct about the spread of VR. I cant wait to see what we can play even 24 months from now. I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky in a few weeks.
Why are VR MMORPG's and not listed on this site? Granted the true MMORPG's like Orbus are very alpha but still surprisingly popular and fun.
It will change though. If the site is still around in 10-15 years then most of it's coverage will be on VR since most MMOs will be VR at that point. Pretty easy to see that.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
It's a VR MMORPG.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Probably not the best approach, unless you are recruiting for a cult or something.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
If the media says that all the games available are tech demos and someone believes them, they have been brainwashed. It doesn't matter if they hate or love the tech.
I wrote a piece here on mmorpg.com prior to the Oculus Kickstarter even being announced, pining for an affordable head-mounted-display to play it on.
As such, it is designed "for" VR, ground-up. A fortunate anachronism, I suppose, but try it and then tell me...
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Though that is more in reference to what we typically think of in MMOs, where we play as characters running around rather than engaged in space combat.
Keeps the trolling down a bit, and gives a clear framework for player skills and abilities to operate within. Primarily though, could still offer what would functionally be a full-featured VR experience while having cross-compatibility.
It will be pretty immersion breaking once we get into hyper-realism territory if VR players run up against non-VR players that rely on animations. It's fine in VRChat and Rec Room because they use unrealistic art styles and themes, but the more believable everything else becomes, the more tinier details stand out.
They are both HMD, so they will be compared to each other. All it takes is a single breakout device, and the facts of the matter are, more people are more likely to buy devices that reaffirm what they are currently doing than finding a "new" experience.
You won't get better AR functionality in VR headsets, because in order for VR (MR) sets to function currently as an AR set, they still require that users be in a completely closed environment with a video feed. There are TOO many problems when you get into latency and application building in a completely closed and pixelated environment.
Nobody will ever wear an MR device outside of their computer room. MR devices already exist, and in most cases, anything that is even remotely "mobile" uses the camera as a passthrough so people don't hurt themselves or it's used for room tracking.
Real AR devices will be much different, you'll see people wearing them, you'll wear one and see other people wearing them. Not being closed off or relying on a virtual representation of a pixelated world is going to appeal to a much broader audience. I've worn real AR sets before, in a room with other people wearing the same devices, these types of shared experiences are why AR is going to be the more popular HMD.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for nearly 7 years... and usage isn't really driving a surge or purchases. The growth is slow, even in software sales, but AR games are 100% software sales at the moment and roughly account for half of VRs total market which includes hardware.
We're really only waiting for a consumer set.
Pass-through AR has less limitations than see-through. The issues with latency aren't as bad as you are making them out to be. Even the head of the R&D team at Oculus says that AR will be best in a pass-through view for a long time to come. That doesn't mean most convenient, but it does mean best functionally. True blacks, full pixel control, full opacity, less jittery, doesn't care about lighting conditions as much.
You can get the same shared experiences using this proposed MR headset as what you got using your AR HMD. If you can mix real and virtual to any degree, than you can see others in the room with you and others across the planet at the same time. It's ideal for home use. Yes, see-through will be much more prevalent outside but I was talking about the functionality of pass-through.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for 3 years roughly. 7 years includes the first dev kits of the modern era, which means we have to include old AR HMD dev kits too if you want to go that route.
As for VR vs AR, it doesn't even matter if we talk about pass-through or see-through. They will combine either way by going opaque/transparent or by switching to a camera feed. All of this is inevitable and MR headsets will be the dominate form of HMDs.
So it's not just VR hardware you'd need to catch up there, but also complexity and depth of AI and environment.
Don't see why we can't have some games in the mean time that make reasonable compromises to allow for a broader user experience (as the tech allows).