Now that the HTC Vive has been out for a bit, it seems that my worst fears have come to fruition.
It seems that Valve is promoting the device exclusively for AR usage (with which I mean the "walk around your room" game mechanic), to play games made exclusively for it. Not only is all the promotional material exclusively about that (with not even a single mention of playing existing games while sitting down), but also the Steam VR forum is all about developing custom games made exclusively for it. Moreover, it seems that they are completely dissing the possibility of using the visor to play normal games (like the Portal Series, the Half-Life series, and so on). At this point I wouldn't actually be surprised if Valve didn't add HTC Vive support for any of their existing games. They seem to consider VR useless for them.
This is rather the polar opposite of the Oculus Rift which, unlike my predictions, seems to have after all kept more focused on playing actual games, even existing ones (assuming game developers add support to them via patches).
I think that the HTC Vive has no future, unless third-party developers save it by adding support for it to their normal games (such as vehicle simulation games, first-person shooters, and so on.) The "physically walk around your room" is extremely limiting in terms of game mechanics and game design. It's also very limited in enjoyability. (How many video games can you name where you are limited to a laughably small space, unable to freely move at will over larger distances, eg. along corridors, from room to room, or on a wide open outworld?)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
Pokota wrote:
The "physically walk around your room" is extremely limiting in terms of game mechanics and game design.
Turn your thinking around. Instead of just a room, imagine a room with a treadmill.
(Yeah that's the best I've got but it's still forward progress).
Like the Virtuix Omni?
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
I didn't bother reading most of this thread, but I saw the last few posts and decided I'd stop in. I know a few devs who have been working with VR kits (starting with early Oculus Rift kickstarter rewards, but also some more recent hardware). You should be aware that nausea is a huge potential problem with VR. Devs are having to learn techniques for ensuring the player stays "anchored" and doesn't get motion sick.
Some games work better than others -- in particular, games in vehicles seem to be less prone to causing motion sickness. But I'm fairly confident that you can't expect to just slap on a VR headset and play existing FPSes; they'd need extensive modification to work without the player getting sick.
And if you're talking about performing that kind of overhaul of the game, are you going to do it with an old game that everyone already owns, and where they'd expect to get the VR upgrade for free (or extremely cheap at least), or are you going to use it to help sell your new game as VR-capable? Not only is the new game going to be less work to update, since you already have the dev team assembled and they're familiar with the tools and environment, you're also probably going to make more money from updating said new game due to simple market economics.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Some games work better than others -- in particular, games in vehicles seem to be less prone to causing motion sickness. But I'm fairly confident that you can't expect to just slap on a VR headset and play existing FPSes; they'd need extensive modification to work without the player getting sick.
You get used to it. Many people out there testify that they got used to it, and say that they can play your regular old FPS games (modded to support VR) for hours without problems. They don't need any "extensive modifications" for anything.
Sure, there may be a percentage of people who never get used to it, but is that really a reason to not give anybody even the choice? To deliberately not add support to existing games? To deliberately remove the option from those who would like to try and who, potentially, would get quickly used to it and be just fine?
That doesn't make any kind of sense. It's like saying that because some people get sick while riding a car, then no cars should ever be built and nobody should be given the option to drive cars. That's just nonsense.
The "play by physically walking in your room" game mechanic has no future. Why? Well, I propose a test:
Take any game you like to play for hours. A game playable with a gamepad. Or if you have a handheld console, that's fine too. Now start playing the game, but standing up. Don't sit down. Play standing up. Let's see how long you last.
My point exactly.
You should be aware that nausea is a huge potential problem with VR. Devs are having to learn techniques for ensuring the player stays "anchored" and doesn't get motion sick.
I also wonder if using VR has a bad effect on your eyes because you're constantly looking at a screen that is 5 cm from your eyes.
The "play by physically walking in your room" game mechanic has no future. Why? Well, I propose a test:
Take any game you like to play for hours. A game playable with a gamepad. Or if you have a handheld console, that's fine too. Now start playing the game, but standing up. Don't sit down. Play standing up. Let's see how long you last.
The test isn't comparable because there's no point/motivation to stand up while playing a regular game, and they're meant to be played sitting down using a gamepad. Future games may not have a gamepad, because you might use your body to control the game. It will increase the realism and immersion, so people will be motivated to stand up and move.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
You get used to it. Many people out there testify that they got used to it, and say that they can play your regular old FPS games (modded to support VR) for hours without problems. They don't need any "extensive modifications" for anything.
Sure, there may be a percentage of people who never get used to it, but is that really a reason to not give anybody even the choice? To deliberately not add support to existing games? To deliberately remove the option from those who would like to try and who, potentially, would get quickly used to it and be just fine?
That doesn't make any kind of sense. It's like saying that because some people get sick while riding a car, then no cars should ever be built and nobody should be given the option to drive cars. That's just nonsense.
The "play by physically walking in your room" game mechanic has no future. Why? Well, I propose a test:
Take any game you like to play for hours. A game playable with a gamepad. Or if you have a handheld console, that's fine too. Now start playing the game, but standing up. Don't sit down. Play standing up. Let's see how long you last.
My point exactly.
It seems kind of disingenuous to say about VR-enhanced FPS games that you get used to it, and then later on in the same post dismiss standing up/walking while gaming (with VR) like that isn't possible to get used to.
If people can get used to having their eyesight replaced with a set of screens for hours, they can get used to standing or walking for a few hours. It's not some revolutionary new activity, tons of people such as warehouse workers or office clerks do it routinely for 8 hours a day. If you can't stand around or walk a bit for at least one hour at a time, then you're not in good physical shape.
Not to mention that even for gamers that aren't in good physical shape, game designers would obviously account for the added physical exertion and encourage players to play shorter sessions or take breaks more often. Plenty of video games already do this (in the interest of combating video game addiction or pleasing moral guardians, whichever way you like to look at it), I'm sure VR game developers can and/or will take into account the extra physical exertion and do the same thing with their games.
Warp wrote:
Take any game you like to play for hours. A game playable with a gamepad. Or if you have a handheld console, that's fine too. Now start playing the game, but standing up. Don't sit down. Play standing up. Let's see how long you last.
My point exactly.
I actually decided to try this out. I played Super Smash Bros. Melee for one hour and fifteen minutes, standing up the whole time, and had absolutely no problems with it. I could have gone for another hour (if I had the time for that), and even if it would get tiring after a while, a short break of 10 minutes or so is all you would really need to get going again.
(Speaking of Melee, one top Melee player (Hungrybox) is actually known for occasionally playing matches standing up, so this isn't a foreign concept even in competitive gaming environments).
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
I also wonder if using VR has a bad effect on your eyes because you're constantly looking at a screen that is 5 cm from your eyes.
No. At least not because of that. The lenses allow you to focus on the distance, and see the screen as if it were far away.
There is a different reason why some people are questioning the health issues of VR. And the reason is that it creates a conflict between the perceived distance of an object, and its focus distance.
You see, with a VR headset you have to focus your eyes to a large distance. And always the same distance, regardless of the perceived distance to the object you are looking. This means that even if the object seems to be 10 cm from your face, your eyes still need to focus to the distance to see it sharply.
This is, of course contradictory to how it works in real life. If an object is 10 cm from your face, your eyes need to focus very close, to see it sharply (and subsequently the background becomes unfocused).
This clash between how eyes should focus in real-life, and how they should focus in VR, can cause eyestrain and headaches in some people. It makes it worse that you need to constantly "switch" between the two modes when using the visor, and when not using it. And the long-term effects of this are yet to be seen.
Mothrayas wrote:
It seems kind of disingenuous to say about VR-enhanced FPS games that you get used to it, and then later on in the same post dismiss standing up/walking while gaming (with VR) like that isn't possible to get used to.
How is it "disingenuous"? They are completely different things. One requires physical stamina, fitness and muscles; and it may be physically straining even for a fit person. The other requires for your brain to adjust to conflicting sensory inputs.
I use a standing desk for most of my workday, every day. It took me maybe a week to adjust, and that was standing for much longer periods than you would normally game for. Standing is not a big deal for most people. Walking around a little is also not a big deal for most people.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
I use a standing desk for most of my workday, every day. It took me maybe a week to adjust, and that was standing for much longer periods than you would normally game for. Standing is not a big deal for most people. Walking around a little is also not a big deal for most people.
Actually, I'm not sure I agree with that "most people" there. It might not be a problem for some people, but especially since we are talking about gamers here, I'm not so sure about most people.
The thing is, Valve would, rather obviously, want VR to become as popular and widespread as possible. It would be profitable. It would revitalize the industry even more than it already is. It would revolutionize the industry.
However, you don't make something widespread and popular by a) pricing it in such a manner that only maybe 1% of your userbase can afford it, and b) promote it for uses that most of your userbase won't be comfortable with.
If either the Rift or Vive were priced at 100€, I would order one right at this second. (I know that's a completely unrealistic price, but that's not the point in this.) If they were priced at something like 300€, I would be tempted to order one. I would probably wait for a month or two to see how the industry evolves, and then probably purchase it. If they were priced at 500€, I would be really, really hesitant. I might purchase one some day, but definitely not now. I would really wait for widespread adoption and game support, and see how popular it becomes.
However, at 950€, it's just completely out of the question. Completely. I'm not exactly rich. And even if I could afford that kind of money, I would much prefer using it for other things, even in gaming (eg. a more kick-ass graphics card, or a high-quality g-sync monitor. Heck, maybe even a new MB + cpu.)
I'm quite convinced I'm not the only one. At its current price point the Vive (and even the Rift) is targeted at maybe the 1% of gamers with too much money to spend. (And I think even that 1% figure is generous.)
You don't make something popular by pricing it for 1% of your userbase. How many triple-A games do you think will be done for it, if the adoption rate of the device is only 1% or less?
Imagine if the Steam Controller had been priced at launch at something like 300€ instead of the 50€ it was? Imagine how much it would have stifled the adoption rate. (I know it's not really the same kind of innovative technology, but that's not my point.) It was smart to aim at the masses.
But the Vive is not aimed at the masses, due to its price.
I know (and hope) that the price will come down. But when? In a year? Two years? Five years? And by how much? Will it increase adoption rate if its price comes down to, say, 600€? Maybe a little, but maybe too little to matter.
Contrast this to, for example, graphics cards. Both big manufacturers have high-end graphics cards in the 600€+ range for the enthusiasts (who have too much money to spend), but they always also have mid-range cards (in the 200-400€ bracket) which are still decent but more affordable to the average consumer. If one of these companies always priced their cards at the high-end side, their adoption rate would be significantly lower.
I think it's a bit stupid to price the device at 950€ and expect a large adoption rate. I also think it's a bit stupid to try to limit the use of the device for, essentially, walk-around tech demos. (Not that this last part will happen forever, I'm sure, but at this moment Valve seems adamant.)
One point that needs to be touched on: Video games are very unrealistic and augmented reality's 'added realism' with gyroscopes and the like need to account for that. Unless you can parkour like Mirror's Edge, snipe like TF2 and run for ages like Skyrim, then these games cannot be fully realistic (even if you could, Octodad and Kirby would be a buzzkill). Augmented reality would probably limit you to only doing what you're able to do in real life, and then playing those games would probably not be as enriching because of it. Some level of augmentation would be good (like having the camera move with your head), but that, I believe, is already standard with the Occulus Rift.
TL;DR you do not play a person with average speed, strength etc. in video games, so your controller (ie you) shouldn't limit you to those options.
These are the very first VR headsets to ever launch to market. Up to this point, every single R+D dollar they've spent has gone into this one product, and now they have to make a profit on it, so obviously they're going to focus on just selling this one product. Later, once they've proven the concept, they can trim the fluff and release other versions (and I'd be extraordinarily surprised if they didn't do this, by the way. Have patience).
Early adopters pay a huge premium on EVERYTHING, this isn't something that's new to VR.
TL;DR you do not play a person with average speed, strength etc. in video games, so your controller (ie you) shouldn't limit you to those options.
Now I'm curious what would happen if we had a portal TAS video played back on the rift.
I can't remember if it was Portal or Half Life 1 where a TAS (made by manually tweaking replay videos) gave me nausea due to the weird method of moving. Of course, that was just a 2D video; whether VR would be better or worse is hard to know without actually trying it.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
There is no denying that playing a game with a VR headset, controlling the playable character's movement with keyboard+mouse or a gamepad, will cause motion sickness in the vast majority of people, especially at first. The visual effect is so uber-realistic that the brain is pretty much 100% fooled into thinking that you are moving, yet it can't feel the movement as normal, causes a heavy dissonance. It's the same reason why so many people get sick in cars and boats, especially when not used to it: The movements they feel do not match what they see, so their brain gets all confused, which results in dizziness and nausea (which may last for a considerable amount of time even after exiting the vehicle).
When the virtual reality matches 100% with your movements, the motion sickness is pretty much likewise eliminated 100%.
The Oculus Rift has gone the route of categorizing games by the propensity to motion sickness they cause, so you have a kind of warning before you start playing the game.
Valve, however, seems to have gone to the extreme: It seems that not only are they not promoting any game that's controlled by any other means than 100% by the motion trackers (with the possible exception of vehicle simulators), but it also seems that they have zero intention in adding VR support to any of their existing games (such as the Portal series).
Their stance seems to be that VR "doesn't work" in traditional first-person shooters, or even traditional third-person shooters, where the playable character is controlled with kb+mouse / gamepad (with at most the head-tracking used to look around), because it "causes nausea". Thus it seems that their intent is to not give people even the choice to try, ie. to let people decide for themselves whether they want to play their existing games with a VR headset or not. Valve is making that decision for them, and that decision is a stern "no".
Sure, it causes nausea, at least at first. I'm 100% sure that if I ever get a VR headset and get to play a FPS game with it, I will get motion sick really quick. I accept that.
However, I'm pretty sure that with time I'll get used to it. Many people report getting used to it, and that they can play for hours without problems.
Heck, for years I sometimes got motion sickness for playing FPS games on a regular old monitor. I haven't for quite many years. I got used to it. Granted that the stereo vision will make it a thousand times worse, at first, but I'm sure one gets used to it.
But so far it seems that Valve has decided to remove that option from me, at least as far as their games are concerned. It will be up to third-party modders to add support.
It has been my dream for years to experience Portal 2 in stereo vision. I hope that dream comes true some day. But so far it seems it will not be thanks to Valve at least.
VR adoption rates crawl to a halt. Surprises nobody.
HTC, Valve and Oculus must be complete retards if they think that a 1000€ toy is going to see wide adoption rates.
The headset and controller are sold together for $79, starting Thursday. No rush in getting one, though, as the virtual experiences built for Daydream are still limited. And for now, it works only with Google's Pixel phone .
I saw this, and was immediately reminded of this thread. It also mentioned Gear VR, and searching it up gave a price of $139 CAD. I don't know how different they are from others given I don't follow VR, but is that good enough for this thread? Seems 10x cheaper at least.
I have serious doubts that a phone-based VR system is ever going to be all that feasible.
Both the Vive and the Rift have really hefty hardware requirements (even by today's standards, although, and of course, as time passes, it will be becoming more and more mainstream; but as of today it's still on what can be classified as "high end", or "enthusiast level", rather than your average gaming PC), and there's a good reason for it. After all, you want to reach that critical 90 frames per second, at a relatively high resolution. And without your game looking like a PS1 game.
(Although, if you look at what kind of VR games are currently available, at least 90% of them look like PS2 games. A few of them even look like right at home on a PS1. Most of them look like absolute crap.)
Even the PSVR, with its lower hardware specs, is aiming for that critical 90 FPS threshold.
Modern phones are really powerful, but they aren't that powerful. And they won't have a 90Hz display. Maybe some time in the future, but not now.
Secondly, phones are running Android. Android is trying so hard to be a gaming OS, but meh. Maybe Angry Birds and Clash of Clans. But for the real gamer, meh. And I'm not just saying that as some kind of "PC master race" elitist or something.
At this moment, PSVR seems to be the most promising platform. It's still slightly on the uncomfortable side in terms of price, but at least it's much better in that regard than its PC counterparts. It might not have the exact same specs, but it seems to be good enough. Just wish it didn't cost as much as the entire PS4 Pro (and more than the basic PS4).
