5 ms·

Maybe I'm just lazy, but VR games requiring physical exertion have absolutely zero appeal to me. I want to sit back with a keyboard and controller and relax. I

by fooey 10y ago

Maybe I'm just lazy, but VR games requiring physical exertion have absolutely zero appeal to me. I want to sit back with a keyboard and controller and relax. I include any kind of room scale in that assessment, and personally, just the idea of wearing a thing on your face and having to crane your neck around to see what's going on sounds like a PITA. I honestly and truly don't understand why people think VR is going to get any kind of mass market penetration.

c0nfused 10y ago
I thought the same thing until I tried it. Seriously, try it out the level of immersion is insane, a more classic game feel can be amazing. But something where you move around is incredibly compelling. I watched a friend try to lean on a counter while cooking in Job simulator. I have hit basically every wall in my living room with a controller at this point as well as all the lights. On the exercise front, Not every game is a workout but at the same time even something simple like the default valve bow game from the lab can wear people out. After all, you are holding a weight at arms length for a while and simulating pulling back an arrow. Its mot a motion that many people do regularly. Go borrow one or go to some local game meetup and try some's roomscale handset. Its amazing. I'm thinking about taking mine to the bar up the street on a weeknight hooking it up and getting everyone to try it.
- mozumder 10y ago
  When I tried all I noticed was the pixelation and had to take it off. It was such a terrible user experience. It reminded me of some student science project, instead of a marketable product. VR isn't going to be popular until we have 8K or 16K headsets doing 120fps, and then we have to deal with the fact that it removes you from your environment. The first generation of VR died off because they couldn't figure out how to solve the product liability issues. That problem still exists, which is why VR isn't going to be usable and is a dead-end.
  - nojvek 10y ago
    I agree. I own a occipital bridge. The resolution needs to get 5x better than retina to be believable. Also 6dof tracking with hand gesture tracking under 10ms is still a challenge. I think it's possible but needs serious hardware advancements. I love my bridge though. No hanging cables is definitely a good thing
    - kobeya 10y ago
      Why 5x?
    - mhenr18 10y ago
      The definition of Retina varies based on viewing distance. The DPI needed for Retina in VR is a heck of a lot higher than what's needed for a smartphone. IMO we need to go through at least two resolution quadruplings on the Vive to get it to be crisp enough for the screen-dooring to not be noticeable.
    - AlphaSite 10y ago
      It's not perfect, Valves new controller prototype is probably the closest we have to noninteusive, low latency gesture tracking with some form of feedback (the oculus Half moon prototypes were also fairly close, but iirc the gesture recognitation was neutred for what ever reason). http://www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/valve-vr-controller-prototype.jpg http://www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/valve-vr-...
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    All the VR goggles are 1440p max, so we haven't seen "4K" yet to see how good it is.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    I let my wife, who has zero interest in games outside of Candy Crush, try on Google Cardboard (minimal immersion) on an iPhone (horrible display for VR) with the demo apps (can't even call them games really) and she was so engaged she ended up walking into one of our shoji/paper doors tearing a hole in it. Once Vive-level VR comes down to wireless/portable size and down in cost to the $300 range it's going to be MASSIVE. Maybe the first generation ("until we get 16K 120fps headsets") will not appeal to productivity or hardcore gaming buffs, but 100 million Wiis were sold, and there was nothing technically impressive about that thing.
- fooey 10y ago
  I have a hard time seeing anything you're pitching as much beyond what you could get with a Wii, and that's completely dead and abandoned. How many people bought Wii fitness? Is that enough of a demographic to expect there to be an entire new ecosystem supporting it? I get that the technology is amazing, I just don't see it getting much mass market penetration.
  - mahyarm 10y ago
    Wii fitness was not fitness. It didn't approach anything of a challenge other possibly pushups, planks and a couple of other bodyweight exercises. In VR you have to move a lot more for things to work and the the games are not fitness specific. It definitely gets your heart beating because you often have to hop around like your boxing or doing burpees. Burpees don't look that exhausting, but the constant floor to standing movement makes it challenging. I think this is what makes VR more physical.
  - archon810 10y ago
    At this point, I have to assume you haven't tried VR, and your point is void until you do. It blows minds. Wii was a gimmick (especially with its accuracy).
    - rwmj 10y ago
      Wii was great multiplayer fun. We literally spent half days playing Wii tennis with 2 or 3 people. I assume that VR will be much better (only used DR1 and cardboard and of course they aren't too compelling), but does meaningful multiplayer VR exist yet? Edit: And by multiplayer, I mean everyone in the same room multiplayer. Social multiplayer?
      - archon810 10y ago
        You're right - Wii's strength was local multiplayer, whereas Vive is more of a conventional online multiplayer, considering you need a separate Vive for each person. If you happen to have 2 Vives nearby with enough space, I imagine it's fun, but you're still inside your own world, so a mic+speakers/headphones is all you really need. There are some games where another person can participate outside VR (Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes), but it's not really the same at all.
- foobarbecue 10y ago
  I tried Oculus, expecting to be amazed. I found it annoying and not immersive at all. I can see every single pixel. Doesn't feel real at all. Possibly because I"ve been using high-resolution 3D displays for point cloud editing for the science I do for years. (Nvidia 3D Vision 2 -- probably the 3rd major attempt at consumer 3D that never really caught on)
  - jackmodern 10y ago
    this, I work at Facebook and try out all of the demo devices over at Oculus. I keep hoping that they are going to advance the pixel density, but have gotten so disappointed by it that I've stopped testing their new equipment at all in the last few months. That and the team of folks that work on it are outrageously arrogant. Looking at you Charmaine/pedoguy.
    - SeoxyS 10y ago
      If you actually work at Facebook, this maybe isn't something you should share on a public forum…
      - jackmodern 10y ago
        put in my 2 weeks not long ago.
bsmith 10y ago
> having to crane your neck around to see what's going on sounds like a PITA This is a step too far in my opinion. You already have to "crane your neck around" to see what's going on in the real world, all around you, all the time. I'm also sure there are less physically demanding games/experiences for those interested. Pick your poison.
- fooey 10y ago
  In the real world, you look with your eyes much more than you look with your head. As you're playing games or working, the only time you ever turn your head is when something external distracts you, and you can resolve it in a split second. If you're using VR and something external distracts you, you have to abandon whatever your doing and dismount the device.
  - cbhl 10y ago
    > In the real world, you look with your eyes much more than you look with your head. Unless you wear glasses.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Houshalter 10y ago
      I wear glasses and seem to still be capable of moving my eyes.
    - aninhumer 10y ago
      It's perfectly possible to buy glasses that only minimal obstruct your field of view, and let you look at things out of the corner of your eye.
    - wtallis 10y ago
      Unless you wear bifocals. Single-vision lenses have a usable field of view that is as large as the comfortable range of movement of the eyes.
imiric 10y ago
As a vehement supporter of VR and early Vive adopter, I agree. My Vive has been stuck in a drawer for several months now, and I'm strongly considering selling it. Though, to be clear, most of my issues with current-gen VR is because of the state of the technology: low-res displays, bulky and heavy HMDs, clunky wires, etc. In a generation or two once this is addressed, it will be a much more enjoyable experience. The other issue is in the software itself: there are just no must-have VR experiences yet. Technical demos, unpolished experiments, and shallow gameplay make up 90% of the current catalog. Plus there's the motion problem we haven't figured out yet, where most games rely on teleportation as primary movement mechanism, which is terrible UX. Here's to hoping this isn't yet another failed VR attempt and that the industry will keep evolving, as the possible level of immersion is truly remarkable.
madrox 10y ago
That was my stance, as well, especially after trying some of the early Oculus demos. I was converted the first time I played a game where I really had to aim a gun and reload it by grabbing a new clip and slamming it into the gun. It's a different kind of experience. True, it isn't all that different from what you may get out of a Wii or a Kinect, but it's more immersive, and that makes a huge difference in how engaged you become.

by fooey 10y ago

c0nfused 10y ago

I thought the same thing until I tried it. Seriously, try it out the level of immersion is insane, a more classic game feel can be amazing. But something where you move around is incredibly compelling. I watched a friend try to lean on a counter while cooking in Job simulator. I have hit basically every wall in my living room with a controller at this point as well as all the lights. On the exercise front, Not every game is a workout but at the same time even something simple like the default valve bow game from the lab can wear people out. After all, you are holding a weight at arms length for a while and simulating pulling back an arrow. Its mot a motion that many people do regularly. Go borrow one or go to some local game meetup and try some's roomscale handset. Its amazing. I'm thinking about taking mine to the bar up the street on a weeknight hooking it up and getting everyone to try it.

mozumder 10y ago
When I tried all I noticed was the pixelation and had to take it off. It was such a terrible user experience. It reminded me of some student science project, instead of a marketable product. VR isn't going to be popular until we have 8K or 16K headsets doing 120fps, and then we have to deal with the fact that it removes you from your environment. The first generation of VR died off because they couldn't figure out how to solve the product liability issues. That problem still exists, which is why VR isn't going to be usable and is a dead-end.
- nojvek 10y ago
  I agree. I own a occipital bridge. The resolution needs to get 5x better than retina to be believable. Also 6dof tracking with hand gesture tracking under 10ms is still a challenge. I think it's possible but needs serious hardware advancements. I love my bridge though. No hanging cables is definitely a good thing
  - kobeya 10y ago
    Why 5x?
  - mhenr18 10y ago
    The definition of Retina varies based on viewing distance. The DPI needed for Retina in VR is a heck of a lot higher than what's needed for a smartphone. IMO we need to go through at least two resolution quadruplings on the Vive to get it to be crisp enough for the screen-dooring to not be noticeable.
  - AlphaSite 10y ago
    It's not perfect, Valves new controller prototype is probably the closest we have to noninteusive, low latency gesture tracking with some form of feedback (the oculus Half moon prototypes were also fairly close, but iirc the gesture recognitation was neutred for what ever reason). http://www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/valve-vr-controller-prototype.jpg http://www.roadtovr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/valve-vr-...
- mahyarm 10y ago
  All the VR goggles are 1440p max, so we haven't seen "4K" yet to see how good it is.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  I let my wife, who has zero interest in games outside of Candy Crush, try on Google Cardboard (minimal immersion) on an iPhone (horrible display for VR) with the demo apps (can't even call them games really) and she was so engaged she ended up walking into one of our shoji/paper doors tearing a hole in it. Once Vive-level VR comes down to wireless/portable size and down in cost to the $300 range it's going to be MASSIVE. Maybe the first generation ("until we get 16K 120fps headsets") will not appeal to productivity or hardcore gaming buffs, but 100 million Wiis were sold, and there was nothing technically impressive about that thing.
fooey 10y ago
I have a hard time seeing anything you're pitching as much beyond what you could get with a Wii, and that's completely dead and abandoned. How many people bought Wii fitness? Is that enough of a demographic to expect there to be an entire new ecosystem supporting it? I get that the technology is amazing, I just don't see it getting much mass market penetration.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  Wii fitness was not fitness. It didn't approach anything of a challenge other possibly pushups, planks and a couple of other bodyweight exercises. In VR you have to move a lot more for things to work and the the games are not fitness specific. It definitely gets your heart beating because you often have to hop around like your boxing or doing burpees. Burpees don't look that exhausting, but the constant floor to standing movement makes it challenging. I think this is what makes VR more physical.
- archon810 10y ago
  At this point, I have to assume you haven't tried VR, and your point is void until you do. It blows minds. Wii was a gimmick (especially with its accuracy).
  - rwmj 10y ago
    Wii was great multiplayer fun. We literally spent half days playing Wii tennis with 2 or 3 people. I assume that VR will be much better (only used DR1 and cardboard and of course they aren't too compelling), but does meaningful multiplayer VR exist yet? Edit: And by multiplayer, I mean everyone in the same room multiplayer. Social multiplayer?
    - archon810 10y ago
      You're right - Wii's strength was local multiplayer, whereas Vive is more of a conventional online multiplayer, considering you need a separate Vive for each person. If you happen to have 2 Vives nearby with enough space, I imagine it's fun, but you're still inside your own world, so a mic+speakers/headphones is all you really need. There are some games where another person can participate outside VR (Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes), but it's not really the same at all.
foobarbecue 10y ago
I tried Oculus, expecting to be amazed. I found it annoying and not immersive at all. I can see every single pixel. Doesn't feel real at all. Possibly because I"ve been using high-resolution 3D displays for point cloud editing for the science I do for years. (Nvidia 3D Vision 2 -- probably the 3rd major attempt at consumer 3D that never really caught on)
- jackmodern 10y ago
  this, I work at Facebook and try out all of the demo devices over at Oculus. I keep hoping that they are going to advance the pixel density, but have gotten so disappointed by it that I've stopped testing their new equipment at all in the last few months. That and the team of folks that work on it are outrageously arrogant. Looking at you Charmaine/pedoguy.
  - SeoxyS 10y ago
    If you actually work at Facebook, this maybe isn't something you should share on a public forum…
    - jackmodern 10y ago
      put in my 2 weeks not long ago.

bsmith 10y ago

> having to crane your neck around to see what's going on sounds like a PITA This is a step too far in my opinion. You already have to "crane your neck around" to see what's going on in the real world, all around you, all the time. I'm also sure there are less physically demanding games/experiences for those interested. Pick your poison.

fooey 10y ago
In the real world, you look with your eyes much more than you look with your head. As you're playing games or working, the only time you ever turn your head is when something external distracts you, and you can resolve it in a split second. If you're using VR and something external distracts you, you have to abandon whatever your doing and dismount the device.
- cbhl 10y ago
  > In the real world, you look with your eyes much more than you look with your head. Unless you wear glasses.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    I wear glasses and seem to still be capable of moving my eyes.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    It's perfectly possible to buy glasses that only minimal obstruct your field of view, and let you look at things out of the corner of your eye.
  - wtallis 10y ago
    Unless you wear bifocals. Single-vision lenses have a usable field of view that is as large as the comfortable range of movement of the eyes.

imiric 10y ago

As a vehement supporter of VR and early Vive adopter, I agree. My Vive has been stuck in a drawer for several months now, and I'm strongly considering selling it. Though, to be clear, most of my issues with current-gen VR is because of the state of the technology: low-res displays, bulky and heavy HMDs, clunky wires, etc. In a generation or two once this is addressed, it will be a much more enjoyable experience. The other issue is in the software itself: there are just no must-have VR experiences yet. Technical demos, unpolished experiments, and shallow gameplay make up 90% of the current catalog. Plus there's the motion problem we haven't figured out yet, where most games rely on teleportation as primary movement mechanism, which is terrible UX. Here's to hoping this isn't yet another failed VR attempt and that the industry will keep evolving, as the possible level of immersion is truly remarkable.

madrox 10y ago

That was my stance, as well, especially after trying some of the early Oculus demos. I was converted the first time I played a game where I really had to aim a gun and reload it by grabbing a new clip and slamming it into the gun. It's a different kind of experience. True, it isn't all that different from what you may get out of a Wii or a Kinect, but it's more immersive, and that makes a huge difference in how engaged you become.