Will VR be a big boost

[Zeta Legion]

As pointed out by a number of people.. I think you better actually try it first., all this talk about the success failure of 3D TV's :/

Let me be perfectly clear here; I have not suggested that VR will vanish like 3DTV. I listed touch-screens as well, and those are still around, just not in the realm of gaming. Hell the market pretty much guarantees VR will have some niche appeal.

The question posed by the OP is; will VR be a big sales booster for gaming? My answer was that outside of an initial boom period where spurred on by a bunch of ultra-rich talking heads and other assorted early adopters with enough disposable income, people give the new technology a try, discover it isn't all it's cracked up to be/isn't worth the money, and in the main moves back to established tech. During this period VR may find a stable market of some kind, but the restrictions inherent to the technology prohibit universal adoption. Ergo, not enough of a market to dramatically alter sales for games in anything but the short term. The Wii was hot for a few years too, and made a lot of money. Because Nintendo doubled-down on it, nobody cares about them anymore outside of a hardcore crowd of apologists.

EDIT: Damn you text filter.

 

[777Driver]

Let me be perfectly clear here; I have not suggested that VR will vanish like 3DTV. I listed touch-screens as well, and those are still around, just not in the realm of gaming. Hell the market pretty much guarantees VR will have some niche appeal.

The question posed by the OP is; will VR be a big sales booster for gaming? My answer was that outside of an initial boom period where spurred on by a bunch of ultra-rich talking heads and other assorted early adopters with enough disposable income, people give the new technology a try, discover it isn't all it's cracked up to be/isn't worth the money, and in the main moves back to established tech. During this period VR may find a stable market of some kind, but the restrictions inherent to the technology prohibit universal adoption. Ergo, not enough of a market to dramatically alter sales for games in anything but the short term. The Wii was hot for a few years too, and made a lot of money. Because Nintendo doubled-down on it, nobody cares about them anymore outside of a hardcore crowd of apologists.

EDIT: Damn you text filter.

Can we clarify a few things, have you actually experienced VR? Am trying to understand what you a basing this all on? Really curious about the part where people find out that it's not what it's cracked up to be, in reality you will find people are pretty frikin shocked at the experience.

I have a no idea if it will be a boost for gaming, the gaming market pulls in more money than the movie industry, not even sure it needs a boost. I know for sure that it will change gaming, in exactly the same way high resolution monitors changed games when compared to basic top down titles in the 80's.

I can certainly see VR appealing to a much wider audience, it's not just about games, it's about experiencing virtual environments

 

[lysan]

I use TIR excessively, and with a big whooping monitor, however VR will probably take it to the next level.

 

[tawittle]

nope. not even in the same league, but you'll pay a lot more for that non-VR setup than for a good VR one.

Not true at all friend. For the price of a VR headset you can easily buy a track ir 5, a warthog joystick, and still have enough left over to upgrade your monitor. Not to mention a VR set up is more computer intensive.

If you really like the idea of having a piece of plastic strapped to your head, I would advise you to buy a VR headset. But a lot of people don't see the point of VR when they already have a good monitor and head tracking. The VR just isn't really adding any features.

I guess it's all personal preference in the end. If your peripheral vision tends to bug you or you aren't use to trackIR, I guess a VR headset may very well be more enjoyable for you. But I don't think a VR headset is objectively the best way to play the game.

edit: for all the people asking, no I haven't tried the DK2

 

[Zeta Legion]

Can we clarify a few things, have you actually experienced VR? Am trying to understand what you a basing this all on? Really curious about the part where people find out that it's not what it's cracked up to be, in reality you will find people are pretty frikin shocked at the experience.

I have a no idea if it will be a boost for gaming, the gaming market pulls in more money than the movie industry, not even sure it needs a boost. I know for sure that it will change gaming, in exactly the same way high resolution monitors changed games when compared to basic top down titles in the 80's.

I can certainly see VR appealing to a much wider audience, it's not just about games, it's about experiencing virtual environments

Top-down titles were more of a 90's thing. And HD displays didn't change the game (in that way) 3D accelerated GPU's did.

I have indeed demo'd VR. It was hella disorienting at first, nor the most comfortable thing I've ever worn on my head. Minor issues, I suppose, but that was my first experience with it. Moving on; what VR offers is an enhanced version of the 1st-person perspective. This is neat for 1st-person games but pointless for games with other perspectives which limits the appeal of the technology. 3D acceleration by comparison was an industry-wide technological advancement that could be applied to every genre regardless of perspective. Make no mistake there is a market for VR, but in case you haven't noticed practically every corporation in the tech sector is puking out their own version which is guaranteed to over saturate the market. Over saturation leads to market collapse ala the north american video game crash in the 80's. I think it has more market viability than waggle controllers though, I'll give it that much.

The bit about not being 'all it's cracked up to be' is that most people see VR as the next 'big thing' that will revolutionize the video game industry. In my opinion, it just doesn't cast a wide enough net to do that. Like I said, it only enhances 1st-person experiences, particularly those which never pull out of the 1st-person perspective for cutscenes or whatever. It's a cool toy, but a very expensive one to accommodate let alone purchase, and one with a narrow field of specialty. Ergo, it's not likely to become standard equipment. I mean, most people probably wouldn't justify buying a new console just to play one game on it because you just turned that $70 game into a $500 game. It's why the PS4 is wrecking the Xbox in sales; most games people care about are multiplats, ergo they go for the stronger of the two consoles, and just do without the one or two exclusive titles. Same thing applies to VR; why buy an $800 peripheral just to play one game? Some people will, but most people I suspect won't.

 

[cmdr awesome]

Top-down titles were more of a 90's thing. And HD displays didn't change the game (in that way) 3D accelerated GPU's did.

I have indeed demo'd VR. It was hella disorienting at first, nor the most comfortable thing I've ever worn on my head. Minor issues, I suppose, but that was my first experience with it. Moving on; what VR offers is an enhanced version of the 1st-person perspective. This is neat for 1st-person games but pointless for games with other perspectives which limits the appeal of the technology. 3D acceleration by comparison was an industry-wide technological advancement that could be applied to every genre regardless of perspective. Make no mistake there is a market for VR, but in case you haven't noticed practically every corporation in the tech sector is puking out their own version which is guaranteed to over saturate the market. Over saturation leads to market collapse ala the north american video game crash in the 80's. I think it has more market viability than waggle controllers though, I'll give it that much.

The bit about not being 'all it's cracked up to be' is that most people see VR as the next 'big thing' that will revolutionize the video game industry. In my opinion, it just doesn't cast a wide enough net to do that. Like I said, it only enhances 1st-person experiences, particularly those which never pull out of the 1st-person perspective for cutscenes or whatever. It's a cool toy, but a very expensive one to accommodate let alone purchase, and one with a narrow field of specialty. Ergo, it's not likely to become standard equipment. I mean, most people probably wouldn't justify buying a new console just to play one game on it because you just turned that $70 game into a $500 game. It's why the PS4 is wrecking the Xbox in sales; most games people care about are multiplats, ergo they go for the stronger of the two consoles, and just do without the one or two exclusive titles. Same thing applies to VR; why buy an $800 peripheral just to play one game? Some people will, but most people I suspect won't.

You haven't played Luckys Tale then?

 

[Asp Explorer]

You haven't played Luckys Tale then?

I haven't finished it yet, but those purple caterpillars and the dragonflies are just adorable.

 

[cmdr awesome]

Not true at all friend. For the price of a VR headset you can easily buy a track ir 5, a warthog joystick, and still have enough left over to upgrade your monitor. Not to mention a VR set up is more computer intensive.

If you really like the idea of having a piece of plastic strapped to your head, I would advise you to buy a VR headset. But a lot of people don't see the point of VR when they already have a good monitor and head tracking. The VR just isn't really adding any features.

I guess it's all personal preference in the end. If your peripheral vision tends to bug you or you aren't use to trackIR, I guess a VR headset may very well be more enjoyable for you. But I don't think a VR headset is objectively the best way to play the game.

edit: for all the people asking, no I haven't tried the DK2

A decent triple screen setup will need the same PC as a Rift would, and 3 decent screens are more costly than a rift. Of course a single screen setup is cheaper, but that's not the point that was made. We see photos of rigs with expensive projectirs that are utter white elephants now. Oculus sell pc+headset packages for well under $2000 so many on here are exaggerating the cost of VR. This is all before the Pascal cards come out, at which point no new gaming PC will be unable to support VR.

For many people getting a headset would be an expensive proposition right now, but when it's time to upgrade your PC anyway it will be a very compelling accessory.

If anyone here would like to try VR and is near Cambridge, PM me. Caution though, 2 out of 2 people who have done this ordered a headset the next day

 

[Sup3rfluiD]

I don't know if VR will be a big boost for ED.
.
As for my own experience, after 46 years of playing pretty much every notable game ever to grace this planet,
I'm now an absolute fan of the VR evolution.
.
I recently spent what I would have to call "THE" most enjoyable afternoon of gaming in my entire life,
canyon running in an Asp through an Oculus headset at a friends house.
This was truly a hallmark event in my gaming life. I'm never going to get it out of my head.
Simply amazing.
I cant afford one of my own, yet, but I wait in awestruck anticipation of my return to that wonderful experience.

 

[Zeta Legion]

A decent triple screen setup will need the same PC as a Rift would, and 3 decent screens are more costly than a rift. Of course a single screen setup is cheaper, but that's not the point that was made. We see photos of rigs with expensive projectirs that are utter white elephants now. Oculus sell pc+headset packages for well under $2000 so many on here are exaggerating the cost of VR. This is all before the Pascal cards come out, at which point no new gaming PC will be unable to support VR.

For many people getting a headset would be an expensive proposition right now, but when it's time to upgrade your PC anyway it will be a very compelling accessory.

If anyone here would like to try VR and is near Cambridge, PM me. Caution though, 2 out of 2 people who have done this ordered a headset the next day

... And enthusiast-level triple-screen setups (1440p or 4k) aren't exactly commonplace either. Those extra monitors can be used for other things too. VR headsets have one purpose.

The next-gen GPU's from AMD and NVidia aren't out yet. We can speculate on how they will perform compared to current-gen cards but I wouldn't trust either company to accurately assess the performance of their cards.

 

[wstephenson]

I'm taking the long view, and expect that VR will become affordable and commonplace. In a couple of phone generations, stereoscopic cameras and fold out viewers will be a standard feature, and the kids will be sending VR selfies to each other. Look at how 3D took over gaming between say 1987 (Driller) and 1997 (Quake 2).

The Elite Dangerous franchise is well placed to succeed in that context, if FD keeps their eye on the ball and adapts in step with the technology. A next step beyond what we have now would be supporting tracked controllers as the default 'mouse' - laser pointer style selection on the menus, 'grab and zoom' to explore the Galaxy Map (and oi, where's my VR Orrery Map?), then turning the non-cockpit UIs (station services, main menu, powerplay, Galnet) into room-scale VR environments, not just a isolated virtual screen. And then we have the whole 'walking around your ship' expansion, which will look slightly prehistoric when it comes out if it is still centred around the (1997 era) WASD and mouse FPS paradigm. I think Star Citizen, chasing an ultra-fidelity version of this style of game, is going to have more difficulty keeping up with the times.

 

[Zeta Legion]

I'm taking the long view, and expect that VR will become affordable and commonplace. In a couple of phone generations, stereoscopic cameras and fold out viewers will be a standard feature, and the kids will be sending VR selfies to each other. Look at how 3D took over gaming between say 1987 (Driller) and 1997 (Quake 2).

The Elite Dangerous franchise is well placed to succeed in that context, if FD keeps their eye on the ball and adapts in step with the technology. A next step beyond what we have now would be supporting tracked controllers as the default 'mouse' - laser pointer style selection on the menus, 'grab and zoom' to explore the Galaxy Map (and oi, where's my VR Orrery Map?), then turning the non-cockpit UIs (station services, main menu, powerplay, Galnet) into room-scale VR environments, not just a isolated virtual screen. And then we have the whole 'walking around your ship' expansion, which will look slightly prehistoric when it comes out if it is still centred around the (1997 era) WASD and mouse FPS paradigm. I think Star Citizen, chasing an ultra-fidelity version of this style of game, is going to have more difficulty keeping up with the times.

Well, no alternate control scheme (waggle, analog sticks, etc.) has yet dethroned KB+M in the realm of 1st-person controls and I doubt VR is gonna change that.

 

[Patrick_68000]

The VR will be like the 3D TV ? A failure ?

 

[jabokai]

The VR will be like the 3D TV ? A failure ?

No, it won't be like that at all because, unlike 3D, VR is actually backed up by user experience, rather than just corporation marketing and advertising with little user buy-in.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Im sorry, I'm not a multi billionaire, I divide my time available (when not working to actual pay for my lifestyle) and the money I earn between my different hobbies and pastimes. Biking, hiking and music involves my wife and real life friends.
Modding or fixing my bike. Buying pedals and guitar related things and camping accessories offer a wide range of results in life engaging experiences.

The priority for a gaming peripheral and custom pc that will only really be used in one particular application... Is rather low.

Justification of cost. It has eveything to do with my personal experience with VR.

And this is completely fair enough, we all (most of us anyway) have finite cash, and we choose hoe to spend it.... VR is here now and over time it will only come down. 5 years from now an entry level gaming gpu will be fine for vr.

but take your bike.... as much as vr hmd is a nuts spending of cash to you, to me a bike is to get me from A to B, and I bet the amount you spend on your bike would blow my mind (my mountain bike was £80 brand new).... it is good we are all different however.

PS You really need to try (good) VR and then you can speak with authority. I am not saying you WILL change your mind.... but I reckon it will be a good, 50% chance you will.

 

[Patrick_68000]

No, it won't be like that at all because, unlike 3D, VR is actually backed up by user experience, rather than just corporation marketing and advertising with little user buy-in.

It's possible. But we'll be able to judge really in a few years. We'll see if there will be a real democratization of this system. At the moment, in the short term, I am rather perplexed

 

[CylonSurfer]

I'm taking the long view, and expect that VR will become affordable and commonplace. In a couple of phone generations, stereoscopic cameras and fold out viewers will be a standard feature, and the kids will be sending VR selfies to each other. Look at how 3D took over gaming between say 1987 (Driller) and 1997 (Quake 2).

The Elite Dangerous franchise is well placed to succeed in that context, if FD keeps their eye on the ball and adapts in step with the technology. A next step beyond what we have now would be supporting tracked controllers as the default 'mouse' - laser pointer style selection on the menus, 'grab and zoom' to explore the Galaxy Map (and oi, where's my VR Orrery Map?), then turning the non-cockpit UIs (station services, main menu, powerplay, Galnet) into room-scale VR environments, not just a isolated virtual screen. And then we have the whole 'walking around your ship' expansion, which will look slightly prehistoric when it comes out if it is still centred around the (1997 era) WASD and mouse FPS paradigm. I think Star Citizen, chasing an ultra-fidelity version of this style of game, is going to have more difficulty keeping up with the times.

No thank you. Moving the UI with your hands - fine. Being taken out of the cockpit to view menus - no thanks (I despise the PP and Galnet menus for doing it). Traditional pad locomotion mixed with room scale will be fine for ship walking etc, with comfort mode options for those who suffer from sim sickness. We do not want enforced teleportation locomotion spoiling what is a very immersive experience. As we are currently learning, comfort modes, such as ratchet based turning and teleportation are very discomforting for many users and immersion breaking unless part of a games narrative.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

btw as for a boost to sales.

both oculus and HTC cant make the HMDs fast enough. even IF the bubble bursts (and i do not think it will) but even if it does, it wont be until after there are over 1million of the hmds on the market (there are over 100k DK2s and they were never officially released to the public). if only 1 in 5 VR users buy ED (and I bet the take up of the game will be far far higher than 1 in 5) that is still 200k users buying ED for VR.

 

[Dweezil_Moon]

Not true at all friend. For the price of a VR headset you can easily buy a track ir 5, a warthog joystick, and still have enough left over to upgrade your monitor. Not to mention a VR set up is more computer intensive.

it depends, there ARE alternatives to Oculus and Vive if you look for them. The thing is : I bought a used DK2 back in august or september last year for 300€. That's slightly more than the cost of a good 24'' monitor. I played most demos and games from share.oculus ANd I played Elite on my 7 year old Duo Q6600 with a cheap'ish GTX660 which was slightly less than 200€ when I bought it a couple of month before the DK2. Yes, in some I had a bit of lag or I had to reduce the details massively, but for most of the stuff I tried my rig was more than sufficient. "Windland" and Elite were absolutely breathtaking. I had a 22'' monitor for work.

So ... all in all I spent around 500€ (mind you, when I bought the GPU I wasn't thinking about buying a DK2) to have a good VR setup. Going TrackIR (I used to use FacetrackNoiR btw, which is *free* and as good) and two 24'' monitor would have set me back approx. the same amount.

I *DID* upgrade my computer in the months following, but considering the age of my "old" rig, which is now used by my daughter, and the fact that it took 5 months to get to my (still lowly) i5-3470+GTX970 I don't think the investment was that big, even though my salary is quite low.

What you might fail to see though ...

If you really like the idea of having a piece of plastic strapped to your head, I would advise you to buy a VR headset. But a lot of people don't see the point of VR when they already have a good monitor and head tracking. The VR just isn't really adding any features.

I guess it's all personal preference in the end. If your peripheral vision tends to bug you or you aren't use to trackIR, I guess a VR headset may very well be more enjoyable for you. But I don't think a VR headset is objectively the best way to play the game.

edit: for all the people asking, no I haven't tried the DK2

... is that VR is fundamentally different from other ways to interact with a computer. *Do* try it. I'm sure you read/heard it often enough, but current VR tech needs to be experienced to be understood. No amount of talking can explain the way it affects the user.

I still bike and swim btw.

 

[wstephenson]

No thank you. Moving the UI with your hands - fine. Being taken out of the cockpit to view menus - no thanks (I despise the PP and Galnet menus for doing it). Traditional pad locomotion mixed with room scale will be fine for ship walking etc, with comfort mode options for those who suffer from sim sickness. We do not want enforced teleportation locomotion spoiling what is a very immersive experience. As we are currently learning, comfort modes, such as ratchet based turning and teleportation are very discomforting for many users and immersion breaking unless part of a games narrative.

I think you misunderstand me - by 'non-cockpit UIs', I simply mean the that they could be made more than a naive mapping of a 2D screen into a virtual environment, not that all UIs should be out of cockpit. Like you, I don't know why Station Services is the only menu that works in-cockpit, and would prefer if all menus were presented in the same virtual space.

As an example of how they could be done better, how about a 'carousel' style presentation where different top level menus encircle the player (in their cockpit), and can be rotated around the player's 'front' view to select one? Various 'desktop cube/barrel/sphere' effects were used to switch virtual desktops in a similar when 3D-composited window managers first came into vogue a few years ago.