daddacool
I think it has its place. I've got a Insta 360 X camera and it's let me do stuff that's been helpful for my specific situation - for example yesterday was the first anniversary of my mums passing. She's interred in a replica round barrow up near Peterborough (don't ask, it's as odd as it sounds!), and I shot a 360 degree video there a few weeks ago that I stick on Youtube via my Oculus Go headset (yes, I'm the person who bought one!) and can watch whenever I want to talk to her. Likewise, I've got a load of videos from beaches etc I shot on holiday that really helped during lockdown.

But gaming? Nah, the tech isn't there yet. It's halfway there, sort of, we can now do 4K60 but we need to be able to do that for each eye for gaming IMHO.

I also have a One X and I just use Google cardboard when I want to go full experience with my 360 photos/videos, but more often I just use the camera for overcapture or use more traditional methods for moving around the photos/videos.

Other than that I see VR as only slightly more likely to survive compared to 3D. 3D was utterly wasted on me, all I saw was theatre style scenery where they have layers of 2D at different distances and nothing looked properly 3D. And the usual gimmicks of a bird/butterfly/fire cinders flying around the screen to say “look at our fancy 3D effects” got old quickly.

I think VR is just a passing fad, just like 3D TV was. Unless it really takes off and, I don't think it will, manufacturers will lose interest and it will quietly shuffle off.

Personally can't use it. Tried playing Resident Evil 7 on PSVR and I made it to the crows at the beginning and then had to take the headset off as I was going to puke. The visuals looked terrible and low resolution on the PSVR so no way would I trade a fullsize TV over that regardless. I believe that the PC visuals on Occulus etc will be better given power on modern gaming PC's.

Much like the 3DTV's I reckon VR will die off and just become a very niche thing with a loyal fanbase.

I am torn with this one. I think the market for it is there and it could actually be huge but is being hampered by a few factors such as price, the scarcity of decent content, the utter fragmentation of platforms & hardware for running VR software on, or even how the experience is to set the hardware up.

Personally I love it, I do find room scale VR a bit janky and a pain to set up, but seated games that use gamepad/wheel/HOTAS such as truck simulator, project cars, elite etc. are really a lot more convenient, they are also far more fun to play in VR than on a screen, it is GREAT for replacing all those multi-monitor & gaming wheel set ups I see around, I would have thought that crowd would be lapping them up in all honesty.

Being the only young fella on a forum full of grumpy old men who hate anything new ( :p )… Of course I have high hopes for the future!

It's not perfect, of course, and for a certain percentage of the population whose eyes are too far outside the typical range or condition for which these things are made, it will remain useless… I've a friend who will tell you binoculars are the most pointless invention ever, simply because he has a detached retina and can't use them.

For seated games based in cockpits and behind racing wheels, it is absolutely fantastic. Obviously the resolution needs to improve, but we're getting there.
Prices will fall, headsets will get lighter and someone some day will figure out a decent FPS control system.
It's spent decades buried in the niche gimmick arena of gaming, but never really gone away and the latest leaps forward have proven it to be a viable technology.

The only way VR will die is if people (devs and users alike) continue to treat it as nothing more than a gimmick, fail to follow the principles that support its proper implementation, or just use it for cheap tricks and tech demos. Low end VR is really not where these things should be judged, though - It needs a decent gaming system with a decent headset. Anything else would be like judging sports cars based on a clapped out Lada.

But then, the day they release 360º holographic 3-D displays in 64K ultra-resolution, I imagine people will still find something to complain about!

Half Life Alyx is a ground breaking game.

Honestly, I've been recently playing my way through the Crysis series and technically compared to Alyx I might as well be playing Pong (ok that's harsh, maybe Pacman).

Edit: The new Oculus Quest, even if you can't stand Facebook, should drive down hardware costs. I think cost is still the main barrier to adoption.

Samsung Gear 360 and Samsung VR headset that uses your phone here.
It's pretty cool and gives a great thing. We've been to places, I've taken the 360 picture and then spent a good few hours exploring again!

However as said above these were cheap options, and the barrier to go to the next step is cost. Simply put - it's not mainstream yet at all

I still have hopes for VR. It may not reach the levels some may have expected, but I think it has potential. One thing that complicates things is trying to get people on board. It's hard to justify buying it with limited content and highish prices, but it's hard to put out content if not many people have VR.

The Quest 2 is actually pretty awesome - a massive step up in display quality, performance and the level of immersion from this primarily standalone headset.

I’m not a big fan of Facebook, so had some reservations - but I’m really impressed and glad of something physical to keep me entertained right now (having to live a fairly isolated lifestyle at present to keep elderly family safe - and therefore unable to visit gym / pool. etc). Long sessions on Superhot definitely give you an exhilarating workout.

Absolutely no motion sickness either - something my wife is often susceptible to… yet she can play the excellent “Beat Sabre” for long spells with no ill effects whatsoever.

I’m enjoying using it standalone for now, but will be keen to link it up to my gaming pc in the near future - Ace Combat 7, Elite Dangerous, Star Wars Squadrons and Flight Sim 2020 are all calling me (I’m aware the latter may remain in beta for a while, before it’s likely to hit general release).

So I started with an oculus quest 1st gen, and over a few months got frustrated at the abysmal inside out tracking. We got fairly competitive in Beat Saber and got to expert+ Custom maps and the quest just can’t keep up with it. That led to a Valve Index purchase and the tracking difference is phenomenal, which instantly made it so much more immersive. After getting bored of lugging my main rig to the front room I built a dedicated gaming PC for the front room with a 3700x and 2080ti to be able to drive the index at 120hz. Suffice to say all in I’m at £2000 invested in VR which I’m quite happy with given gyms etc were closed. Between beat saber, synth riders, fight night and hot squat it’s a decent enough HIIT session each night. Recently tried Star Wars Squadrons in VR which made me feel like a kid again playing X-Wing and Tie Fighter however it is buggy as hell as a game and the VR implementation is half baked at best.

Its too expensive,so I only know of one person who has a VR system. Everyone else I know seems to think its interesting,but think its a niche use thing they will rarely use(like a Wii) and the price needs to drop. Personally I am more likely to spend £400 on a monitor than £400 on a VR heatset,as I will simply get more use out of it.

A fad??? VR hasn't even really happened, yet. We keep playing around with it, but it's yet to have any kind of real traction beyond tech enthusiasts.

VR… can't even use it because I wear glasses…

Honestly I doubt it's ever going to take off while it has the current issues of high prices, the ‘moving around your room without hitting stuff’ issue and in one case facebook ownership…

Personally I'm more interested in AR, ie hololens but that's just me.

LSG501
VR… can't even use it because I wear glasses…

Honestly I doubt it's ever going to take off while it has the current issues of high prices, the ‘moving around your room without hitting stuff’ issue and in one case facebook ownership…

Personally I'm more interested in AR, ie hololens but that's just me.

Basic AR has already taken off in phones. Things such as Pokemon Go and Ingress have 10s of millions of downloads.

I'm in two minds about it's fadishism. Hey, did I just invent a word?

First, I've yet to use a set that didn't make me either want to upchuck, or give me a nasty headache. Or more accurately, a couple didn't do one or t'other …. they did both. Which is not an improvement. That said, thus might say more about my eyes than VR.

Second, I don't think the tech is ‘there’ yet. And “there” means good enough, at a realistic price, and sufficient content, in both quantity and quality, is available.

But I've seen technologies before where it languished for years, waiting for hardware to get sufficient grunt, at a low enough price, to gget mass appeal.

VR may yet get there. I put it's inability to get the snowball rolling downhill down to both lack of grunt (until fairly recently, at least) and price making it too niche.

So, is it a fad, and if so, is it over? Dunno. Too early to tell. Jury's still out. And so on.

Either way, I seriously doubt it'll ever suit me, but if not for headaches and/or puking, I'd buy in the nanosecond I considered there to be enough, or essential enough, content. Which means games, for me.

No, and yes.

In it's current form, it's just paving the way to something (hopefully) better. I like to think of it as an evolutionary dead end, which will trigger a different approach.

Take Half Life Alyx as an example - Alyx was exclusive to VR because, like most VR games, it leans so hard on the VR aspect it can't stand on it's own for game play - That's been a common theme in just about every VR title so far - The VR bit has to become natural but everything is still pushing the “it's awesome cuz it's VR” shtick. Its' just another turn of the handle on the VR sausage machine - churning out turd melts packaged as Filet Mignon because it has a cool USP.

It feels like 3D movies all over again. Avatar was crap - a poor quality sci-fi Pocahontas, but “it's awesome cuz it's 3D”.

That's all very negative, I know, and I want VR to be good; but anything that requires you strap a lump to your forehead and re-locate all your living room furniture needs a rethink. Accessibility is an issue too - I don't suffer from motion sickness but a few minutes with a VR headset makes me feel queasy. On top of that - the entry bar is far too high to get the masses on board.

3D movies were limited by framerate. Any fast moving action looks crap in a movie at 24fps.

People itt shaking their fists at electricity and these new fangled flying machines and whatnot.

CAT-THE-FIFTH
Basic AR has already taken off in phones. Things such as Pokemon Go and Ingress have 10s of millions of downloads.

True (although tbh I don't rate the ar in those apps that highly) but not quite the type of usage I'm thinking of, I'm thinking of more business use where you can preview a ‘house’ on a plot of land or how a remodel or exhibition layout would look etc.

LSG501
VR… can't even use it because I wear glasses…

As a glasses wearer my Vive is perfectly fine for hours on end.

To the main question if it's a fad? Maybe? I've had countless hours out of mine and the games still blow me away.

I'll be sad when/if the games dry up for it but at the moment it's still great fun and has been for the 18 months I've had it.

I treat it the same as my console, something cool comes out for it I'll get it and play it.
Does it get used every day? No. A few hours a week certainly, especially when there's a good campaign game to play through - currently winging my way through Star Wars Squadrons.

I'm old enough to remember the same question being asked of 3d graphics cards, but the price needs to come down, more comfortable to wear, resolution increased, and the most important of all - a killer game/application that does it well. Much like Quake, Half-Life etc in the early days of 3d graphics.
The basic technology isn't quite there yet though. Give it 6 or 7 years when £5000 graphics cards become the norm, and a grand for a VR setup is peanuts.

I could see some good uses for training purposes, such as medical or large machinery, where the initial physical training on working equipment would be very expensive or time consuming to allow each individual one by one to have a go.

Gaming, I think the novelty has worn off slightly though I've seen some fun games I don't think many developers have it as a core focus.
You need the correct environment for it at home which few people will have.

£300/400 for a controller I wouldn't use much - no thank you.

When they first came out roughly 4/5 years ago they couldn't throw them at you hard enough, free with phone contracts, bundled with graphics cards. Now it's barely mentioned.

The question 'Was virtual reality just a fad' seems to suggest you've already made up your mind ;)

VR has been around since the 1990s, so hardly a fad.

VR use in serious applications continues to grow. However within those applications VR is delivered in a ‘suite’ and the VR headset is a very small part of the overall investment.

The question is whether consumer and mainstream VR use will ever catch on? Reminds me of video conferencing, which originally involved setting up a dedicated suite with multiple cameras, expensive microphones and an ISDN30 line. 30 years later executives and everyone else can Zoom from their front room but the experience is just a bit crap compared to the dedicated business suites that came before.

First we gotta have actual good GFX cards for this..

Mainstream VR? am not sure, it looks quite a bit thin still, they are too heavy to wear most of them as well. clunky controllers to be honest…

if had body controllers would make it interesting or more interesting instead, and eye control of some sort.

Further to my previous post, the most recent Steam Hardware Survey, indicates only 1.88% of Steam users has a VR headset…

Friesiansam
Further to my previous post, the most recent Steam Hardware Survey, indicates only 1.88% of Steam users has a VR headset…

ISTM that is 1.88% of computers running Steam, which isn't the same as users.

We have a family of 4 here, which including desktops, laptops and the shoebox machine downstairs is 7 computers running Steam and one of those has the VR headset attached. I'm not saying the actual figure is 7 times higher, but it will be very much under reporting.

We also have a HOTAS that we share, and some racing pedals that move between machines. You can't really measure peripherals in the same way as graphics cards.

With the Quest 2 taking over from the Rift, I suspect Steam reporting will get even worse.

Edit:

QuorTek
First we gotta have actual good GFX cards for this..

Our Rift is powered by an RX 570. Really, the hardware bar is *really* easy to get over these days. When I got the thing you needed a £400 GPU and an expensive quad core i7 to get usable results; now more power can be had on a £150 GPU and a Ryzen 3600.

We all know Steam isn't that representative either…

Are you joking? There has been an exponential increase in adoption of VR with a doubling over user base every 12 months. Only a slight slow down in the past few months as new generation of headsets are about to or have been released over the past few days.

As someone that has been using the Oculus Rift CV1 since 2016 and now just got the Quest 2, VR is by far the best tech purchase I've ever made. The experience is incredible and has only been getting better with time.

It seems like most people commenting here have actually never used a VR headset like Quest or Rift before. Comparing it to 3DTV's is completely ridiculous - they are not comparable at all. In fact, I HAVE a 3DTV, and you know how many times I've used it in 4 years? About twice. Yet I use VR every single day.

Before commenting on the future of VR, you ought to try *good VR*. And no, I don't mean the type that you put in your phones or Oculus Go. Those are not true VR. Google cardboard? That's ridiculous… You have never tried VR if that's what your opinion is based on. Google cardboard is awful and not VR.

PSVR has been doubling its VR user base almost every year since 2016. Percentage of steam users adopting VR has been roughly doubling each year. Exponential growth leads to very large numbers… and we're almost at 2% right now. You do the math.

1st post so I can't share a link, but google: steam survey vr headset growth march-2020

Technology adoption usually follows an exponential trend and follows an S-curve. The past few months have slowed down, but now with Quest 2 and other headsets being released, it will grow significantly again.

With Quest 2 now being just £299, developers are seeing 10x the number of sales than before. Overwhelmingly positive reviews as well.

And as far as ‘vr sickness’ goes: this is something that the vast majority of people adapt to. Within days to weeks, 90% of people become immune and don't experience these side effects.

I can't believe it's 2020 and I see people comparing it to 3DTVs.

VR industry has NEVER in its entire history been as healthy as it is today. It's been growing consistently… Will it go away? No, never. VR will be the next big computing platform. It will replace monitors and many TV's.

Fad? No. Niche, yes.

I never tried out the 3D glasses fad, but that's because I didn't have the gear powerful enough to do it. By the time I had a 144Hz monitor and a powerful enough GFX card to do that, the fad had gone. Which is a shame, as that sounded like the better option - 3D gaming without loosing the ability to see your controller.

I enjoy watching some films in 3D, e.g. CGI ones. I imagine there would be a few games I'd enjoy playing in VR. But not many. And for that, it has to have a reasonable cost but quite frankly with the price of graphics cards at the moment, there is negative cash left over for VR.

When an art form isn't accessible to the poor (the masses) it will be a fad. When it's approachable to the masses, it will take off. You'd have to be a fool to not know how this works.

considering there is only one game (alyx) it will never actually get anywhere… other “games” are not designed in vr, they are just ports..

DanceswithUnix
QuorTek
First we gotta have actual good GFX cards for this..

Our Rift is powered by an RX 570. Really, the hardware bar is *really* easy to get over these days. When I got the thing you needed a £400 GPU and an expensive quad core i7 to get usable results; now more power can be had on a £150 GPU and a Ryzen 3600.

I said the hardware is not up for 4K yet, and it is not ready for proper VR yet, it is an expensive investment for little use, and no proper forecast in how long the items will still be working well, speaking of +10.000 hours of active use, they have been all around about VR since Doom II from back in the 90ish.

I think there's a place for both VR and AR, but AR really needs integration into regular style glasses, instead of phones. Imagine if AR gets approved for driving use: street names overlaid on bridges and exits, not to mention destination arrows. Even just as a pedestrian, imagine coupling that with voice recognition (“where can I get some tacos around here?”). Look across the street at a bus stop and see time til the next arrival.

Headset VR definitely has significant potential. I remember trying the Google cardboard thing with my phone some years ago, and though it was severely limited in everything, as my first VR experience I was still impressed. Things improved greatly with the Oculus Rift, though yes, the clarity wasn't the same as my higher res monitor. I'm currently waiting on the Reverb G2 and coupled with one of the next gen cards about to be released (likely RDNA2) I already know the experience is going to improve greatly, again. Yes, some games made me feel nauseous though that stopped after playing for a while for most of these games (not all).
The big barrier for the new purchaser is cost…at the expensive end the vive + all required addons costs c£1000 + another £700 upwards for a suitable PC (you'll need a monitor too). Heck, even a suitable PC with an unsuitable GPU will cost you c£400 upwards to upgrade that GPU. Standalone headsets e.g. Quest2 are much more cost friendly and promise an excellent experience…but…the owners, Facebook, now require you to use your FB account for the headset to work. That's gonna put folk off.
Unfortunately, We're still a year or two away from a holodeck - that's gonna get a population uptake of 100%, guaranteed.

I am a grumpy old man.
But i still want to try VR at least, but i doubt i would buy into it, though of course if i was hooked i would.
I am also into most new things, but i also have to say many new things are down right stupid, and from a environmental perspective a waster of the raw materials that make it.

I would also like to try AR, and even without having tried i can say that if i was able to get a AR goggle what would superimpose a radar/ lidar image on top of what i see, or just a IR image, like some form of deluxe NVG, that i would be interested in.

For instance this,,,,,, i really think should be banned from sale in any decent country, it serve next to no purpose, it is maybe inventing a purpose,,,,, to sell.
It is something made to sell, and nothing else, actually i would look down upon a person having one of those in his / her car.

I will even say some new things are making people more stupid ( looking at you smartphones )
Take cars, so why cant people turn on the light now ? it have worked fine since the invention of headlights, and why cant people turn on wipers, it have worked just fine since vipers was invented.
And many more things.

Just BECUZ you can do something, dont mean you have to.

aniilv
considering there is only one game (alyx) it will never actually get anywhere… other “games” are not designed in vr, they are just ports..

… and yet I can't play the VR port of Elite Dangerous on a flat monitor any more because the experience is just so dire compared to VR.

Oh well, I guess people who want to believe there isn't anything worth playing can't be convinced. So I won't waste any more effort, I'll go play Beat Sabre instead :D

Gentle Viking;4264549
Take cars, so why cant people turn on the light now ? it have worked fine since the invention of headlights, and why cant people turn on wipers, it have worked just fine since vipers was invented.

To be fair, I have been observing people (with difficulty!) driving around at night having forgotten to put their headlights or even sidelights on at night for decades. It could be argues that such people shouldn't be allowed to drive (which is a bit harsh, we all make mistakes) but that is a simple bit of tech that removes a dangerous mistake from people's hands.

I've looked into it a few times but £300+ on a headset after upgrading my GPU. No chance. If the price dropped a bit (and facebook couldn't ban my account and render my device dead) I would be interested but its too expensive to take the risk. (£300+ is more than the cost of a new xbox I know I would enjoy.)

Easy answer - yes and no. The technology was not right, too expensive, units too big, too heavy, not wireless, needs room pods, needs higher refresh rates, needs an expensive driving pc/console… The idea is a good one and I'm sure it'll come back as more advanced, more useful AR

I can honestly say I have absolutely no idea.

For the right games, VR is an incredible and immersive experience but it's still a niche market.

Elite Dangerous, Half life - Alyx, Creed - Rise to glory, Assetto Corsa are all great examples of VR done well. (Creed has some weird movement design choices but the boxing is sound) Flight and driving sims are obvious ideal matches but Half life - Alyx showed how it can be for traditional games.

I had a dk2 and was I using for Elite Dangerous… I can't play it without a vr headset any more… It lacks the immersion. For this type of game, it's amazing. I would probably invest again in future. FS 2020, more elite etc.

I guess i'll go against the trend here and say that no, its not a fad and is getting better year on year.

I invested in a DK2 which sold me on the concept, and then upgraded to a Rift CV1 when it game out and didn't look back. My interest did admitted drop off for a period where content was limited at best, but things have really changed in the past 2 years and there is a lot of AAA style content available now, with more on the way.

The biggest issue for me has always been the faff factor. So many times I decided I wanted to spend a few hours in FSX or Elite…only to give up at the thought of setting up my sensors, calibrating them etc etc..just a PITA.

Then last week I bought a Quest 2..and wow, what a difference. VR is now truly plug and play (no need for sensors etc), the display quality is hugely better, and I have the best of both worlds - i can play “mobile” experiences anywhere i want, but I can still play PC VR either wirelessly or via USB cable..it's really got me back into it.

Playing Star Wars squadrons on a “flat” monitor is dull and not at all engaging now - I would not go back for that sort of game.

VR can cause permanent brain damage. The human brain hasn't been made for this rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish. Lanier should be sentenced to a VR cage for life.

cheesemp
I've looked into it a few times but £300+ on a headset after upgrading my GPU.

When I first got my Rift I was playing on a 2GB R9 285. It isn't ideal, but your RX480 8GB is fine.

Or put it another way, you could upgrade your GPU for the same (probably more) money, but would it give you any new experiences? It just makes the same old games a bit quicker and a bit nicer looking. That's not an upgrade, it's a rut.

In a VR headset playing Elite, you can look down whilst scooping a sun in your Asp Explorer and see the sun boiling away beneath your feet. In dogfights you can look around you to try and see where that second ship went after getting the first one. Sometimes you lean forwards when looking up to see past some beam that is blocking your view of the enemy. Firing up Dirt Rally in VR in the campaign mode the first car was a Lancia Fulvia. My brother owned a Fulvia once, and I spent a few minutes just gazing around the interior of the car boggled by the amount of detail they had put in there.

The simpler games, like Beat Saber, a Quest can play without even plugging into a PC.

The biggest blocker to VR is frankly the amount of space you need around you to play games like Alyx. If you can play in a living room then you are probably OK, but that isn't very family friendly.

I don't think it's a fad, more like a improving all the time tech. I would love a VR setup but for one thing it's too expensive and you seem to need a beast of a system to run the better setups without turning details down. Oculus seemed to be the go to brand but they can go and do one having sold their souls to Facebook. I will never ever have a Facebook account and want nothing to do with them. There is the HP Reverb G2 coming later but having such a high resolution is again going to need a beast of a pc to drive it. I should imagine that there are a limited number of games that support VR and probably hardly any of the ones I play (mostly simulators such as ETS2, ATS, TS2021).

pastymuncher
and you seem to need a beast of a system to run the better setups without turning details down.

Compared to the basic Rift CV1 requirements of a GTX 1060 and an i5 4590 you already have a beast of a system.

And remember, if you want more detail, unlike with a boring flat panel you can move your head a bit closer ;) :D

and with that I'm off to play that archery game in Steam VR lab. It's free if you have a Steam account, and great fun.

John_Amstrad
VR can cause permanent brain damage. The human brain hasn't been made for this rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish. Lanier should be sentenced to a VR cage for life.

Yes, but like all the other things you do in life that are bad for you - it's bloody good fun!!! :D

And seeing as I just picked up a Vive of my own, I'mma follow DwU's example!

disclaimer: I have not had the opportunity to use a VR headset.

I don't think VR is a fad but I do think it's not ready for the mainstream yet. For that I think VR headsets need to be just another type of monitor - no accounts to log into, no software that only works on certain brands.
I think the tech is probably ready for VR cockpit games but anecdotally what I hear is that room-scale is a pain to set up in a shared family lounge.

Overall I think we'll see widespread adoption of AR headsets before we see widestream VR. AR can be used in everyday life (we trialed it at work hazard awareness) but VR is a much narrower niche.

Euphonium
Overall I think we'll see widespread adoption of AR headsets before we see widestream VR.

AR and VR might share underlying technology but they are two totally different things. If I'm pretending to fly a space ship then I don't want to see the cat wandering past or the tree out my window I want the lot blotted out by my virtual world. Perhaps one day headsets might be able to do both, but honestly I think for most people just pointing a phone at things is enough like in the night sky mapping apps that tell you which stars are which and Pokemon Go.

Ttaskmaster
John_Amstrad
VR can cause permanent brain damage. The human brain hasn't been made for this rubbishrubbishrubbishrubbish. Lanier should be sentenced to a VR cage for life.
Yes, but like all the other things you do in life that are bad for you - it's bloody good fun!!! :D

And seeing as I just picked up a Vive of my own, I'mma follow DwU's example!

I agree that “more the fun more the harm” but I suggest that you use it with caution and at short time intervals. In short, seeing flashes when you close your eyes is a bad sign.

DanceswithUnix
When I first got my Rift I was playing on a 2GB R9 285. It isn't ideal, but your RX480 8GB is fine.

Or put it another way, you could upgrade your GPU for the same (probably more) money, but would it give you any new experiences? It just makes the same old games a bit quicker and a bit nicer looking. That's not an upgrade, it's a rut.

In a VR headset playing Elite, you can look down whilst scooping a sun in your Asp Explorer and see the sun boiling away beneath your feet. In dogfights you can look around you to try and see where that second ship went after getting the first one. Sometimes you lean forwards when looking up to see past some beam that is blocking your view of the enemy. Firing up Dirt Rally in VR in the campaign mode the first car was a Lancia Fulvia. My brother owned a Fulvia once, and I spent a few minutes just gazing around the interior of the car boggled by the amount of detail they had put in there.

The simpler games, like Beat Saber, a Quest can play without even plugging into a PC.

The biggest blocker to VR is frankly the amount of space you need around you to play games like Alyx. If you can play in a living room then you are probably OK, but that isn't very family friendly.

But that's the problem. My PC is in my office/family room but its just a converted garage… Also don't get me wrong it seems like a nice to have but my rx480 is struggling with my 2k monitor already so it has to be replaced if I just want to keep my PC working. I did play a VR system on holiday where they had a room set up with PC's in backpacks and it was amazing I'll agree but it doesn't make the £300+ any easier to justify.

John_Amstrad
I agree that “more the fun more the harm” but I suggest that you use it with caution and at short time intervals. In short, seeing flashes when you close your eyes is a bad sign.

Thanks, but I was being flippant - I've logged many hundreds of hours flying in VR Elite, as well as many hundreds more in plenty of other apps.
Not once have I experienced flashes, dizziness, nausea or any other ill effects.
The only time it has been bad for me is when ‘playing’ a FPS and letting a mate handle the controls!!

But then, I always set my headset up and configure it properly for me, which is why I always advocate others do the same. This improper setup is the biggest cause of many issues that people have, with VR, with 3D imagery, and all that stuff.
You can't just jump in a car and go, or look through a pair of binoculars and expect them to be perfectly comfortable - You have to make the alterations to suit you.

davesom555
I had a dk2 and was I using for Elite Dangerous… I can't play it without a vr headset any more… It lacks the immersion. For this type of game, it's amazing. I would probably invest again in future. FS 2020, more elite etc.

I'd like to try ED with VR, I know somebody who has one but whilst being an Elite fanatic, never took to VR. The low res of the DK2 combined with not being able to see anything put him off in the end.

I've got a 40" 4K screen on my desk, which is fantastic for Elite, and I can glance at my keyboard too. I would like to try head-tracking with it at some point. Gaming on a large screen close up feels like a good compromise between practicality and immersion. Works even better with proper surround sound instead of headphones.

Ttaskmaster
….

But then, I always set my headset up and configure it properly for me, which is why I always advocate others do the same. This improper setup is the biggest cause of many issues that people have, with VR, with 3D imagery, and all that stuff.
You can't just jump in a car and go, or look through a pair of binoculars and expect them to be perfectly comfortable - You have to make the alterations to suit you.

I wouldn't dispute that for a moment. But ….

I tend to operate in one of two modes: either “me” or “reviewer”.

When in “me” mode, I tend to be "if all else fails, and you really have to, RTFM". But not doing so is almost a point of pride. It does bite me in the chuff periodically, with something that MUST be done the right way, in the right order. That tends to be rare, though.

Then, there's reviewer mode. In that context, the publication it's being reviewed for matters. A ‘tech’ column in a national paper is going to be written at a different level of assumed expertise to something aimed at IT pro's. It has to be.

But either way, in reviewer mode, I do things in a fairly slow, painstaking mode and always RTFM. There's two reasons, really. First, if I end up criticising a product, it's only fair to have done that. Second, if I criticise a product and the manufacturer objects, I have to be able to defend the review, firstly to the commissioning editor, but also potentially in a court case. I've never been sued, but it's been threatened a time or two and the editor always wanted to know “can I back up my criticisms?” Oh, hell, yeah. I do it step by step, and document everything, just in case.

So …. re: VR. They give me headaches, and/or nausea. I've had systems (on loan) where they've been carefully set up by me, but also had the fairly rare experience a couple of times of having them set up for me, in their labs, by the manufacturer's technical teams.

It doesn't matter if I do it myself, try a generic system in PC World, or have it professionally set up …. except that the headaches/nausea start earlier in the PC World situation than in a manufacturer lab …. but not by much.

HOWEVER …. I do have some very specific sight issues so can't personally go further than to say that so far they don't work with me. If one ever does, I'd be delighted, and probably immediately buy.

I did, however, have a technical manager at a manufacturer tell me that a percentage (minority but not insignificant) of the population just don't seem to get on with them. He also pointed out that neither they (the manufacturer) nor necessarily even the customer, may know of certain eyesight issues, particularly in early stages, without access to medical records, if they exist. So he wouldn't speculate on whether some people just aren't wired right, or whether those having headaches/nausea might have eye conditions, or developing eye conditions, that caused it. And short of a fairly broad-based and statistically sufficiently widespread investigation into the sight of anyone having problems, I can't see an easy way to find out.

Dashers
The low res of the DK2 combined with not being able to see anything put him off in the end.

My old consumer Rift is also a bit low res for some of the text, so like everyone else in that boat (ship? ;) ) I ended up editing one of the config files to change the colours to make it readable. It is annoying as it is so close to readable, so a quick move of your head forwards can “zoom” enough to read it. A more modern headset should be OK. Early adopter blues I guess. OTOH I think it says a lot that people will go to such lengths to get the game working well, because the alternative is to walk away from the game because I just can't play on flat screen any more.

Elite has lead to some minor domestics in our house though. If at my desk playing Elite I look left to where the info panel floats in game, I am IRL looking towards the wife if she is at her desk. Apparently this is disturbing :D

Dashers
I've got a 40" 4K screen on my desk, which is fantastic for Elite, and I can glance at my keyboard too. I would like to try head-tracking with it at some point. Gaming on a large screen close up feels like a good compromise between practicality and immersion. Works even better with proper surround sound instead of headphones.

If it weren't for Covid, I'd invite you round to have a go on mine!
For full VR, you really need a HOTAS, to which you've assigned all the controls you need and have spent enough time with to know where everything is without looking on a cheat sheet. That's fairly hardcore, though.

Head tracking is probably your best option, especially if you're likely to want food, drinks, ciggies/vapes, and other such during the game, and for avoiding other people interrupting you mid-game by tapping on your shoulder and making you jump out of your skin! :D

Saracen999
I did, however, have a technical manager at a manufacturer tell me that a percentage (minority but not insignificant) of the population just don't seem to get on with them. He also pointed out that neither they (the manufacturer) nor necessarily even the customer, may know of certain eyesight issues, particularly in early stages, without access to medical records, if they exist. So he wouldn't speculate on whether some people just aren't wired right, or whether those having headaches/nausea might have eye conditions, or developing eye conditions, that caused it. And short of a fairly broad-based and statistically sufficiently widespread investigation into the sight of anyone having problems, I can't see an easy way to find out.

Surveys not needed - As mentioned, some people will just be outside the range of adjustment for the device. I'm just barely within the IPD range for one of them (the Rift, I think), which is far narrower than most binoculars, for example.
Other people have certain issues, be it visual defects, inner ear balance problems, or something else. It's like people who get travel-sick in cars or on boats - It doesn't mean the technology is duff, but that some peope will have reasons why they personally don't get on with it.

The rest, however, is invariably down to device setup somewhere along the line. It's the same with 3D films - The principles behind them have not changed, because the MkI Human Eyeball has not changed. 3D films worked great in the 1950s when they came out, because people made them and screened/projected them properly. These days most of the “horrible” 3D is down to the filmmakers not doing their job. It's pretty simple stuff, as well… I can go through The Hobbit and Avatar shot-by-shot, point out all the errors made, and explain why they don't work in 3D when other similar shots did.

Ttaskmaster
These days most of the “horrible” 3D is down to the filmmakers not doing their job. It's pretty simple stuff, as well… I can go through The Hobbit and Avatar shot-by-shot, point out all the errors made, and explain why they don't work in 3D when other similar shots did.

I quite liked 3D films, but there is a social problem that if one person in the group you are seeing a film with doesn't want to do 3D (be it an eyesight problem, not wanting to wear the glasses for 2 hours or just basic luddite tendencies) then that vetoes 3D for the group, and you end up watching it in 2D.

I don't really get why people bundle 3D tv and TV in the same argument, different pressures apply.

… and with that, there is another sub-game in Steam's free Lab where you pilot a space ship in a shoot em up by simply holding it and pointing it at things. Spotted it when firing up Longbow yesterday and think I can get a quick go in before bed. If only there was no content for VR, I could just go to bed instead ;) :D

Ttaskmaster
….

Surveys not needed - As mentioned, some people will just be outside the range of adjustment for the device. I'm just barely within the IPD range for one of them (the Rift, I think), which is far narrower than most binoculars, for example.
Other people have certain issues, be it visual defects, inner ear balance problems, or something else. It's like people who get travel-sick in cars or on boats - It doesn't mean the technology is duff, but that some peope will have reasons why they personally don't get on with it.

…

Agreed. I've never said the tech is bad. Just what it does to me.

His point about surveys was that to distinguish between those getting ill because of bad setup from those getting ill because of some inherent problem (liked eyes) can only be a guess unless they have more than anecdotal evidence to go on. It needs testing which, at least at that time, some years back, hadn't been done.

They couldn't say, then, xx% of people are ‘outside tolerances’ and yy% just need to set itt up right, because they didn't have data to back it up.

It could be that 99.9% of people having problems are due to bad setup, or 99.9% are due to some problem with the user. My guess is somewhere in-between, but I wouldn't want to put a number on it.

Surveys can't help. If the industry wants to go forward with VR, eventually it will, no matter what health issues. Think about the radiation effects of mobile phones to human health: we still don't know the truth after almost 20 years of use.

John_Amstrad
Think about the radiation effects of mobile phones to human health: we still don't know the truth after almost 20 years of use.

Yes we do, and phones are made to be safe. Just some people like to scare monger and distrust a peer reviewed scientist preferring to trust a self proclaimed expert who felt the energy problems in their pyramid crystals or some other such nonsense.

Perhaps if we said “radio waves” rather than using the scary “radiation” word people would calm down a tad.

Dashers
I'd like to try ED with VR, I know somebody who has one but whilst being an Elite fanatic, never took to VR. The low res of the DK2 combined with not being able to see anything put him off in the end.

I've got a 40" 4K screen on my desk, which is fantastic for Elite, and I can glance at my keyboard too. I would like to try head-tracking with it at some point. Gaming on a large screen close up feels like a good compromise between practicality and immersion. Works even better with proper surround sound instead of headphones.

Smoothtrack uses your mobile phone for head tracking and it works (in my case any way)
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.epaga.smoothtrack&hl=en_US&gl=US
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/smoothtrack/id1528839485

I had a go dreaming of it meaning my monitor would “feel” more like a window but it wasn't that great TBH.

John_Amstrad
Surveys can't help. If the industry wants to go forward with VR, eventually it will, no matter what health issues. Think about the radiation effects of mobile phones to human health: we still don't know the truth after almost 20 years of use.

It's not about whether the industry wants to goo forward. If there's a profit in it, they will …. unless somehow it caused health issues, like Thalidomide, and I've not seen anyone suggest it does. Even if 50% of people couldn't use it (and I doubt the true level is anywhere near that high), that's no reason the 50% thaan can use it should be prevented. So yeah, it will, and should, go forward provided the market is big enough. Which comes full circle to “Fad, or not”. And it's not, IMHO. It might still be a little too early in the cycle to see the full potential, though.

There were those that thought TV was a fad. And, that colour TV was an expensive gimmick and wouldn't take off.

Ooops.

But then, 3D TV. I always did think that was faddish, but got a number of jeers on here for saying I couldn't see the point. With VR, I certainly can see the point, though cumbersomecheadsets need to improve and prices come down (both of which will happen, eventually).

On the other hand, I bought into mobile phones back in analog 1st Gen days, and lots of people though they were a business-only tool at best, and a fad at worst. Again, oops. But then, who could predict smartphone capabilities developing from v1 cellphones?

Personally, the only way I see VR long-term failing is if something better (maybe AR) comes along. Though, it's worth noting than better tech doesn't always win out over inferior. For example, betamax v. VHS. Even perhaps LP over CD, though that one is different, and still contentious as to which one is “best”, and it depends on the criteria you use to judge.

Saracen999
Personally, the only way I see VR long-term failing is if something better (maybe AR) comes along.

Why do people keep looping back to AR and VR competing? Those really are different and need to succeed or fail on their own terms.

In terms of phone apps I think AR has already succeeded (Google translate for example is utter magic), but given you can just point a phone at something that makes AR *headsets* a hard sell.

But AR instead of VR? I no more want to use AR to simulate climbing up my living room wall instead of a mountain (The Climb) or fly my sofa around the stars rather than a Cobra Mk3 (Elite) than I would want to watch a film in the cinema car park instead of the darkened and sound insulated cinema screen. Immersion in another place and/or time is very different from enhancing where you are.

There is a good chance that VR headsets will evolve to use colour cameras for their tracking and so be able to do AR as well, the underlying technologies share a lot. But the use cases I am struggling to see any overlap at all.

Further reading:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52992675
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reality-vr-dangers-safety/index.html

DanceswithUnix
I quite liked 3D films, but there is a social problem that if one person in the group you are seeing a film with doesn't want to do 3D

If they want to be antisocial, they can go watch it in the 2D screen alone! :p

Nah, generally we'll discuss it in advance, so those with issues aren't forced to be the bad guys in the decision.
I doubt we'll have to worry about it anytime soon, though.

Saracen999
Agreed. I've never said the tech is bad. Just what it does to me.

Apologies - I didn't mean to imply or suggest that you did.
That's just the general resort of people who expect plug & play, or for things to ‘just work’ in all walks of life… I find most of them are happy with Apple products which do ‘just work’, but then get upset because they just work - They don't do anything more than that! :D

Saracen999
His point about surveys was that to distinguish between those getting ill because of bad setup from those getting ill because of some inherent problem (liked eyes) can only be a guess unless they have more than anecdotal evidence to go on. It needs testing which, at least at that time, some years back, hadn't been done.

Oh, I see… yeah, fair point.
TBH, we'll never know in global terms unless we test everyone, as extrapolations only go so far. I would guess around 75% are setup issues, though.

Saracen999
But then, 3D TV. I always did think that was faddish, but got a number of jeers on here for saying I couldn't see the point.

It was faddish, but only because there was no decent content for it.
3D should be like Surround Sound™, in that it enhances the experience but you shouldn't immediately notice it. Instead people treated it like a shiny new thing to be shown off and exhibited at every possible moment at the most extreme extents of the technology… which is exactly what has made RGB so hated instead of embraced.

John_Amstrad
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52992675

One person, who does not specialise in such medical matters, has said that another person, who also does not specialise in such medical matters, has told him that excessive VR use might have exacerbated a condition that he already had and was likely to have gotten worse regardless of whether he ever in his life used VR or not…..

That is not exactly cause for screaming round forums, asserting with definitive authority that we are liable to end up jibbering cabbages from using VR!!

Furthermore, just about every other issue mentioned in that article can be avoided or resolved by….. any takers…… Yep, correctly setting up and configuring your device.

John_Amstrad
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reality-vr-dangers-safety/index.html

Playing in a cluttered environment - Don't. That's why your device instructions say not to. If you get brain damage from tripping over room clutter while wearing VR, you're being an idiot. That's your fault, not that of the technology.

Myopia - No worse than what we already have with VDU usage, and arguably less as you can adjust the headsets to suit, but in reality not as people don't make those adjustments just as they don't sit at the requisite distance from their screens.

Motion sickness, eyestrain, headaches, nausea - Most of that is down to incorrect device setup. That claptrap about tricking the eye is, as I said, claptrap - It follows the same principles by which optometrists measure and, where necessary, manipulate your vision to improve it, which is why VR can sometimes be used to actually fix visual problems. The supposed ‘tricking’ of the brain is actually just your natural focussing ability, no actual trickery involved.
The only time you'll get discordance resulting in brain-trickery problems is when the developer has not correctly implemented the game, which again is technically part of the setup.

Damaged hearing from high volumes - This is nothing new and has nothing to do with VR giving you brain damage. It sounds like they were running out of ideas halfway through the article and are now just padding things out to bleat about, to fill the word count.

The rest - Yeah, PTSD from watching Sesame Street in VR, despite manufacturers telling you this isn't for young children…. Seriously, at this point the article has gone utterly off the rails and lost any semblance of credibility. The International Enquirer could do better!

So thanks for your concern, but I understand a lot more than your source informants about how this stuff works and why it's not a problem.

It is very cool, however the biggest problems of current VR are:
1) it still makes you feel ill - much better then old 90's VR setups but still a long way off not making you ill. Smooth movement is probably always going to make you ill (e.g. sitting on the rollercoaster).
2) it takes too much space - I have to clear out my whole dining room to have space, then bring my PC downstairs and cable it all in all just to play VR. That's just too much hassle.
3) standing up waving your arms around just isn't very relaxing and we play games to relax.

Lesser complaints are:
1) wires are irritating.
2) headsets are too heavy.
3) resolution/fov could be better.
4) sensors still a bit jerky - they require line of sight and get blocked if you just happen to be standing the wrong way.

I think there is huge potential to VR. The problem is it is incredibly inconvenient at the moment. But when you have those top experiences like Alyx, you realize how awesome VR can be.

I'd say the top problems right now for VR are:
1. Lack of AAA titles. Too many crappy mobile-esque games that aren't good enough.
2. Space to set it up, expense of a PCVR headset and gaming computer. It seems like Quest is the only thing moving in the right direction to fix these issues. All the PCVRs are just enthusiast headsets imo.
3. Issues with comfort are still not solved. Getting sick in VR games is still a problem (solvable, but it's hard). Headsets are still bulky and uncomfortable for long sessions.

Ttaskmaster
….

Apologies - I didn't mean to imply or suggest that you did.
That's just the general resort of people who expect plug & play, or for things to ‘just work’ in all walks of life… I find most of them are happy with Apple products which do ‘just work’, but then get upset because they just work - They don't do anything more than that! :D

Oh, I see… yeah, fair point.
TBH, we'll never know in global terms unless we test everyone, as extrapolations only go so far. I would guess around 75% are setup issues, though.

….

No apology needed. I was just pointing that, yeah, I have seen people make that type of claim (not necessarily here) but I do try to keep my comments (on this, at least) restricted to know …. which is what happens to me, but I can only guess at why it does.

Ttaskmaster
….

Oh, I see… yeah, fair point.
TBH, we'll never know in global terms unless we test everyone, as extrapolations only go so far. I would guess around 75% are setup issues, though.

….

Well, yes and no. Properly done, and with a sufficiently large and unbiased sample, you can be statistically sure, within a given confidence level. Extrapolations only go so far, but careful statistical sampling goes much further.

Certainty? No. Or rarely. But a pretty high level of confidence? Yup.

For instance, that is a large part of the principle of company audits. Work out the ‘population’ size, such as sales invoices. Determine the necessary sample size (typically, between 30 and 100 invoices). Select a random start (I used to use the serial number on whatever bank note I pulled from my wallet, but in the days of phone payments, etc, something else would have to be used). Then, test every x-th invoice, starting with the random (or more accurately, for the pedants out there, pseudo-random) one from the first two or three digits of the note serial number.

There's a bit more to it, but the error level you find tells you if you can, or can't, have 95% confidence, in that aspect of the accounts. And it works for anything from the corner grocery shop to a multi-national corporation.

Bear in mind, this process is looking for systemic errors, not the odd one-off mistake or fraudulent invoice, as would a sampling of people with problems with VR. The same process applies to everything from basic market studies to political opinion polls, though the latter is (much, much) more complicated both sample selection and avoiding inaccurate results by people …. erm, lying.

You won't get a 100% certain result, but should be able to get an accurate enough result to lend strong credence to either confirming or refuting the theory that people with VR do or don't have background issues, like sight, etc.

Was it just a fad? It may still be a fad in progress but at the moment not everyone that might want to try it has tried it. For example I want to try it and it looks like the new quest has removed enough barriers to entry such as high price, lots of cables and base station, for me to actually get one. I got google cardboard a few years ago and that is good enough for me to want to try more but the price put me off at the time. So it's not a fad that's over, I'm sure of that.

John_Amstrad
Further reading:
https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-52992675

“admitted that he could spend up to six hours a day wearing a headset” OK so the takeaway from that article is that using a headset for 6 hours a day every day might be too much. If you have an underlying eye condition. Bit of a sensationalist headline TBH. The headline should be “Game developer exacerbates underlying sight issue after over using VR headset” but would probably get less clicks.

John_Amstrad
https://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/13/health/virtual-reality-vr-dangers-safety/index.html

“Parents need to be careful, active and participating, because the VR medium is more powerful than traditional media. But with proper adult supervision, using it infrequently, I think it's going to turn out to be just fine.”

Yep. Not too worried about brain damage. It might actually benefit your brain more than watching TV. I remember all the warnings about watching too much TV in past. As in if your children (I was one at the time) might damage their eyes if they watched more than an hour of TV a day or sat too close the the screen. Which led to lots of us sitting at the opposite corner of living rooms from 14" TVs and not being able to read text on the screen.

HEXUS Forums :: 72 Comments

Login with Forum Account

User Name
Password