I have now tried Virtual Reality and it is amazing

[yotsuya]

Holy ---steaming pile of meadow muffin---,  I'm glad I'm too old to give a crap about stuff like this.

In my day,  we Luddites used to play games on boards made of cardboard that used plastic pieces. We survived.

[pbj]

Yeah, video game night has morphed into board game night.  Try Pandemic Legacy, it's been interesting.

And, yes, I've owned smart phones for 10 years.  Kthx?

[yotsuya]

Yeah, video game night has morphed into board game night.  Try Pandemic Legacy, it's been interesting.

And, yes, I've owned smart phones for 10 years.  Kthx?

Did you dent that mic when you dropped  it, James?

[Howard_Casto]

I think pbj nailed it.  I have probably 3k worth of arcade hardware and who knows how much console stuff.  I have all kinds of crazy, obscure stuff that nobody in their right mind would buy.  I still don't want to invest in VR.  It sounds like the majority that have chimed in agree with me.  That means, for this generation at least, unless something changes, VR is in some serious trouble. 

Btw, yes pbj, Nintendo has already filed patents for several AR/VR attachments for the switch.  Of course they file patents for anything and everything they might possibly do, so that doesn't mean much.  And they just announced a 2DS XL... dumping the 3D... so it's doubtful.  For the record if they do end up doing it I doubt the experience is going to be very good... it's only a 720p screen after all, but you might get a handful of really substantial games that would be enough to generate interest for a future piece of hardware. 

[ChadTower]

And, in my day, ultra high fat content beef was "prison grade."

 

In my great grandfather's day lobsters were prison food.  In Nova Scotia it was all the inmates were ever fed and they would occasionally revolt over being fed garbage.  It was considered inhumane.  Things do change.


BTW, video games isn't the only thing aimed right at us.  The whole craft beer industry depends on us too.   

[mimic]

So I feel like I've swung at this piņata enough, but here's one more and I pray I'm done.

This is a forum of predominantly white collar, middle aged men that are willing to throw too much time and money at video games in whatever form they appear.  There is overwhelming reluctance around here to embrace VR.  If we can't be convinced then I'm not sure anyone can.  This is the one, and only, thing we are the target for.  I mean, $1,000?  All of you are more successful than me and I've thrown more than that at lousy pinball machines.

I appreciate the passion some of you are displaying, but the wounds of Dactyl Nightmare will never heal.

I have to admit this is very good point and I was gonna leave the "horse" alone, but... I was thinking about what you've said and I think you're wrong that we (middle aged man) are the intended target audience. I think millennials are. We maybe able to afford it easier, but we are not the target demographic. I think most of you guys consider themselves as gamers, while really you dwell in nostalgia, even if you buy new consoles it's most likely because it has a root in your childhood memories of having a console. So out of curiosity I think a real test would be whether you have latest PC Hardware, say something to the effect at least GTX 970 and up and i5/i7 or AMD equivalent . If you do I'll shut up, maybe I am really in minority as to what VR is to most people.

And one last thing regarding killer-app. There really doesn't need to be any kind of special games for VR, native support in current 3D FPS games would be a lot in itself, yes this is not really happening, but not that much is needed to add to library of VR games. And again Doom 3 is a great example of that and VR was only added as an afterthought, and it works out great. 

[markc74]

Well I'm typing this on my  i7 / 16gb RAM / 512gb SSD laptop and I can wholeheartedly say that I think VR rocks. Although I only use PS VR as I left the mega-gaming-uber-PC crowd a while ago when I realised 99% of the best games came out on console and having a PC didn't offer any tangible advantage over sitting on your couch and playing a game.

I think in the same way arcade machines offer us a cool nostalgia trip (and playing Robotron will never get old), there's a lot of experiences out there that can be fun in a completely different way. I agree with the OP in that if you have the right kit - it's a mind blowing experience. There's potential that goes way beyond what passive 3D TV's do and bring you into a game that you simply couldn't do before.

I guess I'm a true gamer - arcades are my first love - but I'll more than happily lose an hour or two playing Dirt Rally in VR and enjoy every second. It has issues, definitely, but I sincerely hope that it does take off as the issues will be resolved in time.

That said, 90% of my gaming time is now spent playing Zelda on Switch. Sheeet - how awesome is that game?!??

And I'm 42. Which I guess makes me middle aged.. bah.

[RandyT]

I have to admit this is very good point and I was gonna leave the "horse" alone, but... I was thinking about what you've said and I think you're wrong that we (middle aged man) are the intended target audience. I think millennials are. We maybe able to afford it easier, but we are not the target demographic. I think most of you guys consider themselves as gamers, while really you dwell in nostalgia, even if you buy new consoles it's most likely because it has a root in your childhood memories of having a console. So out of curiosity I think a real test would be whether you have latest PC Hardware, say something to the effect at least GTX 970 and up and i5/i7 or AMD equivalent . If you do I'll shut up, maybe I am really in minority as to what VR is to most people.

And one last thing regarding killer-app. There really doesn't need to be any kind of special games for VR, native support in current 3D FPS games would be a lot in itself, yes this is not really happening, but not that much is needed to add to library of VR games. And again Doom 3 is a great example of that and VR was only added as an afterthought, and it works out great.

There seems to be a lot of myopic viewpoints being displayed here.  Does owning a VR setup, and/or a PC gaming rig really give one license to decide who is and is not a "true gamer"?  Does a PC game play differently on a system capable of only 1080p, than it does on one which can display 4k with the graphic frills?  My nephew pulled that "true gamer" crap on me once, because I told him that the rehash 8-bit graphic indy titles weren't my bag.  What he failed to understand is that I have limited time to play, and when I do have a few hours to burn, I'm usually not looking to play a game with 20+ year old play mechanics and graphics, and when I do, I'll fire up the arcade machine or one of the many classic consoles/computers I own.

This is such a ridiculous exercise, but maybe we should all join in and add our own personal criterion to the "true gamer" list.  Here's some of mine to start:

If you play racing games with a thumbstick, rather than a full FF racing wheel, physical shifters and pedals, and a dedicated racing cockpit using a projection screen, then you can't be a "true gamer".
If you play shooting games with a Wii-mote like device on an LCD, rather than a dedicated large CRT and real light guns then you can't be a "true gamer".
If you play classic arcade games from your couch with a gamepad, rather than standing in front of a massive wooden cabinet full of expensive specialized controls, and a CRT as God intended, you can't possibly be a "true gamer"
If you play emulated pinball on a flat screen, instead of buying some heap of a real pinball machine and restoring it yourself so it plays like new, and play on that,  then you aren't a "true gamer"

Ok, I'll cut the sarcasm now.  The point is, while the things on that list are meaningful to me personally, they probably don't mean squat to those who don't share the same priorities.  And the simple fact that they don't share those priorities doesn't make them any less of a "true gamer".  I'm glad you like your toy.  I like my toys as well.  The difference is that I don't expect anyone to covet mine or care if they don't.

When VR becomes a "must have", and doesn't require a dedicated room full of wires and gadgets in order to get the "full experience", I'll be on-board.  But that day looks like it's years (if not a decade) away.

[ChadTower]

You guys are way overthinking this stuff. 

[markc74]

True gamer = someone who enjoys playing games - regardless of tech.

Here we just have some opposing views on whether vr is Awesome or not. Personally i think it's cool but i hope its best years lie ahead as at the moment there are huge obstacles to overcome. As is, there's a lot to like but i totally understand why people aren't sold on it.

Anyway, it's not a real driving game unless you're in a real car doing 120mph up a motorway listening to splash wave.

But enough about my driving ban... 

[RandyT]

True gamer = someone who enjoys playing games - regardless of tech.

+eleventy

(and don't take any of that list above seriously.....I'm still jealous of the folks with full-blown virtual pinball machines, and I will own one as soon as I get off my butt to build it )

Anyway, it's not a real driving game unless you're in a real car doing 120mph up a motorway listening to splash wave.

Pffft.  I lived in Germany for three years when the autobahn had no speed limit.  120mph was "going shopping" speed 

[mimic]

Aaaand You're OUT!
Nope, sorry. Not a TRUE gamer!
It's not about what you have or can afford, it's about desire to have it! Of course I play racing sims with thumbstick, but would I prefer to play it with dedicated controllers, of course! I just don't have the room for yet another gadget to store or spend ~$200 to play one type of game, but I would love to!
You on the other hand have no desire to even try VR, and the fact that you can't state specs of your PC (home to 1000s of additional games), just proves it to me NOT a TRUE gamer.
Casual gamer, is acceptable. 

[RandyT]

Nope, sorry. Not a TRUE gamer!
It's not about what you have or can afford, it's about desire to have it!

I don't (currently) desire VR.  Does that mean I won the internet?

(and you are off by a factor of 7 on the racing rig costs...a true gamer would know this )

[mimic]

(and you are off by a factor of 7 on the racing rig costs...a true gamer would know this )

You got me there, but it's only because I know I cannot afford and gives me only access to a limited amount of additional games. But I DO desire so

EDIT: I'm waiting for more non-gamers to come out of the shadows. SHAME ding-ding, SHAME ding-ding, SHAME....

[RandyT]

You got me there, but it's only because I know I cannot afford and gives me only access to a limited amount of additional games. But I DO desire so

You keep making my point for me, and it's a bit entertaining that you don't see it.  You want to have something, but there are barriers preventing it.  In your case, those barriers are money and space.  Ergo, no joy for you, but the options are there waiting, ready when you are.  You could have chosen to go one way, but you chose a different path, based on those barriers.

In my case, what I (and perhaps most of the detractors) expect from VR, is not available due to technical barriers.  We cannot get what we really want, because it does not yet exist in the form we desire.  By your metric, a "true gamer" would just concede and throw money at something, regardless of how well it fits their needs or expectations.  That just insults the intelligence of "true gamers", by painting them as addicts which have no choice but to fork over cash when something new is offered.   While I am sure that there are plenty of "trust-fund kids" out there who fit cozily into the box you have constructed, the rest of us are informed consumers, and realize that there is real money at stake.     Money which, if directed toward other gaming interests, will likely be better spent on something we actually want, rather than accept far less simply because it's all that is currently available.

[yotsuya]

I'm an OG gamer. ---fudgesicle--- VR.

[shponglefan]

nm.

[mimic]

And another casual gamer came out of the woodworks! yotsuya "Welcome"! SHAME ding-ding, SHAME ding ding, SHAME....

Seriously though. Even if you're right, you are the one in lose-lose situation, because if I am wrong, then at the very least I'll experience games that you will never have chance to play and experience. If I am right and VR prevails then I can say "See I told you so", however all you can do is either keep on waiting, who knows how long (if ever if it's another bust, and good luck playing with your arthritis btw) or can tell me "See I told you so!" and that's the whole satisfaction you'll get out of it. I however if it works out I'll have the satisfaction that I was "there" from the infancy, just like I have the satisfaction I was there from the infancy of gaming in general, that later generations don't understand.

[Mike A]

Sanctimonious much?

[mimic]

Sanctimonious much?

Yup, feels good too.

[yotsuya]

Yeah, have fun with the goggles and stuff. I've been playing video games since the Carter Administration. I don't need some dude on the Internet to validate my credentials.

[shponglefan]

Just out of curiosity, but for those opposed to VR, my question is... why?

Part of the reason I ask is that growing up in the 80's, one of the holy grails of video gaming was the idea of being inside the game.  Movies and shows like Tron, Captain N: The Gamemaster, etc, teased us with this idea and VR seemed like the best way to fulfill it.

Unfortunately, VR has largely been a technology where the idea has always exceeded the tech.  But modern VR (particularly gaming VR) is starting to realize that idea.

I just wonder why anyone wouldn't want to experience that?   

[yotsuya]

Just out of curiosity, but for those opposed to VR, my question is... why?

Part of the reason I ask is that growing up in the 80's, one of the holy grails of video gaming was the idea of being inside the game.  Movies and shows like Tron, Captain N: The Gamemaster, etc, teased us with this idea and VR seemed like the best way to fulfill it.

Unfortunately, VR has largely been a technology where the idea has always exceeded the tech.  But modern VR (particularly gaming VR) is starting to realize that idea.

I just wonder why anyone wouldn't want to experience that?   

That's a great question, and I actually value your input on it because you experience it and seem to be honest in your assessment and enthusiasm. But I'm going to be honest, while I'm sure it's a really cool technology, I'm just not interested investing the money and time / space into it to do it right. I spent years chasing the perfect the video card and rig to play early FPS is in the 2000s. I just got tired of that.

So honestly, I think it's cool that you enjoy it and you're willing to invest into it. That's awesome. I don't think it makes me any less of a gamer because I'm not interested in it. And I really detest anybody who insinuates otherwise.

So it's not that I have any true opposition to it. It's just... I really don't care about it.

[Mike A]

VR is the dippin' dots of video gaming.

[jtslade]

VR is the dippin' dots of video gaming.

Play Onward for a hour. Sweating. Tense. Teamwork, touch your radio on your shoulder and call out if anyone can see anyone. Shots from about 200 yards ring out. Diving to the ground as bullets whiz by your head. Pop up and take a couple of bad guys with a 4x scope.. lay down some smoke and run like hell to escort the VIP to the extraction.

The feeling is incredible. Fun and panic filled at the same time..

That was just tonight.

Maybe next is working with 3 other guys in IronWolf to try and sink a destroyer. Go topside and look out over the ocean waves as they rush by..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Titchgamer]

I can understand why people dont want to put money into it.
Its is expensive and it does require some time and effort.

However I really dont think its a fad, It is the future really.
We all have thought about or wished to be in a game. Which gamer wouldn't?
Be it being in DOOM blasting alien mutant scum or bouncing around as kid chameleon.

I dreamt back in the 90's about playing games ina fashion like the holo deck on star trek!

Now I am older and wiser, I doubt that will happen in my life time but current VR is the starting point for those kind of ideas.

It will develop to become smaller and cheaper better and better.

But we have to put money into it for people to develop it.
I am happy to be part of the beginning of this tech much the same as I was there at the beginning of gaming itself.

The fact is though that although I  may never get to play DOOM in a hollo deck, roundhouse kicking a imp in the face after blasting him with the double barrel. I can experience DOOM in VR with a headset.
And I can enjoy the experience because it is a good experience.

It took some getting used to though, I did get motion sickness at first but now after building up with small steps ime good

[RandyT]

Just out of curiosity, but for those opposed to VR, my question is... why?

Part of the reason I ask is that growing up in the 80's, one of the holy grails of video gaming was the idea of being inside the game.  Movies and shows like Tron, Captain N: The Gamemaster, etc, teased us with this idea and VR seemed like the best way to fulfill it.

Unfortunately, VR has largely been a technology where the idea has always exceeded the tech.  But modern VR (particularly gaming VR) is starting to realize that idea.

I just wonder why anyone wouldn't want to experience that?   

Pretty much what yots wrote.  I don't oppose it either.  If I oppose anything, it's the ratio of the cost to what is currently being delivered by the tech.  There are some interesting titles at the early stages of development, but as anyone who has been burned by fledgling tech in the past knows, it can be usurped by the next generation at any moment.  Or, just disappear from lack of market interest.  There are just so many negatives, that the latter is not out of the question, and a relative handful of avid supporters can't keep things moving forward. 

And that is really the "nut" of it.  It's a peripheral device that's far too costly for a "casual" purchase, and there isn't enough mass-market appeal being generated to get consumers over that hump.  It doesn't mean it will never happen. A killer-app could emerge which can convince consumers that the tech is worth the investment.  But it does mean that without this, the tech will languish for a very long time, until the price and technical hurdles are overcome.

I'll also state that those who think that a high-end phone is unable to provide a "taste" of the technology, simply doesn't know what they are talking about.  My phone has virtually every possible sensor, a high-quality 5.7" IPS screen with resolution that is 1.75 times that of the PSVR.   With good apps, the head movement tracking is fast and feels very natural.  What it can't provide, is movement within 3D space, which is the sketchiest part of being visually isolated from real-world objects.  It also can't provide user interaction without a Bluetooth controller (which I have).  I played with it some more last night.  One app stood out for me, and that was a ride in a flying car over a "BladeRunner-esque" cityscape.  The effect of looking out the windows at objects as they passed by, and seeing the driver and car internals in convincing 3D was definitely cool.  I almost expected to see my hands in view as I stretched them out in front of me.  And then something else struck me:  Even with the best technology currently available, I would never be able to naturally interact with the environment with only my hands. This is another level of disconnect, which is yet to be fully addressed.  Even with the best of what is available, the user is no more inside the virtual world, than a laparoscopic surgeon is inside a patient's chest cavity.  While better controllers than the PSMOVE are available, they are still controllers, and still motion controllers.  Motion controllers lack the precision of analog switches and levers, but those lack the freedom of movement and interaction.  The result is a mash-up of the two, which does not in any way mimic a human's natural interaction with a physical world.

My conclusion on all of this is that "VR" in it's current state is not VR at all, rather a very expensive and complicated display technology, albeit an interesting one, with positional tracking and specialized controllers.  In short, if true VR was a swimming pool, it currently costs $1500 to put your foot in it .

[05SRT4]

I dont think anyone opposes VR. If they were handed a complete setup for free I imagine they would keep and enjoy it.

Last night I brought my Vive setup to the in-laws and we played some games. The kids really enjoyed it, and later the adults played some scary games. I was laughing ---my bottom--- off, its amazing to see how engulfed someone can get just within a minute of putting the headset on.

Setting everything up took about 15 mins, worst part was carrying the actual desktop. I have extendable poles with rubber stops on the ends so I can mount the base stations just about anywhere. One I had mounted really high, about 10 feet in the air and the other was just on a book shelf maybe 6 feet high. The play area was really small compared to what I am used to but it didn't bother anyone. We had a blast.

[yotsuya]

I dont think anyone opposes VR. If they were handed a complete setup for free I imagine they would keep and enjoy it.

Last night I brought my Vive setup to the in-laws and we played some games. The kids really enjoyed it, and later the adults played some scary games. I was laughing ---my bottom--- off, its amazing to see how engulfed someone can get just within a minute of putting the headset on.

Setting everything up took about 15 mins, worst part was carrying the actual desktop. I have extendable poles with rubber stops on the ends so I can mount the base stations just about anywhere. One I had mounted really high, about 10 feet in the air and the other was just on a book shelf maybe 6 feet high. The play area was really small compared to what I am used to but it didn't bother anyone. We had a blast.

Well said.

I'd try it out of curiosity, and I'm sure the right system makes it an awesome experience. I'm just not personally interesting in investing in it,  and no amount of cheerleading or attempted gamer shaming is probably going to change that. I get more chuffed fixing 35 year old machines. Each to his own.

[Titchgamer]

Just out of curiosity, but for those opposed to VR, my question is... why?

Part of the reason I ask is that growing up in the 80's, one of the holy grails of video gaming was the idea of being inside the game.  Movies and shows like Tron, Captain N: The Gamemaster, etc, teased us with this idea and VR seemed like the best way to fulfill it.

Unfortunately, VR has largely been a technology where the idea has always exceeded the tech.  But modern VR (particularly gaming VR) is starting to realize that idea.

I just wonder why anyone wouldn't want to experience that?   

Pretty much what yots wrote.  I don't oppose it either.  If I oppose anything, it's the ratio of the cost to what is currently being delivered by the tech.  There are some interesting titles at the early stages of development, but as anyone who has been burned by fledgling tech in the past knows, it can be usurped by the next generation at any moment.  Or, just disappear from lack of market interest.  There are just so many negatives, that the latter is not out of the question, and a relative handful of avid supporters can't keep things moving forward. 

And that is really the "nut" of it.  It's a peripheral device that's far too costly for a "casual" purchase, and there isn't enough mass-market appeal being generated to get consumers over that hump.  It doesn't mean it will never happen. A killer-app could emerge which can convince consumers that the tech is worth the investment.  But it does mean that without this, the tech will languish for a very long time, until the price and technical hurdles are overcome.

I'll also state that those who think that a high-end phone is unable to provide a "taste" of the technology, simply doesn't know what they are talking about.  My phone has virtually every possible sensor, a high-quality 5.7" IPS screen with resolution that is 1.75 times that of the PSVR.   With good apps, the head movement tracking is fast and feels very natural.  What it can't provide, is movement within 3D space, which is the sketchiest part of being visually isolated from real-world objects.  It also can't provide user interaction without a Bluetooth controller (which I have).  I played with it some more last night.  One app stood out for me, and that was a ride in a flying car over a "BladeRunner-esque" cityscape.  The effect of looking out the windows at objects as they passed by, and seeing the driver and car internals in convincing 3D was definitely cool.  I almost expected to see my hands in view as I stretched them out in front of me.  And then something else struck me:  Even with the best technology currently available, I would never be able to naturally interact with the environment with only my hands. This is another level of disconnect, which is yet to be fully addressed.  Even with the best of what is available, the user is no more inside the virtual world, than a laparoscopic surgeon is inside a patient's chest cavity.  While better controllers than the PSMOVE are available, they are still controllers, and still motion controllers.  Motion controllers lack the precision of analog switches and levers, but those lack the freedom of movement and interaction.  The result is a mash-up of the two, which does not in any way mimic a human's natural interaction with a physical world.

My conclusion on all of this is that "VR" in it's current state is not VR at all, rather a very expensive and complicated display technology, albeit an interesting one, with positional tracking and specialized controllers.  In short, if true VR was a swimming pool, it currently costs $1500 to put your foot in it .

Thats the part that needs to be developed though Randy.
Suits that track our movements similar to whats used for motion capture should be the next logical step in the VR path, along with better GFX and display tech.

But they wont bother unless some interest is shown and people put these ideas out there.

Its very much in its infancy, but its clear to see the potential of it.

[ChadTower]

Dudes need to chill and accept that some people like VR and some people don't care about VR.

[yotsuya]

Dudes need to chill and accept that some people like VR and some people don't care about VR.

Well said, Chad.

[dkersten]

Funny, as I read through this, I can't help but realize that those who don't like VR are dead set on the idea that it is failing and those who like it can't help but believe it is the next 3D graphics card (a multi-billion dollar industry that BTW is a "gaming peripheral" that proves Howard's comments wrong, lol).

So if you don't like it, you think it will fail as a whole, and if you do, you are convinced it will be successful.  It's like we are arguing politics here, lol.  Everyone seems to think that the rest of the world thinks just like them and can't imagine that the people who don't agree make up more than a handful of blind fools.  Since when are any of us industry analysts?  BTW, the industry analysts convinced private investors to dump millions upon millions of dollars into R&D for VR.  Software, hardware, and in every niche, nook, cranny, and alternative use they can find.  In my opinion, when companies are dumping truckloads of money with no immediate return, they are seeing something that a consumer who got sick using a cardboard VR hasn't seen.

As for PBJ's comment about the members here at BYOAC being mostly against it, what I see is a bunch of members who do their best to build cool cabs on shoestring budgets who *gasp* find that a $2k minimum investment to play in VR is too much.  Howard might have invested thousands into games over the decades, but someone like me invested thousands in ONE CAB, and for over a decade, spent upward of $700 each year just to have the latest GPU.  A person like me is the target consumer of high end VR, not someone who visits fast food joints just to scan a Coke code in hopes of making an extra $5 per week.  Not saying that being frugal isn't cool, just that if you are that kind of frugal, you probably aren't the intended consumer of VR, at least not yet. 

The thing is, at the stage VR technology is at, nobody here is wrong.  There are some serious shortcomings in the current tech.  And companies like Samsung are doing their best to cash out on it while bringing it a bad name.  I do believe that VR has a solid future, just as I believed that when the first "flat screen" plasma sets hit the showroom floor at $50k (back in the mid 90's), I believed that this was the future of televisions.  Yes, it took a decade just to get flat screens to where an average consumer would even consider buying one, and then it took another 15 years to get to where you can get a state of the art 4k UHD tv with all the bells and whistles for what I paid for a 13" color TV in 1985.  But I can't predict if VR is the next big thing, and right now, it surely is NOT.  So nobody here is wrong.     Yet.   Give it a decade, then rather than comparing a Vive to a VirtualBoy, you will be actually looking at meaningful trend data.

I will leave you with this: https://www.sixflags.com/greatamerica/attractions/drop-doom-virtual-reality
Not exactly a low budget thrill ride, but certainly a way to allow VR to enhance something already great.  They aren't the only ones, augmented reality is one area where VR is making a strong impact in far more than the gaming industry.

[Mike A]

Funny. When I read through this all I see is a contest to determine who is going to write the longest post.

[yotsuya]

Funny. When I read through this all I see is a contest to determine who is going to write the longest post.

[shponglefan]

That's a great question, and I actually value your input on it because you experience it and seem to be honest in your assessment and enthusiasm. But I'm going to be honest, while I'm sure it's a really cool technology, I'm just not interested investing the money and time / space into it to do it right. I spent years chasing the perfect the video card and rig to play early FPS is in the 2000s. I just got tired of that.

So honestly, I think it's cool that you enjoy it and you're willing to invest into it. That's awesome. I don't think it makes me any less of a gamer because I'm not interested in it. And I really detest anybody who insinuates otherwise.

So it's not that I have any true opposition to it. It's just... I really don't care about it.

See I can understand and appreciate this.  I think it would be one thing if people just said, "yeah, it's cool, just not for me".  But I constantly see being actively decrying the technology, calling it gimmicks, comparing it to the Wii, Kinect, etc.  And more often than not those decrying VR (specifically gaming VR) tend not to have any direct experience with it.  That part puzzles me.

But I can certainly appreciate that it won't appeal to everyone, especially at this early stage.  Barriers to entry are still high.

[shponglefan]

So if you don't like it, you think it will fail as a whole, and if you do, you are convinced it will be successful.

As someone who does think VR gaming is the future, I'm a bit nervous about its current prospects.  The barriers to entry are arguably higher than a lot of prior gaming tech and it's going to take quite awhile for things to establish.  My biggest fear is that if investors get too nervous and stop funding current VR development, the VR industry could suffer a serious setback if not outright collapse.

That said, I do think comparisons to other recent modern tech (i.e. 3DTV) are highly fallacious given that consumer VR's barely been on the market for over a year.  I  suspect it will be at least another couple years before we truly know which direction it's heading in.

[shponglefan]

A killer-app could emerge which can convince consumers that the tech is worth the investment.  But it does mean that without this, the tech will languish for a very long time, until the price and technical hurdles are overcome.

TBH, I think that marketing that "killer app" for VR is going to be challenging given how different VR is.  If one hasn't tried it, it's really difficult to know what will be good in VR and what won't.  I see this all the time with people that expect they can just plop on a VR headset and play Call of Duty or something.  But that's not an ideal VR experience by a long shot.

I'll also state that those who think that a high-end phone is unable to provide a "taste" of the technology, simply doesn't know what they are talking about.

It can provide a taste of 3D stereoscopic vision and headtracking, but it's still limited in my experience.  What I didn't appreciate until getting the Vive was how much room-scale and motion controllers impact the experience and immersion.  The latter accounts for a good 50% of the experience in my opinion and can be the difference between just looking at something cool versus truly feeling like you are somewhere else.

And then something else struck me:  Even with the best technology currently available, I would never be able to naturally interact with the environment with only my hands. This is another level of disconnect, which is yet to be fully addressed.

TBH, motion controllers do a pretty good job especially with the inclusion of haptics.  A lot of the time, you're usually holding physical objects in VR (well, gaming VR anyway).  So holding a controller feels very natural, especially when the visual representation in VR is mapped 1:1 with its movements. 

My conclusion on all of this is that "VR" in it's current state is not VR at all, rather a very expensive and complicated display technology, albeit an interesting one, with positional tracking and specialized controllers.

This type of comment I don't get at all.  To me, VR is something that can do enough to trick my brain into accepting whatever I am seeing or hearing as real.  And it has done that repeatedly over the past year.

In fact, one of the most dramatic examples of this was when I was playing Project CARS and racing go-karts a rainstorm.  The visuals and audio was convincing enough that I started physically feeling raindrops on my arms.  The experience had triggered a psychosomatic response.

I've also had repeated gaming experiences where I've felt physically in danger and responded accordingly (most recently in Paranormal Activity).  Never had an experience like that before getting VR.

What both impresses and admittedly scares me about this is this is only the first gen of modern consumer VR.  I can't even imagine how much more intense it will be with better resolution, higher FOV, better controllers, etc.

[Mike A]

This has gone from slightly amusing to kind of disturbing.

[mimic]

Dudes need to chill and accept that some people like VR and some people don't care about VR.

At this point it's not about caring about VR or not, it's about people that proclaim themselves as gamers (I would think if you're on these boards, it's because of your love for games? Or is it more about nostalgia and tinkering with things?) Outright dismissing a new medium or form of gaming that even in its current, imperfect form beats ANY gaming I have done in my life, be it console, arcade or PC, without even giving it a single try! All the arguments, comparisons, stats, all those rivers of justifications and words and they have NOT EVEN TRIED IT!
This whole thread started with shponglefan expressing his enthusiasm for new medium and somewhere at some point it turned into toxic rhetorics about how it's not going to succeed (insert reason) from the "know-it-alls" WITHOUT EVEN trying the damn thing!
I have no clue if it will succeed or not, none of us do, but I am here to spread the VR gospel, because I tried it and at this very early imperfect stage, once again, it beats ANYTHING I have experienced in video gaming. 

As a matter of fact I watched today (not a game, experience as 'they' call it, so I watched not played it) "Alumette". Words cannot describe it how cool it is to be inside of the story and be able to look at it from every angle, and see inside of the closed objects additional hidden features. Sure you could zoom in with mouse and see it inside, but it just not the same.