There's an interesting article on Ars Technica* about the current "VR
Revolution", asking if it's lived up to the hype or not, and where it
is going from here.

Because VR was supposed to be the next big thing, with some suggesting
it would soon outsell televisions and completely revolutionize media
consumption. But though this generation of VR - started in 2012 when
the first Occulus was released - has had better fortunes than the one
in the late 90s, it's still rather niche, especially on PCs (it's done
a bit better as a stand-alone product).

The article points out various reasons why this might be, listing
things such as a lack of API support in major games engines, the
"friction" of using it on PCs where hardware issues crop up a lot more
than they should, and bad experiences people had in the early days
that make them look askance at the modern tech.

I never bought into the excitement about VR. There's a part of me that
really wanted to - a fully immersive video game experience? Sign me
up! - but even when taking all the hype at face value it was a hard
sell. Admittedly, I haven't tried newer offerings - I definitely fall
into the "used it in the past and was disappointed - but my biggest
problem wasn't that the tech was uncomfortable or inconvenient: it was
that it didn't live up to its promise. It never felt immersive to me;
it was just a bigger screen. It didn't make me feel any more 'in the
game' than watching it on a big TV. Neat? Sure. Worth the price and
hassle? Definitely not.

And - of course - when Facebook became the primary pusher of the tech,
I lost all interest. There are alternatives, of course (PSVR, Valve
Index), but they are -sadly- also rans. A lot of my negativity over
the tech stems from Facebook's involvement; that killed my interest in
it more than anything else.

But I accept that while VR is never going to be a big part of my
gaming life, I'm hardly representative of the market. And -knowing
that a number of people here have invested in the technology - I
thought I'd ask them:

(finally getting around to the point of this post!)

What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
it was supposed to?

Or should we all just wait for the neural jacks and/or holodecks?

===================
*read it here
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/10/what-happened-to-the-virtual-reality-gaming-revolution

>https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/10/what-happened-to-the-virtual-reality-gaming-revolution

This strikes me as a pretty balanced article, with a reasonably positive
future outlook. I've had the original Vive, and still have the Index. Have
I taken it out to try something in a long while? No. The article talks of
the need to lower 'friction' in setup and initialization, and this is very
much a factor for me, as each time a desire to try a VR experience occurs to
me, I know I'll have to get the headset and controllers out from underneath
the shelf, plug the headset into the computer, turn on the power for the
laser trackers, push my chair back to have some movement room, start up
SteamVR and wait for it to find all the devices, then put on and adjust the
headset for comfort -- all before ever starting the game up. 99% of the
time I'll just say naw and start a normal pc or console game, which takes
seconds.

But these devices are getting better incrementally. I haven't tried Quest2,
but others enjoy it quite a bit; PSVR2 will be here very soon; this device
https://www.nreal.ai/air/ is a fascinating initial effort at a
super-lightweight headset for e.g., the Steamdeck: This Nreal headset I
wouldn't say is ready for primetime, but a more polished design with a bit
faster hardware to drive it could be pretty fantastic, and lower that
'friction' dramatically -- note that this is not primarily a VR headset but
just for presenting a virtual huge screen before your eyes, or for AR.

Software is another matter entirely.

rms

On 10/7/2022 1:28 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> There's an interesting article on Ars Technica* about the current "VR
> Revolution", asking if it's lived up to the hype or not, and where it
> is going from here.
>
> Because VR was supposed to be the next big thing, with some suggesting
> it would soon outsell televisions and completely revolutionize media
> consumption. But though this generation of VR - started in 2012 when
> the first Occulus was released - has had better fortunes than the one
> in the late 90s, it's still rather niche, especially on PCs (it's done
> a bit better as a stand-alone product).
>
> The article points out various reasons why this might be, listing
> things such as a lack of API support in major games engines, the
> "friction" of using it on PCs where hardware issues crop up a lot more
> than they should, and bad experiences people had in the early days
> that make them look askance at the modern tech.
>
> I never bought into the excitement about VR. There's a part of me that
> really wanted to - a fully immersive video game experience? Sign me
> up! - but even when taking all the hype at face value it was a hard
> sell. Admittedly, I haven't tried newer offerings - I definitely fall
> into the "used it in the past and was disappointed - but my biggest
> problem wasn't that the tech was uncomfortable or inconvenient: it was
> that it didn't live up to its promise. It never felt immersive to me;
> it was just a bigger screen. It didn't make me feel any more 'in the
> game' than watching it on a big TV. Neat? Sure. Worth the price and
> hassle? Definitely not.
>
> And - of course - when Facebook became the primary pusher of the tech,
> I lost all interest. There are alternatives, of course (PSVR, Valve
> Index), but they are -sadly- also rans. A lot of my negativity over
> the tech stems from Facebook's involvement; that killed my interest in
> it more than anything else.
>
> But I accept that while VR is never going to be a big part of my
> gaming life, I'm hardly representative of the market. And -knowing
> that a number of people here have invested in the technology - I
> thought I'd ask them:
>
> (finally getting around to the point of this post!)
>
> What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
> still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
> headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
> it was supposed to?
>
> Or should we all just wait for the neural jacks and/or holodecks?
>
I don't think we (as in "we the human race") have to wait that long.
(And even if we do get neural jacks someday, one word. Hackers. O_O )
Just to the point where its a pair of dark glasses and ear buds. But
then the issue would be the interface with a properly immersive virtual
reality. Hmmm, okay, a full body tactile feedback suit. Hmmm, okay, I
can see that leading to porn killing off the human race in a generation.
With the help of hacked VR porn.

....

Ya know, maybe this whole thing is a bad idea....

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 07/10/2022 21:28, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

> What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
> still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
> headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
> it was supposed to?
>
> Or should we all just wait for the neural jacks and/or holodecks?
>

To me it still seems like a tech demo and not a mass market product.

On Fri, 07 Oct 2022 16:28:16 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
>still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
>headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
>it was supposed to?

VR still lacks a "killer app." Something that is unique to VR and is a
"must have" experience of high value. Most everything is just the same
experience... but virtual. Either that or what amounts to a tech demo.

FPS is not the killer app. The Metaverse is not the killer app.
Simulation is a niche product (that VR does really well).

As long as there's no "killer app," it will be a novelty.

I see a lot more promise in AR rather than VR. Nothing beats RR (real
reality), and adding tech to it, rather than using tech to get away from
it, seems a more useful -- and less potentially destructive -- endeavor.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 10:43:59 AM UTC-5, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2022 16:28:16 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> >What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
> >still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
> >headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
> >it was supposed to?
> VR still lacks a "killer app." Something that is unique to VR and is a
> "must have" experience of high value. Most everything is just the same
> experience... but virtual. Either that or what amounts to a tech demo.
>
> FPS is not the killer app. The Metaverse is not the killer app.
> Simulation is a niche product (that VR does really well).
>
> As long as there's no "killer app," it will be a novelty.
>
> I see a lot more promise in AR rather than VR. Nothing beats RR (real
> reality), and adding tech to it, rather than using tech to get away from
> it, seems a more useful -- and less potentially destructive -- endeavor.
>
> --
> Zag
>
> No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
> spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

I'd like to see System Shock rebooted for VR. That would be killer.

On 08/10/2022 16:43, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Oct 2022 16:28:16 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>> What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
>> still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
>> headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
>> it was supposed to?
>
> VR still lacks a "killer app." Something that is unique to VR and is a
> "must have" experience of high value. Most everything is just the same
> experience... but virtual. Either that or what amounts to a tech demo.
>
> FPS is not the killer app. The Metaverse is not the killer app.
> Simulation is a niche product (that VR does really well).
>
> As long as there's no "killer app," it will be a novelty.
>
> I see a lot more promise in AR rather than VR. Nothing beats RR (real
> reality), and adding tech to it, rather than using tech to get away from
> it, seems a more useful -- and less potentially destructive -- endeavor.
>

Yep that's pretty much my position. I wouldn't mind trying it just to
see what it's like but I'm not going to spend several hundred pounds
just for that.

On Friday, October 7, 2022 at 1:28:34 PM UTC-7, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> There's an interesting article on Ars Technica* about the current "VR
> Revolution", asking if it's lived up to the hype or not, and where it
> is going from here.
>
> Because VR was supposed to be the next big thing, with some suggesting
> it would soon outsell televisions and completely revolutionize media
> consumption. But though this generation of VR - started in 2012 when
> the first Occulus was released - has had better fortunes than the one
> in the late 90s, it's still rather niche, especially on PCs (it's done
> a bit better as a stand-alone product).
>
> The article points out various reasons why this might be, listing
> things such as a lack of API support in major games engines, the
> "friction" of using it on PCs where hardware issues crop up a lot more
> than they should, and bad experiences people had in the early days
> that make them look askance at the modern tech.
>
> I never bought into the excitement about VR. There's a part of me that
> really wanted to - a fully immersive video game experience? Sign me
> up! - but even when taking all the hype at face value it was a hard
> sell. Admittedly, I haven't tried newer offerings - I definitely fall
> into the "used it in the past and was disappointed - but my biggest
> problem wasn't that the tech was uncomfortable or inconvenient: it was
> that it didn't live up to its promise. It never felt immersive to me;
> it was just a bigger screen. It didn't make me feel any more 'in the
> game' than watching it on a big TV. Neat? Sure. Worth the price and
> hassle? Definitely not.
>
> And - of course - when Facebook became the primary pusher of the tech,
> I lost all interest. There are alternatives, of course (PSVR, Valve
> Index), but they are -sadly- also rans. A lot of my negativity over
> the tech stems from Facebook's involvement; that killed my interest in
> it more than anything else.
>
> But I accept that while VR is never going to be a big part of my
> gaming life, I'm hardly representative of the market. And -knowing
> that a number of people here have invested in the technology - I
> thought I'd ask them:
>
> (finally getting around to the point of this post!)
>
> What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
> still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
> headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
> it was supposed to?
>
> Or should we all just wait for the neural jacks and/or holodecks?

My response appears to have been eaten by the series of connected
tubes.

I'll try again, likely to be much shorter.

Value wise, I'd put the Oculus 2 above the Wii, that's pretty impressive
to me for VR. I haven't played it that much recently, though my daughter
still does off and on, and ironically was playing yesterday when I made
my post.

I still have yet to try to hook it up to the PC again and play something
more up my alley. I briefly looked into getting Fallout 4 or Skyrim VR
to play with it, but it looks like an arduous series of steps, that I'm
not excited enough to bother with.

It's still got a lot of issues - nausea when moving in game, vertigo
for drop offs, which seem far too overused in native games to
'show off' that it's VR (much like many old movies made for 3d
where they overdid showing things coming at you,) and fatigue.
I'd count battery life, but really that only comes into play if you've
got multiple people sharing one as fatigue gets you first.

The only game that I've played that seems to overcome those first
two is Beat Saber, as you don't have to move, and vertigo can be
avoided by overriding the drop off game space with one that doesn't
have that. Unfortunately you can't play online with the game space
overridden, and I still get vertigo if I try to play that way.

The games made for it seem more like gimmicks, toys, or tech
demos for the most part, I'd agree. It still is worth the cost just
for the novelty at this point though, especially if you aren't
affected by heights or movement.

- Justisaur

On Sun, 9 Oct 2022 11:09:08 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>On 08/10/2022 16:43, Zaghadka wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Oct 2022 16:28:16 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>> Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>>> What do you think of VR's future. Has it fumbled the ball? Are we
>>> still on the precipice of VR greatness? How often do you pull on the
>>> headset? And what do you think is keeping VR from taking over the way
>>> it was supposed to?

>> VR still lacks a "killer app." Something that is unique to VR and is a
>> "must have" experience of high value. Most everything is just the same
>> experience... but virtual. Either that or what amounts to a tech demo.

>> FPS is not the killer app. The Metaverse is not the killer app.
>> Simulation is a niche product (that VR does really well).

>> As long as there's no "killer app," it will be a novelty.

>> I see a lot more promise in AR rather than VR. Nothing beats RR (real
>> reality), and adding tech to it, rather than using tech to get away from
>> it, seems a more useful -- and less potentially destructive -- endeavor.

>Yep that's pretty much my position. I wouldn't mind trying it just to
>see what it's like but I'm not going to spend several hundred pounds
>just for that.

So, doesn't that raise the question: CAN there be a killer app for VR?
Something so awesome that people will have flock to it like moths to a
flame?

I agree FPS games aren't the solution, largely because of the nausea
problem (and the less-than-exciting solution of changing movement to
teleport jumps). Sit-down games ("Elite Dangerous", or a racing sim)
seem a better fit... except they either lack mass market appeal, and
ultimately just end up being used as super-giant screens rather than
being part of an immersive world.

(Part of the problem may be the clumsy controls too. Maybe VR will
have a better chance with fully body tracking and/or some sort of
tactile feedback? Nintendo Power Glove 2.0, your time has come?)

For me it's less the price and 'friction'* of use and more that - at
the end of the day - I don't find the experience to be all that's
promised; it's just a big, expensive screen that's an unconvincing
attempt at making me think I'm actually in the gameworld. It all feels
rather clumsy and artificial. And I'm not sure that higher resolutions
and lighter, cooler headsets will change that.

(But, again, my experiences are years old; I haven't tried the newest
devices)

Still, given the option of spending money on VR or putting it
something - anything else - gaming related, anything else wins hands
down. VR isn't giving me bang for the buck.

Is it possible that there /isn't/ a killer app for VR, something that
only it can do, and so well that people just have to buy it? Because
right now it seems that - while it it is nifty tech - it is so
compromised in its experience that it isn't worth the effort, much
less the price.

What would convince people it's worth making the plunge, if they've
already looked at what's on offer and found it lacking?

=======================
* a term listed from the Ars Technica article in the original post,
meaning the difficulties involved with actually using the tech,
whether that has to do with installation problems, software
compatibility/bugs, or even just the annoyance of all those cables

>The games made for it seem more like gimmicks, toys, or tech
>demos for the most part, I'd agree.

If this Universal Unreal Engine VR mod lives up to the hype, could open
up many more games for playing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEchqL0gMOE

rms

On Sun, 09 Oct 2022 11:32:46 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>Is it possible that there /isn't/ a killer app for VR, something that
>only it can do, and so well that people just have to buy it? Because
>right now it seems that - while it it is nifty tech - it is so
>compromised in its experience that it isn't worth the effort, much
>less the price.
>
>What would convince people it's worth making the plunge, if they've
>already looked at what's on offer and found it lacking?

WARNING: Spalls-like post length imminent. Run for your life.

If sims were less niche, they are the killer app for VR. But sims are not
mainstream gaming material. Stuff like training a batter with real
historical pitchers, or a virtual experience at a firearms range, or a
head tracking, interactive X-wing cockpit (in the XWVM engine over the
original X-Wing) are all happening right now. They just don't bring the
mass market. They could... but no big company wants a piece of it,
because it also means taking a piece of serious, high-budget risk.

VR is not a proven winner like CoD CXIV, and nobody who has the money
wants to put serious money into VR sims because they are *hard*. That
baseball swing sim costs a packet. So large companies opt for a graft-on
process to current 3D engines instead of a sim built from the ground up
for VR. There will be no killer app for VR if no company is willing to
take the risk of making a serious, committed, and risky effort at a
VR-only experience/game.

To be more pointed, it _is_ _not_ _cheap_. Not for the consumer, not for
the content producers. Cheap VR is simply not a thing. That's how the
market is positioned though, and cheap will not bring the killer app.

(As an aside, it also doesn't generalize well. Each sim likely needs
different input hardware, not a generalized haptic suit. Stuff with
weight and size that feels like what you can see is ideal here. Seeing
isn't always believing.)

The promise is there, if unrealized. But just as you and I would probably
put money into a video card before a VR set, gaming companies will put
money into the next FIFA or CoD, with proven ROI, rather than risk it on
VR. Zuck is the only one who's attempted it, and to date it's a miserable
failure, due to lack of imagination on his part, IMHO.

So all VR lacks is vision and commitment. Specifically, the vision of
people with the resources to bring a top-notch, simulation experience.
You know, *actual* virtual reality. There's still so much money in The
Ghost of Gaming Past that no one with the capital wants to roll the dice,
or even be honest about how much the consumer will need to be charged for
a piece of the future.

The viewer hardware is not the cost-barrier. The R&D is. The data
collection is. The software is. Possibly scenario-specific hardware is.
The viewer can be cheap, but without the rest it's only ever going to be
a novelty.

The Wii had the same issues, and it was less complicated a challenge than
VR. The only company that really bought into motion controls was
Nintendo, and they were amazing at it. The tale was similar. The barriers
to entry for the new concept was high, the models and procedures were new
if not entirely uninvented, and nobody with the resources to do it was
interested in starting from scratch. Not while there's so much easy money
on the table with a traditional gamepad controller.

Apparently, Revolution* does not pay enough.

So in the interim we have XWVMVR, which is a hobby project that will
never be finished, because only enthusiast hobbyists with no concept of
profitability or delivery windows will touch a "killer" VR app with a
10-foot-pole.

TL;DR: It's totally there. No one with the capital to achieve it wants a
piece of it because it has a high degree of risk, and C-suite execs and
MBAs absolutely hate risk when there's gobs of less-risky money on the
table. It also requires some honesty about the real price of a compelling
VR experience. It's also a coding time sink that needs to be written from
scratch. VR needs a visionary who trusts the technology and its promise
enough to take a significant economic risk. It ain't Zuck. He's down for
the risk, but he's no visionary. I bet he sells Oculus within 5 years.

There's no quick buck here, and I think that's what today's companies
want. Even non-VR gaming languishes in the meantime.

My 2 cents.

--
Zag

West of House
There is a small mailbox here.

>read leaflet
"WELCOME TO USENET!

USENET is a game of adventure, danger,
and low cunning. In it you will
explore some of the most amazing
territory ever seen by mortals. No
computer should be without it!"

--FOOTNOTES--

* The Wii prototype was dubbed the "Revolution."

[Like Justisaur my first attempt to post this seems to have failed.
Sorry, if you're seeing this twice.]

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>The article points out various reasons why this might be, listing
>things such as a lack of API support in major games engines, the
>"friction" of using it on PCs where hardware issues crop up a lot more
>than they should, and bad experiences people had in the early days
>that make them look askance at the modern tech.

I think that friction and the other things the article blames are just
meant to distract you from the elephant in the room: VR can never be
more than an expensive niche product. Imagine if instead of VR we were
talking a console or PC controller that only worked with first person
perspective games. How many people would pay $400 for that? But the
expectation is that people will pay $400 or more to play an even more
limitted selection of games.

Honestly, it's amazing how well VR has done. A VR only game, Bonelab,
came in 10th place on Steam's Global Weekly Top Sellers last week,
generating more revenue on that platform that week than 11th place
Destiny 2. I think people are still willing to give VR the benefit of
the doubt, more people are still dreaming of what it could be than are
put off by previous experiences with it. People expect friction with
VR, just like someone with a full set of racing wheel, pedal and shifter
controllers expects friction when playing a racing game.

Even if you could buy a VR headset and controllers for the same price
as an Xbox or PlayStation controller it still would be a niche product.
But it's never going to be that cheap. As discussed here earlier,
Moore's Law is dead and with it any reasonable expectation of technology
continuously getting better and cheaper. I have to imagine that Facebook,
sorry, Meta, is selling their $400 VR headset at a loss, in order to help
feul their boss's dream of controlling the metaverse one day. As long
term viable product, I'd expect VR headsets to have a similar price as
a mid- to high-end smartphone, which are also not getting cheaper.

Maybe eventually people's tastes will shift dramatically and the "2D"
games that we're playing today will become niche and VR games the norm
but that's what needs to change for VR to become mainstream. This really
should be obivious, but too many people in the VR business are wearing
rose-coloured VR headsets. They're still dreaming of the VR future
that was predicted in cyberpunk novels and various effects-laden movies.
They take for granted this is what everyone wants, and blame their lack
of mainstream success on the hardware not delivering what these works
of fiction promised. They don't seem to realise that people might not
share that same dream.

You don't need VR to play a match-3 game on your phone while riding
the bus. You don't need VR to feel like a badass killing hordes of
aliens in some shooter. You don't need VR to attend a virtual meeting
while working at home. There's no real reason for VR to become mainstream
other than it's what some futurists and science-fiction authors predicted
decades ago.

(I should point out I'm saying this as someone who's never drank the
kool-aid. The closest thing to a cyberpunk novel that I've read is
"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and the only VR film I've seen is
"Tron". I've never tried any form VR, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't work
with my glasses and even if they did there's countless other things I'd
spend my money on first. I'd like to think this makes my view of VR
less biased, though I realise anyone who has drank the kool-aid would
disagree.)

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>So, doesn't that raise the question: CAN there be a killer app for VR?
>Something so awesome that people will have flock to it like moths to a
>flame?

No, and to go further, no single application could make VR more than
niche product. For VR to gain widespread and lasting appeal there needs
to be a wide range of games or other applications that need or benefit
significantly from VR. There's no killer app for PC gaming, there's no
killer app for the winged gamepad controllers that are ubiquitous today.
Even the Wii would have been a flop if it's killer app, Wii Sports,
was the only game people bought it for. Even then the whole motion
control thing didn't really go anywhere.

For VR to become mainstream there needs to be competetive online shooters
where not using VR puts you at a disadvantage. There's needs to be a
popular social app where not having VR makes you look bad. There needs
to be some entirely new genre of game that could only exist with VR.
And not just any one of these things, but all of them along with other
reasons for a wide range people with different likes and dislikes to
want to spend $400+ on a VR headset.

I think ultimately VR is going to prove to be a niche option for certain
kinds of games and a few limited applications. Probably more popular
than flight sticks and steering wheels, but nowhere near as well as
supported as console controllers in PC games are. Maybe there will be
some revolutionary sea change for reasons that aren't obvious today, but
it's not something improving existing technlogy alone is going to cause.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On Mon, 10 Oct 2022 14:24:56 -0000 (UTC), rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Ross Ridge) wrote:

>[Like Justisaur my first attempt to post this seems to have failed.
>Sorry, if you're seeing this twice.]
>
>Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The article points out various reasons why this might be, listing
>>things such as a lack of API support in major games engines, the
>>"friction" of using it on PCs where hardware issues crop up a lot more
>>than they should, and bad experiences people had in the early days
>>that make them look askance at the modern tech.
>
>I think that friction and the other things the article blames are just
>meant to distract you from the elephant in the room: VR can never be
>more than an expensive niche product. Imagine if instead of VR we were
>talking a console or PC controller that only worked with first person
>perspective games. How many people would pay $400 for that? But the
>expectation is that people will pay $400 or more to play an even more
>limitted selection of games.
>

Both you and Zaghadka bring up a similar point, that a - perhaps the-
major stumbling point for VR is its price, not just for the device but
for supporting hardware and then software. I'm not sure I agree.

Certainly the price is a significant hurdle. Valve Index costs $500
USD for just the headset (double that for the full set-up), and you'll
need a hefty PC on top of that to get best results. And the Vive2 is
almost a third more than that. The Occulus sets are cheaper (and don't
require a stand-alone PC) but they're still $300 USD. So the gear
isn't cheap, undeniably. But neither are they so expensive that they
are outside the range of the average hobbiest. The lower-end models
are well within the same price range as GPUs and consoles.

I think more than the price is the /value/. If VR lived up to its hype
- if it even came near to it - the things would probably be flying off
the shelves. But they're not, because people - for whatever reason -
see them as gimmicks; something that won't get much use past the
initial 'wowie-zowie' period after you first buy it.

Similarly, - were nothing else to change but the price - I wonder if
VR uptake would be any better even if the cost were half what they are
today. More people would buy the things, certainly... but would they
see more consistent use?

I can't answer this. I'm not sure I amt the market for these things.
But, at least in my case, it's not really the price of the things
that is keeping me from buying a VR set. It's that - in the end - a VR
set is just a bigger screen that requires me to don an uncomfortable
headset with clumsier controls, the potential for nausea, whilst being
completely cut-off from the world. Whether it was something I bought
for $50 or $200 or $1000 dollars, it's just not an experience I'd be
comfortable engaging with for any long period of time.

(In fact, a higher price might make me more forgiving of the thing's
faults - trying to justify the purchase - and I might use it more
readily than a cheaper device).

So I don't think VR's big problem is the price; it's convincing them
that they'll still be using it regularly enough to make the purchase
worth it. The lack of a 'killer app' - something you can only do in VR
and do it so well as to make non-VR look obsolete - is a far more
significant problem.

>(I should point out I'm saying this as someone who's never drank the
>kool-aid. The closest thing to a cyberpunk novel that I've read is
>"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and the only VR film I've seen is
>"Tron". I've never tried any form VR, I'm pretty sure they wouldn't work
>with my glasses and even if they did there's countless other things I'd
>spend my money on first. I'd like to think this makes my view of VR
>less biased, though I realise anyone who has drank the kool-aid would
>disagree.)

Ditto. I mean, I've tried the things but I don't own one and my
experiences - a few hours here and there some years back - weren't
convincing enough for me to make the plunge into actually buying one.
Still, I'm willing to admit that I'm possibly 'out of date' when it
comes to my judgments and maybe I should give them another go. But
nothing I've seen about the tech indicates that it's solved its core
problem: answering /why/ I should invest in a VR headset? It seems
more focused on the superficials: higher-resolution screens and
lighter equipment.

On Sun, 09 Oct 2022 20:34:01 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 09 Oct 2022 11:32:46 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>>Is it possible that there /isn't/ a killer app for VR, something that
>>only it can do, and so well that people just have to buy it? Because
>>right now it seems that - while it it is nifty tech - it is so
>>compromised in its experience that it isn't worth the effort, much
>>less the price.
>>
>>What would convince people it's worth making the plunge, if they've
>>already looked at what's on offer and found it lacking?
>
>WARNING: Spalls-like post length imminent. Run for your life.

Hey, don't expect ME to complain about somebody else engaging in
long-form discussions on Usenet. I love that this topic has prompted
people to put so much energy and thought into talking about it

(I mean, I sort of wish it was about a topic I cared more about, but
beggars can't be choosers ;-)

>If sims were less niche, they are the killer app for VR. But sims are not
>mainstream gaming material. Stuff like training a batter with real
>historical pitchers, or a virtual experience at a firearms range, or a
>head tracking, interactive X-wing cockpit (in the XWVM engine over the
>original X-Wing) are all happening right now. They just don't bring the
>mass market. They could... but no big company wants a piece of it,
>because it also means taking a piece of serious, high-budget risk.

You have to wonder if VR might have fared better had it been released
back in the mid-90s, when hardcore sims had a more prominent place in
the video-game (and especially the PC game) industry. It seems like
FPS games /should/ be the killer-app for VR, but evidence has shown
otherwise. VR benefits from that sim-style of gaming in that you're
sitting down (so reduced nausea) and - generally - you don't need to
fiddle around with clumsy "VR hands" control-schemes. Just grab your
joystick (or wheel, for driving games) and off you go.

>VR is not a proven winner like CoD CXIV, and nobody who has the money
>wants to put serious money into VR sims because they are *hard*. That
>baseball swing sim costs a packet. So large companies opt for a graft-on
>process to current 3D engines instead of a sim built from the ground up
>for VR. There will be no killer app for VR if no company is willing to
>take the risk of making a serious, committed, and risky effort at a
>VR-only experience/game.

I'm not sure I agree. I think a lot of companies have invested heavily
into VR - and Facebook continues to chase the dream - but the
audience has not appeared.

>The promise is there, if unrealized. But just as you and I would probably
>put money into a video card before a VR set, gaming companies will put
>money into the next FIFA or CoD, with proven ROI, rather than risk it on
>VR. Zuck is the only one who's attempted it, and to date it's a miserable
>failure, due to lack of imagination on his part, IMHO.

Again, I'm not sure I agree

(I mean, not the bit about Zuckerberg. 1st gen androids don't do
creative stuff very well, after all ;-).

I think the bigger problem is that there's nothing VR really offers
that traditional screens can't... at least, not in any meaningful way,
and not without as many compromises as benefits. It's not that
publishers aren't trying, it's that - ultimately - the promise of VR
(at least in the form it exists today) just isn't up to the task. It's
the lack of good haptic feedback, or the inability to move freely mean
that you're still almost as distanced from the action in VR as you
are playing in front of a TV. Saddle that with comfort issues (heavy,
hot, binding headsets, motion sickness, too many wires), compatibility
problems, and limited software and you have to start wondering if the
whole thing is worth the bother.

Customers seem to be saying it's not. And video-game publishers - many
of whom have poured millions into VR projects - can't help but wonder
why they should continue to pursue the technology if there isn't a
reward at the end. It's not that companies are being shortsighted and
tied to the past; it's that the promised future is impossible with the
hardware of the day.

I mean, I joke about things like the holodeck (impossible) or
neurolinks (possible, but - given my knowledge of how shoddy most
software really is - is nothing I'd ever want to hook up directly to
my brain), but I think that's the sort of tech you'd need to live up
to what VR is offering.

(Well, maybe full haptic body-suits and immersion pods, but I can't
imagine many would want those in their living rooms ;-)

Until then, flat-screens and gamepads offer as good (in some respects
better) experience with much less hassle and price.

(see also the continuing attempt to replace the keyboard with new
fangled interfaces - such as virtual displays - that look flashy and
/seem/ like they should be better, but ultimately are inferior
versions. We may one day get a better way to input data into a
computer but we haven't found it yet. Similarly, VR seems like it
should be a better way to output data... but it's not. Sometimes the
old tech is just superior for actual use)

On 10/10/2022 10:03 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
> (see also the continuing attempt to replace the keyboard with new
> fangled interfaces - such as virtual displays - that look flashy and
> /seem/ like they should be better, but ultimately are inferior
> versions. We may one day get a better way to input data into a
> computer but we haven't found it yet. Similarly, VR seems like it
> should be a better way to output data... but it's not. Sometimes the
> old tech is just superior for actual use)
>
Frequently because the older tech was designed to actually be used and
has evolved to be used better. :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 10/10/2022 17:35, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> So I don't think VR's big problem is the price; it's convincing them
> that they'll still be using it regularly enough to make the purchase
> worth it. The lack of a 'killer app' - something you can only do in VR
> and do it so well as to make non-VR look obsolete - is a far more
> significant problem.

Lot's of interesting thoughts but one to chuck into the mix. Maybe there
is a 'killer app' but it's just no one is looking in the right place for
it. Technology can be funny like that, once it gets into customers'
hands what it may be used for can be quite different to what companies
thought!

I was just reading some of the release blurb for the Meta Quest Pro and
I found the interesting part is that games don't even get a mention (I'm
not even sure it's suitable for games due to being able to see reality
in your peripheral view) but instead it majors of real life work and the
metaverse.

Oh and at £1500 I think I'll give it a miss.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 12:29:18 +0100, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>
>I was just reading some of the release blurb for the Meta Quest Pro and
>I found the interesting part is that games don't even get a mention (I'm
>not even sure it's suitable for games due to being able to see reality
>in your peripheral view) but instead it majors of real life work and the
>metaverse.
>
>Oh and at £1500 I think I'll give it a miss.

The Meta^h^h^h^h Facebook Quest is in a league of its own when it
comes to "why not", at least for me. It's a shame too, since it's
based on the Occulus tech.

But... it's Facebook, and I will have nothing to do with that company.
Aside from the skeevy data-harvesting, their blatant disinterest in
anything but how to maximize profits (even if it means purposefully
amplifying the worst of society) is not something I can support. That
they demand a "Meta" account to use the device - something I have a
problem with for /any/ hardware device, not just Facebook's offerings
- is yet another problem. And while you can use Quest 2 with PC games,
it's designed for use as a stand-along device (where you buy the
software from Facebook's app store) and thus gets less support from PC
games.

Plus, buying into Facebook's VR would be taken as 'support' for their
ridiculous "metaverse".

The Quest2 could be the world's best VR device and sell at $20 and I
still wouldn't touch it.

On 10/12/2022 4:29 AM, JAB wrote:
>
> I was just reading some of the release blurb for the Meta Quest Pro and
> I found the interesting part is that games don't even get a mention (I'm
> not even sure it's suitable for games due to being able to see reality
> in your peripheral view) but instead it majors of real life work and the
> metaverse.
>
> Oh and at £1500 I think I'll give it a miss.

What kind of "real life work" requires VR?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 07:42:43 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 10/12/2022 4:29 AM, JAB wrote:

>What kind of "real life work" requires VR?

If Facebook has its way, everything will be done in VR. The 'obvious'
is business meetings but - somehow - they hope to extend this to
"real" work. Put on a heavy VR headset and sit at a virtual desk in
front of a virtual computer to type on a virtual keyboard. Does it
make sense? No. But would it let Facebook suck down even more of that
valuable user data? Hell yes, so that's the narrative their pushing.
We're gonna do everything in the Metaverse!

(Honestly, I could see some employers getting behind this. If you're
in a VR world, they can control what you see - no distractions! - and
better track what your doing to 'maximize employee output'. No popping
out the phone to check your messages or quick games of Solitaire. Even
staring out the window is out. You put on the headset at 9AM and take
it off at 5PM and in the 8 hours between, it's all work. I've had
bosses who would DROOL at that sort of control.)

On 10/12/2022 8:39 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 07:42:43 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2022 4:29 AM, JAB wrote:
>
>
>> What kind of "real life work" requires VR?
>
> If Facebook has its way, everything will be done in VR. The 'obvious'
> is business meetings but - somehow - they hope to extend this to
> "real" work. Put on a heavy VR headset and sit at a virtual desk in
> front of a virtual computer to type on a virtual keyboard. Does it
> make sense? No. But would it let Facebook suck down even more of that
> valuable user data? Hell yes, so that's the narrative their pushing.
> We're gonna do everything in the Metaverse!
>
> (Honestly, I could see some employers getting behind this. If you're
> in a VR world, they can control what you see - no distractions! - and
> better track what your doing to 'maximize employee output'. No popping
> out the phone to check your messages or quick games of Solitaire. Even
> staring out the window is out. You put on the headset at 9AM and take
> it off at 5PM and in the 8 hours between, it's all work. I've had
> bosses who would DROOL at that sort of control.)
>
I've walked from jobs better than that while struggling to pay the rent.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
>The Occulus sets are cheaper (and don't
>require a stand-alone PC) but they're still $300 USD. So the gear
>isn't cheap, undeniably. But neither are they so expensive that they
>are outside the range of the average hobbiest. The lower-end models
>are well within the same price range as GPUs and consoles.

The Occulus 2 had its price raised to $400 because of increasing costs.
Even then its probably being made at a loss as Mark Zuckerbeg recently
confirmed that they're pricing their hardware at a "break-even point
and in some cases, maybe even slightly at a loss". Which I read as
"we're not even trying to recoup are development costs at this point,
we're just selling them at a slightly lower price than the component
and assembly costs."

Sure at $400 they cheap enough that some people can afford to buy them
just to pay around with for while and then toss in a closet. However my
point is that for VR to be more than a niche product then they're going
to have to provide a level of utility to a wide range of people that's
similar to $400 consoles. A console that ended up in the closets of
the few people willing to give it a try would be considered a huge flop.
VR headsets have a utility closer to flightsticks and steering wheels,
which are niche products because few people like the few games they work
with enough to consider them worth buying.

As I said before, even if VR headsets cost the same as standard console
gamepad controllers they'd still remain a niche product. There's just
not enough applications for them for most people to justify buying
one. Compare that to the wide range of PC games that support console
controllers and make them a relatively mainstream product even outside
the console market.

But VR costs a lot more and is always going to cost a lot more. Even at
$400 it will need to provide a much greater value than buying a console
controller does for a PC gamer. That's not something a single killer
app can do. It's not something incrementally better hardware will do.
It's going to require a huge change in how people interact with computers,
whether PCs, consoles or phones, across a wide range of applicaitons.

Despite the the poor value of VR, the VR market is doing suprisingly well.
The real problem here is that VR is being kept alive by people buying
them for what they could maybe one day be. They have a similar utility
to specialized games controllers, a similar limited selection of games
that require or are improved significantly by them, but much less value
because VR costs so much more. If people were buying VR headsets for
the games they actually play with them, and not to just collect dust
in their closets, then the market would've been declared dead years ago
and even Zuckerberg would have to admit defeat.

--
l/ // Ross Ridge -- The Great HTMU
[oo][oo] rridge@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
-()-/()/ http://www.csclub.uwaterloo.ca:11068/
db //

On Thursday, October 13, 2022 at 8:55:30 AM UTC-7, Ross Ridge wrote:
> Spalls Hurgenson <spallsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >The Occulus sets are cheaper (and don't
> >require a stand-alone PC) but they're still $300 USD. So the gear
> >isn't cheap, undeniably. But neither are they so expensive that they
> >are outside the range of the average hobbiest. The lower-end models
> >are well within the same price range as GPUs and consoles.
> The Occulus 2 had its price raised to $400 because of increasing costs.
> Even then its probably being made at a loss as Mark Zuckerbeg recently
> confirmed that they're pricing their hardware at a "break-even point
> and in some cases, maybe even slightly at a loss". Which I read as
> "we're not even trying to recoup are development costs at this point,
> we're just selling them at a slightly lower price than the component
> and assembly costs."
>
> Sure at $400 they cheap enough that some people can afford to buy them
> just to pay around with for while and then toss in a closet. However my
> point is that for VR to be more than a niche product then they're going
> to have to provide a level of utility to a wide range of people that's
> similar to $400 consoles. A console that ended up in the closets of
> the few people willing to give it a try would be considered a huge flop.
> VR headsets have a utility closer to flightsticks and steering wheels,
> which are niche products because few people like the few games they work
> with enough to consider them worth buying.
>
> As I said before, even if VR headsets cost the same as standard console
> gamepad controllers they'd still remain a niche product. There's just
> not enough applications for them for most people to justify buying
> one. Compare that to the wide range of PC games that support console
> controllers and make them a relatively mainstream product even outside
> the console market.
>
> But VR costs a lot more and is always going to cost a lot more. Even at
> $400 it will need to provide a much greater value than buying a console
> controller does for a PC gamer. That's not something a single killer
> app can do. It's not something incrementally better hardware will do.
> It's going to require a huge change in how people interact with computers,
> whether PCs, consoles or phones, across a wide range of applicaitons.
>
> Despite the the poor value of VR, the VR market is doing suprisingly well.
> The real problem here is that VR is being kept alive by people buying
> them for what they could maybe one day be. They have a similar utility
> to specialized games controllers, a similar limited selection of games
> that require or are improved significantly by them, but much less value
> because VR costs so much more. If people were buying VR headsets for
> the games they actually play with them, and not to just collect dust
> in their closets, then the market would've been declared dead years ago
> and even Zuckerberg would have to admit defeat.

Consoles are typically sold at a loss, and make it back on game
licenses, and selling their own in-house games. It seems Meta is missing
out on both those. Though I presume they get a % of selling games on
their store much like Steam, Apple, etc. So there's that.

I think if one of the console makers came out with a stand alone VR like
Oculus and it had a number of exclusive games it would be a hit.

I do see a lot of very popular vids on VR games, so I'm thinking the usenet
folks are just old and set in their non-VR ways.

- Justisaur

>What kind of "real life work" requires VR?
https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2022/10/carmack-wants-a-250-vr-headset-to-counterpoint-the-1499-quest-pro/
He definitely sees a use for it, just not in its present incarnation.

rms