Nvidia confirms VR is a gimmick

Nvidia CEO on VR

"First of all, VR displays are a little too cumbersome. It has to be much more elegant, being connected by a wire has to be solved. The resolution has to be a lot higher. The physical worlds do not behave according to the laws of physics. The environment you’re in isn’t beautiful enough. We’re going to be solving this problem for the next 20 years.”

He added: “Having 20 years for employment is a good thing.”

His comments won’t surprise many people who’ve used VR so far, but what’s interesting is how little interest in actually solving this side of the problem the CEO expressed.

http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/nvidia-ceo-good-vr-20-years-away

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rockstar Games also weighs in on VR

VR devices like Oculus Rift are "anti-social." He said VR might appeal to core gamers, but may miss the much larger casual crowd.

"It's way too expensive right now," he said to an audience of analysts and investors. "There is no market for a $2000 entertainment device that requires you to dedicate a room to the activity. I don't know what people could be thinking. Maybe some of the people in this room have a room to dedicate to an entertainment activity, but back here in the real world? That's not what we have in America."

"We have like $300 to spend on an entertainment device and we do not have a dedicated room.We have a room for a screen, a couch, and controllers," he added. "We don't have something where you stand in a big open space and hold two controllers with something on your head--and not crash into the coffee table. We don't have that."

Zelnick went on to say there are "any number of constraints" to virtual reality taking off. This isn't to say he's completely down on VR in general, however.

"I'm not unexcited; I'm just saying it remains to be seen," he said. "There are impediments."

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/vr-is-too-expensive-and-takes-up-too-much-room-tak/1100-6440381/

I'm less interested in VR in providing motion feedback but the idea of a mounted 3D display appeals to me

Call me once bitten, twice shy, but backing VR to me is on part with doubling down on the promise of devices like kinect and motion controls.

Show me a minimum of 5 killer apps and something that actually augments where gaming is right now from a gameplay perspective and we'll talk.

In the meantime, eff me once, shame on you... Eff me twice, shame on me.

Funny because I hear a lot of people who play VR regularly who love it and really believe it's the next best thing.

Nvidia is not the expert on what is fun and what is not. They are a hardware company, that's it.

Less of a gimmick and more of a "not there yet".

Regardless, there's litlle actual value in VR at this point in time.

It's called novelty.

Everyone was crazy over the Wiimote for a week or two as well.

And the Wii went on to sell 80+ million while Sony and Microsoft copied the idea with their own. Motion controls have now been integrated into the VR experience where they are seeing fresh life.

VR is not a novelty, there are a lot of fresh potential for VR that are just being discovered. It may start out as a niche product because of the high entry level, but it's never going away. VR will eventually grow into commonplace in the gaming world, especially once entire VR capeable devices are $500 for the whole suite, not just $500 for the headset, then it will really take off.

VR will never replace traditional gaming, but it will become mainstream and it will never die. Gimmicks die. VR is not a gimmick.

In it's current form it is a gimmick.

The successor to Stereoscopic 3D in other words.

When people think VR they think something similar to the Matrix, not a toaster on your face.

Dedicating yourself to work on something for 20 years kind of means he does not consider it a gimmick...

Yeah, lets take Nvidia's advice on hardware since theirs has done so well....

That being said, the resolution issue is a real problem. The solution? Better GPU's. Let us know when you're ready Nvidia. Until then I will be over here playing VR games with pixels the size of cheeze itz.

Eroica points out a view point that is common of those who have never tried it while Wasdie points out another of those who know people who have. The issue is getting people to try VR out for themselves. This tech is not something that can be explained, and yet I honestly believe what the HTC Vive is doing is a game changer. Are we waiting for that "killer app?" Sure. But how is that any different than any console in it's first few months of release? Why are we being so hard on VR while giving consoles a 1-2 year pass?

Clickbait title. Not even your quote supports it, to the contrary Nvidia expects at least 20 years of sales out of VR. Also please link your URLs.

Huang is acknowledging a couple of minor issues, none of them show stoppers.

That being said I don't understand his rather flaccid attitude towards VR. When (not if), VR catches on it will drive GPU sales and development through the roof.

Every1 are experts on their own opinions :D

I have to assume its because the track record of consoles. Game consoles have been around for decades, so we're more likely to give a game console a fair shake. VR on the other hand is still in its infancy so therefore not trusted nearly as much. Plus people have been burned quite a bit by gimmicks like Kinect, 3DTV, PS Move, and the like.

Star VR may have the required resolution and FOV but damn we don't yet have the GPU to power such a monster.

VR takes gaming back to the NES days when things were fresh and developers had a lot more freedom to be creative with gameplay mechanics. To me, it doesn't matter that the graphics are dialed back from what we've achieved with 1080p and 1440p monitors. It was bound to happen. Anyone who thinks they were ever going to try VR for the first time and it will be just like Sword Art Online from the anime is sadly not even born yet. It will get there, though. Just like with the NES era, VR gaming itself is breaking into the open. It's exciting times to be a gamer :)

I have had my Vive for almost two month now and I want all my games to be in VR.

They just need to focus and dedicate time to the people who do support the devices. Go low budget if you have to. Let Indie companies have fun on it. Will give them a good platform to get noticed on.

Let us not forget lack of visual fidelity was an issue on PC's and consoles once upon a time. VR will evolve and improve incrementally in the same way as PC and console graphics have done over the decades. Probably at a significantly faster rate too.

I've noticed how in promotional shots you almost never see the wire.

But if you look at people using you kinda see it as a thing that is there... Limiting you in a way. Is it a big issue ? Perhaps not. but VR is definitely still in its early stages.

Sega showed this 23 years ago though.

I think VR needs to ditch the physical tether to the PC and reduce headset size. Either needs a breakthrough in wireless data transmission or computing technology (so that computations can be done in the headset) to achieve those.

I've never been excited for VR. It just isn't really practical in a home environment for most people and most importantly the experiences so far have been nothing but glorified tech demos at best. VR needs its Pong/Super Mario Bros moment to make it in the mainstream. Unless that happens its just going to have niche appeal to tech heads.

It's interesting because we live in an age where our everyday technology is getting quite sleek. We have super slim TV's with curved displays and small phones with touch interfaces. But these technologies didn't just suddenly appear one day in this form. We had CRT TVs and brick phones. VR is a new piece of tech which is at the age similar to TV's in the CRT era. And because of this contrast between VR's cumbersome design and the rest of our technology's sleek design, people can be overly critical. Give it time, we have to put up with this cumbersome technology and support it so it can eventually become super sleek and advanced.

The nVidia person is right, we still have a lot to work on. But it'll probably get there eventually. Well, some form of VR/AR will anyway.

Do you think this would have flopped?

Nvidia should share their insight with Sony.

VR isn't exactly new though, it's been a thing since the 80s.

It's kind of just come and gone whenever companies felt like they could potentially profit from it.

Sega VR for example was shown in 93.

Technologies evolve at different paces. For example, TV's started in the 1920's, so it's had almost a hundred years of iterations. Phones have had around 40 years. They also had differing acceleration rates in iterations.

VR now is a lot better than the version in the 90's. It's also a lot more ambitious than other technologies and has a lot more promise and impact of what our future will actually look like. So we're getting there.

Or as the great George W Bush once said

"There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas probably Tennessee, says fool me once......shame on.............shame on you......fool me can't get fooled again"

What they had in the 90s is practically incomparable to what they have now. That's like saying that 3D has been around for over 150 years because of stereoscopic viewing boxes and viewmaster type devices. Obviously the modern of 3D is night and day different from tech like red/blue (anaglyph) glasses.

I don't disagree with what he said about some of the problems they can solve. Higher res would help but current res is decent. The cord is a bit of a pain in room space VR, but in seated VR it's not an issue. A full 180 degree FOV would be pretty cool, too, but that doesn't mean that VR in its current form isn't amazing.

-Byshop

Actually they do. Most people I know who have used the current tech, including myself, are very excited by the tech. Most of the people who dismiss it tend to be those who have never tried it or tried one of those crummy 1999 forays you could plug into your Riva TNT2-powered Rig

@brah4ever said:

@emgesp said:

I've never been excited for VR. It just isn't really practical in a home environment for most people and most importantly the experiences so far have been nothing but glorified tech demos at best. VR needs its Pong/Super Mario Bros moment to make it in the mainstream. Unless that happens its just going to have niche appeal to tech heads.

Do you think this would have flopped?

Yes as I don't see wearable VR being a huge success in the mainstream. Its too clumsy in general.

However, holographic VR is something that could gain traction if the tech matured enough.

VR is just not there yet.

They seem to be more focusing on the technical issues with that comment. Having a heavy, wired. With also lots of interactive developments to be made. And that will take time.

When talking about the physics etc, it's a bit like the psychology of sound which is about the science of how the brain perceives, processes and reacts to sound around it. And this has an impact on how Dolby Digital tracks are mixed for example. So having the VR technology is one thing, but it will take time and research on how to properly adapt it to work best for the way the brain perceives things. The brain expects certain things to happen.

Right now VR is only really cool in seated games. Examples are pilot games, racing, etc. where ur character doesn't habe to move but instead you are controlling a vehicle while in a seat. Would kill for a mech warrior vr game.

VR is a gimmick, that's never going to change no matter how hard they try to push it.

You have to start somewhere.

These devices are the first steps towards the future of gaming.

It sounds like nVidia was banking on VR not taking off and now they are trying to damage control.

@GoldenElementXL: here's my thing though... I actually don't give the 2 year pass to consoles. I've been pretty disappointed in consoles in a lot of respects since launch and I DEFINITELY would've rolled with my ps3 and xbox 360 longer had I known that the new consoles would've been so bland and samezy...

I so agree that it is a tech that must be tried to understand fully... I also think it could have some really neat integrations into genres with stale gameplay and spice up all the samezy, but again, we're talking about another multi hundred dollar investment, with no track record of success whatsoever. I need games.... Not one or two, but many games with more to come to be interested in investing in the technology... At least with a stale two years of ps4/xone gaming, there were some pretty decent games to play... Can VR even prove that? I hope it can.

This

VR is better suited for arcades and amusement parks than it is for the home, especially in its current state.

A Mech Warrior VR game would be siiiiick

The newest VR equipment has only just come out. Give it a year or two and we'll see if Nvidia's CEO is on the right track. I for one expect he is.

VR will fail right now

I firmly believe that VR is the future of personal computing.

If you can put on a headset, you are not putting on the headset they will use in 2030 or maybe even 2020 just as when you bought the first laptop you will not be carrying one around 1/20th the weight.

I see a future of people still using computer flatscreen computer monitors, however, I see many more people wearing an analogue of google glass. You want to set up a board game and play? Everyone log into that app called "Risk" and let's play with ... medieval pieces this time! Maybe one day you want to watch back to the future on the backdrop of a quiet summer night. You put on your computer glasses, lay back on your outdoor beanbag chair, turn off all other background VR apps and pull up that movie - as if the movie screen was 100 miles long!

VR is very much in our future. It's just not in the future the lazy NVidia wants it to be. If it were up to them they wouldn't have to work so hard miniaturizing their GPUs to fit into a tablet the glasses would run off of. NVidia, next time you want to say something so "profound" as to say there is no future in VR, think of a company called Xerox and how they treated the idea of the personal computer operating system.

VR is the future of home computing as cell phones were (and still are) the future of voice/text/data communication.

Do I find it more immersive? Does it have the ability to draw me closer to a world where the emotion can take hold? ...Those questions are all that matters to me. I don't really need perfection and I'm certainly not getting it from the vast majority of games anyway, so certainly, if it's something that can draw me closer into a game world, If I can feel more "there" than my TV will ever offer me...then why should I give a crap what you all think? There are some very interesting looking, VR compatible titles on the horizon and some people here will spend $600 + for a new graphics card just because some graphically hyped game is about to release, so I don't see the big deal to blow $600 + for a device for a few games now. I mean hell, I recently saw a thread where a member spent $750 just for a case....a freaking case! Whatever floats the boat but stop trying to convince everyone your opinion is the only correct one. It has it's problems and downsides like everyitng else does but unfortunately a horror game on my TV isn't going to make me jump, maybe VR won't either but it certainly will offer something my TV never will despite the resolution.

@brah4ever: For VR cost issue, AMD's RX-480 has $199 price tag.

Both NVIDIA and Intel are supporting expensive VR hardware cost factor.

NVIDIA always bash what dont benifits them

Both are very good points that I agree with.

and people said email wouldnt be a thing in the 90's...just something to think about....

VR has some obstacles to overcome.

More at 11.

In terms of technology, there's little difference between the Sega VR and Oculus Rift. The only real difference now is that the state of 3D graphics has evolved significantly since the '90s.