The virtual reality dream is dying

link

Where we just not ready? At £900 and a bunch of wires taking up a room for mostly shovel-ware, I think not. Give it another 10 years, where glasses become average size than a brick on your head.

Hilmar Veigar Pétursson, CEO of the studio CCP Games (responsible for the massive Eve: Online), says the company doesn't see much of a future for virtual reality gaming. “We expected VR to be two to three times as big as it was, period,” Pétursson told gaming site Destructoid just a few days ago, adding, “You can't build a business on that.” There's a chance the company could jump back in, but their own data showed adoption was slow, even among enthusiasts. “The important thing is we need to see the metrics for active users of VR. A lot of people bought headsets just to try it out. How many of those people are active? We found that in terms of our data, a lot of users weren't,” Pétursson said.

So what happened here? VR was supposed to be a revolution, with companies like Oculus pioneering a whole new way for gamers and non-gamers alike to be immersed in digital environments — but that excitement has markedly cooled. The media (yes, me included, at least early on) has gone through several cycles of fawning, optimistic prognostication, and... wishful thinking? — but for all the hype we have very little consumer interest to show for it. Oculus sold off to Facebook and has become little more than a parlor trick Mark Zuckerberg shows off at every F8 event. As Ben Thompson recently noted, the bet on the company is an awkward fit for Facebook that strays from Zuckerberg’s strengths in several ways:

If Facebook wanted a presence in virtual reality the best possible route was the same it took in mobile: to be an app-exposed service, available on all devices, funded by advertising. I have long found it distressing that Zuckerberg, not just in 2014, but even today, judging by his comments in keynotes and on earnings calls, seems unable or unwilling to accept this fundamental truth about Facebook’s place in tech’s value chain.

Oculus founder Palmer Luckey is now tooling around on right wing defense projects, while co-founder Brendan Iribe has just left the company amid rumors of future headsets being shelved. Several prominent studios have shut down or ceased VR efforts, including Viacom and AltspaceVR, and Microsoft is a steadfast “no” when it comes to dipping its toes in the water via the Xbox. Sony has boasted about sales of the PSVR hitting 3 million in two years, but there are 82 million PS4 units in the hands of consumers (and keep in mind that Microsoft sold 35 million Kinects but stilldiscontinued the product). With cumbersome hardware (which, let's be honest, looks really stupid to most people), absurd PC requirements, and nearly no AAA titles to lure the curious into the world of VR, it’s becoming increasingly unlikely that we’ll see a major shift to virtual reality any time soon.

Also worth noting: if you’re looking to Magic Leap for a kind of bridge to the future with its AR efforts, don’t get too wound up. Brian Merchant’s excellent and detailed feature story for Gizmodo on the company’s struggles to get around the same hardware, software, and consumer adoption issues that plague VR make it clear there is no easy answer in this space.

In my opinion — as someone who watched this new generation of virtual reality emerge from the earliest days, and was one of its biggest fans — VR adoption will only happen when the barrier to entry is akin to slipping on a pair of sunglasses (and even then it’s no sure thing). Most people don’t want to wear a bulky headset, even in private, there’s no must have “killer app” for VR, and no one has made a simple plug-and-play option that lets a novice user engage casually. Everyone I know who’s tried a VR headset is blown away by the experience, but no one really wants to go deep on it except for what amounts to a rounding-error percentage of enthusiasts. Someone needs to break through with a seriously downsized and much more sophisticated offering... and the tech (nor the business incentive) is just not there. Apple has made a clear bet on augmented reality and Google already took a soft swing with VR that didn’t even get a mention at the company’s last press event, so don’t hold your breath for a white knight.

wearing the helmet is not the problem

resolution, limited sweet spot, performance, lack of eye tracking are

we're on our way there

detractors will eat their words

It never stood a chance, just another $$$ gimmick.

VR was never going to be huge in gaming simply because it obstructs your vision.

Sure, the technology is getting better, but it has the same inherent problem.

Augmented Reality has far more practical applications in gaming, medicine, and the military.

I see Sony and MS going that way next gen.

when they become like glasses instead of a headset im in

sony still trying to cash in on the wii. 10 years later lol

to be fair nintendo also with labo.

The biggest issue is social gaming. They try, but you simply cannot play with friends in the same room when you all have those massive helmets on your heads and you keep stumbling into each other and cannot hear what the others are saying and so on...

And you cannot have snacks or drinks in the room either, as someone will knock the table over...

So, it just fails as a social gaming type. For solo games, its ok.

3d tvs say no.

however with 3d. you needed a special tv and a special player. so it was more complicated. with VR you just need the glasses and a regular console.

All I can say is I am SO happy that I got my Vive.

Clunky, yes, and uncomfortable too. But it's an experience I wouldn't have wanted to miss out on as someone who loves gaming. I can not imagine going without some of the experiences I had in VR for like 10 years.

@uninspiredcup: there are three major reasons why vr isn't get the love a lot of people expected

1. price: sony's vr may be affordable , it is not good for a lot of vr applications. It can't suport 360 degree and roomscale properly and it lacks hardware power. Pc headsets are pretty good but they are more expensive, let's also not forget that the pc isn't exactly plug and play either.

2. accomodation conflict: have you tried playing vr for long sessions? I did, it fucks with your eyes, why? because your eyes are aligned when looking at something, to create the 3d effect in vr, they can't be aligned, they are looking at two seperate images, after a couple of hours your eyes start to revolt and allyou want to do is take the damn thing off. It isn't proven that doing to much vr is going to damage your eyes but there are reports of vr devs that got eye problems (which impaired their vision)

The new oculus should have a solution for the accomodation conflict.

3. Games and software: sure there are a lot of vr games, but there aren't alot of big productions and the biggest productions are still ports from existing games, and there aren't many of them either.

The bulky headset that the article refers to is really not the problem.

No go for me so long as I have to wear those silly headsets.

I think a large part of the problem is the price and the fact why any gamer would want to invest in something that still feels like a prototype over any other gaming platform that is well-established with AAA experiences already. VR lacks AAA productions and it's a waste to throw so much money at something that at best feels like it only offers tech demo experiences.

I knew it was too early to adopt a VR headset. There are some great experiences to be had with it, but it is quite limited at the moment. Unless you strictly play a ton of racing games and/or space sim games like Elite Dangerous, they only provide a bit of actual gaming action.

Tell me something I don't know.

VR is this generation's Kinect.

yeah. catch 22.

im still hopeful.

haven't tried any vr yet tho.

Same, I got mine in first wave pre-orders and I wouldn't want to be without it.

What an awful, badly written article that didn't make sense. Pay no attention.

I hope not. There are a lot of issues with VR, but in the grand scheme they all seem to be small and being worked on. Size of the gear, resolution, wired...all currently being addressed.

VR is highly enjoyable, there is absolutely no way to be more immersed in the game. There are a lot of cool concept games out there that lack the polish of major studio-developed titles, but that is only proof that the industry needs to dive head-first into VR to really take it to the next level.

I do most of my gaming traditionally, but I can't imagine playing flight sims (admittedly, a niche genre) without a VR headset. DCS World and Elite: Dangerous are simply taken to a level so far beyond traditional perspective by the incorporation of VR, it can't be described.

I've seen VR come and go a few times over my 25+ year gaming career, this is the first time where it does not feel like a gimmick.

VR has a lot more practical applications in gaming than AR. But yes, AR has more real world applications. Sony and MS will focus more on VR than AR when it comes to gaming, and will likely just add AR to their VR headsets as time goes on.

VR will definitely be huge in gaming given time, and it doesn't even have to obstruct your vision. Once you have mixed reality in VR, you'll have the choice to see things in VR and in real life at the same time.

You're only half right. It's easily the most social online device, meaning in a way it excels at social gaming more than anything else. However, yes physical isolation is an issue today. But only today. Because once you can see real life and VR all at the same time in the same view, it will solve that issue, and even allow you to see your snacks and drinks or a table.

So it will not be an issue going forward.

There's far more than just tech demos. Plenty of full-fledged games to be had.

if you honestly thought this had any chance of being successful, you are kind of an idiot. it wont be any time soon. certainly not any time during the ps5/xbox 2 generation

No, I'd say it's starting.

I really dont get how you came to that conclusion...

Can you be more pacific Kali, I understood what navyguy21 is saying.

In short, VR itself is still in the infancy, nobody expected this would take off on the fly, the high price & entry level is just too much to ask for. As far as Augmented Reality he claims it'll be something new for next-gen, sorry but that's not gonna happened for another decades maybe.

Well let me put my thoughts in on it:

1) VR obstructs your vision - That's the whole point... ultimately its a monitor that ideally will be flush with your eyes/peripheral vision... taking away all other elements its just another TV ... when perfected, that has done its job. Its about that immersion... that escape from reality.

2) Again, I don't see how this is a problem, visual input that follows my head and eyes is enough for many kinds of games. I appreciate in a multiplayer setting less so... but local multiplayer is half-dead anyway.

3) Augmented Reality has been talked about and usable for DONKEYS YEARS... even when trying to make it more than silly little 3d objects popping up you need a headset (Microsoft's for example)... ofcourse, if you can get that down to glasses side for practical non-gaming things great.

4) I don't see them doing AR next gen because you can do that off your phone and nobody does, because AR implementations are limited to hell and back, and have been since thier conception.. again without a headset.

Both suffer from similar problems... you need a heavy duty piece of equipment to get the most out of either. One is more group friendly, the other is the ultimate solo-immersion.

One does not cancel out the other, we are more likely to see hybrids. But currently? VR is far more useful to GAMING than AR.

This is very true. The problem with AR games is that they have to be very restrictive in scope. All 1st person movement must happen with your own body, you cannot artificially move. This means there can never be racing AR games (without a real physical vehicle) or the ability to jump really high, or float in zero gravity.

The other thing with AR is the actual world itself. With AR, you're going to have to either go miniature style and have a scrolling world on a tabletop or have a large world overlayed into real life. The first will be really neat for a Diablo style game for example, and the second will be great for ARMMOs, ARFPS games and such, but it does mean that developers can do longer hand-craft a world for you to explore which is going to limit the scope of the game and make it feel more shallow. The game world in AR must be procedurally generated or miniature size.

It will be really really cool to fight a huge boss out in an open field, being able to move around with my own body, but the game world really does become difficult to convey, and you cannot overlay combat zones into a town or right outside buildings as that would be a PR disaster and be banned. You could actually fight a huge boss out in an open world with VR and be inside a full virtual world at the same time with real world outlines displayed so you don't bump into things; that would be an even greater step up from AR open-field fights.

So AR will have it's uses for gaming, for sure. But people will generally sway more towards VR for gaming because you can do a lot more with it.

Thanks for the explanation Kali :)

AR isn't something next-gen will focus on, just too many problems despite MS has HoloLens, it isn't meant for gaming. VR on the other hand is just easy to use and set up, it's just too expensive at the moment until it becomes feasible in the future.

@blueberry_bandit: I'm aware there are some games on the device, such as Resident Evil, but do people seriously want to buy VR for a limited selection of decent games over hardware that gamer's already own / such games run superior on? I think there's a far limited group of people that would say "yes" to that question. Any other "game" looks like visual poo and not your AAA game that consumers have a different standard for. VR might just be ahead of its time, and for all the unflattering reasons that isn't making people go crazy for them.

These games do not look like 'visual poo'

Yes, it's true that right now, in comparison to a console, the VR library is lacking. But to say it's just tech demos is definitely untrue. The lineup for upcoming VR games will fix the AAA library issue as long as they are received well.

not only that, but the price is not friendly to your average consumers.

I’m not at all surprised with this myself. I don’t care how cheap the VR units get or how good the games on them are I simply am not interested in playing my games like that. It’s cool for about 10 or 15 minutes but when I want to just sit down and play a game I want to do it with just a regular controlled and a tv screen in front of me.

@blueberry_bandit: I think the AAA lineup is imminent, however there is a mass imbalance as it currently stands, most offerings look and feel like tech demos. Of those titles you listed, can you say any of those will be strong enough to actually sell VR to the common consumer? I think not, because price tag now steps in the way and most consumers will not be willing to buy VR for just a few walking-simulator style games with some decent games in the mix, and a bunch of tech demo experiences. I know some VR games look pretty decent but are they now compelling in the gameplay department or are they limited and mostly serve the purpose of looking around and being immersed?

I can say first hand that Lone Echo along with it's multiplayer is much more than just immersion. It's an entirely new way of playing, because it's movement mechanics have never been done before, and that changes everything. It's basically a whole new genre. Then there are other huge gamechangers for game play itself.

Take a look at these two gifs and see for yourself that there are games out there completely redefining entire genres.

Sure, those examples are indie, but I have previously mentioned some AA/AAA games.

Let me put it this way: researchers like myself use VR. For this reason alone, the tech will continue to evolve and improve regardless of sales. Those of us who beta test it for entertainment might get a rougher product than if we waited 10 years, but life's too short. You can join us in a decade if you want

@blueberry_bandit: Like I said before, I think AAA experiences are going to be imminent, and perhaps we're already beginning to see some slip through the crevices of all the demo experiences. But at what point are we going to see mass consumers on board with actually buying these things?

I think what VR suffers from the most, is the fact most people are compelled enough to try them out. Most people are down to try them on if they're on display at a store to experience the novelty, but most people are not compelled enough to buy them. I think that's a big problem that VR is facing. Most people are aware of this innovation and totally down to try it, but the rate which people actually buy them are not quite as hot.

I think this problem extends well beyond the game library. There are problems with the price tag, and there are problems with these devices feeling clunky. There is a lot of work these devices still need to go through before anyone considers these as substantial purchases over already established platforms with established AAA experiences that PC, Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo offer.

Oculus Quest is going to address one of the main hurdles of VR, system dependency.

Mass adoption will take another 5+ years still. Once the headsets are wireless and smaller with at least 4K per eye with a wider FoV, depth of focus support, full body tracking with eyes, facial expressions, and hands, as well as mixed reality support and foveated rendering, then they will take off.

The price will not be much of a barrier at that point as most people won't have a problem spending $400+ for the headset after they try it with those specs.

A few years after that, those same specs will be available in an all-in-one headset, at which point VR should have no trouble selling just as well as game consoles do.

Poorly written dumb article. I'd say VR is only beginning.

I never expected it to take off big time this early, anyone who did is an idiot or hasn't paid attention to previous tech releases. It will take a few gens of refinement before it becomes mainstream. The applications and entertainment value of VR is too big for it to die.

Wasn't Astrobot just released and received really well?

Anyway I think VR had some difficulties I didn't expect when OR was first hyped. Mainly locomotion. I played Doom VR at a friend's and that teleportation is some BS. Standard Doom is just soo much more fun.

Secondly I thought it would be easier to port games to VR. But because of locomotion (and other factors) you really need to build the game from the ground up for VR. This is a huuuge problem when it comes to building the VR library.

The third thing I didn't expect is how exhausting VR is to play compared to normal gaming. That's because you are so much more into it, which on paper is a good thing. Still it's not really that great of a "home from work"-kind of activity.

I def overhyped VR. I still think it may be big. But needs another decade I think (no cords would also be a huge plus).

Never understood why AR would be better than VR for gaming. For the military and medicine, sure as soldiers and doctors operate in the actual world. But a big part of gaming is to explore virtual worlds. Why would I wanna see my living room when I do that? Nothing wrong with my living room, but it's not exactly Narnia :).

The problem with aa experiences is that there are not enough consumers to make it interesting for the developpers, on the other hand, it's not that difficult to port existing or new pancake games to vr.

and we already have skyrim and fallout, some new games seem to have support for vr (like rdr2) , so we are getting games, it could be more sure, but i'm really not waiting for a new game that much,

what I'm waiting for are those multifocal lenses, the accomodation conflict is as real as it gets, and I don't feel comfortable fucking with my eyes on a regular basis.

So in the meantime, I play my vr headset now and then, but not too much, certainly not as much as I would like too, till that rift 2 releases.

The biggest hurdle at least on PC is the fragmentation of the VR platforms with Oculus locking content to their headset and each headset having their own ecosystems. This also directly ties into the cost because after spending all that money we could still miss out on VR games.

There should be a standard in place for both developers and consumers. Right now it's a mess.

When Sony goes all in with PSVR2 integrated into the PS5 is it going to turn out like the kinect did for XB1?

@uninspiredcup

the 'wire problem' is going away next year with the latest versions of VR. its already in production phase I believe

I would not qualify having only two vendors as a 'mess'

Having VR myself I have two problems

1. wires and set up when I want to play vs when I dont want to VR.

2. game selection is not deep

both are being solved next year

No one wants to wear that dumb head gear.

I'd give it a decade. A lot of the problems will have been alleviated and hardware will be powerful enough for it. VR has way too much potential to die off, it's game changing.

It'll end up just like 3D TV's..........

Only people who say 'nobody wants to' is that a problem given fashion concerns.

Its really not a big deal, its a friggin video game 'nobody' cares what you look like when you are playing a god damn game

Its very expensive on PC, and cheaper on PS4 however its still an extra piece if kit that costs £300 or more.

Extras like this never seen to do well.

Only it might work is if its packed in with consoles and all the games are made for it.

Surprises me that so many gamers are big enough conservatist morons to not see this. VR has barely even started. In no way in hell is it stopping.