I own and have used the first devkit extensivly, and to those how think this is a fad comparable to the Wii: you have not tried a Rift, have you?
There is something about this tech. I find that I *prefer* to play games with it if I can. Lunar Lander, Halft-Life 2, Team Fortress 2 and several demos from the very active Rift demo scene illustrate that this is not just about space sims, this is about immersion. Immersion does not require new controls.
Your sense of presence with the Rift can be mind boggeling, especially after playing for extended periods of time. Sometimes after Halft Life 2, I feel like I have actually been to City 17. Running away from the helicopter, looking behind you, going through Ravenholm... just wow.
This is very much *unlike* motion controls, which people tend to put away quickly. When using my devkit for games, I want MORE of that. I never wanted more motion controls on the Wii, because it was in the long run underwhelming and unsatisfying. The Rift is a very different animal.
I agree with the journalist here that it's all about games. This is as true for the Rift as it is for the PS Vita og Xbox One. But here is the thing: VR support does not have to be super hard to add. Make note that Unreal Engine 4 has Rift support built in, and that it is very easy to integrate in Unity3D. Games made speciafically for VR will likely be the best ones for VR, but that does not mean that VR cannot easily factor into a developers work on a game. Much more so than motion controls.
Also, it really appears that many developers (including Valve) want to support the Rift the moment thye pick it up. It's like gut reaction.
I think VR will be a great presence in gaming, and find it very unlikely to be a fad, unless the media gives it a bad reputation by being overly negative. VR will be cheap, amazing and have game support simply on the basis of it now being massivly supported, easy to implement and appealing for gamers to use.
I've used the Rift for hundreds of hours, and cannot wait for DK2. You should be exited to. This is the first project hat genuinly gives consumers something new, aka. the *next* generation, and might be the tech that drives graphics and gamplay forwards over the next ten years.
Interesting, though I wonder sometimes if not most of these studies show associations more than causality. Rather than saying that people play moderate amounts of games are above average socially because they play games, perhaps social people play games. Many games are made with social features because that is what people want.
But does anyone know of studies of the effect of violent games on kids with violent behavior though? It's beyond question by now that games are not harmful to the average person, but perhaps some sub-populations are influenced negatively.
(What I find most interesting is the neurological outcomes of playing games - especially the multitasking, competitive ones, like the research on StarCraft that has been done - actually makes me want to learn that well... (: ).
knutsi's comments