Why VR Games Still Haven't Taken Off

In my very limited experience, the main things I greatly enjoy in VR are:

  * social interaction
  * games that are improved by deep immersion, like horror games.

For social interaction, our tools are getting better every day. VRChat and its similars really are very, very good. A very real downside of it, though, is just how much money you need to spend to get "everything working".

At every stage, you'll want to spend more money on it, it feels like.

  * Get the headset on? The arms work, but the legs don't. 
  * Buy hip and leg trackers. Now it can't show what you're looking at - 
  * gotta buy eye-tracking, but eye-tracking is rare and only exists on like 2 headsets and their support is spotty at best. (Honestly, I think the PSVR2 would FLY off the shelves for a bit if they unlocked its best features for PC).
  * Buy face tracking, because people can't tell that you're grinning or making a face at them. - Oh, but that requires attaching something to your existing headset that might be custom or an additional fee because none of the headsets do this well by default.
  * buy a better computer to support all that

In the end, each of those steps is __several__ hundred dollars, and some of them require swapping out major parts of your machine for deeper and deeper immersion in the social world.

I don't think it's a content issue as much as a comfort issue. Literally everyone I know who bought a VR headset, high-end or low-end, has said more or less the same thing: It's impressive, but it starts to hurt after an hour or so. Hard to get and stay immersed when you're in physical discomfort.

I don't know. Author complains devs are targeting "hard core" game culture with violent games. But my instinct is that only "hard core" gamers are going to want to stick a thing on their head (that they had to pony up large amounts of dosh for, BTW).

I also believe in The Market. With the number of years VR headsets have been one the market I am quite confident no one somehow missed a lucrative genre. I see a lot of people projecting that they wish VR were the Next Big Thing, but they seem unable to wish it into reality.

Author mentions Beat Saber which would seem to contradict the argument that VR is focused on hyper violent games. Is VR taking off now or not?

My sense is that VR will always be a niche thing — maybe akin to 3D movies, TV. Or like Guitar Hero a (much more expensive) fad.

I think there's a much simpler explanation here, one that covers all of the other failed stereoscopic 3D products: It's a cool novelty effect, but people's brains are already pretty good at reconstructing 3D from 2D, so there's little lasting value. Once the novelty wears off, most people stop caring.

I believe that explanation also covers the Brewster Stereoscope (500k units sold in the 1850s), the ViewMaster (the US DOD bought 100k units alone as part of the future of education), the 1950s wave of 3D movies, the 1990s wave of VR, the 2010s wave of 3D movies, and the rapid rise and fall of 3D TV.

It also covers my experience every time I try this stuff. A while back I rented an Oculus Quest. For the first week, everybody was super into it, and I really loved some of the games. By the end of the second week, nobody even noticed when I mailed it back; we had all returned to playing games on Switches and the consoles.

I think the reason we keep having this problem is that a mixture of the concept (3D is obviously better that 2D, right?) plus the wow from a novelty experience suffices to attract investor money. This time, gobs and gobs of it.

Beat Saber and Walkabout Mini Golf are hardly "hyper-realistic and violent immersive games" and there are no shortage of other extremely popular (within the market) titles along those lines.

VR gaming faces a low ceiling because (a) VR headsets present a challenge to how our eyes, neck, and proprioceptive systems are accustomed to working and induce a associated fatigue, and (b) VR gaming is more isolating than any other kind of gaming. You disconnect entirely from your surroundings, which is fun as a novelty, but is an "all-in" activity that you can't semi-attentively engage in like you might a portable/mobile game, TV game, a PC game.

Weak article. Rehash of VR history from other articles. Then author's guesses.

For a good overview of VR today, see Phia's "The Virtual Reality Show."[1] There really are "VR natives", and she is one of them. She's tried almost all the available hardware and environments, including full body and face tracking, and even the omnidirectional treadmills. She's very critical of flaws in hardware and software. Cost is a big issue. The headset isn't all you need. For real immersion, you need face, eye, and body trackers and controllers, all of which cost extra. The good ones aren't cheap. The cheap ones aren't good. She posts videos of her live self and her VR self side by side so you can check the tracking quality.

All this gear provides good social VR immersion if you're in good shape, have good balance, a mobile face, an extroverted personality, a sizable hardware budget, plenty of free time, and an interest in virtual worlds. That's a niche.

Watching Phia does show that except for cost, weight, and complexity, VR does currently work. The original article claims it doesn't, but that probably reflects too much attention to Facebook/Meta's rather weak system.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/@TheVirtualRealityShow

There is some irony in one of the largest companies in the world changing their name to Meta; and hordes of people preaching about the metaverse and the brilliance of Neal Stephenson and Snowcrash and then all at the end of the day paying basically no attention to the part of the book where he explains the thing that made the meta verse popular in universe (it was high fidelity facial expression copying).

I bought a Valve VR headset just to play Half Life Alyx. It was beyond awesome. My son and my wife also played it and also thought it was very, very cool.

I played a few more games since then, nothing as good as HL-A (I haven't heard that anything is as good as that is...). My eyesight isn't great so I have to wear glasses inside. I only have one pair of glasses that fit okay. Getting focus on glasses + lenses + adjustment takes time. The eyes do get strained after 45-60 minutes and I get a little nauseous, so that limits my enjoyment. If there was a way to use my feet to walk Ready Player One style that'd be really super awesome and might alleviate the disconnect between virtual and physical movement.

These days my son plays multiplayer shooter games and occasional multiplayer sword fighting. He seems to enjoy it, especially the social aspect of it.

Also, at parties the various visiting youth play, lots of Superhot playthroughs as it's so easy to get into casually.

This is anecdotal and the little boring, but... Your house/apartment situation. Some games can be played sitting, but many need some floor-space for a good experience.

The people who live in places with nice big room habitually empty of obstacles which they can monopolize for an hour are probably not the prime demographic for VR gaming escapism.

I keep telling myself I'll play one or two of the things in my Steam library once I finally finish a hardware project and clear some junk away...

I think the main point is not emphasized enough: VR is physically exhausting. Unless you are playing with stick control (which is nice but nauseating) you will be moving a lot, I am a big guy that can barely kneel and you expect me to do super soldier stuff? yeah, no

I find the best experiences for me are those that require less "getting your VR legs": puzzling places, zombieland or that kayak infiltration game. Of course everybody has different preferences, but to the author's point: not everyone wants (or can) play high intensity action games (which is what AAA focuses on).

As an aside: the other big one are sports games (usually racquet), playing ping pong or tennis feels realistic and its a good exercise.

It’s because the sets are expensive for something you can only use solo at home, mostly for video games.

Compare to the price of a Switch, which is portable (or the smartphone you already have…) or to a TV, which is usable by multiple people at once.

And then if you still get one, gaming alone at home in a way that’s more isolating than the stereotypical nerd basement gaming dungeon, while also forcing you to worry about the environment around you so you don’t bump into things or people, turns out to suck. A lot.

So even if you get a headset, good odds you won’t use it much.

That’s putting aside discomfort or motion sickness.

I am not a gamer but was absolutely fascinated by a VR game on Oculus GO that I can't even find anymore.

In the game, I was essentially a metal sphere that could "jump" and float through a huge maze. It was a puzzle game.

Tried a ton of games on more modern headsets and never got into them. Zombie games, shooters, sims, etc - nothing came even close to the fascinating experience of that colossal maze.

So in my view, VR games have moved in the wrong direction. From games that explored the new opportunities VR offered to trying -- and failing -- to match the console game experience.

This opinion feels like the age-old gaming divide between high-fidelity graphics in games and simply creating an enjoyable experience. Some believe that a AAA game today needs to have the most stunning visuals to be a game worthy of playing with others focusing more on the mechanics and how rewarding it is to play a game.

I think while this touches on something I don't think immersion and embodiment are mutually exclusive.

Have VR headset from almost of the original, was not part of the kickstarter, but got the first on (Rift?), and have now Quest 3 and Apple Vision Pro. Also tried PSVR1/2 but returned them.

The only reason I would use Quest 3 only for fitness. I actually very like it, really entertaining, and keeps you motivated.

The only reason I would use AVP just to see new Apple TV Shows (Immersive) which are only 5-6 minutes long, and watch videos/photos in Spatial format, that really give me some emotions. I have tried to use it as external display, hard to compete with setup of 2 5K/6K monitors. Also, it is so easy to get out of the Mac, and come back without putting headset on. Sure, you can walk with the headset, but why would you.

What I really like right now is Meta AI glasses. I can snap a photo of my dogs on the walk, without taking my phone out, I can talk to AI while visiting museum without trying to get through the crowd to the sign. That device really amazed me. And it just a simple sunglasses, with being a bit more annoying, just because they weight a bit more, only after 3-4 hours I start noticing them on my nose.

My son is an anomaly and loves, loves VR (Oculus Quest 2). He'll play Ghost of Tabor all day long if he can. He played Compound a ton, played the hell out of Boneworks during the pandemic, and generally just loves it more than regular 2D games. However, it is hard to get anyone to play with him, which limits his enjoyment. A big part is that when he played a ton of Boneworks during the pandemic, he pushed beyond his VR sickness and was able to build up a hell of a tolerance and so nothing phases him in VR anymore. By far it is his favorite form of entertainment and it sucks that it hasn't taken off more.

It certainly limits my enjoyment, because I don't have the time to build up the tolerance and I can go max 30m, whereas he can go 3+ hours easy.

I do admit though, that played even the limited amount I have has somewhat ruined the 2d experience of games for me - VR is just so much more visceral!

I think it simply comes down to price and the fractured VR market. Be it Rift CV1, HTC Vive, Index, PSVR2, QuestPro or Quest3, they just straight up put the price too high for the average gamer. $500 or more just doesn't work with technology that is as unfinished as the current VR devices are. Quest2 is the one device that sold well, thanks to it's $300 price tag, though even there Meta couldn't hesitate to mess it up the momentum with a short lived price increase.

The other issue is just the amount of incompatible VR ecosystems out there, Cardboard, Daydream, PSVR1, PSVR2, Rift, Go, Quest are all separate system with little or no compatibility. That means you constantly end up with good content that only a fraction of the VR market can access, which is a huge problem when VR is already short on content.

Finally, VR never managed to integrate with the rest of the gaming world. Ports of regular games into VR were actively discouraged in the early days and only a few of them ever happened. That meant the whole promise of VR allowing you to "step into your games" fell flat very early on. None of your favorite games could be revisited in VR, instead you where stuck with a lot low budget indie tech demos. Lately that has been changing with UEVR, which allows to mod VR support into Unreal Engine games, but that still is just an unofficial hack, not a feature embraced by any of the VR companies.

There is of course also the big "motion sickness" bogeyman in the corner and while that can certainly be an issue, most people just get used to it. I think the efforts to mitigate the issue (don't port games to VR, make everything slow and boring) have done far more damage to VR than they helped, since it simply means we are stuck with a whole lot of games in VR that simply can't compete with what's available in the world of non-VR gaming. That's kind of a big problem when VR was always supposed to be the "next-level" of gaming and yet it feels like a step backwards.

Until VR is as light and intrusive as a pair of normal glasses it will remain in the "Flight Simulator Cockpit Setup" realm of gaming.

IMO it's because too many VR games focus on the "VR" part of that phrase rather than the "game" part. Even Alyx, which is a good game, has some limitations. Most feel more like VR tech demos than real games

I think there are plenty of fun VR games. Beat Saber is quite entertaining. As is Walkabout Mini Golf. Both of those can keep me entertained for longer than makes sense.

Gran Turismo is also very fun. Though, honestly, the steering wheel kit will do more to build that experience than the VR headset.

I think the biggest thing killing VR for many otherwise great games, is that I really can't just walk around. Maybe if the "treadmill" options pan out, that can be solved. As things are, though, it is very jarring to have to pen yourself in, or to rely on controller for walking. Shame, as otherwise it works really well.

Anecdata, with a few exceptions, the VR games I tried were impressive as an experience, but not really all that fun once the novelty passed. The limitations of the format clash with the kinds of games that are being made so I often felt like the games were limited, or toy-like. I think the argument made by the article does hit on something about why VR isn't really getting accepted. The games are wrong: but they might be wrong because of the limitations vs expectations of the developers and audience.

The comfort issue is real too. Even with the fairly svelte PSVR2, it's annoying to wear those things.

Well, they canceled EchoVR which was by far my favorite. Also, the cheap plastic headband clips on my Oculus broke so I can't wear it any more because it's loose without them.

I bought the original kickstarter version of the oculus. I was very excited about the whole VR thing taking off. Ultimately though it was a very nauseating experience. It got so bad that the smell of the headset's cushion was enough to trigger nausea without even putting it on my face. I've heard the newer stuff is less nauseating but I don't want to know.

What is the point of the question being asked by the title, and why do things have to take off?

I think VR is super cool. Playing an hour of beatsaber, pistol whip, or superhot is tremendously entertaining. I also get why people aren't flocking to VR in droves. Compared to other forms of entertainment it's expensive, clunky, isolating, and potentially causes motion sickness. I don't believe in the metaverse / AVP future where your average person is going to work 40 hours a week with a headset on or whatever. My fear is that Meta is going to wake up to the fact that the returns for the billions of dollars per year they're burning trying to make Metaverse a thing are never going to materialize and then give up on the whole thing. Why can't VR just be a niche subdomain of the games industry?

If they just accepted it for what it is, VR could be a small but profitable business within Meta's portfolio or a profitable/sustainable spinoff.

Not sure what the author is getting at, VR gaming has taken off[1]. I assume the author means all of VR except provocative ones, and that indeed had not taken off, but non-provocative entertainment is just logical contradiction.

There's no way around including stimulating elements in making of entertainment content; contents lacking in those never take off, just as SIE's CONCORD had proven earlier this month. I am of the opinion that this has nothing to do with diversity or equity or inclusion as those words are defined despite how cheaply these terms are thrown around, to be clear. The problem has to be lack of avid and neutral pursuit of engineered enjoyment.

  1: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=VRChat,Boba%20tea,Beat%20Saber

Background: I spent a few years commercially designing and building VR and AR headsets.

Biggest challenge with VR is the design philosophy for headsets. No matter how much I and others pushed against it - many VR folk are intent on sticking all the hardware on people's heads and faces.

Instead, we need more walkman like designs, where the compute and batteries sit on a user's hip, and the tethered headset is as light as physically possible. Cables for tethering can be a pain, but not as much as putting 500+ grams on your face.

Light headsets are amazing, and yes, I've worn prototypes. Ideally, get headsets down to 80-100 grams and the experience is radically improved.

There are a few small companies pushing on the design, but not main stream enough.

I mean, AAA games for VR get a lot more hype because ... well, because that's a part of the spend, on marketing, etc.

But the vast majority of games (on Oculus at least) are very much casual games in the vein of Beat Saber, but they all suck and our Oculus has been gathering dust once the novelty of Beat Saber wore thin.

I don't think the article makes a compelling case for a "why". I'll take a shot at it -- it's a technological dead end. Maybe there are applications for AR once the technology matures, but VR is never going to be a holodeck. The movement-based mechanics of the Wii and the Kinect and whatever the Playstation crap was had a moment in the sun and then we all moved on because there was no killer app, just a bit of novelty.

Headsets are big and heavy. Now imagine that some outdated (hardware-wise) popular headsets like PSVR/PSVR2 are additionally attached to a cable which makes the experience even worse especially in dynamic games. I can't imagine going back to my wired headset, I would rather not use it at all. Another thing is VR needs some free space which is not available to everyone, however wireless headsets can at least partially help with this issue (you can take it outside or move to another room and play wirelessly either streaming from your PC or natively on Quest).

There's really cool / chill experiences on PCVR like a kayak game, but I can't spend money on a PCVR only headset. I have a Quest 3 and it's such a hassle to set up Oculus Link on top of the PC running - that I end up playing Quest games only.

Which is where I am a bit mystified by the article's claim of "hyper realistic" games. Even on PCVR the quality of PC VR games in general is quite low. We're a far cry from hyper realistic experiences. Typically either the graphics suffer and you have smooth FPS or the graphics are great and you have bad FPS, or you are a rich person that owns an RTX 4090 etc.

For me it's only a matter of a few more years. Most games on Quest atm to me look like cheap mobile games. I hate those low poly / untextured styled games with a passion.

The author perhaps does not understand that to make truly immersive, relaxing experiences in VR you need a LOT more power. There 's nothing very relaxing about being in a forest made of low poly trees, shitty looking water and distant scenery that looks blurry AF.

Even on YouTube at the best quality I can find, there is hardly anything truly relaxing or immersive. Take a random video of the Grand Canyon in VR and everything in the distance is just flat.

Colours is also a huge problem. Watch a VR video of someone walking on the beach : the sky is blue yes but a weird half light blue that is nowhere near anything like the kind of brightness of the real sky. It's all deadened and flat.

The technology just isn't there. So right now, violent, in your face action is where VR shines. Typically anything that moves, and anything that comes close to the camera gives a much better sense of immersion. I find myself often times almost putting my nose to everything because it's when things are up close that you get that sense of 3D the most. Anything taht is even a couple meters away becomes flat and featureless.

Anyway I could just rant on and on. VR is great. The kind of games that currently do well on it do so for a reason. I'd love to just travel in VR, to be immersed on some remote island, basking in the sun, or to listen to the crickets and watch the starry sky.. all those things currently are awful experiences in VR due to the technical limitations.

VR is interesting; we think we want VR, and we probably do, but this is like saying we wanted airliners before we actually had the technology to build one. Most recent VR headsets feel, relatively speaking, like those crazy early flying contraptions that simply couldn't deliver on the promise. At best, the state of the art is equivalent to the Wright Flyer - amazing demo, not quite ready for mass adoption.

Until VR headsets provide a seamless, pleasant experience, they will remain in the hands of early adopters and enthusiasts.

The last thing I want to do after working all day is to come home and put on a headset and be disorientated. That isn't my idea of fun, or entertainment and there are many people who feel the same way I do. There isn't a single thing any of the tech companies could do, or not do, to make me a VR or AR user. I don't care how realistic it is, how lightweight the headset is, or how well the tracking works. I just don't want to put on a headset, and I never will.

> Striking a box releases a note in the accompanying song, resulting in an experience that is half playing an instrument, and half dance.

I get the feeling the author has never actually played Beat Saber.

But I do agree it's a great example of a VR game that's accessible and fun, and that you can play for hours.

All this and no mention of Eleven Table Tennis. If you’re a fan of table tennis and you have a Quest, you should try this game. It’s fantastic. The controller is about the same weight as a table tennis racquet and it’s great practice.

I wanted to love VR and bought an early unit.

VR felt like it would be the ultimate gaming experience.

Sadly it gave me a headache, made me feel sick and was a real hassle to set up and make happen.

There’s too many competing forms of entertainment without even one of these problems.

wow one billon people trying VR by 2027, would that even happen if they gave away headsets for free? I get that it’s a lofty moonshot goal, not a real goal, but still!

Until they solve the vertigo issue it's a non-starter for me and several of my friends who would otherwise be the target market.

I can't stand wearing regular glasses, imagine that bulky thing...

I always think of Tom Hall's quote from early id days.

"No one wants to strap shit to their face."

Yeah.

I don't want to spend my life in VR, that simple.

CTRL-F Alyx… no? Ok, I’ll just skip this comment section then.