Re: VR still on the rise?

On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 16:07:02 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
wrote:

The Oculous my daughter still plays Beat Saber off and on, I think I
fired it up once last month.
>
It's still got a long way to go tech and game wise.  It doesn't really
work well for interacting with anything that has solidity.  Swing a
sword - your character does it as fast as you do, and you can blenderize
NPCs, and your hand/ weapon just passes through or slides across.
>
I suppose it works better for ranged FPS, but moving around is
disconcerting and unnatural compared to kbm or PC controller.
>
It's getting better, but it'll probably be another 10 years until until
it's tried again, and I still don't see it being miniturized enough
then.  Maybe in 20.  If I make it to 75 maybe I'll see good VR.
>
On the other hand there's too many people it doesn't work well for - me
with vertigo, and motion sickness, people who don't have true 3d vision
doesn't do anything for etc.

For me, the biggest reasons I never purchased a VR device are
a) price
b) compatibility/control

Price is the big one (and given my looseness with my games and
hardware purchases, may surprise you that it's something I balk at).
But it's not so much an affordability issue as a "will I actually use
this thing after I buy it". If it's cheap enough (or I've confidence
that it will get some use), I'll throw down cash. I'll pop $50 for a
game even if I assume it'll only get a single play-through. I'll drop
$700 on a video-card because I figure it'll get used for several
years.

I've no confidence with VR in either case. Every time I've used one, I
walked away feeling it's a gimmick, and that if I purchased one, it
would quickly end up on a shelf next to my SteamLink or joystick-
with-HOTAS or any of the other nonsense gaming hardware I've
accumulated. But even THEN I'd buy one if the price wasn't so
outrageous. I'd get a Valve Index if it were under $50 USD. But a full
kit-out is $1000 and that's just a bit much for a gimcrack
dust-collector. And I think that's a major consideration for most
users, especially since you also need a powerful PC to get the maximum
result. Get a capable device down to the price of a game, and everyone
will buy one. But when even the cheapest, shittiest Meta headset costs
upwards of $300, it's not going to catch on.



Which brings me to the second problem: compatibility issues and who
controls the back-end. For instance, while I may not be in the
majority in this, I _absolutely_ won't have anything to do with
Facebook, so that rules out the Meta Quest/Oculus lines. I wouldn't be
much happier with a Sony PSVR device, since (even though there are
hacks) its largely restricted to Playstation games. I don't want to be
limited to Apple's AppStore selections either. Make the head-set a
'dumb' device that I can use with my current library, not requiring
any specific account or hardware, and I'm a lot more open to the idea
of VR. Create a usable API that all software developers can
incorporate so I don't have to pick-and-choose headsets based on which
games and apps are available. Then I'll suddenly show more interest.
But this current mess of silo'd off software? I'm not touching that
mess with a ten-foot pole.


Notice what I didn't put on the list as all that important to me? HOW
WELL IT WORKS. As I've indicated, right now, I don't think VR works
that well. It doesn't really solve a problem and it comes with a lot
of downsides. But I'd buy a device despite all that just for the
novelty and in hopes of encouraging hardware- and software-developers
to keep working at the problem. I'm not against adding another gimmick
to my collection. I just don't want to pay a premium for it.

So yeah, I'd get a VR headset even though I know its uncomfortable to
use for long periods, scarily isolates me from the world, doesn't
offer up as-sharp visuals, and works poorly with my fucked-up eyes.
I'd still get one despite all that. _If_ the price were right, and I
could use it confidently with my existing library of games.