IS VR Worth It?

[Sakkura]

19 hours ago, Frankenburger said:

Right now, VR is more of a novelty than anything else. Hardware aside, VR still has a lot of hurdles that need to be addressed. Control scheme and game design are the two biggest drawbacks right now. IMHO, triple monitor setups are almost just as immersive as VR if set up properly, has a lot less technical drawbacks, and works with more games that might hold your interest.

Triple monitor does not even begin to approach anything like what VR is. It's fundamentally and hugely different.

[trufret]

Best analogy I've been able to come up with to describe the difference between VR and a monitor.

 

A monitor (or 3) is like looking at a forest through a window in your house with 1 eye closed.

There is no real depth perception for objects

The image is very clear

you can pick out fine details

it's obviously just a window into another world as you still see your room and furniture while looking out the window

no matter how hard to try to enter the world you always hit the glass

 

VR is like leaving your house and going for a walk in the forest with a mosquito net on your head.

The world looks a little blurry

you can see the lines of the netting

you are in the world and it's everywhere you look.

you can perceive and judge the size and distance to objects just like you can in the real world

 

With time, the VR HMDs and GPUs will get better and the blurriness and screen door will be reduced to a point where you won't notice them.

With a monitor, no matter how high the resolution or how high the frame rate you are only ever gong to be looking through a window into a world you can never get to.

 

There are many games where VR is a novelty. Playing a boardgame in a virtual room can be a neat experience but it's secondary to playing the actual boardgame. 

 

There are other games like the simulation type games I've mentioned as well as other first person perspective games like Onward, Budget cuts, Talos etc.. where it changes the experience in very visceral and undeniable ways.

 

You kind of have to look at any given game and decide, Would this game be a lot better if I was were in that world instead of just looking at it?

[Sakkura]

34 minutes ago, trufret said:

Best analogy I've been able to come up with to describe the difference between VR and a monitor.

It's a pretty good analogy for what you see. But it doesn't address input. With VR, you can have input methods that are almost completely natural, while flat games will always have some kind of artificial input.

[trufret]

15 minutes ago, Sakkura said:

It's a pretty good analogy for what you see. But it doesn't address input. With VR, you can have input methods that are almost completely natural, while flat games will always have some kind of artificial input.

That's true.

Most of the games I use VR for also require a Wheel or HOTAS to get the most out of.

The tracked controllers (when implemented well) do add a lot of intuitiveness to in game interaction but i'm really looking forward to something like the Dexmo exoskeleton gloves which impart physical resistance on your fingers to allow you to feel the virtual objects shape and firmness. If they could combine that with some haptics on the finger tips and palms, that would be a giant immersion leap.

[Jtalk4456]

On 2/23/2018 at 8:02 AM, Oshino Shinobu said:

I was talking about today's situation. Back when I had my DK2, there was basically nothing at all. It's definitely better now, but there's hardly any full fledged content, most of it is still just trying to explore what can be done with VR. 

 

If you look at most of the major gaming Youtube channels, they're not putting out any VR content, and when asked, they tend to say that they've played all of the titles that are worth playing and once you've played it a few times, you get bored of it. 

 

Don't really expect there to be 50 hour games yet, but there's hardly any that really last more than an hour or two at this point (excluding games that have a VR conversion, most of which don't really work too well). There's quite a lot of games that don't really have a play time as there's no objective other than to just mess around in VR, or wave based shooting type games that don't really have an end. 

 

While there's certainly more content than when I had my DK2, I still feel like you're going to get bored of it after a few months and basically stop using it. Still, there's quite a lot of resale value with VR headsets, so you can just sell it at that point. I hardly lost any money from my DK2 as I bought it used and sold it on for only a little less than I bought it for. 

I'd have to disagree with you on the youtuber part. I've seen several of the main youtube gamers get heavy into VR. Jacksepticeye and Markiplier have both gone into VR and had great experiences. Seeing them play has been one of the main reasons I want to get in and experience it myself. I have a psvr coming in the mail right now, though later on i am building my own computer and i'm getting a vive for that. 

[Totallycasual]

I think the only stuff that would make me want a VR headset is the ability to virtually tour places that i couldn't otherwise go to, places of historical significance, worlds best museums, tombs in Egypt, cave paintings in France.  I know that some of these places are already being worked on, i look forward to being able to walk around them in VR 

 

I cant see the average consumer being into it though. 

[Frankenburger]

13 hours ago, Sakkura said:

It's fundamentally and hugely different.

I never said it wasn't. All I'm saying is that triple monitor setups are fairly immersive when set up right, have less technical drawbacks, and doesn't need games tailored specifically for them. As someone who's owned a triple monitor setup in the past, and the owner of an Oculus Rift, more of my time was spent playing on a triple monitor setup than with my VR headset, and I personally had more enjoyment out of said triple monitor setup.