I picked up a PSVR2 at launch. A couple of friends popped over to check it out with me. We decided to give Resident Evil Village a go. The graphics, comfort, ease-of-setup, all astounding.
What really blew us away though, was the haptic feedback on the controllers. There's this one bit at the beginning where an on-screen indicators beckons you to grab and slide out a drawer. The feedback in the (move controllers?) I think they are called manage to simulate actual resistance/friction. Everyone took turns opening and closing the very same drawer, in awe. We then put it away and watched some YouTube. I might try openy closy again on the weekend.
Great - I keep meaning to come back to it. The shooting range and weapon mechanics, the crazy graphics. Completely worth the purchase. The game is extremely stressful and draining when the going gets tough, though in a good way. I just haven't managed to give it enough time yet. I've tried a few other titles, so far I think this is the most technically impressive one I've played thus far.
If you like gaming, this is a very well done article about a lot of indie games. The headline of the Decks being everywhere is a later section of the overall article, which is mostly about the games.
Sounds like a very fun convention, and I'm definitely going to try and check out some of the games. Exciting time for small studio development.
What I would love to see, is a very focused "how to make your own games on Steam Deck" book/video/whatever. I know my kids are interested in making some games, but have no idea where to start. Having a very basic primer to get it up on the Deck would be amazing.
> What I would love to see, is a very focused "how to make your own games on Steam Deck" book/video/whatever. I know my kids are interested in making some games, but have no idea where to start. Having a very basic primer to get it up on the Deck would be amazing.
Short summary: The Deck is a Linux computer. Get SSH running on it, compile your game for Linux, copy over the files and run it. Out of the various console SDKs, Deck is probably the easiest for indies to get started on, as it's just another computer.
>Out of the various console SDKs, Desk is probably the easiest
Understatement of the year. For most "consoles" (switch, PS5, xbox) you practically need to have an incorporated legal entity to even begin to do anything. I looked briefly at the process for getting started on the Switch, and it seemed to me like they either wanted you to already have a relationship with them (an existing studio) or have an already-completed game that you can show them you want to port. THEN you can enter into contracts for development-capable Switch hardware and the SDKs and etc.
Meanwhile the "linux SDK" has been available for open download via http literally since I was born.
You don't even have to do any of this, you can compile for windows and use the SDK (once you've enabled developer mode in the steam deck settings and paired) (https://partner.steamgames.com/doc/steamdeck/loadgames) to add your packaged game as a new title. I've compiled and tested games from unreal 4 and Godot 3.something without issue using proton. Using the SDK vs ssh is really nice since it shows up in Steam automatically and updating is easy (just redeploy via the SDK). Be warned the SDK is windows only.
Scratch is "games for kids." They are very prescriptive and have guides - you know, lesson plans - for everything they can teach. Either it supports Steam Deck or it doesn't.
If they're 14+ Unity is realistic and is the same thing the pros use.
I haven't tried Unreal Engine for Fortnite but if they play it, it is probably the best option.
Minecraft, Bloons and Terraria modding is also pretty good.
You can give them a GPT4 sub and it seems to do a good job answering basic computing questions if this is going to be their first time e.g. installing a professional tool.
Again, I know a lot of these tools. And I'm willing to get my kid a unity account. I'm not seeing a solid guide for them, at the moment. Which is a little surprising, as I do agree all of the parts are there.
They are already making scratch games. Would be amazingly fun for them to run a game on the deck just like any other game. Not in a browser, which is how most of those games are executed.
I'm not sure what the guide would really be about? Take Unity, export as a Linux standalone game, transfer to the Steam Deck and run it, literally double-click on the executable and it'll run just like on a Linux computer.
I'm guessing the lack of guides for this specific thing is because it's trivial to do.
Any risks with letting the kids install these directly on the Deck? My preference would be to only let them load the games there, but it is a very soft preference.
That... doesn't give me too much confidence, then. I have a habit of wiping my computers and rebuilding from scratch every year or so. I don't want that habit with the deck. :(
shrug your games are on the cloud, your saves are on the cloud even. If you keep good backups of your non-Steam stuff, all you lose is an afternoon with a flash drive and the SteamOS ISO.
This is probably right for kids development, but if I was actually making a game I would probably target Proton rather than Linux. That way I have both Windows and Linux support very easily.
VRChat is still the gold standard of VR experiences.
VR is still a bit niche and only VRC actually offers an easy road to creating experiences - it's way easier to get novelty junkies on VRC to checkout a world than to try to sell or market a standalone experience. Probably easiest to just run a patreon at these levels than actually sell games, too.
To be honest, I'd say Beat Saber is the gold standard.
Not the immersive metaworld thing that is so popular in fiction, but a real fun game that is not just about being VR.
VRChat has, I think, a more limited demographic than Beat Saber, and it is probably not where the future of VR is. I mean, it is cool, and I think it is here to stay (or if it doesn't, it will be replaced by something similar), but like Second Life today, I don't think it has much room for growth.
I agree. I dove into the deep end with VRC in 2020 during lockdowns. I felt like I lived and died in an entirely different life. The splash still ripples through my life today.
Yes it is - the majority of the content is not accessible with quest and also it only allows you in quest worlds, which are full of children. You need to plug in your quest to a computer in order to experience the decent part
The gold standard is Blade and Sorcery and it's not even close. If you don't like the base game, try one of the thousands of mods. I turned mine into the single most "realistic" Star Wars game I could ever play.
I started with controller and moved to a projector & wheel for my setup, but after years of practice the sim was good enough that I eventually bought a rally car, assembled a rally team, and placed runner up to the eventual class national champion in a full stage rally my rookie year.
One of my favorite memories was having an "off" that debeaded and blew out a tire. While driving up to 60mph on the rim to finish the stage I thought "wow the sim was really spot on with this experience"
I sold the car after getting my ARA "pro" license though, they don't simulate how you have to light dollar bills on fire to fund your hobby, nor the very real risks of serious injury or death.
Had to jump on to my desktop and log in to hn to say thanks for this comment! Its (very subjectively) one of the coolest comments I've ever read on this site. I've often fantasized about doing something very similar. Spending tons of time in DiRT or Assetto Corsa and trying to use that in the real world. I've never actually succeeded but I feel like you've saved me from wondering "what if" too much. I'm still deeply jealous and seriously impressed by what you've done. Congrats!
Look into autocross, if you haven't before. It's probably the most accessible way to get a taste of time-trial racing in real life, and events are held all over the place -- basically anywhere there's a community and a free, empty parking lot. You just need a car (any car as long as it runs and is safe), a helmet (probably the most annoying part), and usually less than $100 for admission.
Had to jump on to my desktop and log in to hn to say thanks for this comment!... impressed by what you've done
Ha thanks, I have to say when I reflect on the experience it was about 10% "me" and 90% "others and the team". After towing the car home on faith that I would figure out the rest (my car maintenance experience was roughly changing tires and checking oil), I reconnected with a mentor who had decades of stage rally experience.
He ultimately invested tons of his time and effort into short-cutting me through many lessons and gotchas, even helping me rebuild the motor when it blew up before my 1st scheduled event. After awhile I called our rally team "God's Grace Rally Team" because the way it so quickly came together and succeeded so well in light of the many overcome issues was really a spiritual experience.
But yes, it can be done. Take that step of faith... reach out and ask for help too!
The only VR game that has had staying power among my friends is VTOL VR. VTOL is a combat flight sim based around near future jets and helicopters. This is where I see the greatest growth potential in VR, in simulators and stationary immersive experiences. Walking around is cumbersome and aiming with physical controllers doesn't feel as clean as M&K, but sitting in a cockpit and pushing buttons while the world flies around you at mach 2 feels amazing.
As a simulator nerd, the best experiences I've had has been with Microsoft Flight Simulator and various racing simulators (like Assetto Corsa). The experiences are so much better than I really don't play them anymore unless I use the VR headset together with the flight/driving controls as the experience is so different.
I've heard good things about Vertigo 2 and VTOL VR. Gorilla Tag was popular for a bit also, and Contractors has some fun basically total conversion mods recently, like a TF2 and Battlefront 2 gamemode. Into the Radius is nearing it's end of development as well. A couple others I've had fun with are are Dragon Fist, Until you Fall, Ragnarock and the Pixel Ripped games.
I liked the 2017 Rick and Morty game. It's rather short, iirc about two hours.
We often used to hang out at my old place with a few friends (often the first days of the year, but also some weekends), playing boardgames, cooking together and taking it slow. We played the game on two or three of these occasions and having one person do a full play through with the others watching/commenting on the TV worked incredibly well. Plus, spectators don't need to focus on the game. I think one time we did two play throughs back to back (different players, and I think the second one wasn't there for the first round). Though the living room at that place was huge and allowed for a 3x4m arena with only minor inconveniences. And of course if people loath R&M it's less funny I'm afraid (but still a very nice VR puzzler!).
As a VR enthusiast nothing has come close to the experience of Half Life Alyx (except maybe PavlovVR). Luckily it’s had a prolific modding scene to keep me going but really we need more like it.
No Man’s Sky had a VR update and I much prefer the game in VR to regular. It’s like a completely different game in VR and I am play it wildly different from keyboard and mouse.
VR is absolutely amazing. I don't really understand why it's not taking off in the mainstream. Especially with the low prices of quest or pico headsets.
Not that I really care, there's enough usecases where it adds value (eg simming) to support a cottage industry. And I'm not a trend follower anyway, I like to make my own choices. Most of the things I'm really into are very niche.
But it would be nice to see a bit more content for it.
VR games are immersive and exhausting, you kinda have to be “in the mood” for one, and it kinda works mostly if you’re living alone, as its just very socially awkward to do your vr thing while someone else is in the room.
I think that’s mostly because you are doing something physical (interesting) but nobody else is allowed to participate. Which can feel kinda rude.
Compare that to normal games which you can “relax to” at the end of your work day.
I love playing beat saber myself, one of the more “casual” games, but its always been weird with people around.
Its not a coincidence that the apple vision pitch was mostly “this is the best HD screen that you’ve seen you just put it on your head” with a lot less movement emphasis, and I think it has a bigger chance of “taking off” than the current gen of vr, hopefully.
During parties at my place my guests used to often play BeatSaber on HTC Vive. The video is mirrored to a TV screen at the table, audio is on. Colored smart lights connected to the tv provide mood lighting and react to what's happening in the game. We talk, drink, etc. and watch the person play in the background.
Of course players swap and compete against each other (there is an arcade mode for that).
I generally don't play games with someone else in the room because it feels a bit rude. I don't tend to hang out with people that want to watch someone else play a game. Is that an age thing?
I might use VR when someone else is in the house however. That's different.
Having friends over, ignoring them and playing a game sounds rude, unless they are into it. But even then, it would be more polite to let the guests play and the host watch.
Sharing a flat with a roommate and playing a game while they do their own thing in the same room is certainly not rude.
> I think that’s mostly because you are doing something physical (interesting) but nobody else is allowed to participate. Which can feel kinda rude.
That's a good point but it's just a limitation with current-gen tech. There's already headsets that can 'see' other players and incorporate them into the experience. Like the HTC Vive Focus 3. This is why those are used a lot for interactive experiences at trade shows etc. They are much more suitable than an Oculus Quest.
Sharing on an external screen (on a quest you can easily stream the output to any chromecast) is something I also do when I'm giving demonstrations.
I concur. My experience with VR dropped off as soon as my partner moved in. It was my digital tether to another world and it just doesn't feel right to do if you not alone, since for me (exclusively playing VRChat), you're socializing with a bunch of people in an open room and it just doesn't feel right with others around.
I've only had a tiny exposure to VR and it was all very nice, but disorientating and I had to be stood up whilst playing. I guess the disorientation is something you get used to, but if I want to relax and play a game, I want to be sat down which would also help with not having the usual balance cues due to the headset blocking sight.
Convenience is where the Steam Deck wins - the ability to hit the power button to put it to sleep almost instantly in the middle of a game and to then just pick it up later and carry on is really nice. I had stopped playing computer games as I found it difficult to allocate time to go and play on a PC, but am now getting back into playing games as I can just pick up the Deck, and be continuing a game within seconds. I guess it's a similar phenomenon as casual phone games, but applied to Steam games.
For VR to truly take off, I reckon it'll need the headset to shrink to being like a pair of glasses and the immersion will likely suffer, but the convenience factor is what'll win. In some ways I see it as being akin to 3D films - people would rather just watch a 2D film without needing special glasses as it's more convenient, though to be fair, 3D adds very little to the film watching experience in my opinion (story and acting performances are what makes a great film, not 3D CGI effects).
I liked the Quest Pro idea of having a solid gap between the screen and your face that you can see through, so you get to have some connection to reality. I bet it helps with motion sickness and cooling, as well as making it less disorienting to put on. Generally I think HMDs are great, but VR is only going to work for very specific game genres.
Seriously. I have a Quest 2, sidequest and all, and the selection of actually good stuff is incredibly minimal.
I have a big picture theory about all of this; the experience of "computer entertainment" is FAR MORE STRONGLY rooted in "other humans" than many geeks would believe, and VR (oddly) hasn't really done much significant at all in that space.
For me and the family and people I know, first the Wii, and later the Steam Deck (esp with Jackbox games, that brings MY parents into the fold, and I'm in my 40s) has been SIGNIFICANTLY more impactful than an individual putting on a headset.
I like VR a lot, but pretty much all my gaming time these days is to connect with friends. Most don't have VR and of the few who do we've tried to game together and the networking was so clunky that it was more frustrating than fun. The solo experiences can be really neat but I already live alone so if my choices are the more isolating activity or the activity I'll do with friends, I'm choosing the second every time. In practice this means good old PC fps games.
Oh yeah good point, I exclusively play single player games because I don't like multiplayer at all. I used to do some call of duty but the screaming kids annoyed me too much.
Oh yeah I do have a PC so my catalogue is a lot larger. I do play a lot of sims also (I used to pilot real planes also).
But the solitude of the current generation is just because most headsets can only support one player in the experience. Vive Focus 3 can do this pretty well already, I've done interactive experiences with many other people in the same space.
> I don't really understand why it's not taking off in the mainstream.
"Non-VR games, books, movies, music already get people deeply immersed without putting their head into a bucket" (Jonathan Blow in a recent stream). To me that pretty much sums it up. Your mileage may vary, but I don't think most people are actually waiting for that type of experience.
This point of view kind of assumes that all immersion is the same and so why bother adding this bizarre contraption to your face. But then why bother buying a TV and build your living room seating around it if you could just sit and read a book ? As more 3D 6DOF experiences are made possible and built there will be more usefulness in the extra immersion levels you get from putting your head into that bucket. Besides it should be more important what is going on inside your head than what is on it.
With a TV you can still grab the pop-corn bowl or talk to people around you. I think the immersion will make sense for people living on their own but even then it's too much immersion imo, so remains to be seen if Apple's version by allowing you to still interact with your environment will at least make the pop-corn bowl conundrum moot for these people. I can't see wearing this at all in a family/group environment (even the apple TV one).
It's amazing for about 15 minutes, then you start to feel the motion sickness, or the sweat starts to build up around the warm headset.
It's just not comfortable enough for prolonged use. As well as those issues, there's the discomfort of being so isolated from the world, especially if in a home/office with other people around. And other (more solveable) issues, such as text legibility.
The motion sickness really depends on the refresh rate (so currently on the price). Very much like with phones, the faster the display gets the fewer people will experience issues.
Games like I Expect You To Die expect the player to sit (as the game character does) with only camera movement coinciding exactly with the movement of player's head -- do not cause motion sickness (unless we go into low FPS as you say).
Games like Echo Arena where the entire time you are flying around (you see the environment moving around you) with no accompanying inner-ear sensation of movement, can cause instant motion sickness in some.
I get where you're coming from but "not a single game" is far from true. There's lots of games made strictly for VR, including great hits like BeatSaber.
Sure, but there's essentially nothing new or interesting about BeatSaber. It's the new DDR.
If anything, what's telling is that it's the only VR game I see getting significant traction*, which implies that VR might be a one off the way DDR was.
Anectodallish source, I teach at college where we have a public free "cool tech hub" with a bunch of VR headsets with a bunch of games that anyone can use. I'd say about 95% of the time anyone is doing vr, it's BeatSaber.
>I'd say about 95% of the time anyone is doing vr, it's BeatSaber.
This has more to do with Beat Saber being really fun, and well, CASUAL. The majority of people who play any kind of "video game" play candy crush remember.
Nobody is going to do a run through of HL:A or a flight or driving simulator in that kind of public "tech hub".
BeatSaber is Unity, Unity has GC (garbage collection = stutters) and even if they worked around it for such a simple game it doesn't matter.
On the other hand if you want a action MMO (something we never succeeded in doing yet, Planetside 2 was a latency fest) you need to go vanilla C/C++.
Engines make games economical (in zero interest rate times) but the value of the games is lower because nothing is invented, they are just copying the wheel.
I never buy Unity/Unreal games or non-multiplayer games.
> I never buy Unity/Unreal games or non-multiplayer games.
Well, of course that's a valid approach, but you do realize that most people playing games don't really care which engine something is developed in?
Even if this personal requirement of yours is true or not, "Not a single game is custom made for VR" couldn't be further from the truth, and the mainstream does not have anything close to those requirements. They simple buy and play games that look fun, regardless of engine.
> Engines make games economical (in zero interest rate times) but the value of the games is lower because nothing is invented, they are just copying the wheel.
Thats... a weird take.
lots of applications share 80% of their functionality and thus makes sense for there to be a shared codebase that engineers can start from to build their projects. thats the entire point of frameworks like ruby on rails or Django in web development. if you wanna go lower down, most people are using a library to interact with the gpu. either opengl or vulkan or metal.
Would you go as far as to say you won't play a game that wasn't built from scratch all the way to the metal?
I don't know if you have followed the numbers, but Steam is a massacre right now.
So many low quality Unity/Unreal copies that ruins peoples lives making them indebted because they think they will make it as indie by just pasting new content into the same engine.
Content is becoming over saturated. Yet another look/sound/storyline that nobody cares about. What we need is new engines.
Unity is pure madness, so bloated not even the Unity devs. know how to progress.
> So many crap Unity/Unreal copies that ruins peoples lives making them indebted for life because they think they will make it as indie.
Thats because people are making crappy games. all unity and unreal did was lower the bar to making a game.
At the end of the day, its about the quality of the game + how well you market it. Sure there are a lot of shit games made in Unity. but you also get gems like cities skylines and cuphead too. The difference is the quality and attention put into making a GOOD Game. good games take worse. a platforn like unity makes creating a good game for a dev from impossible to possible.
> are just a copies, they don't reinvent anything fundamental.
if by copies, you mean they fit in a genere? The engines are constrained by the heardware. what we really need is new paradigms for how we interact with computers before engines are going to start giving us new novel ways of doing things. at the end of the day, all an engine is giving you is a fast and performant way to draw to the screen and send audio to the speakers based on whats coming in from the input.
Motion sickness depends heavily on both the person and how each app handles motion as well. I can get motion sick depending on the app, while my dad gets motion sick if anything is even slightly off.
Still quite niche, not a lot of good marketing around them other than you look goofy when you use them, they make you sici/nauseous, you need a lot of space, you need a powerful pc, relatively unknown which apps/games run in VR etc
Every point shrinks the target market
Now we have apple with their exclusive vr headset and this will alienate more people until the market stabilizes - maybe like what happened with touch screen phones in the 10s
So I'm trying to get into VR, but I'm not even sure where to start. Any forum posts regarding what direction to go for headsets and what-not always boil down to fanboy posts shilling for their favorite thing.
So I'll try here - I have an extremely high end gaming PC and am looking for VR options to tag along with it. What suggestions for systems/games do you have?
I'd probably wait for the Meta Quest 3 to come out to use with your PC since it'll probably be the best bang for your buck. If you want an alternative to Meta or something more futuristic then the Big Screen Beyond is looking very interesting. You'll have to buy tracking base stations and controllers separately with the Big Screen Beyond so it'll be considerably more expensive. I'd also wait for some reviews although preliminary first impressions on YouTube are promising.
For PCVR, the wireless experience with Quest is fantastic and an extremely good value, provided you're not boycotting Meta and the wireless works perfectly.
If it doesn't (for example for me, there's interference from neighbors sometimes and the signal will drop) then it's infuriating. Then you need to look into a wired option. Quest can do wired but it doesn't do it as well as others (because it's USB and the signal is compressed).
Still, my recommendation to people looking to dip their toes into VR is to get the Quest, because it's very good and it's an unbeatable value. If nothing else, it will give you an excellent reference point to compare the other headers.
There's a Quest 3 coming out soonish, you'll probably want to wait for that.
What is your budget and desired ecosystem?
The Valve Index is (imo) the highest quality VR headset right now in terms of fidelity and comfort and tracking, but is also one of the most expensive and hardest to set up.
The Quest 2 on the other hand is exceedingly affordable, is portable, and can be run standalone, all of which are very very cool. But then you take the Meta plunge.
Yeah that’s a really weird price range. I’d say go up and buy an Index if possible, or go down and buy a Quest with a fake facebook account.
The pimax is an option but it’s above that range.
Getting closer. Get really thrifty with a computer build (Buy a used 3600 processor for cheap and an old GPU, like a 5700xt or equivalent), buy a brand new Index, and enjoy.
If budget isn't an issue, get an Index. I personally prefer the Vive hands and lighthouses from 2016 and the Index headset from 2021, but if you're starting from scratch, you might as well just get the Index and go from there.
A full Vive set would also be fine for starting, but's aging (7 years old now), and you may appreciate the fidelity the Index has.
I have a Valve Index, a big enough room, and everything set up ready to go. Still, I hardly ever use it.
My problem is simply that most VR games are too janky to control. Half Life: Alyx and Boneworks stood out as they were acceptable -- but beyond that, it's very hard for me to enjoy VR games.
This is the key problem for a lot of gamers. The cost issue puts more casual users off, but avid gamers are used to dropping $$$ for their hobby every upgrade cycle so as the hardware prices continue to slip downwards that is less and less their main concern. Having a private bit of space big enough and clear enough is not as those singing the virtues of VR seem to think.
> most VR games are too janky
Of course, the amount of good content that truly takes advantage of the kit is a concern when spending the $$$ even with the kit being much cheaper now than a few years ago. There might be other things that a given person can invest that resource on which will increase their enjoyment much more overall (better screens, a really comfy chair, actual games, …).
I liked my Quest 2 a lot for about two weeks until the novelty totally wore off. I just don’t want immersive gaming experiences. My Switch satisfies my occasional gaming itch, and is easy to just pick up and play for 15 minutes without taking myself out of the world.
I had a rented Oculus Quest 2 headset, and it completely put me off ever buying one. It was actually quite fun for a party where everyone was trying out, but:
- it got very uncomfortable very fast - everyone who tried it was drenched in face sweat after ~10 minutes, not a pleasant sensation
- the games are very un-interactive compared to traditional games. Even moving about is usually very limited, it felt like playing Myst or Zork again
- when a game did offer smooth movement, the movement without moving was extremely disorienting, and would have easily caused motion sickness if I hadn't stopped immediately
Overall, the fun of looking around a VR space is completely overshadowed by the extreme limitations in control and motion and comfort. I'm much more immersed playing a PC RPG than than a VR game, and I see nothing about any upcoming headset (including Apple's) that seems to have a change to fix this. I'm not even sure it is in principle fixable, given the optical (need something to block out light to show true blacks) and geometric (need room to actually move) limitations. Probably only some kid of direct brain-computer interface could bridge these gaps.
A good game is quite immersive without needing any cumbersome goggles. I can't imagine a bad one being immersive with any sort of goggles.
To be fair, I think the same thing about fancy graphics as well; but people seem to love fancy graphics with 4k resolution and ray tracing or whatever the newest gimmick is.
In my opinion, the only significant effect of any graphics fancier than ps3 era is just increased costs, less finished/polished games, and the necessity to appeal to a wider audience.
I think about the same thing about the whole VR thing. If it becomes mainstream, I think there would be hardly any games that take advantage of it; and most of the games would just focus on the spectacle, which gets old extremely quickly.
IMHO the entry to VR is for most people to cumbersome.
- you should try it first to check how bad your motion sickness gets when playing. If you have it bad, all your bought VR equipment is unusable.
- you need specific hardware for it which (mostly) only works for gaming (and maybe porn). Putting 400+ bucks into the hardware for that sole purpose is to much for most people.
- you need a dedicated place for it. You can play it sitting down, but that's not even half the fun of VR.
I have a VR headset myself and really like it, but even for me it's a hustle to free up the space and set everything up for a session. I rather pick up my steamdeck and play wherever I might be.
Quests are a facebook data mining spyware machine, do you think they subsidize the low cost for fun? Why anyone would buy it, besides blatant ignorance, is a really good question. My opinion of Carmack has really cratered since he's been working at Oculus and peddling their anti-consumer adware crap.
Besides even the very top end headsets are still pretty early in terms of tech. Extremely narrow tunnel vision FoV that doesn't even come anywhere close to the 210 degrees required for full human vision, pixels visible on most and if they aren't you'll need an incredibly expensive rig to run those crazy resolutions at 90 fps. Games are also really pricey for what you get since they're targeting a niche market which by definition has to be loaded to be able to afford the setup anyway and has a sunk cost to justify. It's the console experience on PC. Plus you need to mount the trackers and find a way to manage that big fat cable for the headset, it's just piles and piles of expensive hassle for what's mostly still a gimmick.
I'm pretty sure it'll be pretty good a few generations of headsets in the future though, especially once on-the-level PC performance becomes more affordable and the game UX best practices improve. I'm glad the VR games industry is at least moving away from the dumb mandatory teleporting thing and letting people walk around normally now.
Ok, I wasn't making an argument for the Quest. I was making an argument against the idea that you need a $1500+ PC for VR, that's it. I don't have or want a Quest.
$300 is still a lot of money for many people for a single purpose device.
The most popular games consoles are the phones everyone has already, because they do other things, the game playing is effectively free. Not to mention that the games themselves have an upfront cost of $0 as well.
The Quest 2 standalone route and the PS5VR route are both extremely limited options for "VR gaming", and that's saying something with how meager the PC VR video game scene is.
Depends though. I want my $1500 setup for things other than VR, like 4K gaming. I bought the Index on pre-order because I was already using and abusing my Vive daily. I ended up only using the headset.
It’s not a poor substitute - in a lot of ways it’s one of the best VR headsets you can get. Once you go wireless there’s no going back, and there are plenty of standalone games that don’t need great graphics to be fun.
I also don’t understand people’s aversion to Meta over Google, Amazon, etc. but that’s a personal choice.
> I also don’t understand people’s aversion to Meta over Google, Amazon, etc.
Objecting to Meta specifically here is a response to VR suggestions. The other two companies are irrelevant in this conversation because neither has a VR headset available for use (that I know of). It doesn't help that the Oculus Quest is the cheapest VR option out there, so it gets suggested every time the topic comes up, so those of us who prefer to avoid the three companies you mentioned tend to have a quick response ready.
What makes you say that? Whether or not I buy one has no bearing over how much computational power a device has: which is what makes it a poor substitute.
Are you arguing that standalone headsets are not poor substitutes? For that to be the case they would have to do things like be able to play Half Life Alyx at acceptable visual fidelity.
I'm arguing that you've made a pointless contribution by commenting on something you won't have in your home on principle; it speaks to a lack of experience and/or an evangelistic dismissal that disqualifies you from a reasonably impartial assessment. That you are also technically wrong is secondary.
Yes or no: can a standalone headset play games like a PC-connected headset can? If yes, it is not a poor substitute. If no, then it is a poor substitute. This is the dichotomy I established with my comment.
I love my quest but I don't have the space in my house to safely play the more energetic games and it can't be used outside. I would love to see a headset that can cope with being used in the sun.
> I would love to see a headset that can cope with being used in the sun.
The biggest problem is the lenses work perfectly in reverse, transforming the parallel rays of light from the sun into a single spot on the LCD screen, literally burning it.
Until we get a different display technology, outside usage is probably going to remain extremely limited.
I've personally been hesitant about VR for a few reasons. As someone with glasses, I'm not comfortable with purchasing something that won't easily accommodate without requiring that I continue to pay a premium for prescription insets. It's a deal breaker, honestly.
But then there's the price to value ratio. There doesn't seem to be anything that is a must-play killer app, and while the catalog seems to have some gems it still leaves me with the impression I might drop a few hundred dollars for a couple hours of entertainment. VR seems like a radical change in design philosophy from the last 30-40 years of game development, and devs are still working out the specific language and techniques that are pertinent to it as a medium
While the Quest 2 is the cheapest on on the market, I'll be damned if I'm giving money to Meta and from there headsets start to ramp up drastically in price, and still have inconveniences like needing to be tethered to a PC
Really it isn't any one thing that's an issue so much as a bunch of smaller issues that make it seem like it's just not worth at the moment unless you got to drop on an item that's still at the niche phase. This will all probably improve over time though, and more people might start adopting
As someone with glasses: I have tried both insets and larger headsets that can fit glasses. The insets are absolutely the way to go. Just think of them as part of the headset's price.
You're right that VR is currently relatively expensive in terms of "entertainment per dollar" compared to other activities. If you still find enjoyment in non-VR video games for example, there's nothing wrong with continuing to doing what you like.
It's just too messy with the cable twisting around, all the room space you need etc. I have a 1st generation Vive where one of the cables keeps falling out of its socket. It's all just such a bother and I keep getting motion sick. Not getting another headset until it's cable free, and I don't want an Oculus b/c of FB affiliation.
To me this looks way more immersive than any VR shooter game. You can really move around and do things that you can't do irl. Even if your controls allow that in VR, it's going to feel wrong. It's going to make you think about the screen on your face. Yeah yeah you have the cool VR moments where you duck in and out of cover. Those are cool and immersive because you genuinely don't need to do anything you can't do irl. But they get boring eventually.
As I made an existence statement, you can look up any female streamer/vtuber and hear them say they can't play an FPS today because they ran out of dramamine.
Most Games have comfort settings Like Teleportation, Fading etc.
My wife gets motion sick pretty fast with VR, but reading a book while driving is no issue. It's rather strange to me
Current devices look too inconvenient to use IMHO. I expect to be sweating due to the headset, and to be exhausted after use. I just checked, the pico 4 seems to be around 450€ in Germany. For something that doesn’t seem to be convenient or comfortable, that’s way to much. I already have a nice setup to play games or consume content I enjoy, and don’t really see how a VR would fit into this. I expect to use it a few times and have some fun, then forget about it.
As someone who spends a good amount of time on iracing, what annoys me most about VR not taking off more is the lack of improvements in VR headsets. We just get more high-end stuff like the Varjo Aero, Bigscreen Beyond or Pimax Crystal, but since the release of the HP Reverb G2 there haven't been any sensibly priced options anymore.
And things like the Quest or Pico are just pretty rubbish for PCVR (compression, dealing with flimsy USB C connectors, Oculus software etc.).
I want to be invested in a game, not immersed. Gloom Spawn are terrifying enough without feeling like I'm actually being hunted. And I don't think I would virtually shit bricks if I did, so I'd have to take off a headset to attend to that fun little mess.
It causes nausea for a lot of people. Plus alot of people don't want to move around after work.
I think a vr headset that puts people in the world but still lets them play with controller like settings would increase adoption a bit, however the nausea part is a big deal.
VR is very popular in sim-racing and other cockpit games but outside of that it's just a gimmick IMO. Games like Beatsaber is where it shines but it's a lot of money for such casual games.
I tried it once, it was some kind of skiing game. When I had a big jump I immediately felt nauseous because I expected to feel like my body is in free fall, but I didn't, so it felt weird
- Motion sickness, or the fear of it. Not from looking around but from "walking" around. And the number of games which are "mainstream appalling", benefit a lot from VR and don't contain walking around are limited. Just to put it into context people getting motion sickness when stopping "walking on a treadmill while watching TV" is non negligible while at the same time people which don't have that issue often never even heard of it/considered it a thing. (Simply because in our mostly non VR world it's a non-topic.) Through at the same time it's not uncommon for people which do have motion sickness while gaming issues to still be able to use VR.
- Too little occasions to properly relaxed, and longer term (more then just 5min) try it out for yourself without buying it. For many people it looks like VR is very little value added for them (because many people don't do supper immersive gaming, but instead just want to relax a bit after work or similar)
- (potentially wrong) believe that "cheaper" VR headsets are crap
- space, it's easy to underestimate how many people live in small apartments where getting a big enough free space to not hit anything isn't easy, or if it's often in a shared space where people might find it's usage for VR annoying
- price 1, e.g. the pico 4 still cost 400€ where i live for many people this is not an amount of many they would spend just to try something out (and for many it's also not much at all)
- price 2, 400€ for something people often see as an additional investment just/exclusive for gaming, while e.g. a laptop/tablet is also seen as usable for office, and while traveling and for watching movies (with others) etc. And while some of this are misconceptions, they still are there. And if you buy something "just for gaming" and can decide between a pico 4 and a switch or playstation bundle with a grate game in it it's clear what many people will choose
- no killer use case, like VR exclusive games everyone wants to play or similar. It's a bit of an hen/egg problem. Without wide usage there is too much commercial risk for creating such a thing but without it it's harder to get wide usage. There are some thing which get close to such a thing tho, like beat saber .
- glasses/bad eyes, some people simply can't wear contact lenses and while they did add some features to some headsets to "compensate bad eyes" they have sever limitations (bad eyesight isn't as simple as you focus point being a bit off, you also can e.g. have rotations, twists or folds, and getting that just slightly wrong can be a very exhausting or even headache inducing experience for the users)
Anyway I think the main problem is "perception" in many different ways as well as eco system wrt. non game use cases.
Which is also why I think Apple did what it did, at some point you need to start if you want to succeed in a emergend field even if you loose money. The problem is you don't know when the VR field will explode and entering it too early can be too costly.
My guess is for VR to take off we need an reasonable priced headset+equipment set which you practically can use by itself as a laptop replacement for non gaming tasks and "simple/short" games.
Means:
- portable/compact enough
- usable in public (but doesn't need as fancy features as what apple did)
- ~4+h battery live for office tasks, 8h would be better
- comfortable usable when having a power supply (like similar to one from a laptop) connected
- with not too long brakes usable for 8-10h
- usable by most people, at least for office task and some simple games
- full laptop functionality, e.g. browsing or playing non VR games like idk. minesweeper
- reasonable affordable base models (as full laptop replacement that would be ~800€) and nice still reasonable priced "good" (not highest end) models (~<1500€)
- support for external displays to make it usable for presentations
- fast text input, somehow without hurting portability
Most of this is sound like something which could be archived in coming years depending on technical advancement.
Some main issues which aren't can't be solved by innovations in other sectors (e.g better batteries):
- as it's not conveniently flat and square like a laptop convenient daily travel portability is harder to archive, including the fast text input without carrying a nearly laptop sized keyboard with you
- hair + headset, people care about their hair not getting messed up
- usability for everyone, even if your head is large or small or you have some neck issues, or eye issues, or motion sickness etc. personalized devices help, but drive the price up and prevent sharing
I might have a chance to visit the Tokyo Game Show in September, and I'm wondering if it's worth my time, or will it just be a purely commercial venue with no hands-on experience.
If it's even remotely like the Bitsummit described in the OP then that would be awesome.
Some background: I'm not a gamer, I simply don't have the time to be one, but I'm very interested in gaming news, game engines, and well, games. I also don't know Japanese, unfortunately, I'm just visiting Tokyo for a short time.
Anyone been to a previous Game Show (or a similar big event) and can say if it's worth it?
Been then many times.
Depends a lot of you go on business days or public days. Public days will mean long queues and not much time on anything during the day.
Business days you can do a lot more and there is a large indie section where you can meet with indies just like at the Bitsummit.
i will be exhibiting my indie game at the Tokyo Game Show in September, even though there will be huge elaborate booths for the massive/AAA studios, i can confirm that there will be a large area dedicated to indie games!
Question about VR, has someone used a good VR headset to kind of cure/reduce mountain vertigo?
I reduced my own with training but one of our son has it pretty hard and if VR sessions (or whatever the name is) could help reduce it, I would be ready to invest.
Well it's extremely easy to recreate vertigo in VR (one of the Vive demos back in the day was walking on a plank hanging off a building that felt 99% real), so it should be very doable.
This is the vertigo I want to "cure". But interestingly, you can trigger it with from a limited height, like just 5m. This limited height "trigger" is what I used to improve my own. I did a lot of indoor climbing and outdoor tree climbing "adventure" parks. But if a VR headset could accelerate these improvements by tricking my brain, I would be interested.
I will ask friends having such headsets to test them. Thank you.
I know someone with vertigo, it has nothing at all to do with height, as far as I am aware and also what I have seen online. If it does have to do with heights I suspect it is a change in air pressure aggravating it? But maybe there is more than one "vertigo". I might be wrong. Not a doctor!
> It's the sensation that you, or the environment around you, is moving or spinning.
Hmm I guess in that case then VR in general is the vertigo simulator regardless of what content is being played. Inner ear accelerometer disparity with the game world is guaranteed and something that makes some people hurl a lot.
I can't comment on whether it would reduce your vertigo but the Quest has mountain climbing games eg The Climb 1&2, and intentionally vertigo inducing challenges like Richie's Plank Experience
As a linux user: I don't mind this? Sure ideally games would be properly supporting linux, but as-is all this stuff means linux is even running most of these games at all.
In an ideal dream world this keeps going until most of gaming is on linux, at which point supporting linux proper might get to be more attractive again.
I'm actually not sure this isn't better. Targetting Linux directly can have some challenges to work across the given distros. Instead we've adopted this standardised portability layer that just needs to be made to work once on each target.
The popularity of Steam Decks means that more and more people will purposefully test against Proton and reduce the number of hacks and workarounds needed, and Linux gaming will be in a happy place.
One recent positive development was Battlebit. The main limitation on Linux gaming is anti-cheat. Battlebit were going to bring in FACEIT anti-cheat, which in its current form prevents Linux (and on Windows requires you to disable VM processor extensions in the BIOS). They have announced that in fact they're implementing a different version of it that's Steam Deck friendly. Whether they changed their minds in response to pressure or it was always the plan and was poorly communicated isn't clear, but it's a nice development anyway.
As a long time Linux desktop user, I almost never use desktop mode on my Steam Deck as I prefer to use it just for games. If I want a desktop interface, I just reach for my laptop instead.
It's not a bad thing if the service provided offers you something you want and otherwise wouldn't have. I hate Meta as much as the next person and wouldn't give them an ounce of my attention, but I spent hundreds of hours in VRChat and I wouldn't trade that for anything.
I use an Index headset with Vive components, so no Meta or PII involved.
What really blew us away though, was the haptic feedback on the controllers. There's this one bit at the beginning where an on-screen indicators beckons you to grab and slide out a drawer. The feedback in the (move controllers?) I think they are called manage to simulate actual resistance/friction. Everyone took turns opening and closing the very same drawer, in awe. We then put it away and watched some YouTube. I might try openy closy again on the weekend.