• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

General VR discussion thread

Page 49 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
825
126
It really will ultimately depend on quality and quantity of room scale (games). As it is now, most of it is one trick ponies. How to deal with locomotion in a way that can cater to the masses (large or small spaces) and not forego game quality because of that is going to be one of the bigger hurdles. WHen people talk about VR they always talk about immersion. Unless a game calls for sitting and not moving, then room-scale IS the way to go to get that immersion. Using a controller to glide around like you normally would with a console/keyboard breaks immersion (and nausia inducing for most of us).

Most people would love a 5x5 meter area to play in, but even requirements such as 2x2 meters is pushing it for most people. Factor in spouses and the number usually will be smaller (let's be honest MANY wives are only so cooperative about letting you clear out a room just for this).

It isn't 'standing' that is the fun of it. It is the complete package of movement in all directions and being able to interact with the environment mostly as you would normally. this is where Oculus misses the spot big time (until touch). I don't need to completely walk around an area, but it would be nice..however ultimately that is never going to be a likely scenario in a home for many years if at all. It just isn't practical for most people.

Because of prices, quality, requirements, etc.....VR has many things it needs to figure out to make it viable for devs to concentrate on quality material in general...and thats just for sitting experiences. Room scale is just one more thing that segregates the userbase.
 

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,818
30
91
WHen people talk about VR they always talk about immersion. Unless a game calls for sitting and not moving, then room-scale IS the way to go to get that immersion. Using a controller to glide around like you normally would with a console/keyboard breaks immersion (and nausia inducing for most of us)..
It's more immersive than your TV though isn't it? Personally I don't care for room scale, doesn't do anything special for me. It's more interactively immersive but like some did with the old Wii controllers, where you had many players end up just sitting down to play instead because total immersion is not everything any more so than graphics are everything.

Everyone's going to have a preference for how they play games so neither is going to be correct because not everyone is going to want to play games with gameplay similar to GTA, Skyrim or Outlast using locomotion and room scale, it's just probably not going to work very well. Nasea isn't caused by movement all on it's own but how it's implemented, frame rate..etc. Some that are easily nauseated have reported no conflicts with several gamepad games that don't use teleport.
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
not everyone is going to want to play games with gameplay similar to GTA, Skyrim or Outlast using locomotion and room scale,
This is the short-sightedness of a lot of people today in regards to VR. VR isn't about playing the same old games you always played but with motion controls and a HMD on your face. It's about new ways of experiencing it and new ways to build it. The more they throw away traditional gameplay ideas, the better. The Gallery is a great example of building an adventure game from the ground up for VR without the trappings of legacy games and it was great (short, but great).

It's not about just playing games either. Unreal Editor in VR is awesome. Modeling in VR is awesome. Education in VR is awesome. I get that this is the PC Gaming forum, but limiting VR's success or failure on games alone is missing the bigger picture entirely.
 

pj-

Senior member
May 5, 2015
421
162
116
This is the short-sightedness of a lot of people today in regards to VR. VR isn't about playing the same old games you always played but with motion controls and a HMD on your face. It's about new ways of experiencing it and new ways to build it. The more they throw away traditional gameplay ideas, the better. The Gallery is a great example of building an adventure game from the ground up for VR without the trappings of legacy games and it was great (short, but great).

It's not about just playing games either. Unreal Editor in VR is awesome. Modeling in VR is awesome. Education in VR is awesome. I get that this is the PC Gaming forum, but limiting VR's success or failure on games alone is missing the bigger picture entirely.
A newer one with great VR gameplay is Climbey. It's a climbing game and platformer that uses a combination of roomscale and artificial locomotion. The locomotion is done really well and didn't make me uncomfortable at all while I was doing some pretty intense stuff. It feels like a new genre of game and I expect lots of games to use similar concepts in the future.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
I saw there are headphones coming out that claim to be the ultimate for 3D sound for VR.

They're called "Ossic X", a kickstarter company from Pioneer and Logitech people. Pre-order is $299.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
345
126
This is the short-sightedness of a lot of people today in regards to VR. VR isn't about playing the same old games you always played but with motion controls and a HMD on your face. It's about new ways of experiencing it and new ways to build it. The more they throw away traditional gameplay ideas, the better. The Gallery is a great example of building an adventure game from the ground up for VR without the trappings of legacy games and it was great (short, but great).

It's not about just playing games either. Unreal Editor in VR is awesome. Modeling in VR is awesome. Education in VR is awesome. I get that this is the PC Gaming forum, but limiting VR's success or failure on games alone is missing the bigger picture entirely.
Obviously, it's all about porn.
 

Mutilator

Diamond Member
Aug 22, 2000
3,516
10
81
As you can see, people that want roomscale make room for it. Anything from rearranging furniture, standing a couch on end, emptying out an entire room - it's all fair game.

As for sitting comfortably... that's why roomscale and VR in general need to take off. They get people off their asses and moving again after years of sitting still in front of a KB+mouse. We're on our way to looking like the people in WALL-E and roomscale VR started to finally change that.
 

Kaido

Elite Member & Kitchen Overlord
Feb 14, 2004
45,593
2,836
126
Here is my personal opinion: I can well see people being "blown away" when they try "room scale" for the first time, but I am convinced that it is a fluke. Ultimately, people will "settle down" and enjoy just normal gaming, like watching TV or whatever else we do...sitting comfortably. And the nr. of people with large enough spaces for "room scale", and I am talking about people in cities etc. is very small. (A CES etc. show room is not what the average person has). From that POV I actually understand why Oculus initially focused on sitting/forward experiences...because that's what MOST of us do.
Have you personally tried Roomscale? If not, it is awesome! Like pj-, when I eventually get a house, I definitely want a dedicated VR space (maybe combo home theater room). I've had my rig for a good 6 months now & hardly play any sitting or standing VR games. I would probably play more of those if I had a sitting cockpit for racing, flying, and space games, but it's just so much fun being able to walk around in Fruit Ninja, Richie's Plank Walk, etc.

Also, Roomscale is still useful even in a smaller room. When I was moving & had boxes everywhere, I only had a few feet of free space & could still play stuff like QuiVR just fine.

Eventually when we get Retina VR screens, I'm sure we'll do more sitting because then it can replace TV screens, projectors, and computer monitors, but right now it doesn't do that due to SDE & resolution. Although it's just nice sitting on the couch & not wearing a visor to watch TV...
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
As you can see, people that want roomscale make room for it. Anything from rearranging furniture, standing a couch on end, emptying out an entire room - it's all fair game.
Furniture sliders are awesome. With them I can convert my theater room to its VR layout or back again in about 20 seconds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Zaus and Kaido

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
I just maximized: since the computer is on one edge of the play space, in a square 4x4m (~13x13f) is about the maximum chaperone space the cord will reach: I couldn't get the the Vive to recognize a larger space for play, though the chaperone was fine with larger.

I do have trouble with tracking in the corner without a light house where the TV is on the wall so I set the chaperone 1ft from the wall/pushed back couches.
 
Last edited:

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
825
126
Interesting. My lighthouses are about 16 feet apart...but my play space is probably only 10x8 feet, but the lighthouses themselves are about 8 foot high.

Also. BULLET SORROW. Wow fun game. About 15 minutes of playing it wore me the hell out. It's kind of like Time Crisis.

While playing it, I face planted while trying to duck and lean against a crate. Also at some point I hit my PC and knocked my monitor over...fortunately nothing broke. Good times.
 
Last edited:

HeXen

Diamond Member
Dec 13, 2009
7,818
30
91
This is the short-sightedness of a lot of people today in regards to VR. VR isn't about playing the same old games you always played but with motion controls and a HMD on your face. It's about new ways of experiencing it and new ways to build it. The more they throw away traditional gameplay ideas, the better. The Gallery is a great example of building an adventure game from the ground up for VR without the trappings of legacy games and it was great (short, but great).

It's not about just playing games either. Unreal Editor in VR is awesome. Modeling in VR is awesome. Education in VR is awesome. I get that this is the PC Gaming forum, but limiting VR's success or failure on games alone is missing the bigger picture entirely.
But it has to sell and whatever new way you are referring to is irrelevant and likely will be viewed as a gimmick just like Kinect, Wii, power glove or PS Move and the plethora of other gameplay methods that's been devised over the decades. VR is far from new, what is new is the fact that anyone is buying it. There are no shortage of VR gamepad, seated games out there and Tracking controller seated games as well on the Vive. So the traditional gameplay idea's are more of a fact of reality than any short sightedness because we've been there done that many times before. As I said, teleportation or pulling yourself along in zero gravity..etc is only going to work for certain types of games.
So if you were making a VR version of GTA 5, either you teleport which would allow for cheating, especially in MP or you limit the field of vision when moving around to prevent nausea which implies using a node like movement system or use the Trackpad controllers to operate as traditional methods of movement imply but whatever the case, only 1 mode of locomotion is going to work for certain games.

A newer one with great VR gameplay is Climbey. It's a climbing game and platformer that uses a combination of roomscale and artificial locomotion. The locomotion is done really well and didn't make me uncomfortable at all while I was doing some pretty intense stuff. It feels like a new genre of game and I expect lots of games to use similar concepts in the future.
You mean cranking your arms to move which on it's own isn't preventing nausea. But again you are back to the Wii controllers situation when you're considering the mass audience, people are naturally lazy and if you wanted to sit there and game for 6 hours (which many seem to do) then that's probably a lot of nope.
Content as it is, is the reason why VR is selling rather poorly.
 
Last edited:

maniacalpha1-1

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2010
3,562
14
81
Does a VR set enhance the experience for existing games that were not designed with VR in mind? Anything from Battlefield to WoW to RTS games. And how good are the current designed for VR games?

Also, are there any compatibility issues, that is to say, games designed for Rift or Vive and thus have severe drawbacks if you have the other one?

Just trying to decide if I should wait for the 2nd gen of consumer release VR headsets before diving in.

And...when is Facebook going to have virtual 3D-VR personal pages? Not that I'd spend all day using FacebookVR, but I think once we have that and similar, VR will have truly arrived.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
154
106
Does a VR set enhance the experience for existing games that were not designed with VR in mind? Anything from Battlefield to WoW to RTS games. And how good are the current designed for VR games?

Also, are there any compatibility issues, that is to say, games designed for Rift or Vive and thus have severe drawbacks if you have the other one?

Just trying to decide if I should wait for the 2nd gen of consumer release VR headsets before diving in.

And...when is Facebook going to have virtual 3D-VR personal pages? Not that I'd spend all day using FacebookVR, but I think once we have that and similar, VR will have truly arrived.
There are a handful of hacks/patches for older games, like the old Doom 3 BFG for VR. And there is VorpX, an universal wrapper who is supposed to make many old games "VR capable". But the problem is really that IMHO a good game for VR *must* be designed for it, otherwise you get either a very poor/unplayable experience or a halfass-one, at best. Some newer games also have additional "VR support", but then it's clear they are not "made for VR". For the best experience you really want a game that is designed for VR.

"How good are the current ones" <-- this is impossible to say since there is a SHITLOAD coming out and more coming out every day. The majority is still early access and not too many full AAA titles, but they (complete titles) also are currently churned out like crazy. In general, I have the feeling this is still all "early territory" and that there is much more "coming out soon" than what is actually available.

BUT....this is also in addition to what someone else said. it's NOT about games. Yes some "games" are great, but for me the appeal with VR is actually more with experiences, virtual travel, art, design, virtual social platforms etc. and not even so much "games" per se.

As for facebook VR, yes there is also stuff in the making (I dont have details) and there IS already a shitload of "social platforms" where I looked at a few, but all of them were underwhelming. The problem here also that so many are doing sth. in this sector currently that most people are spread out trying this or that and that you won't find many people on on these various VR "social" apps.
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
825
126
I will say flat out. This iteration of VR is NOT a gimmick. This is not the Wii, and anyone who thinks it is clearly hasn't tried it or is jaded. Like said, the implementations possible go way beyond gaming, and I imagine gaming will not be the driving factor in its success. There's always going to be people who are never going to be happy, but they are a small portion, they aren't going to change that it will take off by people who actually see where it is going.

As for sitting or standing, if sitting is all you want to do, while there are plenty of options for that in VR but of course you are going to be underwhelmed, because that isn't what people are clamoring about. It is the standing/moving around/interactiveness that people are talking about. When it comes to gaming, sitting on a couch with a controller and a headset is not really the motivator here except for a few genres where it makes sense. Playing a platformer in VR (say like Lucky's tale) or a CTG game like Dragon Front is gimmick. Neither needs VR, and VR making them better or not is subjective. They would play just fine w/o VR. There are a bunch of examples however where putting it in VR and standing/full motion controls/etc just absoluately blow any current game played on a monitor out of the water.

That is just games. As stated in a few posts, it goes way beyond games.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Dr. Zaus

pj-

Senior member
May 5, 2015
421
162
116
You mean cranking your arms to move which on it's own isn't preventing nausea.
Clearly it does prevent nausea because games that don't do that kind of stuff do make me nauseous and this one doesn't. Swinging your arms to walk and "pulling" yourself up to jump help trick the brain into believing the motion it's seeing.


But again you are back to the Wii controllers situation when you're considering the mass audience, people are naturally lazy and if you wanted to sit there and game for 6 hours (which many seem to do) then that's probably a lot of nope.
No, it's not back to the wii again. People stopped playing wii because the motion controls were basically faked and the abstracted gameplay was too simplistic to be interesting in the long term. It has little relation to the 1:1 control in current VR games.

Content as it is, is the reason why VR is selling rather poorly.
You need better arguments in your weirdly aggressive anti-vr posts. VR is selling poorly because it costs $800+ for the full experience, not including the PC required to use it.
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
You need better arguments in your weirdly aggressive anti-vr posts. VR is selling poorly because it costs $800+ for the full experience, not including the PC required to use it.
Adjusted for inflation:

It's about the price of an Atari 2600 or a PS3.

And in 1993 people spent around that for their CD Rom drive to run Myst on a PC that cost about as much as it takes to run VR now.

Software sells hardware. The Vive will kill it when fallout comes out.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
154
106
Yes this may be the "best" headphones in the world....and if you have plenty of money you should get them. (I mean, seriously).
As for myself, I would never ever buy $300 headphones. EVER. I am actually very fine with my built-in Oculus headphones and I am still always amazed how accurate they can pinpoint the direction of sound sources.
Looking at the kickstarter there obviously must be demand for these headphones, but it's really not that 3D sound is some kind of new tech. I have troubles seeing how they can improve..and if they improve then whether it'd be worth $300
 

Dr. Zaus

Lifer
Oct 16, 2008
11,770
347
126
I saw there are headphones coming out that claim to be the ultimate for 3D sound for VR.

They're called "Ossic X", a kickstarter company from Pioneer and Logitech people. Pre-order is $299.
I wish I had wireless headphones for the Vive so I could more easily rout sound to both my headset and speakers.

But are they needed and do they track well in VR? I could imagine an "overcompensation" problem. That said, it does take a little "looking around" when a gnome shoots me from behind and above... perhaps a more accurate sound scape would help?
 

ImpulsE69

Lifer
Jan 8, 2010
14,793
825
126
Clearly it does prevent nausea because games that don't do that kind of stuff do make me nauseous and this one doesn't. Swinging your arms to walk and "pulling" yourself up to jump help trick the brain into believing the motion it's seeing.




No, it's not back to the wii again. People stopped playing wii because the motion controls were basically faked and the abstracted gameplay was too simplistic to be interesting in the long term. It has little relation to the 1:1 control in current VR games.



You need better arguments in your weirdly aggressive anti-vr posts. VR is selling poorly because it costs $800+ for the full experience, not including the PC required to use it.
Yes this may be the "best" headphones in the world....and if you have plenty of money you should get them. (I mean, seriously).
As for myself, I would never ever buy $300 headphones. EVER. I am actually very fine with my built-in Oculus headphones and I am still always amazed how accurate they can pinpoint the direction of sound sources.
Looking at the kickstarter there obviously must be demand for these headphones, but it's really not that 3D sound is some kind of new tech. I have troubles seeing how they can improve..and if they improve then whether it'd be worth $300
Honestly I don't get the hate for the Oculus headphones. They are really the best thought out part of the device and I have no issues with them. I see no reason to spend extra for that headset. Now the Vive...yea, I definitely need something to replace the earbuds, and I don't want to mess with cans.
 

flexy

Diamond Member
Sep 28, 2001
8,464
154
106
Honestly I don't get the hate for the Oculus headphones. They are really the best thought out part of the device and I have no issues with them. I see no reason to spend extra for that headset. Now the Vive...yea, I definitely need something to replace the earbuds, and I don't want to mess with cans.
I am pretty picky when it comes to earplugs, and most newer ones (even SONYs) absolutely suck. The ones I am using (for games etc.) are very old ones which SONY doesn't make anymore. They deliver awesome sound and good bass and I need to buy them reconditioned from Germany, there is a seller who still sells them.

The Oculus built-in headphones totally surprised me because they can deliver some good oomph and more than good sound for gaming or whatsoever. Can't complain. And also very comfortable.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
aigomorla PC Games 1
JujuFish PC Games 97
rivethead PC Games 30

ASK THE COMMUNITY