I feel like it's a gimmick that is really trying hard to be pushed as a new paradigm in spite of massive market resistance.

But also there are three major thoughts:
1) Screw Meta, and may that company collapse upon it's own hubris.
2) I have -12 and -11 index eyes. My vision is practically shot. Unless headsets can compensate for that, I'm having to wear at least .5 cm thick glasses.
3) My room only has only so much room. Most of it taken up by a bed and a desk.'
4) Over 90% of my games library is not VR optimized! And a fair number of it isn't even 3D!

But that's just me. How bout' you?

VR felt like it was trying to be the next phase of the Wii and Kinect but those gimmicks aren't really selling anymore. I guess it has a decent selling point for horror titles but outside of that? Meh.

Was a gimmick back in the late 80s and early 90s. Cant recall exact year, but there a arcade novelty, many years ago....when real arcades....well, when video game arcades existed.

Looked a large black and red plastic boxing ring. A trigger gun controller. Head gear.
The game was a shooter of some kind. Primitive shapes, like Alone in the Dark 1.

Its still a gimmick.

I will say I have played some VR games and the racing games I played were just amazing (PSVR, Wipeout collection) looking around from the cockpit, going under bridges and looking up as it flies by it was a stunning experience to the point I was tightening my stomach muscles.

But I have played games that just didn't work as well so it's really down to the developers on how they use the platform (Tetris affect in VR was such an amazing experience)

The tech has been improving considerably since I tried it but the price point and platform restrictions are the main barriers keeping it from really going mainstream.

Ah yes, I had forgotten about racing games. Those and horror seem to be the where the technology shines best (for games).

he, ran out of fingers? Indeed. Meta is only good if you want a cheap beginers headset, but for PCVR you do not need them You use your glasses inside the headset. A good headset lets you adjust the leneses so that there is room for your glasses, they are made for it. i am very nearsighted, and i use glasses in mine, in fact if I do not use them, the image is very blury. SPace is an issue, but it is not that much. I think that the minimum is a 2m x 1.5m space. I have a small living room I use mine in, and it is just about that. For the most part, flat screen games do not really work that well on VR, so that is not expected. All the good games that I know of, have been built specificly for VR (i.e. games like Halflife: Alyx, Down the rabbit hole, Pistolwhip, Moss, Blade and sorcery and so on). Same the other way around - a game built for VR do not work well on a flat screen.

I don't know why you would even play a 2D game on VR? use flat screen for that. I don't really know what this point is about. Do you think that you have to stop playing flatscreen games if you get a VR headset?

Edit. Remindet me of yhis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8ccGjar4Es :)

I'm going to keep ignoring it forever, regardless of whether it remains a gimmicky niche or pushes all other games out of the market.

Gotta agree with you. I never really personally saw the appeal. In my mind, VR was supposed to be like the holodeck on Star Trek. Instead…..we have whatever this is with a detached hand performing actions on the display. Call me ambitious, I guess…but until it’s replete with touch/full sensory feedback and disassociation with reality, I’m not buying it. To me, it’s about as gimmicky as anything Nintendo tried to do with motion controls, etc. or anything Sony and Nintendo have ever tried with their eye toy and kinnect nonsense.

I've played some Visual Reality (VR) games and enjoyed some of them. I play with glasses, maybe not quite as thick, but it worked out OK. My biggest issue is that while I can play video games with a monitor or TV all day, with VR I can only play for about 30 minutes until I feel somehow fatigued.

Some games are meant to played in the center of an empty gymnasium. Some, mostly the games I play, can be played in your easy chair. I tend to prefer an over the right shoulder, 3rd person view for most of my RPGs and action games. With VR one is stuck (as far as I've seen) with a first person view.

It can be extremely fun, engaging and immersive if done right with dedicated experiences (e.g. games like Beat Saber, Half-Life: Alyx, and Superhot, or 3D/360° movies/documentaries). It's also great as an add-on for existing flight and racing sims.


It's rather pointless and becomes old fast if it's uninspired shovelware or Meta's stupid workspace idea that focusses on novelty instead of productivity...

I think part of the problem with VR is that it requires a big trade-off of convenience. You can't just sit down in comfort and play a game any more - you have to be standing; you've got to wear this big thing on your head; you've got to find enough space around you so you don't bang into things, etc .....

And, on top of that, there are the potential medical issues with eye strain, vision problems. The whole endeavor seems to demand a significant trade-off in comfort and ergonomics, which I don't think many people are going to be willing to make. It adds a lot of hassle to gaming.

I think it would require quite a lot of further improvements to the technology, before it would be seen by the majority of gamers as more than an 'expensive gimmick'.

That's not true except for the headset part.

I'd like to see you play Dirt Rally 2.0 standing up or with flailing arms...

Wheter staanding on sitting depends completely on the game, some you can sit while playing. (in Last Labyrinth you have to be sitting, you play a man chained into a wheelchair :)) HOwever, the whole point about VR is that you emody an virtual body within a virtual space, so the moving around is part of the game play and experience (and also - it is exersice wihle playing games). I would not call that a drawback at all, or a trade off, but rather a benefit of the medium.

Eye strain and vision problems... there are some reports, it is still very inconclusivee, but mostly it is just unfounded rumors and urban muths. Oh, did you know that if you watch too much TV it will ruin your eys? Or if you read too many comics it will ruin your eyes? these are all claimes from when those mediums came out.

To be honest, I haven't tried the more recent 'iterations' of VR, so I'm just giving my impressions based on what I've seen. It seem like it probably depends on the specific game in question. Sure, for a racing of flight sim type game, you could do that sitting down. However, if I imagine playing an FPS or action adventure game, there would probably be more standing and arm-waving involved.

I know the Wii wasn't VR, but in term of motion-sensing, it certainly involved arm-waving for games like tennis or sword-swinging in Zelda.


This is what I just said - it will depend upon the game. I would certainly argue there is a trade-off with games that require standing/arm-waving, in terms of having to find more space, which might not always be convenient.

No, I'm not saying it's either-or in that sense.

My point is that we generally only have so much gaming time available, so we have to make a choice as to how to spend that time. Yes, I have options: I could choose to go play a VR game (game A), or I could choose to go play a non-VR game (game B). I have a choice as to what to do with the time I have right now - do I play game A or game B (I can't play them both at once).

If I make the choice to play game A, then I'm going to have to go put the headset on; find some space to potentially wave my arms about; make sure I'm not disturbing anyone else, etc. So, yes there is a trade-off involved in the moment with making choice A over choice B - choice A is going to involve more hassle.