Anyone here tried VR?

[Classicgamer]

I'm curious what you guys think of the current home VR offerings? Has anyone bought one or planning to?

As far as I could tell the cheapest option is the PS4 where you spend $500 for a pair of PS Move controllers and a plastic hat with an LCD screen... oh... and the camera. Or.... there are a bunch of options for the PC which cost a good deal more and are somewhat better.

My first impression is that it looks sh*t. I couldn't find much evidence of quality software support or any peripherals that looked to be worth the price they were asking. $700 for a vibrating vest is not my idea of value...

But... I will be the first to admit that I know very little about the current offerings beyond what I have seen in Best Buy and on YouTube. Maybe I am missing something and a bunch of you are secretly enjoying one of the VR sets?

[Kez]

I have a PSVR. I don't think I could wholeheartedly recommend it to everyone, but I also don't regret buying it. I hope VR as a platform will continue to grow and develop, as the potential is enormous. I'll list some stream of consciousness pros and cons here:

Pros

• - Interacting with the environment in a VR world is often extremely intuitive, headtracking being a major factor. Simply being able to look around, behind things, under things, get in closer, etc opens up a lot of new mechanics. Platformers actually have a lot of potential in VR. Astro Bot being an obvious example of a decent 3D platformer. One of the benefits of VR is that depth perception is excellent, so understanding where the character is in space is very easy.
  
  - The sense of scale that can be achieved in VR is sometimes really mindblowing, like when something is big it really towers over you.
  
  - You can obviously get immersed in a game very easily using VR, as you are cut off from all distractions. This makes some games which don't require VR or even necessarily seem like they would benefit from it actually very effective in VR.. stuff like Tetris or Thumper. You might think that VR games generally entail waving your arms around and stuff, but actually many of them are just sitting back with a controller. VR headsets are also required to be low latency and high frame and refresh rates to help prevent motion sickness, so if you are sensitive to low frame rates VR can be quite nice.

Cons

• - Motion sickness. This is a big one, if you haven't experienced VR before, buying it is a risk. Many people get motion sick very easily in VR, especially in games which involve your character moving about in the world while you stand still. Even cockpit style games can cause issues. In my experience, the more you use VR the easier it gets but I have only ever experienced minor effects. I always would stop playing whenever I felt in any way sick, but over time I stopped feeling that way at all and I can now comfortably play VR games for hours. I don't know that someone with really bad motion sickness would ever be able to get over it though.
  
  - Graphical fidelity. The high framerate/dual rendering nature of VR means that the resulting graphics are not that great - especially on PS4. More so than in any other gaming setup I think good graphics really make a difference to VR and stuff like poor textures and aliasing kill the immersion for me. Skyrim in VR for example, I was looking forward to experiencing the scale of the world.. but its graphics are so flawed that I often don't feel like I am actually in the world at all. Simpler, more focused games tend to do a much better job of this.
  
  - There is a lack of big budget titles due to the small install base, most of the games are indie or kinda tech demo-ish in feel.

PSVR has some specific flaws in that it only tracks from the camera, so it is not true 360 degree tracking. The controllers in particular can get lost quite easily (they are the same old tech from over 10 years ago). There are some great games on PSVR though: Statik (awesome puzzle game - like Portal in tone), Tetris Effect, Beat Saber (rhythm game involving cutting blocks with light sabers - great fun if you like that sort of thing and a serious workout), Moss, Astro Bot (platformers), Skyrim VR (still amazing even with the flaws I mentioned earlier), SuperHot, Wipeout. I hear Resident Evil 7 is terrifying if you're into horror games (I am not).

If you already own a PS4, especially a Pro, it's not a horrible value proposition. There is definitely fun to be had there, and people are very interested in it. It's great for showing to friends or setting up at a party. I am sure it is available for less than $500 even including the Move controllers, that is a lot more than I paid. Plenty are available second hand as well. Similarly if you own a very powerful gaming PC, the Vive, Oculus and Windows Mixed Reality headsets are generally technically superior to the PSVR and have their own sets of pros and cons. I personally don't think it is worth buying a PS4 Pro or a gaming PC specifically for VR.

I was worried that it would just be a novelty for me, that it would end up collecting dust on a shelf.. but I still use it fairly regularly.

[DirkSwizzler]

I've only tried the Vive for quite a bit when it first came out. It's definitely worth trying to see if you like it. There's really no describing how immersively awesome space pirate trainer is for the first couple dozen hours.

But there's definitely an install base problem where people aren't investing the piles of money into VR games as they would for a non-vr game. And people seem reluctant to take the plunge because there aren't as many compelling experiences as they'd like for the investment required. Plus space constraints.

VR sickness is going to be less of an issue with better head tracking and higher framerate. The last time I listened to conversations about it, if a game is not handling head movement at or above 90Hz. Sickness is much more likely.

And as you play around with VR head tracking, it becomes very apparent that imprecision in head tracking can make you feel sick. Tiny, miniscule imprecisions will make you feel like the room is vibrating (mildly similar feeling to when the room starts to spin when you're sick or drunk). It's just weird.

And, as Kez mentioned. Games that move your camera for you are either going to make you feel unbalanced, or sick. Hopefully just the former.

One fun side effect of VR gaming if you're old or lazy. Objects on the floor, a common occurrence in games for decades, are suddenly too annoying to pick up and get left behind. Same with tasks that involve crouching.

[SuperSpongo]

I was incredibly hype for the HTC Vive. I bought a PC for 500€, a new Nvidia GTX 1080 for 750€ and the Vive at launch for 960€.
I set up a room solely dedicated for VR.

It is currently collecting dust and my PC is in the living room on my TV.

The tech is really impressive, the immersion is fantastic, but you have to have a lot of free time. I'm working 9 to 5 and I don't want to go through the effort of playing in VR in the evening. It is a major dedication of time and it is a strictly single player experience so having a significant other makes it all the more complicated.

I had fun times taking turns with my buddies playing the various wave shooters offered on the platform, but all in all, I regret spending so much money on it.

[thebigcheese]

My own take is that it's certainly not perfect, but it is really cool. You definitely need to experience it to understand what it's all about, so see if you can find a friend that has it or a store where you can try it out. I have the PSVR and got it in a bundle with camera, controller, and two games for about $300. Since my GPU on my PC isn't powerful enough, this was the cheapest option. I don't regret buying it, though I haven't used it as much lately (mostly because I don't have many games for it, I think). There are some cons, which I will mention below, but the big thing working for VR is that it really is the most immersive way to play. It's really hard to understate that. Sitting on the bridge of the Enterprise and flying through space, poking at buttons with your virtual hands (that honestly feel kinda like your real hands), is just one of the coolest things I've experienced.

Regarding effort of setup, I don't really think there's that much. Maybe if you don't have the sensors set up at all times, or maybe it's just the nature of using VR on a PC, but for PSVR, I just turn on the console and put on the headset. Pretty much the same as any other game. I guess the only extra step is moving the coffee table out of the way if I'm playing Beat Saber and, if it's the middle of the day, closing the blinds so the controllers track properly.

Cons:
-Tracking for the move controllers isn't great. I think it's normally fine, but for games like Star Trek Bridge Academy, some of the controls are placed such that the controllers don't work super well with them. This is partly an issue with the game, but it probably doesn't have these issues on PC since Oculus/Vive have more tracking cameras (and they don't track on visible light).
-Inherent to all VR, you can't really focus on things the way you do in real life since the screen is a fixed distance from your face. So when games are like oh, just look at your watch for status, I can't always actually read what's on the display because it's not the right virtual distance. It's very odd and really messes with me. It's a little bit worse on PSVR since there's no bespoke focus adjustment, you just kinda move it around on your face until things are in focus.
-For Oculus/Vive, setting up rear sensors means running wires and having things on stands or hanging from your ceiling, so you really have to commit to it.

[Triple Lei]

I'm gonna have to agree with you all. Personally I got it just for Tetris Effect and I'm happy. Then I remembered I had WipEout HD Omega Collection and that was pretty cool too.

I really like how Hulu looks on PS4 with PSVR... but there's no Hulu with Live TV on PS4 and I'm not turning on my PS4 just for Hulu when I'm at my PC most of the time anyway.

Cons... well, the part that touches your nose can get really sweaty... and you definitely don't want to sneeze while wearing it. And in my case, I only get the clearest picture if position the unit so that it goes lower on my nose, but then it's harder to breathe

[Classicgamer]

Thanks everyone for the info.

It sounds like my first impressions were mostly correct. I guess it's just not in our nature to learn from others mistakes. Every single time a company has taken the approach of "we'll build great hardware and the games will follow" it has failed. It happens every time. The best selling machines have always been the ones with the best library. The Sega CD, the Nintendo Virtual Boy, the Philips CDI, the 3DO etc.... well.... you know...

VR seems to be like Israeli wine. People have been saying for years that "it has potential" but we never seem to actually get there...

It's kinda annoying to me. For years we were denied arcade quality peripherals of popular consoles because we apparently would not pay for them. Now with VR, which hardly anyone owns, they aware selling (poor quality) recoil guns for over $1000:

https://www.amazon.com/Controller-Compa ... B0734K3T9Q

Or..you could spend $60 on one that looks like a walking stick that has been in a car accident.

https://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Contro ... MYNXA4A06P

I'm amazed that they sold one of these things.

[ASDR]

In the early days, trying the Oculus kickstarter prototype, it was quite incredible. Then later trying a Vive prototype was just mindblowing. Being able to walk around and have some use of your hands in VR, it was one of those things you simply had to experience to understand. I was thinking, this is going to change everything. How can we ever go back to playing games on a TV. I couldn't believe that even with all the limitations in tech it just flips a switch in your brain and makes you feel like you're someplace else.

Years later, I don't own any headset apart from a Google Cardboard. I think this has totally failed to go anywhere. I think the fundamental issue is that there's only a very limited set of experiences you can have sitting down or walking in a 2-3m^2 space and anything where you still walk with an analog stick or some kind of teleport system is somewhere between barf worthy and immersion breaking. I want to play Mass Effect, GTA, Skyrim, Assasin's Creed, Metal Gear Solid, etc. in VR. And sitting on my couch and walking with an analog stick through those worlds and still using a controller for all interaction etc. makes this completely pointless, IMHO. An actual walk & touch experience is restricted to like an amusement park with a laser tag arena type setup or maybe some kind of >100k$ omnidirectional treadmill type gadget.

Till we have some kind solution to the very hard problem outlined above VR will be limited to a few jumpscare games or music/rythm type things like Tetris Effect / Beat Saber, maybe some cokcpit type experiences like Ace Combat, Wipeout, Elite, small scale puzzle games. I had a bit of hands on time with all three major headsets before they were launched and I kinda feel I already got my fill from that. I went from being mind-blown to not even picking up a PSVR on sale. Guess the dream of the Star Trek Holodeck will have to wait a bit longer

[Classicgamer]

I disagree about it's potential being limited to locations where you can walk half a mile indoors without banging your head. It just requires a little more creative thought. Realistic is over-rated in gaming.

I can see a huge amount of potential with VR for one on one Fighters played with arm, leg and head sensors allowing you to create your own moves etc. There is also endless possibilities for driving games, Star Wars games based on flying and pod racing sequences, FPS is an ideal genre for the format (with quality peripherals) too. Oh... oh! And an Iron Man game where you can fly around in an Iron man suit!

I can live with me moving around on a hover-board in a Back to the Future game or being in a speeder for a Star Wars game etc. Games need to be fun though. A certain amount of realism can be nice but never at the expense of fun.

I think the current VR start-ups are managed by morons. Idiots that don't understand that people are not going to pay $1000 for a poor quality peripheral just because their start-up costs were high. And certainly not before there is a quality library to use it with. Hardware costs should be off-set with software profits. Hardware is almost a loss leader.

The quality and price of peripherals is even more important for VR than it was for home ports of decicated arcades. I always imagined that when the time came, we would interact with VR worlds with gloves that would allow you to pick stuff up like you would in the real world. I also imagined full body pressure suits and realistic guns, racing wheels etc.

Seeing people using a pair of PS Moves was enough to put me off Immediately.

[thebigcheese]

I have to disagree (as I think most people who responded would) about it failing. It hasn't and, in fact, it's still a growing market. Because of it's affordability (relatively speaking), PSVR has outsold both Vive and Rift and Sony is absolutely continuing support for it. It's still early days for sure, and I agree that a lot of the games out there are still more proof of concept than anything else, but support is growing, not diminishing.

Having said that, it definitely makes sense to wait before investing heavily in it. Some of what they are working on now to improve the experience will be game changing. Oculus is working on a technique to fix the focusing issue I mentioned earlier, HTC is adding cameras to the headset to (I think) improve tracking, and there's another company working to increase the resolution to make it on par with 4K gaming. It'll take a beefy computer to make that work, of course, and games that properly take advantage of it, but it's coming. If you aren't sold on it now, revisit VR in a couple years when all this is out.

[thebigcheese]

I can see a huge amount of potential with VR for one on one Fighters played with arm, leg and head sensors allowing you to create your own moves etc. There is also endless possibilities for driving games, Star Wars games based on flying and pod racing sequences, FPS is an ideal genre for the format (with quality peripherals) too. Oh... oh! And an Iron Man game where you can fly around in an Iron man suit!

Sorry for the second post, but the realities of VR have really made games like this unattractive. Even just WALKING in a virtual world is enough to make a lot of people motion sick. Driving and flying around are just plain vomit-inducing. As mentioned above, you do adjust somewhat, but it's a real problem that has to be addressed.

[ASDR]

I just thought all of this current VR stuff got old so fast because without moving through an environment everything is just a 1-note minigame. Moving around is the most fundamental thing in the majority of games, if that can't be mapped to VR in any decent way (meaning not analog stick or teleportation or 3m^2 limit), there's very limited potential. Any kind of fighting game would be very hard to make interesting, everything I've seen so far reminds me of the worst kind of Wii waggle crap. Hitting stuff with a sword / fist just doesn't work if there's zero feedback and you're just punching air. And what about an FPS would actually work in VR? Don't get my wrong, I'd love to play a hundred hours of Cyberpunk 2077 in VR. I can forgive tracking issues, tripping over cables, motion sickness, uncomfortable headsets. But Cyberpunk 2077 without moving is just a turret sequence minigame that gets old after 5mins. Like all other VR FPS games. Resident Evil 7 is pretty amazing and one of the few 'real' games playable with a headset, but walking around with an analog stick just makes me queasy and totally breaks any sense of immersion. And I don't think the poor state of software is due to incompetence and lack of trying. It's just that there is no good solution short term to having the player navigate an environment and till that is solved nothing else matters. I thought the tracking on the Vive was great and the display was absolutely good enough, that's not the issue at all. But 95% of VR games for now will just either be traditional games shoehorned into VR or the equivalent of Wii shovelware. I mean there has been *some* fun stuff like Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes and I liked Beat Saber etc., but that ain't no Red Dead Redemption 2 either. Stuff I check out for 15min at a friend's place and then I'm good.

I think VR has failed in the sense that it didn't capture much market or developer mindshare nor will do so anytime soon. Is there any major studio working on a AAA VR title? Would you expect VR to get more than a short nod at the next round of E3 press conferences? Does anybody think VR will play a major role in who wins the next console cycle? I think all the major players in the industry have realized that with current VR technology there's no feasible way to provide a comfortable and immersive AAA game experience. You can't make Uncharted or The Witcher in VR unless you just use the VR headset as a glorified 3D TV and plonk the gamer down on the couch with a controller and hope the headaches are not too bad.

I really wish it wasn't this way, I am still insanely excited about the basic sense of presence that VR can give and would love to have this work for the next Persona or Mass Effect, but I guess it'll be another 10-20 years

[Classicgamer]

I can see a huge amount of potential with VR for one on one Fighters played with arm, leg and head sensors allowing you to create your own moves etc. There is also endless possibilities for driving games, Star Wars games based on flying and pod racing sequences, FPS is an ideal genre for the format (with quality peripherals) too. Oh... oh! And an Iron Man game where you can fly around in an Iron man suit!

Sorry for the second post, but the realities of VR have really made games like this unattractive. Even just WALKING in a virtual world is enough to make a lot of people motion sick. Driving and flying around are just plain vomit-inducing. As mentioned above, you do adjust somewhat, but it's a real problem that has to be addressed.

Ok I see what you are saying. You weren't talking about the potential for game ideas. Just the limitations in the current tech that prevent it.

I read about the nausea issue but it said that it only effected a small % of the population and that it applied more to the PS4 VR due to it's lower framerate.... or something. I'd risk a little sickness to fly around like Ironman though!

I agree that stuff like that needs to be addressed but if they are not going to invest in quality titles then they should stop asking us to invest in their headsets. I don't see why users should take on all the risk while they cover their ass with cash from early adopters.

Video game hardware companies have a bad track record of burning customers by ditching platforms that people invested in. Sony has been one of the worst offenders historically. I still have Mini disc scars.

While everyone is waiting to see what will happen, nothing will. We need games before we consider the hardware. Betamax video was superior tech at the time but nobody gave a sh*t because, while they were waiting to see if it caught on, the VHS guys secured all the content. And that's what counted.

[Classicgamer]

I just thought all of this current VR stuff got old so fast because without moving through an environment everything is just a 1-note minigame. Moving around is the most fundamental thing in the majority of games, if that can't be mapped to VR in any decent way (meaning not analog stick or teleportation or 3m^2 limit), there's very limited potential. Any kind of fighting game would be very hard to make interesting, everything I've seen so far reminds me of the worst kind of Wii waggle crap. Hitting stuff with a sword / fist just doesn't work if there's zero feedback and you're just punching air. And what about an FPS would actually work in VR? Don't get my wrong, I'd love to play a hundred hours of Cyberpunk 2077 in VR. I can forgive tracking issues, tripping over cables, motion sickness, uncomfortable headsets. But Cyberpunk 2077 without moving is just a turret sequence minigame that gets old after 5mins. Like all other VR FPS games. Resident Evil 7 is pretty amazing and one of the few 'real' games playable with a headset, but walking around with an analog stick just makes me queasy and totally breaks any sense of immersion. And I don't think the poor state of software is due to incompetence and lack of trying. It's just that there is no good solution short term to having the player navigate an environment and till that is solved nothing else matters. I thought the tracking on the Vive was great and the display was absolutely good enough, that's not the issue at all. But 95% of VR games for now will just either be traditional games shoehorned into VR or the equivalent of Wii shovelware. I mean there has been *some* fun stuff like Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes and I liked Beat Saber etc., but that ain't no Red Dead Redemption 2 either. Stuff I check out for 15min at a friend's place and then I'm good.

I think VR has failed in the sense that it didn't capture much market or developer mindshare nor will do so anytime soon. Is there any major studio working on a AAA VR title? Would you expect VR to get more than a short nod at the next round of E3 press conferences? Does anybody think VR will play a major role in who wins the next console cycle? I think all the major players in the industry have realized that with current VR technology there's no feasible way to provide a comfortable and immersive AAA game experience. You can't make Uncharted or The Witcher in VR unless you just use the VR headset as a glorified 3D TV and plonk the gamer down on the couch with a controller and hope the headaches are not too bad.

I really wish it wasn't this way, I am still insanely excited about the basic sense of presence that VR can give and would love to have this work for the next Persona or Mass Effect, but I guess it'll be another 10-20 years

Like I said, it just needs a little more imagination. I'd be happy playing Rambo in an FPS firing a minigun from the back of a truck or a helicopter. There are tons of ways of creating motion. Shooting and driving is the fun part in games. Walking around from place to place is the least exciting and least likely to feel real. The FPS is ideal because it's already a first person game in a VR world. Being able to look around and feel like your are there seems better that controlling the game camera with the second analog thumb stick.

Hitting air is the bigger problem. As I said, I think VR needs better peripherals to make it desirable. I want metal recoil guns and actual racing wheels or flight controls, not just virtual ones. It needs to be a marriage of awesome physical peripherals and the VR world. Not a VR world with VR peripherals.

It's also why you need VR gloves that simulate touch. If you punch something in the VR world, there should be pressure on your knuckles. I would expect to find something cool like that if I pay $1100 for a peripheral.

[ASDR]

I guess we're not going to agree here

Like I said, it just needs a little more imagination

People have displayed tremendous imagination over the last three years or so of commercial VR, but none of found a new type of gameplay that is as compelling as traditional games. That's not lack of trying or imagination, it's the fundamental limitations of the current iteration of VR. Can't move == can't make Zelda/Call of Duty.

I'd be happy playing Rambo in an FPS firing a minigun from the back of a truck or a helicopter

I wouldn't. Turret sequences have been critically panned for years as lazy game design and many players detest them. There's plenty of shooting gallery mini games available today. They're as compelling as you'd imagine. If you could walk around you could just put the player on the Far Cry island and you'd have your VR AAA killer app. Can't walk around? All you got is a shooting gallery minigame that gets boring after 15min.

IShooting and driving is the fun part in games. Walking around from place to place is the least exciting and least likely to feel real. The FPS is ideal because it's already a first person game in a VR world. Being able to look around and feel like your are there seems better that controlling the game camera with the second analog thumb stick.

Walking through and experiencing the worlds of Mass Effect, Skyrim or GTA is *exactly* what would excite me about VR. Many games are about traversal and exploration and even more straightforward shooters have a huge movement component. An FPS would be a great VR game if you could actually make one. All you can do with today's VR tech is rail shooters, a genre that has all but died in the modern age, for very good reasons.

I have a hard time imagining what could make VR exciting or even viable besides finding a solution to the movement problem, except perhaps having a perfect motion tracking & haptic feedback device for your hands. Games will never be fun if all you can do is stand in one place or move along a rail, but if I could actually use my hands with full fidelity you could make sitting at a table exciting. Maybe there's something to be done there. Unlikely to be cheap / simple / soon either, though.

[Classicgamer]

I guess we won't agree....

I haven't seen any evidence of tremendous imagination with VR titles. There is very little that has been done that anyone seems to be excited about (hardware or software).

Creating brief demos of half baked ideas is a lazy way of showing it's potential. People need to see full and finished games and lot of them.

[strygo]

This thread feels like an attempt to justify not purchasing something.

When I find myself debating a purchase, or comparing two items, I like to try to assess what my biases are and whether those biases are coloring my decision. Often, "cost" or perceived value can skew my thinking. Sometimes, there is a clear winner, but more often than not, there are trade-offs that exist. Take an example dear to the hearts of many on this forum. What should you use to upscale old content? It turns out that there isn't a perfect solution. The GBS with custom firmware is cheap, but not premium. The OSSC produces better results, but has compatibility issues and a higher cost. The Framemeister costs even more and handles some content better, but some content worse. Should you buy one in particular or multiple? Ultimately, it depends on your budget. People outside this forum would probably say we're crazy for buying any.

Similarly with VR - what's the point of all gaming? I'd venture to say being entertained. Does the PlayStation VR and a number of its games (including the ones mentioned in this thread) provide a unique and engaging set of experiences? Yes. Can those experiences be realized in other cheaper ways? Not currently. Should you buy one? Does it seem appealing and fit into your budget? Up to you. The technology is robust enough and being supported actively by developers. Tetris Effect and Ace Combat 7 both come to mind as recent games with support that I have enjoyed.

[ASDR]

Creating brief demos of half baked ideas is a lazy way of showing it's potential. People need to see full and finished games and lot of them.

We're agree on that one, but probably not on the reason why that is the case. My stance is clear, we haven't seen any VR killer app because current VR tech likely can't have one. Probably every top tier game developer and ever AAA studio at least gave VR a solid look, and I bet this has happened everywhere:

They try to make their Titanfall / Assassin's Creed / Tomb Raider / Red Dead Redemption gameplay work in VR and realize without player movement they simply have no game. Then they try the various hacks like teleportation or dual analog movement/aim and realize this is uncomfortable, not immersive and doesn't do the medium justice. Then they try to come up with alternate gameplay just as compelling as what they have outside of VR, but they can't. Then they either release some mini game thing or just give up.

That's why there are mostly 'brief demos of half baked ideas'. I don't think it's because people are lazy or bad at what they're doing, it's a fundamental problem with current VR technology that won't be solved by a Vive 2 / Rift 2 / PS5 + PSVR2 either.

Does the PlayStation VR and a number of its games (including the ones mentioned in this thread) provide a unique and engaging set of experiences? Yes. Can those experiences be realized in other cheaper ways? Not currently. Should you buy one? Does it seem appealing and fit into your budget? Up to you. The technology is robust enough and being supported actively by developers. Tetris Effect and Ace Combat 7 come to mind as recent games with support that I have enjoyed.

I agree. Since you mention Ace Combat 7, that's exactly why I don't have a VR headset. It's a cockpit game, which should be the easiest type of game to translate to VR, and even they just added a ~30min VR gimmick to their game. Exactly the thing I play once at a friend's place and then forget about. And if this is all you want, sure, buy a headset and enjoy. But if you want full sized AAA games that feel native to the VR environment, I don't think you'll get this today or in the foreseeable future.

[Classicgamer]

This thread feels like an attempt to justify not purchasing something.

When I find myself debating a purchase, or comparing two items, I like to try to assess what my biases are and whether those biases are coloring my decision. Often, "cost" or perceived value can skew my thinking. Sometimes, there is a clear winner, but more often than not, there are trade-offs that exist. Take an example dear to the hearts of many on this forum. What should you use to upscale old content? It turns out that there isn't a perfect solution. The GBS with custom firmware is cheap, but not premium. The OSSC produces better results, but has compatibility issues and a higher cost. The Framemeister costs even more and handles some content better, but some content worse. Should you buy one in particular or multiple? Ultimately, it depends on your budget. People outside this forum would probably say we're crazy for buying any.

Similarly with VR - what's the point of all gaming? I'd venture to say being entertained. Does the PlayStation VR and a number of its games (including the ones mentioned in this thread) provide a unique and engaging set of experiences? Yes. Can those experiences be realized in other cheaper ways? Not currently. Should you buy one? Does it seem appealing and fit into your budget? Up to you. The technology is robust enough and being supported actively by developers. Tetris Effect and Ace Combat 7 both come to mind as recent games with support that I have enjoyed.

You are not wrong. I am a bit of a sucker for new tech (espiecially video game stuff with a gun) so sometimes I need a little sense talked into me.

I've had an eye on VR tech ever since I saw it on UK tv show "Tomorrow's world" when I was a kid. Even my dad once said "one day, you won't be controlling a little man with a joystick, you will be the guy in the game and your hands will be the stick". And he's old.

There have been various attempts over the years and I was wondering if the current tech was finally at a point where it might work.

To be clear though... I want it to work. I want the discussion to sound more like "has anyone tried the Time Crisis 6 on VR? It's awesome and how about that Guncon 4 with it's full metal UZI styling and solenoid full auto recoil".

Keep dreaming I guess. Maybe next year...

[gray117]

Depends what your bag is - chances are though if you don't have it already then you can probably just wait and see.

psvr is a cool novelty... imho if you want a fun version of rez, and no interest in getting a pc, then burn the cash for that. For other people it's tetris. I think everyone enjoyed resident evil vr, but wouldn't say it was worth more than one play... Everything else is just an occasional laugh. Not worth it to you? Then forget about vr for now.

On the pc you've got some more options, and you're probably used to spending more of money on more bits of kit. But at this stage the question is have you got a cockpit/driving setup? If so then you probably owe it to yourself to get into VR one way or another... If not, you can leave it for now; wait and see what the next headset (/more likely tv/gfx card) will do for you.

...As novel as the experience may be it's too heavy, and low res, to want it as a work/media virtual screen environment.

[Austin]

I've had first-hand experience with PC VR for a bit. I owned a Rift for the better part of a year (before having to sell it to pay off some bills) and have used a friend's Vive quite a bit. I've really enjoyed my time with it and do intend on getting another headset in the future.

The big thing is that there's nothing like it when it comes to immersion. As such, VR excels at first-person stuff in particular (shooters, driving games, flight sims, etc). Using something like Dreadhalls as an example (a horror-themed "walking sim"), what might look like a standard game on a television becomes this surreal, terrifying experience in the VR space. You feel like you're really a part of the world.

Regarding nausea, games where I stand still work the best for me. Controlling movement via external sources (like using an analog stick) makes me instantaneously nauseous. If I'm in a car in a driving game, or if I playing in a large space and moving freely with my actual feet, I don't feel a disconnect and as such I don't get nauseous. For games that use teleportation movement, I have no issue with that if it's handled well.

My favorite games have been more akin to light-gun style games where I'm not moving in the real world (light sidesteps and ducking motions aside). Robo Recall and Serious Sam: The Last Hope have been the top ones for me: Robo Recall for its polish, clever ways to kill things, music, score-focused gameplay, goals and replayability; Serious Sam for the crazy levels of intensity. There are a lot of other games like these that are fantastic as well (Super Hot VR is one that comes to mind).

For PC VR, my suggestion is going as far as one can to ensure they'll get as good an experience as they can. This means having relatively capable PC hardware to get the job done right. You don't really want things looking poor if you can help it, so getting your screen resolutions as high as possible is a good thing and you don't want inconsistent framerates (this can cause nausea). A GTX 1060 or RX 480/580 at a bare minimum on the GPU with a current I5/I7 or R5/R7 should do the trick, but the higher the better.

You don't need a lot of space, but having it helps open up the possibilities. The Vive in particular I think is less cumbersome to set up in that regard where sensor placement is wireless. The Rift uses wired sensors.

Regarding the viability of VR, it is certainly not dead. It's just a slow burn as the technology improves. Costs will eventually come down and more people as a result will be able to try it. It will never disappear completely--the VR communities are very passionate about it and many professional spaces have taken to it for uses outside of gaming.

Similarly with VR - what's the point of all gaming? I'd venture to say being entertained. Does the PlayStation VR and a number of its games (including the ones mentioned in this thread) provide a unique and engaging set of experiences? Yes. Can those experiences be realized in other cheaper ways? Not currently. Should you buy one? Does it seem appealing and fit into your budget? Up to you. The technology is robust enough and being supported actively by developers. Tetris Effect and Ace Combat 7 both come to mind as recent games with support that I have enjoyed.

This is probably the best it's been stated so far. I agree 100%.

[thebigcheese]

To be clear though... I want it to work. I want the discussion to sound more like "has anyone tried the Time Crisis 6 on VR? It's awesome and how about that Guncon 4 with it's full metal UZI styling and solenoid full auto recoil".

Keep dreaming I guess. Maybe next year...

I mean, I do think there are experiences like that. Beat Saber is pretty awesome (but, at least on PS4, needs more songs). Borderlands 2 is available to play in VR and can be as nausea-inducing as you want it to be (though the controller still provides the best experience there). VR is not strictly required for Star Trek Bridge Crew, but it is amazing with it (especially with a full crew of real people). There aren't as many killer experiences, true, but they exist. Just don't expect them to be radically different from other games because, well, games are still games, after all

Also, you will never get a gun like that, at least not in the US. Pretty sure it's illegal to have a fake gun like that here (or else extremely frowned upon).