Topic: Is gaming media over-hyping VR at our expense?

First of all, this has nothing to do specifcially with Push Square or it's VR coverage.

Question is, do you think the gaming media at large (IGN, Gamespot, mostly everyone in-between) is over-hyping VR without looking at the concerns of the general user base? This seems to be more common with sites like IGN. So, while I do recognize that VR is the hot topic of 2016, I do feel that a lot of these journalists or content creators are skipping over a lot of the general concerns (usability, functionality, quality of software, price) that most of us have about the medium.

Also, while their is a good segment of core gamers that are very excited about VR, a lot of us seem to have concerned to negative viewpoints about it as well...........but, their is very little of that latter viewpoint reflected in gaming media.

Definitely. I still have my doubts, and I'm sure it won't be easy for VR to become even remotely successful. We'll see how well it does very soon though.

Of course these media outlets are over hyping it. Alot of them are probably getting paid by Sony and other companies involved to create a hype. Others are just people who are hyped for VR stuff and who are blinded to everything negative about it cause they just it want to succeed. Looked at how hyped people were for motion controls, and where are they now?

Completely overhyped. There's some magic belief that the screen being 3 inches from your eyes will improve the experience. I call shenanigans.

Funnily I've read 2 articles by oculus rift users / owners who say after the initial wow factor, they just don't bother using it anymore.

Its 3D TV all over again. The initial WOW factor of it will fade.

For those that do 'invest' in VR - whether that's Morpheus or the technically superior Oculus Rift, I wonder how long it will be before the first person ends up in A&E with some related injury caused by not having peripheral vision. I wonder how long it will take before they start suffering some directly related symptoms from wearing it - Eye related issues, nausea, headaches etc. I find watching 3D on my TV 'uncomfortable' after an hour - Its trying to focus on things artificially out of focus as they want you to look at something specific. A classic example is when characters in the mid-ground are talking but something in the foreground/background is happening and you try to look at it and your eyes try to 'focus' on it but can't. The fact that your eyes need to focus on different things at differing focal lengths, really concerns me with having something strapped a few inches in front of your eyes. I couldn't play the Virtual boy for more than 5 minutes and struggled with the Tomytronic 3D games too. I know the technology has improved but a lot of the issues I had was the fact it was so close to my eyes.

I do think VR has a place and could be popular, having used it I can also understand the hype around it. It genuinely is incredible...

However, how many gamers can complete block out the outside world when gaming? I know I can't (and I don't even have kids...yet). I often chat to my partner when gaming and can't imagine she'd be happy if most nights I completely ignored her to be in a virtual reality. This is the main reason I don't think it will be a gaming staple...but it will have it's place.

Not sure its being over hyped the gaming industry has been waiting for a long time for VR to come good. Will this first generation of the technology be perfect no, will it change the world again no. But its the starting point and each generation of the tech will get better and more affordable. It will not be for everyone. I can not see Twitch users putting it on and streaming.

The importance is that you have different companies competing to bring out products which will drive the technology to get btter and better. I am looking forward to the immersion the VR will provide.

@dryrain: Like you said, its something the industry wants - not necessarily the gamers. I think they want it because its 'something' that isn't currently available. Where else can they go? We have seen a variety of controllers including motion and even where your whole body can become a 'controller'. We have seen 3D games and by this I mean games that require a 3D TV not things like SM64. Its the next logical step to combine 3D and motion but that doesn't mean its 'wanted'.

Did 3D improve gaming, did motion control change gaming - to a degree I guess but mainly in a few genres - Dance/fitness/sport but hardly the norm. I have no doubt that the technology could drive VR improvements but we are seeing less and less 3D games now as well as fewer motion based games. I find the PS4 games that try to use the Touchpad or motion, it feels shoe-horned in for the sake of it. I don't think shaking my controller and mimicking a 'spray can' (Infamous) improves the experience.

At best I can see VR being used just as a 'screen' but I can't see it lasting. It may spawn or suit a niche genre but these could get repetitive.

@bamozzy the spray can shaking for me was really good. The touchpad pad is good its just not being used by developers. If Microsoft had it on its controller it would help because you could just use the same controls when doing the game design But at the moment its an extra feature that unless Sony push it seems to go missing in most games. It would be good in FPS for reloading the weapon just running your finger across. I would like to see the motion part of the controller used more it has been used well in the past on PS3.

3D technology just does not look very good when they can do it better maybe it will be adopted more. Never played on Kinnect MS seemed to give up on it to keep the price lower for the system. But I think it works for the right games.

Vr has a place in gamingniche or not will wait and see. But it will also excel in transporting people to places they might never visit. You can walk round art galleries, museums, go shopping in stores. There are so many possibities.

I think motion technology can work well just look at the success of the Wii it got people playing a sytem that would never have normally been played.

The question I'd pose to people who think it's being over hyped is: how many of you have tried it?

@get2sammyb:

Very few if any of us, but my question is return is.......why are certain sections of the gaming media so adamant about hyping it up without addressing logical concerns.

We all lived through the kinetic and move years, and while both situations are not in every way comparable, the gaming media did the same thing there......they hyped products which ultimately gave mediocre to poor experiences, despite promising so much.

I've tried both PlayStation VR and the Oculus Rift - and I was impressed by both. However, I have little faith in either of them being beneficial as a whole to gaming. I also think that the chances of them taking off - again, in terms of gaming - are relatively slim.

The main reason behind this way of thinking is that I don't think the specific software will be there. At this point in time, no big publisher is going to pump money into a title made purely for VR, and to me, that's just the start of the problem. We all know what happens to a device that doesn't have a good enough software library: it doesn't sell. And if it doesn't sell, the library doesn't grow.

I'd be far more confident in PS VR if there was any game that didn't look like a tech demo or an experiment, but that's all we've seen so far.

Again, though, this is in terms of gaming. It's been said before but I do think that there's potential for it in other areas of entertainment, but even then, it's very early days.

@sub12: Because this is honestly legit cool, as people will realise when they try it. There are mighty obstacles to overcome, and I personally haven't seen any publications shying away from them, but this is phase one and I genuinely do believe there's a future in the technology - even if it's not necessarily games.

You should be sceptical without doubt, but from my point of view, gaming needs a shake-up right now, and maybe other publications feel the same way. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be more honest about the limitations and problems, but I can see why some sites might be taking a glass half-full approach rather than @ShogunRok's glass half-empty approach.

Hopefully we'll strike the right balance on this site!

Think of the pr0n!

Also I agree about gaming needing a shakeup. Too many open-world tower-climbing bobble-collecting adventures with rpg elements. Other templates too, but things are definitely getting formulaic.

@get2sammyb: It may be a cool experience, but that doesn't change the fact that VR is, and always will be, an expensive set-up. I doubt many gamers are willing to give it a shot, especially when they haven't tried it before. Is it as amazing as reviewers have described it? Undoubtedly. However, I don't think it'll be as popular as some people seem to think.

@dryrain: The Touchpad technology is impressive but why bother swiping a finger to reload when you can just press 'square'. Its position isn't the greatest or easiest to use - often requiring you to release your 'grip' with one hand to use it. It does give the controller a lot more functionality and maybe because its only on PS then multi-platform games are unlikely to use it for much more than a 'button'.

I felt the 'spray can' thing was an interesting use but I did feel it was 'shoe horned' in and overused (if you bothered to do all the graffiti) to showcase the ability of it. It didn't add anything for me and would have preferred to use the thumbstick and trigger - no need to shake the controller either. It felt cumbersome to get the exact line-up to cover the stencil too.

I have been stunned/amazed at 3D TV. Seeing a Bird fly out of the screen and 'bubbles' floating around in my room. At times its absolutely incredible. However at times its not great too. I have watched some 3D films that remind me more of those cardboard cut-out 'theatres' - where each layer seems 2D and I don't like the way certain things are in focus. A classic example was in Transformers: Age of Extinction when one of the Transformers pointed his gun at someone. The gun was very close but blurry because the transformer was speaking and in-focus but was only a very small part of the screen. trying to focus on the gun in the foreground as it was the largest, most prominent and closest object was 'painful'. The illusion is also broken by the screens limitations - as the bird came closer, its wing tips disappeared, some bubbles were only 'half bubbles'. I know with VR this won't (or is unlikely to) happen though. I still have issues with strapping a box over my eyes and having a screen that close.

Kinect itself is a great piece of technology. Again though it is limited - particularly in gaming. You can argue its the same as the 'touchpad' as its only available on Xbox and so affects multi-platform game design. It has been used in some games like BF4 for voice commands and the 'lean' function as well as in Fifa to react to 'swearing'. I know the BF4 things are not in the PS4 version - not sure about Fifa though. It is far better than Wii mote/Move for dance and fitness based games and arguably better in family sports and younger kids games too but it is 'niche'. I do think it could work well in 'mainstream' games but not always as a controller. A horror-survival game would be perfect for utilising Kinect - it could measure your heart rate and react when it drops, cause something to happen like an enemy jump out or wall/floor collapse - meaning your playthrough would be different. It could also record the moments you 'jump' - after all we saw how popular videos were of gamers playing Slender etc.

I don't need VR to artificially walk through a museum or visit a place. It will never replace the impact of actually being there and at best is only fulfilling 2 of the sensory imputs - visual and aural. You can't go 'virtual' shopping in a better way as a result - you can't pick up the veg/fruit etc that's at the ripeness you want, you can't try a pair of shoes on and feel how well they fit and how comfortable they are. In gaming terms, I see it working better for things like 'Everybody's gone to the Rapture' the slow paced, no particular focus point gaming or even 'Slender'. I can't see it working well in something like Call of Duty - not the motion aspect anyway. As its a game that is fast paced and requires you to stay on target, I can see aiming being thrown off by the slightest head movement.

The success of motion controls and the Wii was great and certainly encouraged more into gaming. It also helped bring families together in this activity too - something Move and Kinect did for those respective consoles. From my perspective, my family though moved from Wii to Kinect and my daughters much preferred Dance/Fitness games using this. Our Wii never got used after this. It though again fits a 'niche' market. Kinect again helps with its other 'media based' functions/apps as its a lot easier for many people to control their viewing. I don't know many people that can't dictate what they are looking for, say 'play', 'pause', 'stop' etc but know many that can't use a 'controller' to do this effectively. If you look at the current 'gaming' market, despite Wii's success, we don't see many games using 'motion' controls apart from the dance/fitness/party games and these aren't exactly flooding the market.

I certainly wouldn't want my kids having VR. I would be concerned about the impact on their growth/development with prolonged and/or frequent use. I don't know if spending time in a 'virtual' environment will have physical and/or psychological impact on them. Its not just the impact that ''gaming' itself may or may not have but the way the body develops and relies on a multitude of senses - not just Visual and Aural but even motion from walking. I am sure its OK in a 'safe' environment and for very short term use at a 'show' but as gamers in general are more likely to play longer, more frequently and in more confined and unobserved environments - They don't have someone ensuring the space around them is safe and that nothing gets 'close'. Your peripheral vision is very important - I know exactly what's around me, I know if my cat for example is going to jump up on me even if I am engrossed in a game - it's not going to make me jump.

@Octane: That's fair, but all new technology starts out expensive. None of us would have mobile phones, tablets, or HD televisions if everyone thought like that. I get what you're saying and I'm certainly not suggesting that VR is as "necessary" as the aforementioned appliances, but it's the exact same discussion we've had before about every new piece of tech.

I'm sure Sony will be working hard to get VR into as many retailers as they can possibly manage. It really is essential that people try it.

@get2sammyb: I agree. However the problem with VR ia that you need to render the game on 2 screens in a very high resolution. If you take PS VR for example, a game would always look much better on a TV, because it doesn't need to render the game twice.

@Octane: Yes, but... Divorce yourself from the technical realities and imagine for a second that you're not looking through a window into another world, but you're there instead. It's powerful.

So my thing is with the VR helmet what is that going to do for social gaming? One of the biggest flaws with the Virtual Boy was that only the person wearing the thing can see the game. How would local co-op games work? More then likely you would have to buy two helmets. What is you wanted to show someone a particular trouble spot in a game? So far this is another anti social device. How would you be able to play party games like Mario Kart or something along those lines?