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

@Tasuki:

I don't think it's so much people being blinded to any negatives of VR, I think part of the overhype is the fact that Sony is all-in and a fail could possibly sink the company. I really wish Sony would've just been happy with the success of PS4 and focused all its effort into just making great exclusive games for it as well as continuing to secure important marketing deals with third party partners. Instead we have a situation now where at best, the fanbase is split and some of those who shelled out $400 for the base unit may end up missing some great games but they either can't afford to drop another $400-$600 on a headset or there's the chance that they can't play in VR because of motion sickness or something else. I have absolutely no problem with Sony pursuing this route, especially if this time it finally takes off they're going to be one of the pioneers. I just wish they weren't doing by splitting the fanbase of a console that has proven to this point to be highly successful, this is just as likely to end up the same as the Kinect debacle as it is to be hugely successful.

More focus on games working day one and less focus on VR.

Maybe that's just me...

@SkanetWasTaken:

You didn't have to strap on a helmet in 1995 to enjoy 3D polyginal graphics. VR may have a place, but it will likely remain niche to a degree......that doesn't mean IGN has to shove it down our thoughts like it's the newest savior of video games, akin to the Wiimote in 2007.

@SkanetWasTaken: At the end of the day, VR is just a screen strapped to your face with a bit of head-tracking. It maybe adds more immersion and could lead to a few unique gaming experiences but ultimately its not doing much more than the right thumbstick and TV screen offers. Games already have good sound design and a decent headset will give you the impression of where sound is coming from - use the right thumb stick and you can see it. The difference with VR is that you turn your head towards things. Games these days already have a 3D environment. We can look all around in most of these. The technology lends itself to a first person perspective too. Whether that's looking through a pair of human eyes or some alien, monster or animal its still going to be most effective in a FPS view. No game on VR couldn't work with a TV although I do think the 'impact' would not be as significant and would probably have a narrower field of view. Depth is more apparent in VR too although I have never struggled to get an impression of how far away objects appear on a 2D screen. I play a lot of FPS games for example and can judge where to throw a grenade to bounce off a wall to go round a 'distant' corner as if it was a 3D image.

VR is unlikely to radically change game development - at most you may get games with certain features that utilise VR more effectively than we currently see - ie things appearing a lot closer than they do in other games or utilising the wider field of view. In racing games for example it will work best from a cockpit view where you can look down and see the instruments, gear shift, peddles and maybe even your feet/legs but ultimately it will still be a 'racing' game. It may feel more like you are in control and actually in the car but its still going to be a standard racing game that could be played on a TV.

A bit like other peripherals though, it will need software support. Morpheus, unlike Kinect though, can take advantage of software developed for other VR devices. It could still suffer similar issues though as some developers may not take the risk of developing for it exclusively because of the potential reduction in sales. I expect many multi-platform games at most will use it as a 'screen' rather than for its head tracking ability. All the games demoed so far could be played on a standard TV but like I said you wouldn't get the same impression of being in a RIG, surrounded by dinosaurs, flying/driving a vehicle or swimming with Sharks.

Effectively all VR does is take away all the stuff you can see outside of the borders of the TV and creates the illusion of 'depth' because of how it shows the left and right image. If you focus on things in the foreground, objects in the distance become out of focus and vice versa. With VR (like 3D TV), I can see an issue where the developer forces you to look at certain things as they are in focus however if you try to look at other things, your eyes will strain trying to focus them at their perceived depth. Maybe they will have a way of keeping 'everything' in focus. It actually hurts my eyes to focus on my finger (or other object) 3" from my face and ended up with migraines using earlier 3D gaming devices (like tomytronics 3D handhelds, Nintendo's Virtual Boy etc) not just because of the poor visual quality, refresh rates etc, but because of having something so close to my eyes to focus on. I know others that didn't suffer as much as I did or as quickly so maybe this technology doesn't suit me physically - I am not willing to shell out that much to find out its not suitable - and whilst it might be ok for 10-30mins or so trying it in a shop, I still have concerns over the long term.

Don't get me wrong, I don't 'hate' VR but I can't see it being a Game Changer, a must have peripheral etc. Certain experiences may be 'enhanced' by it but I don't see how those experiences can not be had with a TV.

@SkanetWasTaken: It doesn't matter how much investment you put into VR - I am not just referring to financial, Its still just a screen that offers a better 3D perspective and cuts out peripheral 'clutter' and a wider field of view. The ability to head track takes away the need to use the right thumbstick to look but its still going to require other peripherals - like a controller to game unless its an on-rails adventure where a 'look' affects what happens - ie look at a path to go down that road, look at 'something' to score a point (or whatever).

Because of its 3D and wider field of view, it can open up a bit more visual opportunities - for example using the peripheral (wider field of view) for visual clues as opposed to TV based games using audio only. Its purpose is to put you in the world and take away the distractions of the real world. Its not like Move or Kinect - something that changes the way you play games and opens up a whole new genre (in the case of Move/Kinect - Fitness/Dance/Sport games). I guess it could be used in conjunction with a move type controller to play a tennis type game from a first person perspective although I don't know how safe it would be to be moving around a 'real' environment but unable to see anything in that.

As I said it lends itself better to games in the first person. A Horror game for example could feel more claustrophobic and scary with creatures/monsters etc feeling much closer because of the proximity of the screen and lack of peripheral clutter and the 3D effect could make it seem that they are literally about to grab you. I am not denying its certainly got potential to enhance these games but they could still be played on a TV and still create the same experience to a lesser degree. The illusion that the hand is about to grab you would obviously feel much closer, more threatening because you don't sit that close to a TV and have all the peripheral clutter in view as well but the point is you still have the same visual clues as to what is happening and could still play that game.

In First person games, If I want to look at the sky, I just use the right thumbstick to look up. With VR you literally just look up. In a FPS game, if I hear noise to the right, I use the thumbstick to look right. With VR I could hear something or maybe even catch sight of something moving because of the wider FoV and just turn my head to look. Just because I can't see it on my TV though doesn't mean I can't detect it. Obviously it helps to have a decent headset and I think VR is just the visual equivalent - an enhancement to the visual landscape where a headset/surround sound system enhances the audio landscape. A headset though isn't so restricted to a first person perspective as you can get a good audio landscape from a third person game and also enhances the audio for all genres - particularly as most TV's these days don't have decent, full surround sound speaker system - even music can sound a little flat.

@Splat:
Not just you, I agree with 100% with that sentiment.