Technology

PCVR very much isn't dead, especially with Valve likely releasing their next headset within the next year.

I can't think of a single VR game that has come out that felt like a fully fleshed out game. The games I've played the most have all been ports (e.g. Borderlands 2, Skyrim, Fallout 4, The Forest) because native VR games are typically only 3-6 hours long.

Meta really make it annoying to use too. My next headset will definitely not be a Meta.

I have 450+ hours of Pavlov on PSVR2, plenty of hours in other games as well. The biggest issue imho is size / type of players. There's not always good servers/people around when playing Pavlov and it's just not fun single player. But being able to play basically VR CounterStrike at home is just awesome to me, the tech is great.

At least VR does what it promised, unlike crypto and AI.

I also think there are economic reasons, we don’t live during a time when people can buy expensive toys.

Steam deck was a hit because it was economical, just $500 and have access to a whole PC.

I bought a used PSVR2 recently for playing Gran Turismo, but was surprised how cool the gunplay is in some games, so have mostly been playing Resident Evil 4 (which I already had from buying a collection of used games, but never played).

I've always said that AR was the real future. Technology that isolates people from others in the same room as them always seems to fail.

What Meta has been doing with VR has failed. PCVR continues and continues growing and will still be around when the great Zuck moves on.

Personally i don't see VR as the future of gaming, VR is all about an increase in immersion which isn't always what you want in a video game. It'll be its own unique thing. As to whether or not it'll remain niche entirely depends on how the technology develops and its ease of use. From what i tell now, and what VR will probably be used for predominately (and well its mostly being used this way anyway) is socializing. Yeah you can play video games with it but I think the primary drive for VR for a lot of people will be what is essentially digital chatroom, movies, theme parks basically VR chat and things like it.

I bet Half life alyx was supposed to be HL3, but the tech wasn't there yet so the project changed.

If you’ve already got a VR headset and you’re happy with it, I’m envious. But for the rest of us, it’s worth asking the question: just what is it going to take to get on board?

Speaking for myself, if I can use a headset about as well as I do a regular display, that'll do it for me. I'm less-interested in a gaming-specific peripheral, though that'd be nice frosting on the cake. If I can just carry a headset in a case and a display-less laptop, that'd probably be sufficient to get me onboard the HMD train.

There are real benefits to that:

• Privacy. My screen isn't visible to anyone nearby.

• Wider field of view possible.

• No glare issues.

• Potentially less power use, since one isn't blasting light everywhere just to get a little into one's eye.

• Able to use in any orientation easily, like lying down.

My experience so far has not led me to believe that this is near. I've found HMDs to be twitchy about the location relative to the eye, prone to blurriness if nudged a bit off. Blurriness around the edges. On my Royole Moon, fogging up is an issue, due to shields to eliminate light from bleeding in. Limited resolution. For some, inability to easily see the surrounding world. Limited refresh rates. Many headsets can't really be used with headphones, which is okay, as long as you're fine with the headphones that come with the headset. [EDIT: As someone else pointed out, setup time is a hassle as well. I want using one to be as trivial as it is today for me to open my wireless headphones case and throw the headphones on my head, with just the addition of a cable.]

I don't personally really care all that much about price, if the thing can serve as a competitive monitor replacement, since then it's not just a toy.

I'd also add that I think that there are some genres, like flight sims, where VR has legitimately succeeded. Like, compared to multiple-monitor rigs that some serious flight sim fans have set up, VR is pretty much better in all ways. No physical control panels and such, maybe, but they really want the wide FOV and ability to use the head/eye as an input device.

I'm sure that there are probably some AR applications where you can find an AR headset making sense. Maybe stargazing or something.

But what the article author seems to want is a transition to a world where basically all or a large chunk of new video games are VR-based. And yeah, that hasn't happened.

EDIT: Honestly, most of the games I find myself spending a lot of time playing aren't even 3D in the first place. That's not due to lack of hardware. I have a pretty maxed-out PC, can run them fine. It's just not what I think is most-entertaining to do

many of the games that I find really deep and replayable are 2D, so I'm not playing the 3D games that I do have. If the games aren't 3D, it's hard to see how VR buys much.

VR won’t be viable until it’s transparent and unobtrusive; a contact lens, for example. A giant headset that you strap on to your face just isn’t appealing to most customers outside of the initial novelty factor.

Uh, what VR?

Good thing Zuck has to deal with all those terrible consequences resulting from his country-sized expenditure on the failed metaverse project.

Ok, now do AI. I feel like normal people knew VR was dead again 3+ years ago.