Inspiring

Question

We have to stop associating all VR with motion controls...

168 replies
22734 views

Things I see Vive-owners saying on social media on a near-daily basis:

"The Vive is the only real VR because it has motion controls!"

"Without motion controls, VR is just a monitor on your face"

"Why would I play this game if it doesn't have motion controls in it?"

"This game is incredible because motion controls! (no other reason given)"

"You can't get immersion without motion controls."

"I'll buy anything with motion controls in it!"

Things I see my fellow Rifters saying here:

"Oh yeah well the Rift WILL be the best AFTER we get motion controls!"

"These games are fun I guess but they'd be better if they used Touch"

"Every game I want to see in the future involves motion controls."

Things I remember Wii-owners saying:

"I can't wait until the Wii comes out, motion controls are going to revolutionize gaming!"

"Oh wow, Wii Sports is the most incredible game I've ever played! Motion controls, yay!"

"Huh... motion controls sure got old fast. All these developers just shoe-horned them in unnecessarily thinking we'd buy anything involving the wii-mote, instead of actually making the games good."

"All these motion-control games are the same. I'm not buying any more."

"How much store credit can I get for this Wii? You say you're already overstocked?"

This pattern worries me. Thanks to the Vive craze, a LOT of people are now looking at VR headsets as just an accessory TO motion control gaming, rather than the other way around. So what's going to happen to VR after everyone inevitably gets bored of motion controls again? Will the VR platforms thrive even after people become jaded with motion controls? Wil people jump ship from the Vive to the Rift, because we have content that doesn't rely entirely on motion controls to be fun? Or will they just conclude that all VR was a fad?

Or will motion controls actually survive past the "novelty" stage this time around? Will developers have learned from the Wii's short time in the lime-light (and the utter failure of Kinect) and actually go to the effort of making GOOD games that just happen to involve motion controls, or will they flood the VR platforms with glorified tech demos and half-assed shovelware that rely entirely on the novelty of motion controls, after seeing how easily impressed consumers are with such content on the Vive?

Believe me, I'm as eager as the rest of you to get my hands on Touch, but much like the people raving about the Vive now, and everyone hyped for the Wii when it first came out, this excitement is based on what could potentially be rather than anything we know for sure. The future of the entire VR industry shouldn't rely on whether our expectations for motion controls are met, because then if motion controls prove to be a short-lived novelty, VR would die with them. People need to see that VR is amazing with OR without motion controls, so that it will survive even if that proves to be a fad.

Show previous replies

C

CrashFuAuthor

Inspiring

@falken76 - You make a lot of good points there, but I would like to say that if you want to sell VR to people who don't have a prior interest, you really can't just tell them about it. Most people need a good demo to really understand how awesome the experience can be.... and THEN you tell them about the minimum $1500 entry-cost for the PC version, lol. (or point them at the Gear VR if they already have a nice phone, or PSVR if they've already got the PSVR. Just so they understand the highest-quality experience is going to be the one that cost a ****-load of money)

Sorry to hear you don't consider your VR experiences / the headset itself / the privilege of experiencing it before so many people to be worth the pricetag. Personally, I think I've gotten my money's worth just using it as a personal theater system and in conjunction with my VirZoom bike. (Some of the games have really left me awe-struck, too, but gaming takes up like 1/10th of my total Rift-time)

It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.

F

falken76

Honored Contributor

I love my Rift, When I say it's not worth it, it's because I'm taking into account what normal people would consider. I have always been the type to buy early into stuff. I bought the Sega Saturn on Launch day after the 32x dissappointed me. Neither of those purchases were worth it either according to all my peers at the time, but that doesn't stop my buying behavior, or 20 years later I wouldn't have purchased the rift at this stage. 3D printers were an early adoption I bought into that was entirely worth it because I was able to make money using them. That is the only reason I could afford to buy a rift now. :) I personally think all my purchases are worth it, the 32x that sucked, the Saturn, Replicator 2, Flashforge Creator Pro & Flashforge dreamer, Oculus Rift. Most people that see my toys don't agree and they are a better representation of the general population to me. Those same people would say I spent too much on the touch controllers that I will buy when they are released.

But to move VR forward for normal people will take a lot and it all centers around cost IMHO. I agree, you can't just tell people about VR they need to experience it. Best buy will help with that.

My friend wants to get the Gear VR for his Samsung phone after he tried the rift. So he was immediately interested in VR, he just can't afford the rift at it's current cost because he'd also have to upgrade his video card at minimum cost of around $250.

C

CrashFuAuthor

Inspiring

@falken76 - Ah I see. Yeah, 1st-rate tech is always going to be too expensive for anyone who isn't a serious enthusiast or just rich enough to not care. A couple years from now, we'll have a new generation of VR headsets that are the latest and greatest, and these first consumer generation models will become affordable for everyone else.

IE, the cost "problem" will go away with time. It's the natural course of things.

The true endeavor is for those of us with VR now to convince everyone else that they're going to want it once they can afford it; give our friends and family demos, ramble on about how awesome the experiences are, not complain about the small insignificant things or go on about it "not being as good as 4K 2D displays".

We convince them that our $1500 VR set-up is amazing now, they'll buy it when it costs half as much. At least, that's what PSVR is banking on in a couple months here, right?

It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.

Z

zboson

Up and Coming

I think this review is good
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/05/why-vive-has-won-the-early-vr-race-in-my-house/

Based on that review the Vive is better in general for VR because of the motion controllers. But the author concludes that likely the Rift will be better with its controllers.

As far as I understand Oculus got most of its tech from Valve. I'm not sure why Valve allowed this. Valve is ahead in tech which is why it has the motion controllers already. I wished Oculus shipped with them. It's a huge mistake to make them an accessory unless it means the lower price without the controllers means more people buy Oculus. But I doubt that's the reason. I think they just did not have the tech ready.

Right now I use the Leap Motion controller but I think I will prefer the controllers.

C

CrashFuAuthor

Inspiring

zboson said:

As far as I understand Oculus got most of its tech from Valve. I'm not sure why Valve allowed this. Valve is ahead in tech which is why it has the motion controllers already.

Ahaha. No. I'm sorry, It's actually the complete opposite way around; almost all of the technology used in the Vive was given to Valve by Oculus (except of course the things they ended up doing completely different like the tracking system and pass-through camera).

In fact, if you go back a couple years, before Valve even got the idea to partner up with HTC and make competing hardware, they were enthusiastically supporting Oculus and raving about how revolutionary Oculus' tech was (they even put a promotional Rift hat in Team Fortress 2, as well as adding beta rift support to that and I believe a couple other Source engine games). By their own admission from that time, none of Valve's prior experiments in VR were even close to the Rift development kits in functionality, and they had NO current interest in VR until Oculus proved it could work and started sharing research and technology with them.

How does a company "steal" a technology from you if they were the ones who developed it and shared it with you in the first place? If I share my family's cucumber salad recipe with a neighbor, I'm not stealing it from them if I continue to use the recipe myself. Especially if they added an extra seasoning to their rendition and I keep making mine the way I always have.

More importantly, choosing to release their motion controls immediately doesn't make Valve "ahead in technology". Being "ahead in technology" means having superior technology, not releasing whatever you have before the other guy. The fact that Oculus didn't feel the need to release Touch early just to compete with the Vive wands says a lot about their confidence.

It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.

H

Hanover

Up and Coming

Expt626 said:

True VR is when you have the freedom to fly around in VR and yet still be lying down in reality i.e. SAO.

Roomscale imo is just a gimmick. The kind of game you can play with roomscale is just too limited.

This.

Ideally, VR should not be limited by your real-life space. People want to use the holodeck paradigm, but that's weak since the holodeck never had it's users running into walls, or smashing controllers into things. There are no holograms involved with VR either.

I think the idea of large volume room tracking is more akin to AR than VR since you're actually moving within a real space that is not virtual...which again, re-introduces barriers that VR is trying to remove.

I understand why many people think it's cool. Of course it's immersive because you are ACTUALLY WALKING. Unfortunately it's applications are limited by your space and we don't live in a a world where everyone has a large amount of space. VR should be trying to solve that space issue by placing you into worlds that are bigger than real life and making you feel like you're moving around that space irregardless of the size of your room.

J

JED44

Up and Coming

@Hanover take a look at onward for the vive, traditional locomotion that fully utilizes motion controls, 360 tracking, and room scale (not necessary, but you need enough space to use motion controllers in the first place at least)

As far as VR goes, this removes more barriers then this creates. considering you are physically performing each action aside from walking, without the issues of running out of play space or walking into walls, or having to reset or teleport.

PS also works with touch, I urge you guys to try it once Touch ships, incredibly intense game

Z

zboson

Up and Coming

CrashFu said:

zboson said:

As far as I understand Oculus got most of its tech from Valve. I'm not sure why Valve allowed this. Valve is ahead in tech which is why it has the motion controllers already.

Ahaha. No. I'm sorry, It's actually the complete opposite way around; almost all of the technology used in the Vive was given to Valve by Oculus (except of course the things they ended up doing completely different like the tracking system and pass-through camera).

In fact, if you go back a couple years, before Valve even got the idea to partner up with HTC and make competing hardware, they were enthusiastically supporting Oculus and raving about how revolutionary Oculus' tech was (they even put a promotional Rift hat in Team Fortress 2, as well as adding beta rift support to that and I believe a couple other Source engine games). By their own admission from that time, none of Valve's prior experiments in VR were even close to the Rift development kits in functionality, and they had NO current interest in VR until Oculus proved it could work and started sharing research and technology with them.

How does a company "steal" a technology from you if they were the ones who developed it and shared it with you in the first place? If I share my family's cucumber salad recipe with a neighbor, I'm not stealing it from them if I continue to use the recipe myself. Especially if they added an extra seasoning to their rendition and I keep making mine the way I always have.

More importantly, choosing to release their motion controls immediately doesn't make Valve "ahead in technology". Being "ahead in technology" means having superior technology, not releasing whatever you have before the other guy. The fact that Oculus didn't feel the need to release Touch early just to compete with the Vive wands says a lot about their confidence.

I though I read about this on Arstechnica but I don't find the article there. It was a few months ago I read this.
But here are two articles
http://www.roadtovr.com/alan-yates-rift-is-direct-copy-of-valves-vr-research/
http://uploadvr.com/valve-shared-vr-oculus/

I get the impression that Valve had a head start and in any case did a lot of their own research. But I see that goes back to the DK1 and a lot has happened since then. In any case I think I will stop stating who got what from whom for now.

BTW, I did not see your answer until now. I don't know why I am not getting notices when people quote me.

Zenbane

Honored Contributor

The whole "who took what from whom" debate should have ended awhile ago when a detailed timeline was released and discussed. Neither of those articles are the main source I read when it was provided on this forum. Needless to say, it is an issue that will likely continue for all time; similar to Apple vs Microsoft.

On a slightly different note, I'm impressed with the longevity of this thread. Bravo.

C

CrashFuAuthor

Inspiring

Zenbane said:

On a slightly different note, I'm impressed with the longevity of this thread. Bravo.

Me too! Usually when I make a thread anywhere it gets somewhere between two replies to a page of discussion and then is immediately forgotten forever, lol.

I guess this is just a topic that we're all very passionate and opinionated about. It's been interesting to see that "immersion" can mean such different things to different people. Or rather, that something that is necessary for one person to feel immersed will actually break immersion for someone else.. IE "being able to reach out and interact with my surroundings" vs. "being reminded that they aren't real when I'm unable to feel them"

It's hard being the voice of reason when you're surrounded by unreasonable people.

Show more replies

Get Help

Sign up

Login with SSO

Login to the community

Login with SSO