Were the critics right: Is VR just a Fad/Gimmick?

[Zenbane]

I have spent more time "lurking" instead of "contributing" to VR discussions this year, between this forum, reddit, and the Facebook groups. I have found myself wanting to do more observing and reflecting in 2019, as opposed to the active contributions I was making from 2016-2019. And a big part of that is because the overall VR landscape seems rather stale in comparison to the amazing strides made during the first 3 years of the CV1 era (speaking to both the original Rift and Vive here).

In 2018, it really felt like things were going to explode from some galactic battle of the VR Giants with everyone promising to "move VR forward" and "set a new standard." But as far as I can tell, every competitor has failed at truly moving the needle beyond the hype coming out of the 2016 CV1 releases:

• Apple still hasn't done anything meaningful in VR.
• Amazon has only dabbled in VR with some supportive Software.
• The Pimax 8K proved to be little more than an over-hyped kickstarter (this HMD is now selling in droves on E-bay).
• Valve's Index HMD proved to be "more of the same" and Valve Knuckles completely failed to meet the 2+ years of hype leading up to it. While I would agree that the Index is, overall, the best PCVR offering on the market today, this is only true because of the failures of its competitors; not because of the advances Index is making.
  
• HTC Vive Pro is all but obsolete. Rarely, if ever advertised, and now all attention is being pointed towards the next "dangling carrot," the Vive Cosmos.
• Facebook and Oculus failed to deliver a true Rift CV2, and their biggest claim to fame - the Oculus Quest - continues to offer a very limited software Library, much of which mimics what Rift users can already experience.
• After all these years, the Steam Hardware Survey still shows Oculus and Vive dominating the charts, with a minuscule number of competitors dangling at the bottom.
  
• The HP Reverb had great potential (even I considered buying one) but fell short in multiple areas compared to current offerings and general industry standards.
• Microsoft continues to dabble between Mixed Reality and HoloLens; with no flagship hardware nor a noteworthy software platform.
• PlayStationVR continues to linger, with little confirmation about a Gen 2 VR Kit; leaving communities to debate over interpretations of hidden signs of the truth.
  
• On the mobile front, GearVR and GO are slowly becoming vaporware. While Hulu drops support for Google DayDream.

These are my own personal observations based on my own sentiment and that of which I've observed across multiple VR communities. I will point out that the purpose of this thread is not to fuel a debate between VR products or competitors. I am putting every VR organization, sector, and product on the chopping block evenhandedly. In a nutshell: they are all failing to meet expectations in 2019.

There are a few other factors that has caused me to raise my concern about VR turning in to a Fad/Gimmick:

• AAA Software is still nowhere to be found. With VR, at best we get "AAA-like" experiences. Even AAA games like Skyrim and Fallout turn out to be "AAA-like" in VR. This lack of true AAA investment seems telling since we are nearly 4 years in to mainstream VR with no one feeling compelled to make the necessary investments to move out of "AAA-like" experiences. In fact, we are still getting Early Access software experiences on both Steam and the Oculus Store.
  
• Facility-based VR is becoming talked about more and more, which feels like a sign that VR is moving in to the fad/gimmick phase of modern arcades and internet cafes. I tried one of these VR "arcade rides" recently, and I can confirm that the experience is highly lackluster and does more to move VR in to a "gimmick" than a sophisticated platform. As a comparison, once upon a time we could play the Street Fighter arcade with Punching Pads instead of standard buttons. As we can clearly see... punching a pad never became a standard and was short lived. And if you see a game today that uses Punching Pads... you understand that this is a temporary fad/gimmick. Machines that move or vibrate while putting players in a VR HMD are the exact same thing.
  
• Augmented Reality is becoming a hotter topic than Virtual Reality this year. We have HoloLens 2 and Microsoft's move in to the Military Sector. Recently, 5-Nights at Freddy's released their AR trailer. On top of which, most of the predictions about the upcoming Oculus Conference revolve around Augmented Reality (i.e. people are feeling that AR will get a big push and stronger focus).

Again, these are just my observations and general sentiments to help give insight in to why I feel that asking the question about VR's fad/gimmick potential seems pertinent at this moment in time.

To give some thought as to why I am choosing the words "fad" and "gimmick," here is a quick view at outside sources:

An article from 2018
Is Virtual Reality a Fad or Is it the Future?
http://www.workspace.digital/is-virtual-reality-a-fad-or-is-it-the-future/

A blog from 2019
Virtual Reality is officially a fad. I am out
https://skarredghost.com/2019/04/01/virtual-reality-is-officially-a-fad-i-am-out/

An article from 2016
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/10/15/virtual-reality-is-just-an-over-priced-gimmick/#484...
Virtual Reality Is Just An Over-Priced Gimmick, Nothing More

A recent article from 2019
Virtual Reality: The Future of Entertainment or Gimmick of the Wealthy?
https://www.dailyamerican.com/entertainment/highschoolhighlights/virtual-reality-the-future-of-enter...

Each of these articles, both old and new, point out similar factors that I've outlined here.

So... do you think that VR is still "the future"? Or do you think that VR did in fact turn out to be a Fad/Gimmick??

[Zenbane]

snowdog said:

We're nowhere near 4 years into mainstream VR. Mainstream VR doesn't exist yet.

I would have to disagree with the notion that "mainstream VR doesn't exist yet." It is everywhere. The problem is that it isn't taken seriously.  What I interpret from people who say that it isn't "mainstream" is that VR hasn't been adopted as a leading platform across multiple industries. But that is my point: VR is mainstream, but it has - so far - only been used in all the ways that people predicted as a fad/gimmick.

[Shadowmask72]

It's a gimmick for now with the potential to be something great. The industry as a whole isn't taking it seriously enough hence the lack of true AAA titles across the board.  It's not commercially viable for many developers or they just aren't willing to play ball. One developer I spoke to at Gamescom simply said we tried our game in VR and we all felt sick so didn't pursue it further. With that kind of hurdle there's no surprise it's not taking-off.

Enthusiasts will enjoy but mainstream adoption slow. Once the form factor reduces and the hardware requirements, cost lowers then it might make some waves. 

Oculus Quest at £399 (+cost of games) is just too much no matter how neat the product is. 

What VR needs is more models like Capcom used with Resident Evil where the VR game and 2D game have a perfect synergy during development and are presented as a singular package when released. That way the 2D sales subsidise the lower VR sales. 

[JakemanOculus]

VR suffers from May's law:

"Software efficiency halves every 18 months, compensating Moore's law."

Basically this means we will be forever stuck with levels of performance which can barely drive 90 frames in less than 4k, just like desktop computers.

May's law needs to be paused for at least four generations so we can catch up.  Imagine double the performance every 18 months.

[w_benjamin]

Right now the biggest obstacle for VR are the tools used to build things.
I'm sure there are a lot of great ideas out there that can't be realized due to the amount of work needed to bring the idea to fruition compared to the level of skill most people have.

Traditional software was similar when PC and game consoles were in their infancy.
As people work to build for VR environments, general problems and bottlenecks in producing will manifest more clearly.
When that occurs, new programming language structures will be created to accommodate them.
As that happens, people with a more primitive skill set will be able to build things, while more advanced people will be able to build more and more sophisticated experiences without having to slog through a lot of the drudgery they do today.
As the tools get better, the speed of creating new tools will increase as well.

At some point the variations of applications will become like it is for PC's and smart phones.
That will make the owning and use of some type of HMD more practical and desirable.

The first PC kits came out in the mid seventies with full PC's available in the early 80's.
It's now 40 years later to where we are now.
VR is about 5 1/2 years old with the first full consumer versions available about 3 1/2 years ago.
I'd say we're right on track to having VR being a mainstay of a lot of people within 20 years..

[bigmike20vt]

I said VR is the future... however i dont agree with that, but equally i do not agree it is a gimmick either.

I think it is a specialist device which may remain somewhat niche at least for the next few years........

But that does not mean it is a fad or a gimmik. imo when done right and for the right games it is completely transformative.

NMS has gone from a game i would never play, to one of the best games i have ever played and that is down to VR.

Never again could i enjoy a racing game on a monitor like i do in VR.

At the same time some games work just fine on a monitor, not everything has to go to VR and there is still a place for my big screen tv gaming.

I think of my HMD in the same way I do my hotas or steering wheel. Not something i need for every game, but it is a device i could not contemplate not haivng.

I hope enough of us feel the same way.

None games use I think is a harder sell....... I *can* definitely see some uses, but many of them i think perhaps AR would be better than VR... Eventually the 2 techs I believe will merge.

For me however VR is a gaming as well as possibly in the future when the screen gets better a home entertainment (media) device

[Zenbane]

bigmike20vt said:

I said VR is the future... however i dont agree with that

[Zenbane]

bigmike20vt said:

But that does not mean it is a fad or a gimmik. imo when done right and for the right games it is completely transformative.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here,

Even if it is transformative when done right in a video game, it is still operating as a gimmick in that scenario. A gimmick can feel transformative. In order for any technology to break through the fad/gimmick barrier, it has to become transformative at multiple levels across multiple industries. Just as computing and the Internet did.

[MowTin]

The idea that it could be a fad or gimmick is a rather absurd question. 

Fads or gimmicks are innovations that don't add real value. They add superficial value. An example is 3D gaming or 3D movies. Nothing changes about how you interact with the game. Nothing changes about your experience. 

VR actually improves controls of a game. 

When you shoot a gun, you point with your hands and arms instead of a mouse or thumbstick.
When you swing a word, you're actually swinging your arms.
You can aim to weapons at a time because you can use both hands. You can't use two mice at the same time to aim.
When you're in a car or plane cockpit you actually look around with your head like in real life. 

I tried playing Red Dead Redemption but I could deal with using my thumbstick to aim a gun. To reach out my had and help someone up, I had to press "X" or something. VR changes the way you interact with the game.

There are also some game genres, like flight, space and racing sims that have already been forever changed by VR. At this point, VR will always be part of the sim world.

I think the fact that you haven't moved to a Rift-S or Index from cv1 is part of the problem. The cv1 resolution is just too low. 

Also, we're just about to be hit with the greatest slate of AAA games VR has ever had. Stormlands and Asgard's Wrath. Respawn has a AAA title coming this year. Valve has some flagship games. 

VR has never been better. 

Maybe you're playing too much NMS. VR is a bit gimmicky in NMS because it's more of a Minecraft in space game. Minecraft is also gimmicky in VR. 

[Shadowmask72]

MowTin said:

The idea that it could be a fad or gimmick is a rather absurd question. 

Fads or gimmicks are innovations that don't add real value. They add superficial value. An example is 3D gaming or 3D movies. Nothing changes about how you interact with the game. Nothing changes about your experience. 

Oh dear, where to start with this.

[MowTin]

Shadowmask72 said:

MowTin said:

The idea that it could be a fad or gimmick is a rather absurd question. 

Fads or gimmicks are innovations that don't add real value. They add superficial value. An example is 3D gaming or 3D movies. Nothing changes about how you interact with the game. Nothing changes about your experience. 

Oh dear, where to start with this.

We can start with what the word gimmick means when commonly used. 

Gimmick: : a trick or device used to attract business or attention

A gimmick is something that attracts attention but is otherwise useless and offers little value. The nintendo power glove is a gimmick. 

Being able to point and shoot using your arms and hands versus moving a mouse or thumbstick is a genuine advance in how you interact with a game. 

Most PC gamers believe PC gaming is superior because the mouse and keyboard are better control devices for FPS games than controllers. In the same way, VR controllers are better than m&k. 

VR controllers are the best control devices ever invented for gaming.