Since beginning my journey learning and writing about VR in 2011, I’ve talked with hordes of believers and critics alike. Through it all, I’ve found three common arguments touted by skeptics of the adoption of VR in the consumer market. Having immersed myself in this new era of VR for years now, I feel confident in responding to these concerns.

“VR Already Failed”

virtuality-1000-csThis argument comes from those who remember virtual reality from the ’80s and ’90s which had a brief moment in the consumer spotlight but faded away for a myriad of reasons. Interestingly, this argument is wrong in two ways.

First, virtual reality in the ’80s and ’90s never failed. Consumer VR—the kind that was good enough for entertainment and affordable for a single person—failed. But VR continued on to be used ever since as an invaluable tool in fields of simulation, research, design, and many other industries outside of the consumer landscape.

Second, adherents to this argument make a false equivalency between ’80s and ’90s VR and that of today (you’ll find this false equivalency fallacy to be a common theme through most arguments by VR skeptics). Anyone who utters the words ‘Virtual Boy’ in a sentence about why VR won’t work is especially guilty of this.

Virtual Boy was Nintendo’s famously failed ‘virtual reality’ console from 1995, but it wasn’t a ‘virtual reality’ system by any measure that we recognize today. No headtracking, no natural input, highly limited field of view—and did I mention that the display only had a single color? Red. This tongue-in-cheek guest article does a great job of explaining how incomparable Virtual Boy is with modern day immersive virtual reality.

virtuality-headset

Even the headsets from that earlier era that better fit into the ‘virtual reality’ category often had poor headtracking accuracy and latency, a limited field of view, and no positional tracking (which means limited immersion and nausea). Even if the best headsets of the era matched the performance that we see from the VR headsets of today they would still be significantly heavier, bulkier, and cost tens of thousands of dollars, pricing them right out of any shot of a consumer market.

SEE ALSO
Oculus Touch Price Revealed in London GAME Store

Then there’s the fact that the PC and computer graphics industries have advanced exponentially over 25 years, meaning widespread powerhouse computing devices capable of rendering near-photorealistic real-time graphics at high framerates. Something that didn’t exist at that time.

More simply put, VR has entered a new epoch.

“3DTV Failed and VR is 3D so it Will Fail Too”

At the root, this is another claim that falls into the false equivalency bucket. The argument has two common prongs: first is that 3DTV failed because people don’t like to wear something on their head while enjoying entertainment. And since VR headsets are like a bigger and heavier version of 3D glasses, VR will fail. Second is that stereoscopic 3D simply isn’t compelling enough to warrant its use, and since VR is 3D it also isn’t compelling enough. Let’s look at these one by one.

Regarding the idea that ‘people don’t want to wear something to enjoy entertainment;’ this premise is demonstrably wrong in the case of headphones for music players. And size is clearly not a limitation as large headphones are becoming increasingly popular. The fact is that there’s an inverse relationship between how much someone cares about how they look (or how uncomfortable it is to wear something on their head) and the experience they’re getting. More simply put, as long as the experience provided by the VR headset is good enough, people will be willing to wear one; they will gladly sacrifice looking cool or wearing something that isn’t perfectly comfortable to obtain a great experience. 3DTV didn’t fail because people didn’t want to wear glasses, it failed because the added benefit of 3DTV compared to normal TV did not justify the downsides of wearing the glasses.

SEE ALSO
'Unearthed Inc: The Lost Temple' Review

When it comes to whether or not stereoscopic 3D actually adds anything to a media experience, it should first be known that I’m one of the biggest 3DTV/movie haters out there. Given the choice between a 3D movie and a 2D movie in theaters, I’ll always pick 2D. And I never even considered buying a 3DTV. But VR is an entirely different beast (that is to say: this argument is another false equivalency).

3dtv
This all-too-common 3DTV mockup is a falsehood. Objects cannot appear to float beyond the frame of the TV. In reality, the arm would be set to have depth ‘forward’ from the TV, but also be occluded at the depth of the frame ‘behind’ the arm, creating an immersion breaking conflict of perception. This doesn’t happen thanks to the wide field of view of modern VR headsets.

One major reason is that the 3D effect is ultimately limited by the size of the frame. A 3DTV may be able to make an object in the center of the screen appear as though it is floating outside of the frame toward the viewer, but as soon as that object moves to the edge of the screen, it cannot go beyond it out into space as its stereoscopic distance suggests. This immediately defeats the illusion and leaves only a small portion of the screen available for convincing depth. But if you remove the edges of the screen, objects can float ‘anywhere’ within the space around you.

That’s a long way to say that while 3D is a part of what makes VR immersive, it’s way more immersive than anything you’ve seen on a 3DTV and, to wrap this up into the other part of the broader 3DTV argument, the added experience justifies wearing a headset.

“The Kinect Failed Because Gamers Don’t Find Gesture Input Compelling and They Don’t Have Room, VR Will Have the Same Problem”

kinect 1

‘Gesture input is not compelling.’ I agree 100%.

‘Gestures’ are abstract actions designed to be detected by some form of gesture tracking and then converted into binary input (ultimately no different than the press of a button). Like waving your arms to turn your head or standing up to open the hatch of a tank. All of which is abstract, unnatural, unintuitive, and not helped by Kinect’s high latency and inconsistent tracking.

Fortunately, the best VR systems in development today do not use ‘gesture’ input. Instead they use ‘natural input’: one-to-one high precision, low latency tracking without gestures. Want to open that door? Reach out your hand, grip the actual handle and pull. Want to pick up the gun sitting on the desk? Walk over to it, reach out and physically pick it up. Aim by holding your arm up to your head and looking down the iron-sights. When you’re done, drop the clip and physically slide in a new one. There’s no gestures here, just you and your hands inside the game world, interacting with objects like any human would in the real world.

SEE ALSO
Oculus Touch Pre-Orders Officially Open Today

The second half of this argument is about the space needed for larger experiences like those ‘room-scale’ experiences targeted by the HTC Vive. Critics of the Kinect say that people aren’t willing to make room for these sorts of experiences. I say that people will be happy to make room as long as the experience is good enough for them to justify it.

Before the TV was invented, no one had a ‘TV room’. But when it came along, the experience was so compelling that billions now have a TV room in their home. The ‘cost’ of dedicating the space to the TV was outweighed by the experience provided.

oculus-touch-vr-input-controller-release-date-pre-order

The experience afforded by the latest VR systems is leaps and bounds beyond what the Kinect provides, and I’m willing to wager that people will be happy to sacrifice space for the experience. In fact, VR systems may end up annexing the existing TV room space in many cases. If I had to choose between a TV room and a room-scale VR system like the HTC Vive, I would take the VR system without hesitation.


One frequent commonality between purveyors of these arguments is that they haven’t tried the modern wave of consumer VR for themselves. Generally proponents of these arguments had tried ’90s VR once upon a time or haven’t tried any VR at all and are only working from broad assumptions, leading to false equivalencies between technologies that may seem related but are actually substantially different upon investigation.


Lead photo courtesy u/MAGNUSIFENT, based on a photo by Andreas Aronsson.

  • Killhunter

    Hm, number one reason for VR to fail is the fact that VR headsets in combination with the required hardware might be quite expensive. And I do not think that people would buy a PS4 only for VR, which would be the most affordable solution.

    • Tony Spaniels

      First generation of VR maybe, but costs will inevitably come down to more affordable levels for the mainstream and the tech will be supported by early adopters and almost every high end pc owner out there. Mobile vr will shoulder most of the low cost end of things also. I doubt this will be a cause for it to fail anyway certainly not a number one reason imo.

      I remember there was an article on Road to VR about a poll done with children and their impressions of VR, which were very much up for, especially if they could experience it if it was around the price of console. I think there’ll be a lot of parents forking out for one next year at some point.

      Ah yeah here it is.

      http://www.roadtovr.com/research-survey-suggests-kids-equally-aware-major-vr-headsets-want-buy-one-console-prices/

    • Curtrock

      There are at least 25 million PS4 owners already, who could purchase a Morpheus HMD without the added expense of buying the console at the same time. Valves STEAM service has over 75 million users. I’m sure a sizeable percentage of these users have a PC the meets or exceeds the min spec required to run the Rift or the Vive. So, there is a decent user base available for the launch of consumer VR, who won’t have to buy anything except the HMD.

    • nsignific

      VR doesn’t need to replace TVs to succeed. And tens of millions already have VR capable machines (PS4s) and that’s not counting PCs.

      VR won’t fail just because you (or even anyone you know!) won’t buy it.

    • laser632

      Actually that’s the fault of PC hardware rather than VR. There are gaming peripherals for PC that cost £400+. I myself owned a german Fanatec wheel, pedals and stick shifter costing £400. Some gamers spend much more on peripherals and multiple GPUs with liquid cooling. HMD VR via Oculus rift is actually very affordable but what lets it down is the cost of a PC. My PC is about 3 years old and will still be able to run HMD VR. I have a GTX 680 and i5-2500k overclocked to 4.8ghz. I scale graphics down in order to maintain higher frame rate where need be. Nvidia in particular haven’t really helped the PC gaming market by introducing GPUs costing $1000 – $2000. What VR needs is a compact PC priced no higher than a PS4.

  • AJ@VRSFX

    Spot on, Ben. You clearly and concisely laid out the exact thoughts that fly through my head every time I hear these objections.

  • crim3

    VR will succeed in an explosive way

  • Mageoftheyear

    Great article Ben! Bookmarking this for future arguments.

    • owlcool

      You don’t need this bookmarked, you just need to remember the false equivalence fallacy and how it correlates to these types of arguments.

  • spleen

    I don’t think VR will fail but it won’t become mainstream in the foreseeable future. Console gaming is popular leisure cause it allows the player to sprawl out on a couch, performing actions within the game world with minimal effort, without totally giving up awareness of their surroundings. The level of involvement inherent to VR may actually be off-putting to the majority non-hardcore gaming crowd who use videogames to unwind.

    • laser632

      Life-size 3d graphics are very compelling. Oculus is already very successful even in development stage with the DK1 and DK2. Having tried DK2 the experience is pretty much what I expected and I would describe it as finally having that small fixed window barrier (monitor) removed and stepping into the game world. The experience is better than any imax theater. Yes it’s inconvenient sitting with hardware on your head and especially when that hardware is tethered. The positives far outweigh the negatives though and that’s the reason Oculus is so successful even before consumer launch. It’s the closest thing we will get to a holodeck over the next 50 years. When the pixel resolution barrier is broken and you no longer see any pixels on HMD VR then it will be a mind-blowing experience. Ironically the biggest threat to Oculus Rift is the platform it runs on. PCs have always been priced far beyond consoles and that has alienated many. Nvidia aren’t helping in that regard with their increasingly expensive gaming GPUs. As much as we do need HMD VR, we also need a new revolution in affordable, tiny footprint PCs. It doesn’t seem as if Valve’s steam-boxes will deliver on that front when the likes of Alienware (Dell) are pushing expensive little boxes.

  • Nice cover picture ;)

    I definitely agree with like, everything. After a few years I hardly ever try to describe what VR is, I just ask people to put it on their face, and after they come out they cannot properly describe what they just experienced either :)

    If I began talking about field of view, stereoscopic 3D, head tracking… no, wouldn’t help, but I can mention those things while they are in it so they can personally experience the feature while I talk about it. That depends on if the person is really curious at all, sometimes they’re just swallowed up by the experience :x

    So yeah, for people to comment negatively on VR without having tried a DK1, DK2 or even the more elusive CB/CV1, Vive or Morpheus… just seems like uneducated antipropaganda to me. That said, I’ve only seen that being done in written articles online, nobody I’ve personally talked to has been uninterested or even tried to compare it to a 3D-TV or 3D cinema.

    • laser632

      “Nice cover picture ;)” << Kind of hard to use Oculus with your head knocking against the bedroom walls. :)

      • Nah, depends on what you’re doing, works fine for watching a movie :P In this case I was looking at the rainbow, what you see on the laptop screen is actually a real VR demo that I was running at the time.

  • Davenmor

    In my experience those arguments are not at all the most common.
    The arguments you’ve described are merely technical and can be countered very easily (just by showing the critics what VR can do today).

    For me the most common arguments are:
    1. VR is not at all a social activity, as it shuts you completely off from the reality. Keywords here are:
    – Fear of someone standing behind you/scaring you
    – People (wife, kids) will feel completely ignored by you
    – no romantic movie-time – cool tech, but its a solo-tech! (multiplayer is different as i speak about social interaction in reality, not in the vr app)

    2. Realism of violence and shock/horror moments
    – especially when the tech evolves, the feeling of shooting someone in the face in VR could potentially be indistiguishable from reallity so the questions i get the most are (what will this do to our society?) And we all now that games like this will exist and kids will play them!

    3. VR addiction
    – yea this argument comes with new tech all the time and in the case of VR i also hear it a lot.

    So to make it clear, i do not fully support the arguments/questions but i think those are much much more important than the arguments in this article – sorry ben. I would really love some open minded discussion about this topic as – imo – they cannot be dismissed as easily as all the techtalk we get all day on reddit :-D

    • Very good points :D I always enjoy when podcasts bring up these issues, especially as I am quite familiar with addiction to video games. To me what Ben describes is pre-VR-exposure discussion and the issues you mentioned is post-VR-exposure discussion. Not so much if VR will be successful at all, but what will happen if/when it is. One being about the hardware and experience, the other being about the social implications.

    • laser632

      1. VR is not at all a social activity, as it shuts you completely off from the reality: In general gaming is not a social activity. Many gamers shut themselves in their bedrooms and play for hours or days at a time and they don’t have any VR hardware.

      Fear of someone standing behind you/scaring you: Don’t do it in a public place at night. If you’re alone in the house then get a robotic turret gun from samsung to protect your property.

      People (wife, kids) will feel completely ignored by you: Welcome to the last 35 years of gaming. Nothing new here.

      no romantic movie-time – cool tech, but its a solo-tech! (multiplayer is different as i speak about social interaction in reality, not in the vr app): No, that will have to be done outside the VR world.

      Realism of violence and shock/horror moments: Realism of violence relates to increases in computing and graphics processing power and pushing back social boundaries. Happens with or without VR. Shock horror moments are certainly enhanced enormously with VR. Bring it on, can’t wait!

      “so the questions i get the most are (what will this do to our society?) And we all now that games like this will exist and kids will play them!:”A percentage of males are already psychotic (ego driven) anyway so banning VR hardware or violent games is like trying to ban guns. A normal person isn’t going to go out and kill someone because they’re exposed to realistic VR violence (or sex). Of course there will be a percentage of psychotic ones who will use VR as their excuse (I was just copying this game so please don’t give me a harsh jail sentence).

      VR addiction: Yes, absolutely! With HMD VR you are actually in the game world so the pull is going to be that much stronger. We’ve had gaming addicts for the past 35 years so of course a percentage are going to become addicts with VR. It’s really like the ultimate drug. When I tried Oculus DK2 and a simple VR demo (haunted forest or something), just 10 minutes in that VR world and it was a shock coming back to reality. There are non-vr gamers now who are broadcasting their gaming on Twitch and only last week I heard one say: “I love gaming, who needs real life (he was playing Titanfall).

      You know what’s really ironic… When you watch someone using HMD VR, you see them looking at stuff you can’t see. You see their arms moving, you hear them laugh manically or scream in terror… It’s like watching someone high on some drug. VR is the drug that’s potentially more addictive than cocaine.

    • vrepl

      Yes – I’m also worried about how violence/pornography in VR will affect humans (especially children/teens). Yes, people never admit that something enjoyable is also harmful, but this not change facts, that look for something makes you insensitive for this. The effects are unpredictable, and nobody worries about that. If people who design content take that for consideration (which I doubt) it will be OK, but if they just want make money by shocking people by sadistic violence, then VR will be in trouble, BIG trouble.

  • AnnieLukowski

    Ben, I completely agree with you. Also Samsung (and I’m sure a bunch of other tech companies) will be releasing affordable headsets for the non-gamer market to work with a bunch of different phones. I love my Gear and frankly even the cardboard is an awesome experience. People just have to try it.

  • vrepl

    I’m VR enthusiast too, really (and it happens to me to defend the idea) however, quoting Palmer. L.: we are not there yet. People are so excited about something what they never experience yet. Yes – it’s enjoyable for a moment – but not for constant use.They don’t have idea how low resolution this toys in 2016 will have (reading for example is impossible), how small FOV they will have (it’s like you are looking to a pipe), etc. So yes, but come down people!:) Don’t buy expensive PCs, GPUs etc. Wait until you tray it – then make your decision.

    • laser632

      Actually many people have tried Oculus Rift including myself. The developer kit 1 and 2 have sold very well. I guess you haven’t tried Oculus if you’re talking about small field of view? While the vintage designs from Vusix are like looking through a pipe, Oculus fills your view with life-size 3d images.

      • vrepl

        Yes, I Don’t try Oculus but I’ve tried gear-vr like toys with the same (and higher) resolution as DK2. I know – not the same, however I understand the idea. And I was unable to interest anyone with those for more than 30 sec (not gamers, just ordinary people). Because:
        1) VR does not exist without vr games, movies etc, and those from android are to weak. For 2d content – 2d screens are and will the best. And we don’t have good VR content yet.
        2) 1080 res. in VR is just to low for modern user
        3) fov 100 is also to low too give us full VR experience

        So – in my opinion – 2016 vr will be just for enthusiast – for some heavy gamers for example. Average Joe do not buy 1000$ set to play same stuff as he have in 2D, and in lower resolution…

        • laser632

          GearVR is much weaker than Oculus but you are right. The resolution does need to be much higher than 1080. 1080 per eye would be much better. I agree it will mostly appeal to enthusiasts especially for the money you have to pay. Nvidia are saying buy a 980Ti for VR. That only makes people hostile towards PC gaming. There needs to be a VR capable PC for the same price as a PS4.

          • vrepl

            I know – i have a plan to upgrade my gpu for VR (if my wife don’t kill me before;) ). It’s very expensive now to build PC for VR, and buy headset – +/- 2000-3000$. That’s another thing. So – may hope we will live long enough to see popular VR:).

          • laser632

            I always build my own PC also but parts are still expensive. The good news is that DX12 will bring faster graphics on lower spec PC hardware. You have to be very careful with wife. One wrong move and you’re in big trouble. I was thinking about GPU upgrade but really I don’t have the money for it now.

  • drifter

    For me the biggest argument against VR has always been VR sickness.
    We know even the best VR headsets won’t get rid of it completly.
    How many people will have the patience to get acustomed ?
    How many will never get acustomed ?

    • laser632

      Do we know that? We have been told the HTC Vive gets rid of it. I have never suffered from VR sickness and I never will.

      • drifter

        Informed people know that, yes. Don’t listen to marketing people too much and don’t generalize from your own experience.

        • laser632

          Have you actually tried HTC Vive? You can’t assume it will make people sick based on your own experience. There is sound science behind the cause of the sickness and the Vive design should minimize that. I can’t assume Vive does cure it but since the reason for VR sickness is now well understood, the claims are more than just marketing.

          • drifter

            “should minimize that” = “won’t get rid of it completly”
            So you finnaly agree with me, a VR headset alone can’t solve completly VR sickness.

          • owlcool

            Nope, I don’t think laser632 does finally agree with you.
            We are getting to know the Science of Virtual Reality better, it may be a bad prediction for next year but it wouldn’t be such a bad prediction in a decade or two.

          • Toast VR

            Totally agree. I demoed the vive to 50 people so far and none experienced motion sickness.

    • Toast VR

      Couldn’t disagree more. I know people who get motion sickness in cars and boats, but not in the HTC vive. Why? Because the games in it are designed to move only when you move. Walk around, duck, turn around, reach up. Doesn’t cause motion sickness unless the developer moves you for you (which they know not to do).

      PSVR and Oculus has some games use a moving mechanic that does cause motion sickness. Many are being designed that wont.

  • gilpaul

    I dropped a ton of change on those big arcade vr rigs. I remember worrying about lice and getting nauseas every time I played…. and I went back for more. Now, at 52 years of age and still gaming (although my work schedule and family commitments have me playing considerably less), I bought a gear vr on eBay and am putting my parts list together for a custom pc build. Modern vr is already compelling. I have had a bunch of friends and family try “The evolution of verse” and even on the gear vr, the reaction had been fantastic. I do however worry about the social impact and how vr can be misused. You will know we have a serious problem when governments start to subsidize the cost of vr to poor areas claiming unfair educational advantages of the wealthy. Vr is the perfect tool to keep an unemployed and uneducated population dumb and happy. I am not a conspiracy theorist but keep a lookout for this. It will be a good measure of how successful vr becomes. Anyway, can’t wait for quality, hidef, WW1 and WW2 air combat not to mention all of those amazing space sims!

    • drifter

      “Vr is the perfect tool to keep an unemployed and uneducated population dumb and happy”
      When VR will be cheap and simple to use, yeah. For now and for a moment it’s TV.

  • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

    I don’t get why people still think this will be big. They say DK2 was successful. To who? How many people? Any regular average joes? The most simple argument is. GAMERS JUST WANT TO PLAY GAMES. Is this for the working men that come home from a 10 hour shift and just want to play the game? You need 2 devices at $300-$600 a piece. They come with headphones so now that audio system is no longer of use for games? No gaming headphones at least? Then to come home and sit on the couch and put on a headset to play the game? Do people really think that is the future?

    Think of the people who will develop neck issues after this. Will it work properly with prescription glasses? Will this require more power usage? What issues will this bring that we do not have with current gaming devices?

    It’s not immersive. It is just a SCREEN? It might feel different at first, like how games with different frame rates feel different. But it is not fit for prolonged use. After awhile you will get use to it and just see the screen. 10 hours on the game will be cut down to half or maybe lower because of the strain of the device itself.

    The most fitting argument is that of the Kinect. Not because of gesture input though. But because of it’s lack of long term use. Kinect does wonders for those creating 3D things and people doing corporate projects. But no one logs 100 hours on a dancing game in a week. The Kinect requires you to constantly move. This requires you to either keep your head straight or move it along with the scene.

    I think it is an amazing piece of technology, but it is not fit for gamers at the expense of our enjoyment. VR is a niche market at best. It is cool for short term fun but not for the average gamer. You want VR to make a bigger impact? Turn the whole house into a VR device at an affordable price.

    • Toast VR

      Try the HTC Vive and I promise you’ll change your mind.

      • You’d think so but when someone is that wrong about VR I think they’re a lost cause.

    • Well done flappy. You managed to squeeze every anti-vr cliche in there almost. Only thing you left out was “VR failed in the 90’s and will fail again”.

      “Think of the people who will develop neck issues after this.” << Yes, because people don't use their necks on a day to day basis outside of VR right? In fact the human neck didn't exist until VR came along so no one expected to have to use neck muscles.

      " What issues will this bring that we do not have with current gaming devices?" << I don't know… gamma radiation sickness?

      "It's not immersive. It is just a SCREEN? It might feel different at first, like how games with different frame rates feel different" << Well done. This is one of the more typical anti-vr cliche's! Have you ever used VR? Let me explain something to you… Sitting in front of a tiny 50 inch or less 2 dimensional rectangle is NOT IMMERSIVE. Putting on a VR HMD that completely surrounds you with LIFE-SIZE 3d visuals IS IMMERSIVE. The feeling of being pulled out of your room and placed in a completely new world is overwhelming. It's not a slight feeling. It is completely overwhelming. Something you will never get from sitting in front of a tiny rectangular 2 dimensional rectangle.

      "It might feel different at first, like how games with different frame rates feel different. But it is not fit for prolonged use. After awhile you will get use to it and just see the screen." <<< OK… so now you're just making up dumb shit that randomly forms in your largely empty head. Let me put it this way… Being in the game world… being totally surrounded with life-size 3d visuals is not something that fades away until it just seems like a standard tiny 2 dimensional rectangular window.

      If I give you a powerful narcotic drug that takes you to other worlds.. that experience is overwhelming. VR is not something that gives you a subtle sense of being immersed. You are INSTANTLY taken out of your room and INSTANTLY placed in new worlds and it's so realistic you believe you are in that new world. I've been using VR since 2006. I use it on a daily basis for hours. Your viewpoint is typical of someone who has no experience of VR… just a bunch of random misinformation.

      "I think it is an amazing piece of technology, but it is not fit for gamers at the expense of our enjoyment." <<< OK. Another idiotic statement. Firstly you have no idea how amazing VR is… you already made that clear when you said it's just a screen. Secondly VR is all about enjoyment. Being in the game world instead of staring at a tiny, compressed 2 dimensional representation is far more enjoyable.

      It must be said your statements are the dumbest anti-vr statements I've read over the past few months. Generally when you're that dumb you're not open to learning or considering the possibility that you might be wrong.

      • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

        Sorry for the very late reply. But what you are basically saying is that everyone wants roller coasters in their back yard, because that is what the VR experience is like. But just like VR. No one is going to ride roller coasters for 100 hours a week. It gets boring very quick compared to console and PC gaming experience. It becomes a chore to go through all the motions to get to enjoy it.

        No I haven’t used VR outside of Six Flags because I personally have no use for it. I very much like to be completely aware of my surroundings. Like I said, it is an amazing piece of technology. But it is only a hype. Just like your drug analogy. Majority of people will not chainsmoke, pop pills, or shoot up dope for 100 hours a week. You let yourself settle until you yearn for that high again. Who smokes 10 hours straight of any drug? No one. 5 or 4 hours? Very few. Plus you do not have to go through the hassle of putting on a headset just to enjoy it.

        Traditional gaming is so popular because the only thing that you are doing is moving your fingers (hands also if on PC). You are betting that majority of gamers are going to want to stay active after work, school, watching the kids, etc… That is 100% false. Majority of gamers just want to relax and enjoy their games. Thats it. To take the relaxing part out of the equation is ruining the whole experience. It’s suppose to be peaceful, not a workout.

        • I don’t recall saying that everyone wants VR? You on the other hand seem to be saying no one wants VR… your coaster analogy is odd. Sure no one wants to be riding a coaster in their back yard for 100 hours per week… the problem is that you think VR is just the same as a coaster in your back yard.

          Very few VR users have their VR in their back yard. That would be fucking cold in winter unless you live somewhere with a really mild climate.

          You sound like someone who doesn’t really know what VR is and have so many cliche ideas about it. The VR users I know will happily spend their gaming time on it. Increasingly the statements (you will see them on steam game feedback and discussions) go thus: “I only play VR games these days”.

          The reason your coaster comparison is nonsensical is because a coaster does one thing… it’s like having a fecking pinball table in your house.

          VR doesn’t just do one thing… Thus VR is used be flight sim and racing fans… people are buying VR just for Elite dangerous.

          Now I recognise your panic and fear that VR somehow represents a threat to your non-vr gaming… but no one is gonna take away your small 2d rectangle.

          I do think it’s hilarious how your cliche rhetoric includes speaking for pretty much every gamer. You haven’t really a fucking clue what the majority want. It’s just an assumption. It would be like me saying the majority want VR.

          Now what I can say is that there is a percentage of non-vr gamers who want vr but can’t afford it.

          It’s not a fucking competition…And your use of the word “hype” shows you’re totally ignorant about this tech.

          • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

            I know that VR has some people behind it. Believe I have seen the crowd and know some people. My cousin was a big VR enthusiasts until he got the Gear (used for one week and sold it) and then Vive (just don’t use it). Now he feels like he has been lied to and that it still is a work in progress.

            I say that it is not immersive because I am a very technical person. If I cannot feel, smell or taste anything I see then I am thrown off and that is one of the conversations my friend and I have. He cannot get fully into the games because it fails at actually taking you from reality. I don’t want to be playing Resident Evil with a headset on and my girlfriend is cooking and I am smelling it then she yells at me to come eat and now I have to take the headset off and go eat. With traditional gaming I van just eat while I’m holding the controller, it’s very convenient.

            I say it is hype because it is still at the foundation stage. Addicts are addicted but they are so addicted because they are lazy and just stick to their fix. If someone loves VR you would not change their minds, the same as traditional gaming. I am a gamer first and foremost, regardless of the package that it is. But I also work standing on my feet and right now VR doesn’t give me a valid reason to come home and use it. I don’t care if it over takes traditional gaming and I don’t care who use it. But if all I had to go off of is the evidence then I would say that VR is still not ready for that big of a push.

            I am more sympathetic to VR than anything because the idea is so great. But they are pushing it too hard for the stage that it is in. Look at my comments, I never once said that no one wants it. You seem to be smart enough to know enough about people. So honestly, if you gave everyone a chance to try VR and traditional gaming (mobile, console, PC, board games, etc). You knowing how the majority of the world is (lazy, relaxed or whatever you want to call it). Which one do you think they would pick right now?

            And it is more than 1 type of roller coaster. As is VR games. But they both nust do 1 thing overall. It is just a screen, it doesn’t teleport you to another dimension. It is pixels and polygons, that is all. And majority of people prefare their polygons on a TV or monitor that is not connected to your head. I don’t think VR will die but it will lose people if they keep pushing it this hard while it is still in this early stage.

          • With all due respect… you’re an idiot.

            You sit in front of a tiny-rectangular 2d screen and you talk about VR not being immersive?

            “I say that it is not immersive because I am a very technical person. If I cannot feel, smell or taste anything I see then I am thrown off and that is one of the conversations my friend and I have. He cannot get fully into the games because it fails at actually taking you from reality.” << What the hell are u crapping on about? You're a "technical person" so that means VR isn't immersive? I was designing digital circuits and programming in Assembler and now do 3d rendering…

            Your cousin is clearly a numpty as well. People are using VR because lifesize 3d visuals wherever you look tends to be a whole lot more immersive than staring at a small rectangular window from a distance.

            Your rhetoric is so cliche it's tedious. I'm just waiting for you to add in some more anti-vr rhetoric:

            "kinect failed and vr will also"
            "VR will go the same way as 3d TV"
            "It has no games"

            You're one of those idiots who believes that just because you don't like VR (and your redneck cousin) that the entire gaming world shares your view.

            Now.. I really can't be bothered to discuss any further… you're too far down the cliche rhetoric scale.

          • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

            I honestly do not know why you are taking offense. What I am saying is being interpreted with the wrong emotions. So let me break it down.

            First. You say it doesn’t go with the roller coaster analogy. But it does. There are different types of roller coasters, and different types of VR games. Now the thing that drives these are theme parks, and VR headsets. It doesn’t matter the roller coaster, it doesn’t matter the game. Majority of the people are not going to spend 10 hours straight in a theme park, or on a VR headset. Now it might be some, but even if they do that they would not put in 100 hours a week. I am not saying VR is in your backyard, I meant VR in general, I thought that was obvious. VR has life size visuals and roller coasters have real live people around you, authentic screams, dicfferent type of drops, some move backwards, some have you standing up, etc. With roller coasters you have no control of your body and everyhing you fell, hear, smell, see and taste are real. It is thrilling for a reason, they both have their percs.

            Second. I never once said console or PC gaming is immersive or more immersive. I was simply making a statement that most people would rather enjoy coming home and sitting done and relaxing after work, school or whatever. The HTC Vive has 2 controllers that you hold and a headset that you put on your head. My friend plays it every now and then. It is literally the same concept of gaming as consoles with the addition of arm movements and rotating your body. And the biggest addition being that the screen is now directly in your face. You yourself do not have to walk around people to see the 3d image, you use the Vive controllers. That is what I am saying. It is the same thing, just packaged different. It is not a different world. They just put a chip in a device and it project images through the lenses. If you know how technology work then you know that all it really is, is images. 3D images. Like the ones shown on the TV. It is not a holographic image in the middle of the room. It is an image.

            I might have to make this clear. I AM IN NO WAY BASHING VR. I have seen it in action and it is an amazing “idea” (I should have said that instead amazing technology earlier). But it is not going to make majority of people put away their consoles and start VR gaming.

            To make you feel better. I think the only people who really has a shot of breaking the VR market is Microsoft with hololens and Morph 3D. If the are able to really mix AR and VR technology together so you can interact with your environment without feeling cut off from the world then that is what will get it to sell. Thats why in my very first post months ago I stated “turn the whole house to a VR device for an affordable price”. If you can interact with your family and/or play the game at the same time then that is a winner.

            Even if the first batch of “consumer” ready VR headsets sell good (on the scale of consoles. In the tens of millions) . It would not be like how gaming generations are. The next generation would see a significant fall in sales because while people are lazy, majority of people will see a rehashed form of technology. The only reason phones “sell” like they do is because majority of people “upgrade through carries and are on a plan. If everyone had to shell out $700+ for a phone every 6 months to a year the sells wouldn’t be as near as much.

          • The issue I have with your statements is that you repeatedly speak for “most people”. You have quite a standard set of issues with VR where you talk about not wanting to be isolated from your environment… That is your personal issue but you present it as “most gamers”.

            I have seen a big shift in attitude across gaming websites and on steam. A year ago if someone posted a request for a developer to add vr then he would face a barrage of hate from non-vr gamers telling him VR was a fad/gimmick/hype. Now we’re at a point where that hostility has decreased massively.

            Now it’s not so much about If a game will support VR but more on how the locomotion will work.

            CV1 and Vive plus PSVR have done very well.

            Someone who researches before buying won’t be disappointed. You describe your cousin… that’s the worst type of buyer. Someone who doesn’t know what VR is… doesn’t know the history of VR and feels nothing but “disappointed”.

            I knew so much about the product back when DK2 was launched that I knew exactly how it would look before I tried it. I wasn’t disappointed because my yardstick was the $1000 VR I owned in 2007 with LCD having no contrast, random colours and no head-tracking.

            “Even if the first batch of “consumer” ready VR headsets sell good (on the scale of consoles. In the tens of millions) . It would not be like how gaming generations are. The next generation would see a significant fall in sales because while people are lazy, majority of people will see a rehashed form of technology. ” << Another critical error in your logic. Phones are an entirely different market. It's like saying "VR will fail because 3d TV failed".

            What's happening is that VR sales are increasing with each generation of hardware…and people want increased resolution. So your reasoning is fatally flawed. People can't wait to go higher than 1200 x 1200 with foveated rendering.

            Now… if VR reaches the point where new headsets are released without any tangible improvement then your comparison will be valid. I stopped buying new phones because I got bored with that whole scene.

            We are at least 8 years away from that scenario with VR.

            VR has a long way to go… people want to see the 8k per eye resolution.

            You have to stop talking for the whole of the planet. You think your subjective view applies to most people. AR is a parallel market. Hololens is limited in spec and by the inflated price. AR and VR are here to stay though.

          • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

            I look at the trend. You really can’t consider these batches of VR headsets as generations. The term will have to be redefined. I am talking about TV ads. Game stores having lines out the door. Big headset reveal announcements at E3 and the like.

            I am not comparing markets, I am comparing the trend of how things sell. There is no big brand for VR like there is Xbox, Playstation, iPhones or Samsung Galaxies. It is just VR. Ask a regular person that walks down the street what is the best brand of VR headsets. Most will know about the Gear and PSVR because they can associate with a brand that is already known for something. VR is still scratching the surface.

            It seems like you interact and speak to a certain group of people. I don’t. I interact and speak and work with people all over from homeless to sports stars, music stars, political people, tech people, business, judges, etc…. And Most people don’t give a damn about VR. People either stick with what they know or follow trends. The VR community is very small, it is gradually growing but it is still very small. If it does set a trend at the stage that it is at it will disappoint.

            My cousin was heavy into the VR scene. He has never been the type to post anything online, heck he doesn’t even have a Facebook and we are both in our late 20s. He read up about it all. He was who I got my information from before I meet my friend from work. What it was is that he hyped his self up to think it was more than it was. He didn’t want the controller, he wanted to walk around and wanted the headset to to since when he reached out and picked up stuff. But he know it wasn’t that so he was like “hopefully it still be half as cool”. He enjoyed it for a minute and then he came to the conclusion that it is basically console gaming standinv up and that the view of the game was different”. My friend who still regularly game on VR and Console confirmed it but he still likes VR because he feel that it’s more immersive. But me and him agree that is not replacing consolez anytime soon and that if you do not have enough money to just spend on it then don’t because it will disappoint. He still mostly game on consoles though because he does not “feel like doing all of that” just to game or he “doesn’t have the energy for it”.

            So think of all the lawyers and doctors, construction workers bidding for contracts, full time students, the minimum wage couples who had to put the consoles in layaway to be able to get consoles by christmas, the loner kids, the 2k and Madden crowd, etc…Honestly ask yourself do VR in it’s current stage appeal to the majority of the people? Look up statistics on peoples trends. People on message boards across IGN, Gamestop, Disqus, Livefyre, Yahoo comments and Twitter is not even 10% of gamers worldwide. No matter who agrees or hates what, they are not a clear representation of the market. I check the numbers and I interact with people and see their routines and study their behavior. So I might not be giving a definite answer but I bet you it is as accurate as any pole that shows statistics of something.

          • “There is no big brand for VR like there is Xbox, “< You certainly have some bizarre ideas. Big brand of VR: Oculus.

            ".Honestly ask yourself do VR in it's current stage appeal to the majority of the people?" << Totally irrelevant. You don't seem to understand the difference between a console and VR. You think VR is competing with consoles. Wrong.

            You seem to be trawling across gaming sites for stats to prove what? Prove that everyone is like you and doesn't like not being able to see their surroundings?

            What do you think your objective is here? Do you think I want to sell you the idea of using VR?

            No. I want you to stay well clear of VR. The worst buyers are those who don't really understand it or have super-inflated expectations.

            So now that you know I don't want to sell you VR… what is your objective?

            Oh u want to teach me that VR isn't a majority consumer device?

            Are you not able to grasp what a niche peripheral is?

            VR is a niche peripheral…

            If you want to sit and watch VR ads where they hype it… that's up to you. I told Palmer Luckey a year ago that his website graphics looked cliche. That crap with a beardy guy staring up in amazement wearing an octopus rift? That kind of shit didn't even look good in the 90's.

            So… now you understand I don't want to convince you that VR is right for you…

            And that I believe VR is a niche peripheral for this stage and for quite a few years to come…

            What is your objective?

          • I think it’s bizarre that you spend so much time discussing something you have no interest in.

            I mean… what are you doing on a VR site in the first place?

            Do you know how much time I’ve spent in 10 years on BB gun sites? 0 hours and 0 minutes 0 seconds.

            But here you are trying to inform me that a niche peripheral isn’t mainstream gaming hardware.

            That’s like me coming along and telling you that a Fanatec racing wheel isn’t a mainstream game peripheral… it’s kind of…. well… retarded?

            You have some bizarre opinions but consistent with previous anti-vr rhetoric I’ve heard over the past few years. You claim to think the tech is amazing but you contradict that by having nothing good to say about it. Even the indisputable purpose of VR which is to surround you with life-size visuals you disagree with. You misunderstand the competing markets…VR is not competing with consoles. The fact that VR is spreading to every console should be cause for alarm for someone like you… well apparently you haven’t made that connection.

            So let me say it again:

            You don’t want to wear a VR hmd …. your choice.
            You want to see your surroundings all the time…. your choice.
            You see no value to standing/room-scale VR because you want to sit when you’re home… your choice.

            The thing that’s clear about your statements is that you want to believe that VR will never impact traditional gaming. And thus you convince yourself that VR isn’t a rapidly expanding wave impacting everything from cell-phones to consoles to desktop PC’s.

            Good luck with your self-delusion.

          • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

            I want VR to succed. We need a new leading way of gaming. If they add AR capabilities with it I am definitely all for it. You can check my Disqus history, I don’t even be on here. I only commented because I loomed up something on bing, it showed a Disqus result, I clicked on it, read it, got to the comments, and seen that I had a notification.

            I am a big tech geek and will never bash a piece of technology for as long as I live. Like I stated, I am sympathetic to VR because the idea is great but how they are handling it is wrong. That is all I was trying to get across. My first comment might seem onesided, bit that was 8 months ago. I have seen it in action. I don’t use it but I understand the concept behind it.

            I am not with the anti-vr crowd. If anything I am against them. I let them know to give it some time and see what it does. I was just stating fair points of why it’s not catching on, thats all. People talk about it like it’s a hit right now. But we all know that it is a niche market. Search for articles related to VR takeover of gaming. Then you’ll see what i’m talking about. I am not a die hard VR hater but I am also not going to blow it up like it’s the second coming of Jesus. Why sre you defending it that hard when I never said it was a bad product? You honestly attacked my post for no other reason but to spread the message about VR? Why is it so important to you? I honestlywant to know.

            Things come and go. It’s people that comment about how they still only play their N64 and how gaming has become trash and people show them love and give them thumbs ups. But I make a comment and get this?..lol..is it really that serious that I have to hate someyhing because I don’t like it? It’s no grey area? I can’t have an opinion if I don’t like it? What is your reasoning for this?

          • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

            I swear you think that I am hell bent on hating VR. I DO NOT HATE VR. I have nothing against it. Kinect failed for gaming use but it is still being used by hospitals and other businesses. There is a use for it, just not a big use for it in gaming.

            You can be addicted to anything so yes you can be addicted to VR. You are smart enough to know that.

            I am a gaming addict, music addict, workaholic, and I love to help people. It’s nothing wrong with being an addicted to certain things. But certain addictions need longer cool down periods and the high be sufficient enough to last a person a good amount of time.

            I know people who “need” to smoke weed every 2 hours or so. But I have never known a person to chainmoke 20 blunts in a row nonestop.

            So most people can game on VR but not as long as you could with traditional gaming. It’s the relax or chill that they mostly want. But if you can sit or lay down and while playing the game then it is a win win.

            That is what I mean.

          • Do you know that someone spent 24 hours gaming in VR?

            The thing is that gone are the days when I want to sit playing a game for 8 hours even outside of VR. I’d have to go back to my CSS gaming days where I would literally be sitting all day and into the night.

            The issue I have with your statements is that you repeatedly speak for “most” people.

          • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

            24 hours VR gaming is cool. By how many people? Do you know how long it took console gaming to get where it is at? PC gaming is still rising. The gaming industry fought and clawed to get where it is at. People are already losing faith in developers with half assed games releasing with glitches. If VR come out half assed it would be the nail in the coffin for gaming.

            I keep saying majority because you can see the trend with majority of the gamers. The biggest selling games every year are Madden, 2k, Call of Duty and and RPG fame in there from time to time. Not to mention Mario. I am accounting for the majority who are working medium to low wage jobs with kids who do not really game that often or game so much that it requires them to use as little energy as possible. Majority of gamers are not gaming for 100 hours a week but those who do are locked into their content already.

            VR is directly competing with consoles and PCs. Consoles for the most part. Most of the people who play those either got it for chistmas or waited and got it after a price drop. You are telling me that the working class are going to spend upwards of $500 dollars on a gaming device that does not have a gaming library that is close to their consoles? And you have to have it on your head the whole time you play? And stand up and move around after or before a 8 to 12 hour shift almost daily? People make dumb decisions. But that one is just not going to work.

          • “You are telling me that the working class are going to spend upwards of $500 dollars on a gaming device that does not have a gaming library that is close to their consoles? ” <<< Again you demonstrate lack of insight into VR… Gen 1 VR is a niche peripheral. You incorrectly believe it's competing with consoles. No…VR is a niche peripheral. It has nothing to do with competing with any console. You are confusing the markets.

            VR is a peripheral… the most accurate comparison is the high end gaming peripheral… some people spend $1000 on a racing wheel and pedals… you can spend $1000 on a racing wheel.

            Now you can quite rightly say that even a $500 thrustmaster racing wheel isn't going to be used by the majority. It's a niche peripheral.

            VR at this stage is a niche peripheral. So no… most people won't spend $500 on VR.

            The point you miss is that VR won't stay a $500 peripheral.

            Initially VR cost millions of dollars… then hundreds of thousands… then tens of thousands… then a few thousand, now less than a thousand… do you see a pattern here? A trend?

            VR will eventually shrink down to sunglasses size with nanotube lenses and multi-plane displays. The price will drop from $800 down to $100 and eventually below $100.

            VR has reached playstation (resident evil VR) and is now headed to xbox.

            You have a lot to learn about VR… you carry a lot of old-fashioned cliches… that paranoia about needing to see your environment… actual VR users don't give a shit about that. They want to sit in the cockpit of an SU27 with everything lifesize and 3d.

          • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

            This comment right here voids our whole argument and I deeply apologize for wasting you and my time. My very first comment made it clear that I said it was a niche market and I clearly keep iterating that in it is not ready in it’s current state.

            You said “it won’t stay” and hinted that it will get cheaper. I am glad I noticed this. If you felt that way you should of identified what I was saying and told me that you agreed that it is a niche market and that it will grow. You should have not baited me into trying to defend my reasoning when you clearly agree with the bigger picture.

            Yes VR will grow. But it will be some time before it is adopted how people who likes it want it to. It has a lot of polish that needs done. You sir, is the most diehard fan of VR that I have met so far. I do hope that they make it big.

            I was never speaking for the whole gaming community. I was always speaking about it. The gaming community is very diverse but if you know the economic state and overall moral of the world you can start doing math like an analyst and see trends.

            The most basic thing that I have to explain is how you went about your argument. You say “people who buy VR like it” and I say “Most gamers don’t buy VR” and you reply with something like “stop speaking for everyone, you have no proof” but I never thought that I would have to have proof for something that is clear as day. Cause the proof that most gamers don’t buy VR is that most gamers STILL HAVEN’T GOTTEN VR. Simple as that. You can say that they don’t know anything about it or what have you. But at the end of the day, YOU are not looking at the other perspective. Ask yourself, what if most people really just don’t want it? Instead of saying that it WILL catch on. It’s no definites in business. Especially something as entertainment. If VR does show significant growth it will be because of the porn industry before anything. And if thats the case. What gamer would want a device that no one is developing for? (Nintendo, I am looking at you)

          • You have been tedious to read for the past 8 years. I’ve read 8 years of text from you in one day explaining a mix of bizarre claims that VR doesn’t have touch, smell, taste to the obvious that VR is too expensive for mainstream.

            ” If VR does show significant growth it will be because of the porn industry before anything. And if thats the case. What gamer would want a device that no one is developing for? (Nintendo, I am looking at you)” << So you're not aware that big name game developers are developing for VR now.

            Ignorance is bliss as they say.

            I would suggest that anyone who spends as much time as you declaring how VR won't be mainstream and how they get a panic attack if they can't see their surroundings is obviously constantly thinking about VR… I mean here you are on a VR site discussing something you "don't want?"

            The psychology behind that is hilarious. It's like going to a gay bar every day and telling people u ain't gay.

          • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

            You literally said that same thing about another commenter. And 8 years? Where did that come from. I commented 8 months ago. I didn’t even make my first profile online on anysite 8 years ago.

            I also mentioned that my friend has Resident Evil. I know that John Wick is on VR. So yes I know that big devs are making things for it. I was stating that if VR gets big, lets say tomorrow. It will be for the porn industry and currently there are no big AAA games to entice games over so they wouldn’t by it.

            To sum that up. While they are working on games for it. In the next 5 years it would get more traffic from the porn industry. So they should market it for the porn industry nowand wait some years to market it to the gaming industry.

            Yo sum up what I said. VR will not succeed LIKE traditional gaming IF they keep pushing it hard in it’s early stages. They need to stick to the niche market for some years until they get it polished, then get more devs behind it, then mass market it.

            There. Is that better?

            I have to get my day started so peace man. It was nice conversating with you. I probably won’t be back on here for another 8 months or so. Keep your head up. No personal feelings right? Enjoy

          • “To sum that up. While they are working on games for it. In the next 5 years it would get more traffic from the porn industry. So they should market it for the porn industry nowand wait some years to market it to the gaming industry.” << VR porn is a thing and has a long way to go as it's limited by video technology. There is no 6 dof with video until we get volumetric video.

            cancelling game development and just marketing for porn is beyond stupid. VR as a niche peripheral at this stage has very healthy game development. Triple A games from Croteam, CCP, Cyan and Fallout 4 coming.

            When you understand that VR currently is a high end niche peripheral then the game industry is very good. It's a rapidly expanding market and the indicator for that is big name developers jumping in. Bethesda alone is proof it's progressing well.

            You have a bizarre set of beliefs unfortunately:

            1: VR isn't immersive because no touch, smell, taste and it's just pixels…..
            2: VR is competing against consoles.
            3: I need to see my surroundings at all times.

            I get that VR isn't for you but saying it's fantastic in one instance and having nothing good to say about it is bizarre.

            Your solution to a rapidly expanding industry is to cease all production on games (the primary market for consumer VR) and just focus on VR porn which is currently limited because it's not true VR (360 video has no Z depth and thus causes severe brain disconnects).

            You need to spend quite a lot of time actually learning about the tech and the industry.

          • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

            I also never once put my persnal feelings or beliefs on a whole group of other people. I was stating that the way VR is presented, it is suppose to be so immersive that it seems real.

            From what I have seen and heard. It still looks like a GAME. And if that was the case, then it is not immersive TO ME. Traditional gaming is not that immersive either but I don’t deal with “awe this is 60% more immersive”. If you are trying to make if real then go all the way or come back to ME (not anyone else) when you have the real experince. They have room escape places and you can go to if you want a scary experience. Just make a resident evil theme park where I am shooting BB guns at real objects. I (me, no one else) prefare my games on a screen that I can see while I can interact and see my environment. I can eat while seeing myelf driving and activating missions.

          • Again it seems you have a problem with unrealistic expectations (your cousin also). VR IS real in that it provides life-size 3d visuals. Being able to look all around in a natural way. You understand that is unrelated to the realism of the game graphics?

            Yes, you are telling me how you prefer your games… and so what? You prefer to sit in your room and see your room? People who buy VR don’t want to see their room.

            I’m just wondering why you keep relating your own preference as if it represents the entire gaming userbase?

            Head on over to Elite Dangerous (frontier forum) VR section and you will find people who play Elite for hours in VR each night. They don’t want to see their actual living space and they don’t want to see their girlfriend in the kitchen.

            Yes and so you tell me there are real places where I can go to experience BB guns… and? What is your point? Should I travel to a BB gun place every time I want an immersive adventure?

            You have a whole bunch of reasons why VR isn’t immersive even though VR is used because it’s immersive. So right there we have an issue with your personal view being at odds with the core purpose of VR.

            Now I’m not saying you should use VR… I think someone with your view should stay away from it… I just have issues with you speaking for “most” people especially since you have some rather whacky ideas about what VR is and isn’t.

            If VR is a coaster that you don’t want to spend 100 hours per week on… so is traditional gaming on a tiny rectangle. The last thing I want to do is spend 100 hours on any gaming.

            There are some people who prefer standard traditional gaming setups… their choice. Some people who spend 100 hours per week gaming. Their choice.

            You know that instead of gaming at all u can go to a BB gun place or play paintball? Also instead of watching TV at home you can go to a theater or imax…

            Your statements may seem rational to you but you have a habit of not thinking through the other perspective.

            Thus because you think VR should have taste, smell, touch then it doesn’t feel any different to a non-vr game… that is your subjective view and it doesn’t fit with what we know about VR… Hence the reason VR is being used in certain professional sectors. There is currently no better way at getting someone inside the computer world at this stage and there won’t be for many decades.

          • Ronald ‘Ron-b’ Burnett

            The site I got here from is called Wired. Just letting you know. I was looking up something on the Neuroscience of Music. If you didn’t notice I study people and and environments. Kind of like an advanced version of a psychologist. I also make music game and fix electronics. Just so you know that I am not a basement dweller. Have a great life man.

          • That’s all great but you should perhaps add VR to your studies. You might be great with neuroscience but not with VR. I’d be interested in hearing your game music.

          • Let’s try some logic:

            “I say that it is not immersive because I am a very technical person. If I cannot feel, smell or taste anything I see then I am thrown off and that is one of the conversations my friend and I have. ” << The technical comment is nonsense for it implies that anyone with a technical mind will not find any immersion in VR. You have to separate your SUBJECTIVE experience from the rest of the world.

            "If I cannot feel, smell or taste anything I see then I am thrown off and that is one of the conversations my friend and I have" << How long have u been gaming? I've been gaming since the 80s…There wasn't one game that came with smell, test or touch. So I assume you don't play non-vr games either then since they are even less immersive.

            So it's ironic that as you condemn VR for not giving you smell, taste and touch… you sit in front of a tiny 2d rectangle and play games without those things.

            Now.. the next thing is… why do people buy VR? Why do NASA astronauts use VR? You believe it's no different to a TV… well again… your subjective opinion is at odds with the rest of the world. The fact that Imax is now also VR should give you a clue that perhaps VR is more than just pixels and a screen.

            It seems you have grossly unrealistic expectations and I believe that's deliberate. After all… complaining that you don't have touch, taste and smell in VR… then playing on a tiny 2d window with no taste, touch and smell… hypocritical much?