“VR Requires a Super High-end Gaming PC”

This was arguably true when VR headsets first hit the market back in 2016. Most VR headsets demand high resolutions and high framerates, quite a bit higher than the 1080p 60FPS that was a common performance target for PC games of the era.

Four years later, the high-end GPUs of the time have become the low-end GPUs of today, and major players in the VR space have improved performance on the software side to actually lower the minimum GPU power compared to when headsets first launched.

Yes, you’re still going to need a dedicated GPU, but even moderate gaming PCs (and many gaming laptops) have the power to run VR games.

There’s a common misconception that if you want to get VR headset, you’re going to need to buy a new high-end PC to power it. I’ve heard this from plenty of gaming friends who are getting interested in a VR headset; when I ask them what specs they have in their current PC, they’re always surprised to find they already have the hardware they need.

This is true for many PC gamers. The most popular NVIDIA and AMD cards on Steam—GeForce GTX 1060 and RX 580—easily have enough horsepower for any consumer VR headset old or new. Even older cards like the GTX 970 are enough.

SEE ALSO
How to Tell if Your PC is VR Ready

And let’s say you have an aging gaming PC that in fact doesn’t have the requisite horsepower. How much would you need to spend to buy a new one that can handle VR? Surely it must be $1,500? Nope. Most people are surprised to find that they can buy a brand-new VR capable PC for around $800, or even cheaper if they wait for a sale or are willing to build one for themselves.

Image courtesy Oculus

And we haven’t even talked about Oculus Quest [Amazon] yet! If a gaming PC is out of the question, you’re in luck. Quest—which we called “the first great standalone VR headset“—is an all-in-one headset that requires no outside hardware. Though it has less graphics horsepower, Quest actually has an impressive and growing game library, including ports of many PC VR titles, including Beat Saber, the best-selling VR game to date.

Surely an all-in-on VR headset that can play games like Beat Saber must be expensive. Right? Nope. Quest is a great value at $400, especially because it can optionally tether to a PC to play the full range of PC VR games. That way, if you catch VR fever and want to upgrade to more expansive VR games on PC (like Half-Life: Alyx), you can use the headset you already have.

Continued on Page 3: “VR is a Gimmick” »
1
2
3
Newsletter graphic

This article may contain affiliate links. If you click an affiliate link and buy a product we may receive a small commission which helps support the publication. More information.


Ben Lang
Ben is the world's most senior professional analyst solely dedicated to the XR industry, having founded Road to VR in 2011—a year before the Oculus Kickstarter sparked a resurgence that led to the modern XR landscape. He has authored more than 3,000 articles chronicling the evolution of the XR industry over more than a decade. With that unique perspective, Ben has been consistently recognized as one of the most influential voices in XR, giving keynotes and joining panel and podcast discussions at key industry events. He is a self-described "journalist and analyst, not evangelist."
  • Ad

    As always I would recommend the $230 sale price Samsung Odyssey+ with a cloth strap along the halo, and Pavlov, a great time sink and terrific shooter, to new people.

  • Jan Ciger

    I think this is a very unfortunate way of countering that “VR is a gimmick” argument. Sure, you can wave around those Steam numbers and cherrypick a few good games that have turned up, but compared to the rest of the gaming market that’s a drop in a (very large) bucket.

    Apropos, speaking of that Vader Immortal – that one really feels like a pointless gimmick. I have finished the trilogy and while it has an interesting story, it really feels like the studio had no idea what to do with interactivity, even less with VR there. Let’s just add a bunch of troopers to shoot with a blaster and slash with a lightsaber, a pointless puzzle/manipulation here and there, all happening in a totally scripted/rail-like setting and that’s it. None of that really makes much sense or is of much consequence – but hey, people love lightsabers, right?? It feels more like it has been designed for a Disneyworld ride than anything, to be honest.

    The other problem is that for many people it is also an argument about videogames as such – if someone isn’t interested in gaming and sees them as a waste of time, then VR gaming is going to be of an even less interest for them.

    A much better counter to this fad/gimmick argument would be to show the side of VR which is not entertainment oriented (and not only goggles & gloves/controllers style of VR), and which most consumers aren’t even aware of. Training applications (industrial machine operators, retail workers, hazardous materials handling, procedure training …), simulators (rail, air, automotive, boat, space …), healthcare applications (surgery training, dental surgery, phobia treatments, diagnosis app, pain distraction apps, …), heck, even supermarket and fast food chain workers are being trained with VR these days.

    That’s both where “the money is” (this market was absolutely booming) and where an actual value for the society is being created, beyond a pure entertainment.

    So VR gaming could well remain a fad that will fizzle out in a few years because companies won’t be willing to pour money into a bottomless pit forever (it wouldn’t be the first such fad to go away) but VR as such certainly isn’t a fad.

    • Adam Broadhurst

      VR wont go away simply because of its popularity in the serious sim market(flight and racing sims).
      Obviously those alone are not going make VR ‘big’ but its enough to ensure the technology isnt going away.

      • Mei Ling

        Of course it can’t go away simply because the technology is now good enough that it has an actual use-case in enterprise scenarios.

        As long as that’s the case VR has a permanent place in human society.

        • Adam Broadhurst

          Yes, also for those reasons you mentioned.

    • ComfyWolf

      I thought this part of the article felt weird, like why use Vader Immortal of all things as an example of it not being a gimmick, it definitely doesn’t show off what VR is capable of.

      You’re right, VR has so many useful applications outside of games, felt like the person writing this is only interested in the gaming side of things. Personally I’ve been using an app on Quest to help learn piano with hand tracking, hand tracking isn’t perfect but it has still been a really useful tool.

      • Also more than anything, I think showcasing social features that VR has that no other medium can replicate really sells VR. I have never had an experience like VRChat anywhere outside of hanging out with people in real life. It’s the closest you can get to being there with friends, and it isn’t even really a game, more of a glorified chat room and art creation software (even with Udon now being a thing)

        I think VR will remain a part of society as long as it connects people in ways that other mediums cannot. Games, work, etc. Doesn’t matter, as long as it defies the distance between people.

      • Cragheart

        I dislike Vader Immortal (I dislike Star Wars as a whole, especially the new movies), but Half-Life: Alyx is a blast, 10/10 game!

    • benz145

      This article was inherently gaming-focused, primarily because many of these recent arguments have come from gamers getting heated over Half-Life: Alyx. I didn’t really touch on other sectors of VR.

      I think this is a very unfortunate way of countering that “VR is a gimmick” argument. Sure, you can wave around those Steam numbers and cherrypick a few good games that have turned up, but compared to the rest of the gaming market that’s a drop in a (very large) bucket.

      The point was not that VR is full of great games. I conceded this right out of the gate:

      Yes, the overall library of VR content in 2020 is not as large in size or scope as mainstream games. The VR market still an order of magnitude smaller, so it’s understandable that the games are less ambitious on average (because the return on investment for developers is smaller). And yet, there are VR games out there which rank as highly as some of the best rated non-VR games ever.

      The point is that as a medium for gaming and entertainment, it’s been clearly proven that VR has the capacity to make incredible experiences that people across the gaming industry agree are worthwhile. A “gimmick” be something that doesn’t add enough to the experience to warrant its use. Xbox Kinect, for instance, was a flawed platform for gaming and never demonstrated that it added enough to the experience that it would foster universally praised games. That’s a “gimmick.”

      So it’s been proven that VR is a capable medium for great gaming experiences; arguing that “there’s not that many great VR games right now” to say that there won’t be more great VR games in the future is just silly.

    • sfmike

      And what’s wrong with an experience that is like a Disney World ride? 58 million people a year enjoying WDW experiences can’t be wrong. You don’t even mention other “entertainment” aspects of VR usage such as watching 3D movies in a huge virtual theater in your tiny studio apartment, joining into a virtual concert with an avatar or watching your own self made 360° or 180° 3D home videos in a completely immersive way. (These can also be shared on YouTube) Deep down you come off as the kind of a VR hater who simply doesn’t want VR in the home for some unknown reason.

    • victor

      VR gaming fizzle out in a few years? hahaha you gotta be joking! Personnally I got into gaming ONLY because of VR! Take the VR part of it out and I’m out!

    • Carvj94

      You seem to be a bit uninformed about game development. Your comparing regular AAA video games which usually have 5-7 years of development to VR games on a platform that hasn’t even existed that long. No company really started development of a AAA title in VR til 2016 when consumer versions of headsets were released. Which is why most current titles are short stories or arcade like games. It wasn’t til late last year when 6 hour long games started being released for VR. In a couple more years you’ll see VR games to match regular games in every way.

  • Adam Broadhurst

    While I agree VR is absolutely not a gimmick I couldn’t disagree more with the two points about cost.
    Oculus DK1 cost $300 if my memory is correct and it was expected the CV1 would be the same or cheaper(as Palmer Lucker predicted)
    The headsets which were critisezed for being expensive when the new wave of VR launch about 5 years ago have actually gotten more expensive.
    We need to be looking at £200 for most headsets and maybe £500 for the high end stuff.

    Then “GTX 1060 and RX 580—easily have enough horsepower for any consumer VR headset old or new. Even older cards like the GTX 970 are enough.” is probably one of the most delusional/disingenuous statements I’ve ever read.
    I wouldn’t use any of these gpu’s to power a Rift CV1 let alone a Pimax, Index or Reverb.

    How the heck do you come to the conclusion that anyone of these gpu’s could power a high end VR headset?

    • makákó

      I used cv1 with rx 480. Had no problem at only and only upgraded for alyx

      • Adam Broadhurst

        I imagine you only play simple indie ‘experience’ games then because an RX480 cannot adequetely runs games such as Asgards Wrath,Stormlands,Project Cars 2,Assetto Corsa Competizione,Lone Echo,Half Life:Alex,Boneworks,Elite Dangerous,No Mans SkySubnautica etc.
        Y’know the ‘good’ VR games!

        • makákó

          Played superhot, subnautica, Arizona sunshine, moss, echo arena, Budget cuts, beat sabre, etc. I would say these are all good vr games and had plenty of fun, so I don’t really care about your ‘good’ vr games.

          • Adam Broadhurst

            I would suggest you are one of the few people that have no perception of framerate then.
            Arizona Sunshine is a poorly optimzed game that certainly wouldnt run smoothly on a RX480
            Subnautica would also run poorly.
            Budget cuts and Beat Sabre maybe ok but even then,not as well as you probably imagine.

          • Wojtas!

            PS4 literally runs all of these at 90 Hertz using a potato and some black magic. And I know, console ≠ PC, but still. A GTX 1060 is more than sufficient for anything.

          • Adam Broadhurst

            Rubbish,play Assetto Corsa Competizione on a GTX 1060.
            Or visit their foruma and see how many people are complaing that not even an RTX 2080ti is sufficient to run the game smooth.

          • makákó

            That is the thing. I do not imagine this, I played them and they ran fine. Based on your comment you on the other hand did not test this scenario and just base it on whatever data you read or heard. Arizona sunshine system requirement IS a GeForce 970 or AMD equivalent which is in fact the RX 480.

          • Adam Broadhurst

            No i play those games on a GTX 1080(considerably more powerful than a RX480) and i can tell you i wasnt please with the results on Arizona Sunshine and Subnautica.
            So i can only come to the conclusion you have no perveption of framerate because your experience on those game wouldnt have been smooth.

            I remember people playing Crysis at 15fps and thinking it was fine.This does happen.

          • makákó

            nope, I can see when a game drops below 90 fps and I also checked steam vr graph from time to time. You should check your system

          • Adam Broadhurst

            My systems fine, no problems there.
            Could you tell me what games you were getting 90fps+ on your rx480?

    • Carvj94

      I ran my CV1 on a 970 with very little stuttering. Then by sheer coincidence I upgraded to a 1060 when the 970 burned out and that one NEVER stuttered when playing at recommended graphics levels. Nothing changes when I hooked my Quest into the 1060 with the oculus link either. Smooth as butter.

  • Kris Alexy

    I’ve owned a Vr headset for 4 years now paired with the best specs for gaming money can buy.

    Here’s all I have to say: vr is a techdemo and a gimmick. At least 90% of it, and as it currently stands. You can flail your arms about all you want.

    The index is a great but small step in the right direction.

    • Adam Broadhurst

      You’re right 90% of VR content is dreadful and many many VR users seem to be quite content to play these dreadful gimmciky ‘experiences’.
      VR users have extremely low standards it would seem.

      But i disagree that VR istelf is a gimmick.
      There is another 10% of games that provide a quality simliar to regular flatscreen games but with the immersion only VR can provide.Hopefully this is more of what we can expect in the future.

      • You’re conflating the future with today.

        If it’s 90% dreadful, that means it IS a gimmick. That doesn’t mean it always will be.

        • Adam Broadhurst

          I disagree,I see a gimmick as something with no future.

          • Whereas I think it’s very possible to say “thing x was a gimmick at first, but eventually evolved into an amazing tool”

    • Gamer1st

      You know what else is a “gimmick”?
      90% of the games that are released every year on any platform.
      There are very few great games out there in a given year and this has been the case since the 2600 and early arcade days. Same applies to movies, books, and music. The fact that there’s a 10% out there that are great means it’s right down the line normal.

      • sfmike

        So true. Quality anything in this world is the exception not the rule. How many subpar derivative FPS are released every year, stupid jump scare horror movies or foul mouthed infantile animated sitcoms.

  • amanieux

    sure gpu power has increased over the last 4 years but this was not the reason vr failed : it is still too soon, hardware and software are still not ready yet. 1/ software, we need to develop a new UI paradigm to evolve from windows and mouse 2d GUI to 3d spatial computing, these unimaginative 2d floating windows in 3d space and hand controlled laser pointers are not good enough. 2/ hardware, display technology is still not ready after 4 years, we can work 10 yours in a row on a computer screen without any fatigue, the heavy sweaty vr scuba diver type masks with fatguing screendoor effect, and chromatic aberration is only bearable for 30 minutes. VR is great, its time will come but not before 10+ years.

    • Leon

      Was this other stupid things people say? I have an 8k+ with counterweights, it’s very light anyways, no screen door and 4k power eye. No chromatic aberration and just played a 3 hour session of Skyrim. I mean the arguement was disqualified when it says why VR failed. It is having its best year ever. But speaking from s place of ignorance is what internet comments are made of.

      • My Index has its own quirks but the clarity of the display is breathtaking at times, it’s now good enough to be genuinely usuable

      • amanieux

        vr failed in the sense it failed to get mass adoption even for videogames where vr was a no brainer, both playstation and steam lateforms have under 5% of user who adopted VR. about ignorance, for your info, i am a software engineer developing vr at adobe in 2015 and i co published a software patent on text reading and interaction in vr.

        • Engineer_92

          Wow. I didn’t know that the increasing rate of adoption, in what is arguably still early days for VR, meant that the entire medium has failed /s

          • sfmike

            Only in the investment world that is looking for a fast buck.

        • Gamer1st

          Yes, let’s pretend that console gaming and pc gaming that’s been around for 40+ years, are the equivalent and expected adoption rate for Vr which has been around for less than 5. Your bona-fides are irrelevant regarding apples to oranges comparison stats.

        • VR hasn’t even properly arrived yet. Anyone with expectations that these first generation products were going to attract millions needs a reality check. Those short term expectations (and the resultant “failure” to meet them) are doing a disservice to the long term game required to evolve the tech into something which eventually will be suitable for the “mass market”.

          • amanieux

            you are correct, i should have not used the word failure as my point was also that vr is just not ready yet (and i mean decades and not years) . i was expecting the path of vr would match the stratospheric path of the smartphone that really started with the iphone and kept on accelerating since then. smartphone answered the 2 strong needs for 1/always connected and 2/simpler UI. vr answer to more immersive and more intuitive interactions with computers seems to be less urgent so we’ll have to wait

          • sfmike

            Sadly we live in a predatory capitalistic country that bases success and CEO multimillion dollar bonuses on quarterly profits which is why VR tech is now in great danger. We can only hope there are some CEO’s out there taking a long view on tech as that is our only real hope.

        • sfmike

          VR has only failed in the corporate sense when it didn’t generate the billions of dollars in profits that the usual army of “tech insider” investment con-men convinced investors would bring in instant riches. VR is a growing niche right now and is still really in development. 3D TV is a failure as 3D haters, half hearted marketing, lazy development and a vocal online hate campaign led to low sales and the tech manufactures relegating it to the trash heap now as if it never existed. That’s what a failure looks like. VR is still kicking and growing. We enthusiasts can only hope the corporate cost cutters don’t kill us the same way in the name of quarterly profits but in our now very fragile economy that is a looming threat.

          • Adam Broadhurst

            I don’t se VR going the same way as 3DTV’s.
            VR can be a mind blowing experiences whereas 3DTV’s were always a bit meh!
            And as you say, there are a number of people who are very enthusiastic about VR, that was never the case with 3DTVs

        • Carvj94

          Well in that sense Linux failed. You can’t judge a new tech based off market share when it’s sharing the pie with one of the biggest entertainment industries on the planet. 5% is a massive ammount of players. 5% is the number of people playing the latest AAA game the week after release.

    • Adam Broadhurst

      By which criteria has VR ‘failed’?
      It was never going to replace regular flatscreen gaming.
      But as long as VR units are selling and the games are being made then it hasnt failed has it.
      There are headsets available now with very good displays,yes they are expensive and the PC to power them is expensive too and while comfortability is still something that can be improve upon i would hardly calss them as uncomfortable,i can wear mine for hours easily.

      Only if you had unrealistic expectations of VR conquering all before it would you come to the conclusion its ‘failed’.

      • amanieux

        is below 5% vr adoption rate in videogames on playstation and steam plateforms a good indicator of vr failure ?

        • Adam Broadhurst

          It’s only a failure if the sales were expected to be much higher.
          Maybe they were, whoknows for sure?
          How do you measure failure anyway?
          The tech certainly isn’t a failure.

          The price is a concern though.
          Consoles have brought video gaming to the masses with their affordability but a VR headset and PC combo is still ridiculously high so
          VR remains a niche/enthusiast market
          Perhaps PSVR2 will change things.

          Back to VR being a failure…
          Kinect shifted something like 10million+ units in no time at all but it’s considered a failure because
          1.It was junk.
          2.Of the few games released for it none of them were actually any good.
          It’s confined to history and good riddance to it.

          VR is much more of a ‘sucess’ in my mind.
          It least some quality entertainment can be found on VR.

          • amanieux

            kinect failed in the sense that only a few geeks dev are playing with it but it succeeded in the sense that time of flight cameras made their way in smartphones and millions are using it every day to create fokeh photo effect. there are not millions of vr users every day.

        • Caven

          By that measure, cellphones were a failure because it took decades for them to exceed the 5% adoption rate.

          • amanieux

            iphone immediately took off, apps developers rushed on the new app paradigm, i never saw such a movement in the fragmented vr software ecosystem

          • Caven

            Sure, the iPhone immediately took off, but that was almost 35 years after the first cellphone came into existence. Everyone may have cellphones now, but it took over two decades before they stopped being toys for the wealthy.

            Something similar could be said about computers. These days, just about everyone has one, but a few decades ago, a computer would have been a pointless waste of money for many households.

            My point is that a lot of technology we consider utterly indispensable now used to be expensive, niche products. Cellphones and computers were by no means instant hits. The markets for them had to grow gradually. Given that we’re still in the early days of practical VR, it seems silly to expect near-instant success when important technologies like cellphones and computers took much longer to mature.

        • Gamer1st

          By that measure nearly all gaming options have “failed” since the number of gamers to non gamers is very low. Pc gaming is a fail since most PCs never run anything more than solitaire or minesweeper. Most TVs have no consoles connected.
          Gaming has always been niche. The only reason it’s getting more mainstream is there are now enough people that have been at it for over 15 years that it’s not frowned upon as readily and thought of as freakish.

          • amanieux

            it is 5% of the video game market. if there was one area where VR should have got 80 % adotion rate it was amongst the video game geeks, but even there it is only 5%. VR will come back in 10-15 years when tech will be ready, it first came out in the 90s but did not stick, let’s hope next time will be the one. flying cars is in our heads since the 60s we only start seeing possible implementation today with modern battery tech, some ideas are ahead of their possible implementation.

    • Cragheart

      No, entry level systems definitely don’t have good enough 3D rendering. GTX 1650 is entry level and it’s too slow.

  • JesuSaveSouls

    I like the article and think there is some for ones wanting to spend on the latest innovative Vr tech and cheaper entry level people somewhat intrigued.You can get used wmr or new for around 250 including the full kits.These units require much less hardware and weaker gpu’s.Gpu’s top dogs can be bought used in ebay and you can sell your old one to cover the cost.Some older gpu’s are still in high demand so you can actually make a profit.I had one bad experience on eBay buying a hp reverb.But the store refunded it promptly and return shipping was covered.On eBay you can makeovers on high end cards and vr units too so you may spare some spending.Jesus loves you !

  • Geralt

    I owned a rift and now a rift s wich has broken sound . I use to play a few games like walking dead saints and sinners and a few race and plane simulators. I use to play a few hours here and there. Each time i put it aside for a while. I think vr is interesting but it’s not for everyone. My friends tried it and most of them felt sick after a couple of minutes. Nothing to convince them to pay hundred of bucks to buy one. I still like my rift s and will try to fix the sound problem. The one feature that it need to improve is the field of view. Unfortunatly it will take a powerful gpu to run it. Waiting for the 3080 ti before spending my money on a new headset. I still think vr is interesting but not for a broad audiance.

  • impurekind

    At this point any arguments against VR are kinda ignorance more than anything.

    • Trenix

      I wouldn’t say that. A reliable headset is still quite expensive, requiring a demanding gaming computer. VR lenses are way too fragile and can’t be replaced. FOV is still quite low. Wired headsets are often the best, but have an annoying cable and no real in-expensive solution. Many VR headsets are way too bulky, uncomfortable, poorly balanced, and/or heavy. Headsets aren’t friendly for people who require glasses, meaning people need either surgery, contacts, or lens adapters. Many people just don’t have the space.

      Sorry but VR has a long way to go before they make it into people’s homes in masses. Facebook tried too soon, when the tech is still not there. Hopefully in a few years all these issues will be resolved, but many of them will increase costs.

    • brubble

      This comment takes the Ignorance crown.

      • impurekind

        Yeah–no.

        • brubble

          Yeah, youre right, that resolution, fov, full fov clarity, so so screens each with their own issues, god rays and various other visual anomalies etc, glut of “me too” painful tech demo games and locomotion couldnt be any better. But your right, my mistake.

          Fact is VR is still in diapers….getting near ready for pull-ups.

          • impurekind

            No one is saying things can’t get even better–that would be retarded. I’m saying the arguments against is, as it’s not worth is and is just as gimmick and is rubbish and it’s not ready and so on, are just plain dumb.

          • brubble

            :)

  • Darshan

    Just Noticed Apple is about to release Iphone SE 2020 with super souped up BIONIC A13 chip Guyz just have look at the mad raw power this chip has, its time Oculus must snap skip using those snapdragons & shift Quest to Bionic A13. its sheer powerhouse. Many will say not gonna happen cause apple is closed eco system and many other things.. Now lets not forget on todays date Apple does not have any VR headset, its more believer of AR and Oculus isn’t a smart phone maker and not even remotely in competition of apple in any way. So why not try and procure those A13 for Quest2 hell just give me A13 powered Quest+

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/139f306aa1c29f7bb8c125f3c221d5b1722bfaf093105fb32555ab4e52181c66.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a003cb8085894a7b78663ddd8c862a82c2118253029925bc304ed6da7892e0ac.png

    • Wojtas!

      Yeah. Cool. Go dream somewhere else.

      • Darshan

        Every reality is dream at some point.

  • Elsa Whitworth

    I find my biggest problem with VR is that I’ve yet to find a headset that is comfortable to wear with my glasses for more than a minute or two. (I even have one of the WMR headsets and am noticing I have to fiddle with it to keep my glasses from touching the lenses of the headset. Last thing I want is to scratch either.)

  • Miqa

    The only thing I disagree with is that VR won’t replace “normal” gaming. When the technology is mature enough, sufficiently cheap and with a large enough user base, why would you for example develop a first person RPG outside of VR? Sure, some genres like side scrolling platformers and purely competitive games like DotA and CS:GO might be a better fit for the flat screen. Outside of that though, I expect VR to replace “normal” gaming as the medium grows.

    • GFL Tannar

      I agree. I play almost all games in VR now, racing, shooters, RPGs. But RTS, MOBA, or arena esport shooters like csgo are best on flatscreen. However, there are some RTS-ish games in VR which are pretty cool.

    • Adam Broadhurst

      It’ll never replace normal gaming because they will never fix locomtion sickness.
      A format that makes half the people who use it sick isn’t going to have mass appeal.
      Sure some games don’t require locomotion but most do and if you want to make VR games that compete with the best flatscreen games then locomotion is needed.
      And teleporting is never going to be as satisfying as moving freely as you do in flats reen games.

      • All the reasons you cite for it not being able to replace normal gaming are the very same reasons it can’t be more than a gimmick.

        If they can’t fix the sickness, etc? That means many people can’t use it.

        Something that’s only usable by a limited group of people or in extremely short bursts? That’s not a serious tool, it’s a gimmick.

        • Adam Broadhurst

          It’s a serious tool for the pretty sizeable sim racing and flying community.
          I’d go as far as to say its pretty much essential in those genre.
          Playing those type of games in 2D is a hollow experience after using VR.

          • What if you had 3 65″ 8K monitors wrapping around you?

            That might very well achieve equivalent immersion, provide greater detail, and not make you sick.

            It seems like a lot of these arguments aren’t about the merits of the respective technologies so much as about the price.

            The prices for everything will come down – the question is, if none of them are a barrier, which product best meets the needs. And if VR makes you barf, that’s a pretty clear indicator.

          • Adam Broadhurst

            Nope, I’ve had triple before I got into VR.
            Yes you get much better clarity but the immersion VR gives me beats that’s clarity x100.
            In VR I am there, sat in the car or spacecraft/plane.
            That’s trumps anything a flatscreen can do.
            I feel like I’m flying, I feel like I’m racing on a circuit at 200mph.

            I don’t get motion sickness at all on cockpit based games but to suffer on some other VR games.
            This is still an issue for many people and im sceptical that a solution will ever be found.

            Also, no PC is running 8k x3 screens anytime soon

          • Caven

            That setup would require much more dedicated space than an equivalent VR setup, comes at the cost of depth perception and proper scale, and very well could make people sick anyway. After all, you’re doing the same thing as VR: filling the player’s view with a moving scene that doesn’t match match what the player’s inner ear is telling them. The only difference is you’re doing it with an impractically bulky setup. People complain about the space VR takes up, but I guarantee that a 15-foot wraparound display is a lot harder to make room for.

            Regarding motion sickness, I’ve generally found that VR is easier for me to handle than sitting too close to a large TV. With VR, the perspective is generally correct. Playing an FPS on a TV involves an inherently warped perspective, so the more a TV fills my field of view, the more likely it is to bother me.

            Also, getting back to immersion, while a multi-monitor setup can work pretty well for driving and flight sims, in other genres it doesn’t allow for the interactivity and freedom to explore that VR offers. After all, VR has more to offer than a 3D view. Tracked controllers allow for a lot of interaction that’s cumbersome or impossible in a non-VR game.

          • Yeah, screens aren’t really a VR alternative. The more important point was that if VR makes a person sick, it’s always gonna be a gimmick to them.

          • Gamer1st

            What if you had an imax theater screen to game on? Or could beam the signal into your brain directly?
            How bout we don’t play the “could be” game and deal with what is?
            Being able to see 360 degrees floor to ceiling/ground to sky beats any monitor or other screen setup hands down. I personally have been made sick by several games on flat screens, (usually as a viewer) but never in VR.
            I’ve been gaming since the earliest arcade and pre-home console days in the 70s and have been at it ever since. VR is the promised level of immersion games have always been after. That promise? To draw you into the world so effectively you don’t notice anything else. You can get there on a flat screen in the best of cases. But you are already there in Vr in almost every case.
            Vr has almost ruined flat screen gaming for me and I’ve got over 45 years of gaming history to look back on.

          • 4dv4nc3d

            “Vr has almost ruined flat screen gaming for me and I’ve got over 45 years of gaming history to look back on.”

            Slow down, VR gaming is fun but it isnt replacing 2D gaming anytime soon. I dont know what games you have beem playing in VR, but 99% of them are about one hour of enjoyment.

          • sfmike

            Just a reminder, motion sickness can occur with immersive 2D surround moving images too. It’s an eye brain inner ear thing not just a VR thing.

          • Adam Broadhurst

            Yes but thats only happened to me twice in 30+ years of gaming.Both times it was on a console and it was an issue with fov.In VR its much more prevalent.

        • NooYawker

          Are cars a gimmick Lot’s of people get car sick.

      • Andrew Jakobs

        I do agree it will never replace normal gaming as I also still like the old 2d adventures for instance. But ‘never fix locomotion sickness’, I think you’re very wrong in that department, there are ways to fix the locomotion sickness, and let’s not forget, some locomotion sickness is also just due to bad setup/lenses (wrong ipd/ wrong focus), walking around with the wrong prescription glasses also makes me ill, until I use the correct ones. There are ways to fix the locomotion sickness, (for instance artificially triggering he vestibular system of the inner ear so it does think you’re moving, but I don’t know if anybody has actually already done some research on that, I know it’s possible).
        Also ‘VR’ might change considerably when we can actually project the images directly into our brains (we’re still a long way from that),because you don’t get motion sickness when you’re running around in your dream are you).. BUT, the easiest methods is actually making sure we have razor sharp images (probably projected directly into our eyeballs, a bit like the headset that uses microDLP chips and it only had 720 per eye with no visible Screendooreffect)..

        • Adam Broadhurst

          I dont know about that,i’d say 50% percent of the people that have tried free locomation games on my Rift have had to stop playing after a short time because of sickness.
          It’s a hard sell if people are vomiting everywhere( exaggerating for effect)
          If are solution for the problem cannot found or isnt viable then that severely limits the game.Open world games in VR are a great idea but not practical if you have to teleport everywhere.
          By the i am playing No Mans SKy VR,huge open world and i am fairly comfortable playing it and my brother plays it with with no sickness.
          However some friends cant last 5 minutes in the game.

          • Trenix

            What Oculus rift? Oculus Rift S has 80hz, meanwhile Oculus Rift has 90hz. Oculus Quest is even worse, with only 72hz. I’d recommend using a headset with at least 90hz. If that’s still not good enough, maybe you have a low FPS, which might be a good idea to reduce some graphics for your games. If that still doesn’t help, maybe you need a headset with a higher refresh rate. There is a significant difference between 90hz and 120hz+.

            Usually the higher the refresh rate, the longer you can use a headset before you start having issues.

          • I’ve shown over 20 people the Rift on at my house and only 2 people, which includes my father, had any issues with motion sickness. Yes, some people felt a bit weird, but loved the experience and kept playing.

            The vast majority of people adapt to VR, it just takes time. A few days or up to 4 weeks. In fact, there are studies about simulation sickness showing that the majority (over 90%) do adapt.

            I didn’t show them really intense games like but they Windlands was shown early on and no one had any problems. I probably showed around 10 or so people that game.

            VR legs is a thing. It’s real. And you can even lose the ability to handle VR if you stop playing for a few months.

          • Adam Broadhurst

            Let them try Bone works and see how long they last.
            Again, not everyone can adapt to VR, it’s a fallacy to say everyone can.
            Like you said, you didn’t really let them play any intense games.
            So some of these games didn’t even have free locomotion?
            I’m talking about free locomtion which at least 50% of people find sickening.
            How can you convince the mass market to adopt something if it making people puke?
            It’s no good telling them they will get used to it(many won’t anyway)
            Nobody is buying if that’s their initial experience with it

          • Rod McMahon

            People overcome sea-sickness.

      • Carvj94

        Almost everyone gets sick the first time around but after a week almost everyone gets used to it. Kinda like motion sickness you just havta desensitize yourself to it. I get it if you don’t wanna put in the effort but let’s not pretend VR sickness is a permanent thing for all but the most susceptible percent of the population.

      • Cragheart

        Never say never. I predict that in 30 years we will communicated with computers directly via brain interfaces and locomotion sickness WILL BE solved.

      • Trenix

        Motion sickness can easily be prevented by an increase in frame rate, which naturally increases overtime as tech develops. Manually turning is also preferred and that will be much easier as wireless becomes more common and reliable. As FOV gets significantly increased, players also wouldn’t have to manually turn as much. In all honesty, I truly believe that in the future, VR will replace desktops. They will be easier to setup, put on, and will be far more effective. Remember how bulky and heavy monitors were in the past? Imagine a headset becoming like a pair of glasses which could also switch to AR mode.

        Majority of people will adjust eventually, just like they adjust to a boat or a car. I used to puke on boats, in cars, and when I drank alcohol. All those problems vanished as I got used to them. I can even play VR for the entire day. Valve Index already supports high refresh rates, most people who have motion sickness are actually able to play the Valve Index over something like the Oculus. Just give it time.

        • Adam Broadhurst

          Framerate isnt the reason for motion sickness,that was debunked a while back(low fps doesnt help but ts not the cause) and wider FOV can cause more sickness for some people(why do you think some VR games reduce fov when in motion?).
          And no,not all people will ‘adjust’,I still get car sick if i am reading or playing with my phone.Some may get their ‘VR legs’ as they say,but many wont not matter how much you try to ease them in to VR.
          And VR is a hard sell to the public when maybe 50% of people get sick withing minutes of using a headset with a game that has locomotion.
          No other tech gadget i can think of has a problem like this.

          I suffer only a little VR sickness btw.For most games im fine.

          • Trenix

            A low framerate causes motion sickness. There is nothing to debunk. People do get used to it and majority of the motion sickness for ALL players comes from turning in-game without actually physically turning. When I was a child I threw up in cars 24/7. I got used to it. Same thing with boats. Not going to be any different than in VR. You can say what you want, but you’re wrong. Many users can handle Valve Index over Oculus.

          • Adam Broadhurst

            Yes low framerate can contribute towards motion sickness but you appeared to be claiming this is the only reason for motion sickness “Motion sickness can easily be prevented by an increase in frame rate” and all sickness will be gone if you have a high framerate.This is simply wrong!
            Low fps is not the main issue.

            ANd you are also wrong if you’re claiming all players can get used to motion sickness.

          • Trenix

            You’re just nitpicking now. Obviously not all, but most. VR isn’t just going to be thrown out or ignored because of a minority. People can get adjusted and the chances of it occurring can be reduced with an increase in FPS. Claiming that motion sickness is the biggest concern for VR is laughable. You can argue the same for a roller coaster, car, boat, even airplanes. Your argument is so ridiculous that you’re in no position to claim anyone as being wrong.

      • Moe Curley

        I agree teleporting is not as satisfying for some users but others don’t care. Just like some users myself included don’t like third person flatscreen games but love first person games. And VR doesn’t make anywhere near half of the users sick. There are many experiences that make almost NO users sick.

    • 4dv4nc3d

      VR will NEVER replace regular monitor gaming. While fun, nobody is going to spend any substantial time with a HDM strapped to their face everytime they game. After working all day the last thing I want to do is stand for hours and sweat while gaming.

    • Xron

      Well, when Vr will be mature enough, most of us will lie in metalic coffins and will be connected to brain to user interfaces :D

    • kontis

      For the super human FPS KB+M experience that is not possible in native VR .
      Playing with just fingers and wrists while looking at small rectangle allows you to exceed limitations of your physical body.

      Pavlov will never fill like CSGO – not saying better or worse, just different. Same reason why some very old retro games have more enjoyable gameplay loops than many games with amazing graphics in the same genre. Simplicity allows for other trade offs.

  • GFL Tannar

    This article was great. I really enjoyed your writing style. Also yeah VR is definitely not a gimmick. Remember a long time ago people said videogames were a gimmick. Some less informed people still thought gaming was a gimmick well into the 2000s.

  • ComfyWolf

    I tried to let my cousin use the Oculus Quest and he said it took too much effort to play. Which I found weird, since I’m incredibly lazy and still get up at least an hour a day to swing my arms around in Beat Saber.

  • I’ve owned CV1, Odyssey, Rift S, and now Reverb, so I’m clearly “into” VR, but holy cow, today’s VR is giving you a glimpse of a future that’s so amazing that it’s blinding you guys to the reality that it mostly sucks today.

    The image quality (resolution) sucks. The Reverb is like the minimum to keep your eyes from dying. The experience on mobile and low-end PC’s is not good enough. My high-end PC and Reverb is, like… meh. We need Reverb DPI, Index refresh rates, and Pimax FOV, then we’ll talk. I hear you yell “but it would be too expensive” – yeah, that may be true, but it doesn’t change the fact. The arguments against this sound like someone from the 1980’s trying to justify their 240×160 VR – to which I’d say, the idea was ahead of the hardware, and maybe that’s still the case today then. For those of you happy to glue 240×160 to your face, that’s great, but the steady stream of newbs on Reddit asking “I just got VR, but mine’s all blurry and I can’t read any text, is something broken?” betrays the fact that most people expect better.

    A chunk of the problems are PC’s. Seriously, I’d bet >50% of users have had to fight w USB errors, black screens, graphics drivers, etc. Users want plug and play, like a console, and Steam and VR plugins is hard enough, but you can forget Mom setting up Revive or creating custom key bindings in some text file. Also, having to learn all these complex interaction controls for every experience? This is why the Wii was the only system to reach mass market casual gamers, cuz it was the only one you could just pick up and play. If you think the first 2 hours of Alyx being a controller training system is perfectly OK, news flash: it’s not.

    The content is seriously lacking. Even if you do like games, a lot of them are just glorified tech demos. I have zero desire to play rhythm games – I don’t even like single-player games – I like multiplayer shooters like Battlefield, so VR doesn’t offer me a whole lot personally. Alyx definitely helps round things out a bit, but even if you aren’t as fussy as I am, I predict most people still get bored pretty quick.

    I didn’t buy VR for gaming, but for Virtual Tourism, which I think could be the thing to reach a far greater market than gaming. I want to be transported to experience faraway places! Virtual vacation! But the content today is awful. Talk about 240×160. Compressed all to hell. Most of it makes my eyes bleed, and feels like anything but being there. 8K YouTube 360 vids are the best of the lot, and I’d argue those aren’t really good enough either, when that 8K is stretched across 360 degrees. And there’s very little of those. And the playback is janky as hell (even on my 3960X + 2080 super). And I think my WMR might be the only VR platform that actually lets you view those right now (I couldn’t view them on my Rift S), and even that fails half the time.

    So, yeah, I’m excited for the future, but I totally understand why most people would walk away today.

    • Adam Broadhurst

      I agree with a lot of what you say.
      VR isn’t there ‘yet’, it’s too expensive, the display are getting there but still a few years away and most of the games are trash.
      However there are some good games that make my VR purchase worth it in my opinion.

      There really is not point making better/higher res displays than the Reverb yet because the horsepower just isn’t there, even from the very best PC hardware.
      It’s would be wiser for VR to focus on wireless tech, foveated rendering, comfort, wider fov etc.
      All this while cutting the price of VR headsets would make VR a more attractive proposition.

      And you basically say VR sucks.
      Well when I put on my VR headset I am still experience something that 2D gaming cannot give me, a level of immersion that elevates some games to another level.
      All that on a CV1.

      I still spend most of my gaming time playing regular flatscreen games.
      VR hasn’t overtaken 2D for me and for some genres probably never will but its given me enough enjoyment to be a credible alternative.

      • Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying I haven’t derived any enjoyment from my VR. But to me, it’s almost like it’s more an excitement like I’m seeing the future, and excitement for what could be to come, if only this video weren’t so blurry, or if only it would stop stuttering, or if only I didn’t just trip over the cable, or if only I could turn my character around cuz my neck is getting sore from craning behind me, and, and, and…

        Despite what that giant rant above might make it sound like, I’m also a VR fanboy. I bring my wife in and am like “OMG OMG CHECK THIS OUT” and she pulls it off immediately cuz it’s stuttering and making her sick, and she doesn’t share that excitement to make her want to tolerate any of those issues. To her, it’s immediately and clearly a gimmick.

      • sfmike

        You have to admit though that regarding 2D games out there “most of the games are trash” too. So VR is not exceptional in that. Just because there are so many 2D games being made it is logical there will be more AAA games coming out. Hopefully Half-Life: Alyx will encourage other big game companies to take the plunge and to experiment with those features that make VR gaming uniquely different than the pancake experience. There is something really magic about being surrounded by a detailed fantasy world that can only be experienced and not explained. It’s like the difference between watching a movie and reading a book.

        • My problem w Alyx is that it’s like watching a movie or reading a book: the story is laid out. You’re on rails. I’d love a true open world game in that setting, where you just have to get from A to B and you can choose your path, fight your way through, sneak around, search random houses for loot, with AI that reacts realistically (chases you down, etc), and it plays out different for everyone. There’s definitely room for improvement, so I totally hope there’s more games made.

          • Adam Broadhurst

            That would mean you dont like the regular 2D HalfLife games either.
            Stormlans in VR might have what you’re looking for.

          • Cragheart

            There is a lot of room for improvement. Computers have to get much better and software has to use those capabilities well. Half-Life: Alyx is very good for 2020 but in 2025 I expect much more advanced games. I used to be an MMORPG player and I’ve been waiting for a true VR MMORPG since 2003. Tech nowadays moves too slowly.

        • Adam Broadhurst

          Ok,there’s many more ‘good’ games on 2D but its possible the quality ratio could be the same if you factor in the enormous amount of trash that can be found on the Steam store.
          But I have trouble finding good 2D games but VR is a much shallower pool.

    • Cragheart

      People often say that currently VR has too low resolution and too narrow field of view which is all true and must be solved as soon as possible. Locomotion also needs to be solved. For example via omnidirectional treadmills.

    • Cragheart

      VR 360° videos require 16K to be relatively sharp and this isn’t possible with contemporary hardware and Internet bandwith. We have to wait about 7 years.

    • brubble

      “So, yeah, I’m excited for the future, but I totally understand why most people would walk away today.”

      100%.

  • Satoshi

    VR is still to expensive, this is my main argument :/
    Most people in my country can’t even afford Windows Mixed Reality, and the thing is, the price tag here on local stores is even higher than on Amazon (around *1.5 $)

    • Carvj94

      If you build it yourself you could slap together a desktop for about $700 that can play VR just fine. Then say a $400 Rift S and your good to play pretty much any VR title.

  • Charles

    I disagree with how this article portrays Samsung’s headsets as part of the “bottom-of-the-line, budget headset” category, while portraying the Index as the “Ferrari of VR”. Samsung’s Odyssey+ is arguably the current best-available headset, and the Index is strongly held back by its poor contrast and black levels.

    • Adam Broadhurst

      I have been considering buying an Odysset for sim racing(wouldnt bother with it for anything else because the controllers are crap) but the Index does have a better display overall,does it not?

  • Andrew Jakobs

    “Four years later, the high-end GPUs of the time have become the low-end GPUs of today, ”
    Uhm, no they haven’t, highend in 2016 was the GTX1080, which is still much faster than the low-end GPU of today.. And and for instance a 2060 is also still far from low-end..

    • benz145

      GTX 970 was the recommended card when the headsets first launched, and was considered a relatively high-end card.

      The most popular GPU on Steam right now, the GTX 1060, is notably faster:

      https://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Nvidia-GTX-970-vs-Nvidia-GTX-1060-6GB/2577vs3639

      On top of that, both Oculus and Valve have introduced new rendering features which squeeze better performance out of the same hardware, which is why they haven’t bumped their recommended specs up even after four years.

      • Andrew Jakobs

        Yeah, the article suggests the lowend GPU’s today are now just as powerful as the highend GPU’s of 2016 (which already included the 1080, and as someoneelse also suggest, the Titan), and that’s not even remotely true. The GTX 970 wasn’t nowhere the highend back then it was the recommended GPU. If you meant the current lowend GPU’s are just as fast as the recommended GPU’s of that time, it would be different. AND the 1060 isn’t the lowend GPU, it’s the 1650 which still isn’t near as powerfull as the 970. And having the game using the reprojection stuff etc is clearly a downgrade in experience, it is very noticable..
        It’s actually the fact that we’re 4 years on and the power of lowend gpu’s is still at such a low level that’s the real news, 4 years on and still such low specced GPU’s..

        • benz145

          This disagreement seems to be simply over the definition of “high-end.” There’s no “right” answer, but in my mind I was thinking about of the 970 in the “high-end” class (based on price I would say that xx80 Ti and Titan cards are expensive enough to fall into a higher “enthusiast” class)

          As intended, I meant to relay that the kinds of GPUs that many self-identified “PC gamers” would choose to put in their PC today have enough power to run VR; back in 2016, this was much less often the case.

    • Carvj94

      I bought a GTX1060 mid last year for $210 at Best Buy. That can play a majority of VR games with no stutter. Sub $200 is considered low end and I’m sure that same card is now cheaper at this point.

      • Andrew Jakobs

        But that’s not the point, the point is, the article suggests the lowend GPU’s today are now just as powerful as the highend GPU’s of 2016 (which already included the 1080, and as someoneelse also suggest, the Titan), and that’s not even remotely true.

        • Carvj94

          Not quite. The article says that high ends from 2016 are low end now. Which is accurate. A GTX1060 cost enough to be considered high end in 2016 but now it’s cheap at only $200 or so.

          • Andrew Jakobs

            No it still isn’t highend was 1080’s. And hell no that the gtx1060 was to be considered highend in 2016.. Lowend now is the 1650, which still isn’t even as powerful as the 970 which was the recommended spec in 2016 (but still not the highend GPU as it also lagged behind the 980 if we only consider the 9xx line, but in 2016 the 1080 was already the highend and there was even the titan as Cragheart suggests)..

    • Cragheart

      The high-end of 2016 was the 12GB Titan Pascal for $1199 (same cost as 2080 Ti). It’s still an expensive level of performance and that’s a bummer.

  • sfmike

    If the PSVR2 can fix the poor tracking issues and create a viable VR controller the PS5 could be a real contender in the upscale VR market.

    • Adam Broadhurst

      I imagine they will go inside out tracking.Console gaming caters to a more casual market(not knocking that) and user friendlyness is key.Setting up cameras/sensers and cables isnt appealing to the mass market.

  • Ed Harrison

    My argument against the claim that VR is a fad is to take a wider view of human cultural and artistic evolution. Human beings have been creating virtual realities since the first story told around a camp fire. Every milestone in the history of art is a step towards empowering artists to communicate richer, more vivid experiences to their audience.

    Our recent advancements have led to films which can depict a constructed reality as if it were real, and the next step beyond a mere depiction has been video games which allow the audience to explore and interact with the constructed world and the story being told. Just follow where that trajectory is pointing.. VR is a LOGICAL and INEVITABLE step along this evolutionary path towards total immersion in a constructed reality as though it were real life.

    VR is not only more than a fad… it is a step along a path we will continue to travel down until we have pretty much created The Matrix. Brain-computer interfaces may be one of the next major milestones along this trajectory. To me “VR is a fad” just reflects a myopic view of human history and culture.

    • 4dv4nc3d

      Easy there Neo…..

      • Ed Harrison

        I just want to clarify that when I said “until we have pretty much created The Matrix” that I’m only referring to the fidelity of the simulation, not the whole enslavement of humanity part ;)

  • doug

    Two minor disagreements: I suspect Beat Saber would be an also-ran without the licensing of hit tracks, which is its greatest strength, and the lack of which is the Achilles heel of all its competition. Second, some hostility towards VR has an ancient name: sour grapes, and it stems from jealousy and defensiveness.

    Agree on the GTX 970. I have yet to feel upgrading mine can be justified on cost/performance.

    • benz145

      It was a huge success by VR standards well before the first licensed songs were released, so I’m not so sure.

  • sfmike

    There are reasonably priced solutions out there. Like https://vr-lens-lab.com/ or https://widmovr.com/ . There is no reason to suffer with fitting your glasses into an HMD.

  • 4dv4nc3d

    With the exception of a couple games I play every now and then where VR is immersive enough to justify wearing a headset for hours (Project Cars and Elite Dangerous) my Rift spends most of its life collecting dust in the closet.

  • Lane Miller

    I don’t think we needed 3 pages of ads for this article.

    Setup/teardown times are a bigger complaint from people than, “gimmicky” is. The amount of cords, and having a dedicated room is the most common complaint I hear.

    • Carvj94

      See that’s an actual complaint. That’s why I didn’t play on my CV1 Rift more than a few times a month. It wasn’t til the Quest came out that it changed to a dozen times a month. Now I got an Oculus link and everything is at my virtual fingertips.

  • Carvj94

    The current GPU I have in my desktop cost me $210 at best buy and can play most VR games just fine. If you really pinch your pennies I’m sure it’d only cost a little over $1000 to build a desktop AND get a Rift S.

  • Carvj94

    The Quest and Rift S now come in the box with a spacer you can put between the foam and the headset and does a surprisingly good job of keeping it from pressing onto your glasses. Though I wear small frames so your mileage may differ.

  • Well, comfort and isolation are two good arguments against VR that I still hear, and currently they are true, but things are improving.

    Regarding the price of PCs, well, VR ain’t cheap. Maybe gamers have already VR-ready PCs, but the average consumer has not. And since I’ve just bought my Laptop, here a VR-ready laptop starts at around $1000. If you don’t have the device, it is an investment to be made

  • Hyploxin

    If you wanted a headset and PC it’s alot of money. Alot of people wouldn’t have the amount to spend for themselves with prices like that.
    I love VR and have the PSVR headset, but anything like Oculus or a new PC would be too much.

  • Cragheart

    I think that mobile VR like Cardboard only discourages people from buying. It’s not the same thing. After playing for some time with HTC Vive or even better Valve Index, you want VR for yourself, but with cheap 3DoF you don’t want it, because it’s a gimmick. I TOTALLY AGREE THAT CHEAP 3DoF MOBILE VR IS A GIMMICK AND NOTHING MORE.

  • NooYawker

    Cost and content is what will determine adoption. More large companies are putting out or announced they will be putting out AAA VR titles. We also need more companies to put out competitors to Oculus.

    Alyx put everyone on notice, but what next?

  • Trenix

    The only thing holding VR headsets back are their lenses. They’re way too fragile and have absolutely no protection or any means of replacement. That kept me away for the longest until I bought lens adapters. Terrible to sell headsets for hundreds and give us such fragile lenses. Hell, even the lens adapters I bought were 10x more durable than these delicate pieces of trash.

  • JB1968

    You may hate on me but I can tell you Sony with PS5 and PSVR2 will be again the key player in terms of VR adoption to the masses in the upcoming years. Same as it was with PS4 and PSVR combo back in 2016 until now. If Sony had dropped the ball in 2017 the VR industry would be still expensive cliche, Valve wouldn’t create any Alyx and PCVR market would be dying these days. PS: I currently own Index so don’t call me a Sony fanboy.

  • Trenix

    1) That’s why there are already simulators that are trying to do just that.
    2) I got sick when I was in the car all the time. I didn’t read books and I didn’t even own a cellphone back then. I’d barf all the damn time, I still remember those days. Pure motion sickness.
    3) Many people get sick from boats, pretty much everyone I know threw up their first time being on a boat and afterwards, no longer had that issue. A similar experience happened to me. I’m talking about a boat in an ocean btw.

    No Man’s Sky and Fallout wasn’t designed with VR in mind. Meanwhile boneworks just just an over glorified demo, which other games to other aspects the game provides, 10x better. I wouldn’t have anyone test those games in VR if it’s their first time.

  • Eugen M

    Lol, VR will always be the hipster toy, proper gamers refuse crappy tech like VR and 3D for very simple reasons, they are and always will be gimmick no matter how many billions companies throw at that crap. We want proper graphics and gameplay with absolutely no lag, things that VR severly lack and always will be a step behind, you call your 2k resolution high res?? my 4k 28 inch monitor is light years ahead and i can still see its pixels…
    As for Half Life Alyx, nice try, its not one of the many examples you can think of, its the only example you can think of and im sorry to dissapoint you but the gfx are just average compared to a proper PC game and it has several flaws that would never pass or exist on proper mouse+keyboard games, it looks like an unfinished half life 2 demo with the difficulty dumbed down enough so a VR player can actually play the game with that clustercrap technology.

    • benz145

      You didn’t read the article, did you?

      • Ad

        Did you see that comment when you re-tweeted this article, lol?

  • Nathan M

    Got a rift s two weeks ago so I have used proper vr.

    1. headsets are not cheap, not 1k but in all honesty only worth the money for a minority.
    2. You do need a good pc, not insane but something most people don’t have.
    3. VR is very gimmicky, it’s not just a gimmik but to most people it is simply not worth the effort.

    This article is disappointing, for most people the above three arguments are enough not to buy into vr therefore they are valid. 3D is interesting but adds little to most films/games, worth it if you have spare cash or nothing to do, otherwise not. The proof of this is in the uptake of 3D TVs which are essentially not selling well enough for manufacturers to bother with now.

    P.s. For people using glasses I recommend modified lenses e.g vroptician or similar with the rift s. It helps a lot.

  • kakek

    The biggest argument against VR is rather that you can run very fast out good games to play.
    And it’s not unjustified.

    Alyx is STILL pretty much the only titles worthy of being called a AAA. You can add a couple couple more decent AA ( Saint and sinners, lone echo ) or indie titles worth their price out of sheer creatvity and perfect gameplay ( beat saber, superhot VR )
    But if you’re a serious gamer you find yourself running out of really good stuff pretty fast.

    Then there’s VR ré-édition and mods of flat games.
    And after that you have to fall back on indie titles, not un-enjoyable but pretty limited. Mostly in the genre of puzzle games / walking simulators. And even then you can run out of those.

  • Blakestoned

    VR is a gimmick!

    Until they can get past the ugly corners that plague the available content like (missing limbs, lack of smooth transitions, sde) most of the games played on vr headsets are little more than short demo’s or smartphone apps. Overpriced and locked to some portal or store front, then there is the dreaded data collection from the feedback making vr feel more impractical than useful. The future of vr just wants to be something of a subscription model, where everything is tied to a metaverse of some sort.