VR is Not Optimal for Gaming

VR is not optimal for gaming because of the over saturation of hardware and software in the market and the motion sickness and effect on the eyes it creates

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
guywazeldatatt1112d ago

VR is a gimmick and won't be successful. too much over saturation in the market and it adversely affects too many people. I've played it several times and I simply cannot doing it without getting extremely sick, even though that's improved immensely. The user base just isn't there and it's too expensive.

lifeistranger1112d ago

Too expensive? It's the same price as a game console. It's fine and a great piece of hardware. You get sick? Too bad. 99% of people don't. The user base is there. There's a reason GDC included "VR" in the conference's title (I work with developers).

guywazeldatatt1112d ago

$500 for something that is not a game console is ridiculous, especially one that cuts out your userbase. It's way more than 1% who experience this. A lot of people have astigmatisms and most aren't even aware of it. It's worse too if it's only in one eye.

-Gespenst-1111d ago

99% of people don't? Not a real statistic. I'm willing to bet a lot more than 1% would / do experience adverse symptoms playing VR. I'd say the number is far from negligible.

amiga-man1111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )

I have been playing around with Gear VR (couldn't wait till October) I get terrible motion sickness, but have had no problems with gear VR (aside from a space one) for that reason I doubt you have played it several times.

Every major Tech company is now heavily invested in VR with billions being poured into it's development and I will be buying the PSVR, Anyone who thinks VR is a gimmick has no idea of it's quality and potential, VR will impact everyone eventually.

Gardenia1111d ago

99% of the people don't get sick? You don't even know that. The numbers are much higher that's for sure. VR IS a gimmick and it IS expensive. TV and monitors will still be used most of the time, now and in 10 years

sammarshall1021111d ago

"99% of people don't"

We don't know that. It'll probably be less than that number

TheCommentator1111d ago

MS wouldn't be working on technology designed to reduce the tendency towards motion sickness, and the industry would not be considering putting motion sickness level warnings on VR titles if it was only a 1% margin of the population. Amiga Man, the potential in something doesn't guarantee its success or its failure. VR is barely passable at this point, it's a frontier filled with mostly shovelware deigned to showcase the "3D-ness" of it, with little to none of the virtual part of the equation. At this point, it's like when NES had the Zapper, R.O.B., Power Pad, and the Power Glove. They all looked good on paper, but none of them did anything meaningful in terms of making the experience more virtual. VR glasses, by themselves, are not virtual. We need better input devices to take advantage of the 3D viewpoint to immerse people in the experience instead of just depth with head tracking.

Yetter1111d ago

80% of statistics are made up right on the spot

BrianOBlivion1110d ago

"99% of people don't"
Give us a legit source. I think you pulled that stat out of your ass.

+ Show (5) more repliesLast reply 1110d ago
-Gespenst-1111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )

I'm not bothered with VR for a few reasons:

1. Most of the games in the works or currently available are short experiences simply because prolonged use of the headset is just a bit too intense.

2. Too expensive. It's a peripheral, not a console. Combined with 1, I feel like it would be a waste of money.

3. My eyes start to burn if I play HD stuff too much, and I get headaches when I watch 3D films or play games in 3D. I don't think I'll react well to VR.

4. There needs to be independent studies done on the possible physiological and psychological effects of using the technology, of which I suspect there are many. Developers should also be made to follow health and safety guidelines so as to avoid harming their players. Chet Faliszek argued that any nausea that players experience, at this point, has to do with how the game is made, not the technology. I don't know if that was damage control on his part, but if not, developers need to make their games responsibly.

5. Games are anti-social enough as it is. VR only intensifies the player's isolation.

Having said all this, I like the idea of using the headset as a 2d screen. No distractions. That's something I'd probably use it for a lot.

mogwaii1111d ago

You went from saying "games are antisocial enough as it is...."


"I like the idea of using the headset as a 2d screen thats something id probably use it for alot"

Which one is it?!

nitus101111d ago

Some people spend a considerable amount of money on a decent monitor or even a TV so that information can be displayed on them. A VR headset can be likened to a personal display device that can replace or augment an existing display device. Somehow I cannot envisage a display device as a non-essential peripheral.

Even if you just use say the PSVR in cinema mode only like you have suggested it would still make a decent display device with a virtual screen up to five meters in the diagonal. Tell me off any TV or monitor that even approaches the virtual screen size of a VR headset.

As for games being anti-social well that really depends on what type of games you or friends like. Sure you have single player games but you also have multiplayer family oriented games as well. Actually, games are what is called active entertainment which can be social or private, however watching a show be it a TV program or movie is what is called passive entertainment and in many respects, this is much more anti-social than playing a game. Sure people can get together socially to discuss a show or movie but then again so can a group of gamers.

I would always recommend trying out a VR device in both VR and cinema modes (the greater the time the better) before making a decision since it may be possible that VR headsets can cause problems for some such as nausea and as you have stated burning eyes.

It's all well and good doing independent studies on the effects of a particular item or thing on the human body or psyche but we all know or should know that people abuse the recommended usage be it drugs or even gaming.

amiga-man1111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )

MY first thought is if you are not bothered now you will be, VR is inevitable as is it's continued development, VR isnt perfect but this is very much first gen stuff and it will grow into so much more.

I'm sure all sorts of studies have and will be made into it's physical and psychological impacts, the same happens for any device (TV, phones etc have all come under the same scrutiny)

PSVR funnily enough can be sociable, Sony taking the time to put the display on TV, whether thats the same as the player or something different to interact with the player)

Watching 2D screen is another obvious attraction, especially when it to all intents and purposes it becomes your own personal cinema.

Basically VR is here to stay, bothered or not, it will become part of everyones lives

-Gespenst-1111d ago

@nitus10: There's no real substance to arguments like this: "It's all well and good doing independent studies on the effects of a particular item or thing on the human body or psyche but we all know or should know that people abuse the recommended usage be it drugs or even gaming." I don't know what you're trying to imply. Don't bother studying the effects? It could mean the difference between VR taking off or not. If all the games made for it make people ill, VR will just collapse. If there are regulatory guidelines, this won't happen. More importantly, such studies could mean the difference between a lot of health problems and not a lot at all. It's just not a strong argument. It's like the argument "why bother living if we're all going to die eventually?"

Secondly, no one is going to replace their tv or monitor with a VR headset unless they have no friends or family. Which relegates it from the position of "essential peripheral".

Thirdly, what I'm really describing when I talk about games becoming more anti-social is the death of local multiplayer. Social, multiplayer games are largely played alone. At least with them though, the player isn't cut off from the rest of the world around him or her. With VR, you pretty much are cut off from the rest of the world. Headphones in, headset on - you can see and hear nothing but the game. First we were separated from the people we live in the world with, and now we're being separated from that world itself.

Again, the only thing that appeals to me is cinema mode, which thinking about it I'd probably only occasionally use. I neglected to think about how annoying having that headset on would be, especially after an hour or two.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1111d ago
WeAreLegion1111d ago

Wrong. Very wrong.

People LOVE VR and are more than willing to pay for it. I've been demoing Vive for two weeks straight and every single person has loved it. Nobody has gotten sick or dizzy.

VR will be huge. Especially when PSVR launches.

The user base IS there. Demand was and is high. What in God's name are you talking about?

garrettbobbyferguson1111d ago

"Demand was and is high"

No, it's not. Majority of people who actually game do so in a casual setting. On a couch, on a comfortable chair in front of their TVs/monitors playing yearly releases of third party games like Call of Duty, Fifa, Destiny, etc. You think the demand is there for these people to suddenly strap on cumbersome headsets on their faces and jump around their rooms while playing mini games? Not a fat chance in hell. You've deluded yourself if you truly believe any of what you posted.

SniperControl1111d ago


"You think the demand is there for these people to suddenly strap on cumbersome headsets on their faces and jump around their rooms while playing mini games? "

Another completely uninformed statment from a person who has never tried VR.

Who says you are jumping around your room while using vr??

I've been using my DK2 for nearly two years now, games like Project CARS, Elite Dangerous, EVE, Euro/American Trucker, Alien Isolation, Mirrors Edge, GTA 5 etc do not require you to "jump" around, neither are any of these games "mini" or need you to wave your arms around.

All three major VR solutions are currently sold out with waiting lists on all, all three sold out with-in minutes of going on sale, you have to be totally blind(or deluded) not to see that "demand" is there for VR.

Pongwater1111d ago

Garrett has VR confused with motion controls. I'm not interested in jumping or even slowly moving around my living room while playing a game but I'm very likely to get a PSVR, provided I like the quality and comfort when I try it for myself. That casual setting he described is exactly how I'll be playing. There are also already games coming to PSVR that aren't "mini games".

sammarshall1021111d ago

That high demand will fizzle out quick

I give VR a year before people don't even bother with it anymore

DigitalRaptor1110d ago (Edited 1110d ago )

@ Sam Marshall

The PSVR will probably sell in the same ballpark as the Xbox One did within its first year, so will it fizzle out as quickly as that, or.....? I wouldn't be so bold with your predictions, especially since they are all made to drive shade on PlayStation.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 1110d ago
jznrpg1111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )

For you.. not everybody feels the same way, obviously. VR may suck for you and thats too bad, it is one more way I will be enjoyong video games.

DarXyde1111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )

And yet VR is featured now in game consoles, PCs, and even your smart phones. SMART PHONES. Saying VR is a gimmick is akin to stating motion controls are gimmick.

You probably think they are, however I contend that VR is the natural evolution of motion controls. I'm saying that we never did away with motion controls and they are still very much a part of the gaming medium. The PS2 Eye Toy, the PlayStation Eye, Wii remote, Kinect 1 and 2, PS Camera, Oculus/Vive/PSVR, 3DS, PS Vita, smart phones, Wii U Gamepad, DualShock 3 and DualShock 4, and HoloLens are testaments to that.

You can make the argument that the medium is rarely used. In some cases, you're right. It does however play a great role in handhelds. I argue further that motion controls extend from an overbearing umbrella of gesture-based gaming. This includes capacitive touch screens/pads, motion controls, and yes, VR.

VR is more or less the encompassing experience, depending on its application. In my opinion, VR for consoles will be what motion/touch gaming is for mobile where it has its audience. Likewise, VR for mobile gaming could be what touch and motion are for consoles. I don't think VR will have a strong presence on handhelds, but they do have the greatest representation of motion and touch based gaming. Conversely, motion and touch do not have a strong presence on consoles, but VR is likely to. And actually, with the presence of VR, we will likely see greater implementation of motion gaming on consoles.

So you see, VR actually has a pretty powerful vehicle to move it into mainstream interest. It is but one significant way for platforms to diversify themselves. With Sony leading the charge on consoles with PSVR, expect people to be very interested in it on a mainstream level. I think that if you feel VR could be treated as a "gimmick", it's because you're likely looking at what happened with motion controls. In the past, support simply wasn't there. And when it was, it was poorly implemented. It's how Wii had so much shovelware among some otherwise great titles. Sony has studios dedicated to the medium. Smart phones lack buttons, forcing you to rely on motion and touch controls, so mobile gaming naturally makes extensive use of these features. If the support is strong, it can succeed. As long as VR has great exclusive support, it's very unlikely to become a gimmick.

I can only see VR failing if Sony basically mandates Neo for an ideal experience (which I don't see happening). In that case, that's asking a lot of consumers. Price shouldn't be too much of an issue if you own most of the other pieces. The PS Camera has sold very well and I think many of us still have Move controllers. If you didn't buy any of that, sure, it's more costly for you, but Sony is also launching it into the holiday season. It'll only get cheaper as deals become available and technology gets cheaper to produce.

sammarshall1021111d ago

Price will be the biggest factor that holds VR back along with the limited substance in the games

If VR games cost anywhere near AAA games they won't sell and is doomed right out of the gates

zeuanimals1110d ago


You're gonna need to back up both the "limited substance" and game cost parts. Both are just speculation. Seeing as the headsets keep going out of stock within seconds of being in stock, people are buying them, can't say how many, but there seems to be demand. And if someone's willing to spend $500 on a VR headset, they're probably willing to spend some more to get some actual use out of it. I'd hate to make the comparison, but the Wii sold plenty of shovelware because people wanted something to play on it. By comparison, VR games have a much better chance of not sucking as all the Wii did for most games was just introduce the worst control scheme of all time, waggle controls. VR isn't introducing anything that will inhibit our ability to control, it's looking to immerse us into the games.

And plenty of indie devs are working on VR games and if their previous game prices are anything to go by, they might not be charging a full $60 for their games. Lacking substance? On games we know nothing about?

Pongwater1111d ago

I've seen far more positive reaction to VR than negative. Your argument seems to be "I don't like it, therefore it will fail". I know several people who can't play different types of games on their TV without getting motion sickness, yet gaming is bigger now than it's ever been. The percentage of people who get sick from VR could double or triple and VR would still do fine as long as the games are there.

kraenk121111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )

So you wrote and are submitting this negative article because you have a personal problem with your physicality (eyes) and want to talk everybody into not helping it succeed simply because you're jealous?! Got it!

wutang4ever1111d ago

yea i agree it's a gimmick. I knew motion sickness was going to be an issue. Paying the same price or more than a console is too expensive for an accessory.

Also, using VR while standing up and walking around is a danger, even though VR companies will make it clear to stay seated and stationary.

Having a screen so close up to your eyes can't be a good thing, remember when your parents told you not to sit too close to the T.V. , I wonder why?

kneon1111d ago

Your parents were wrong

And you're wrong about motion sickness. I've been having 100's of people trying out VR for months now and most have no problem. Even most of those that do get motion sickness from VR soon get used to it. At first they can only last a few minutes, but with repeated attempts they can go for hours.

Khaotic1111d ago

You will never convince the Sony crowd of this.

hirobrotagonist1111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )


Spoken like a true armchair future analyst. You absolutely have no idea why you're talking about. I've only got motion sickness from one game out of the 30 or so I've play on my Vive. It's worth the hype and in 3-5 years, you're really going to see yourself proven wrong on this, without a doubt. Neither Oculus nor HTC is making money on the hardware here really, miniaturization of electronics if very expensive, it's called the price of early adoption. Do you remember how much the PS3 was at launch?

+ Show (7) more repliesLast reply 1110d ago
TheSuperiorGamer1112d ago

I work in optics and astigmatism is an issue that hasn't been fixed and is a serious issue, especially for those who have one only in one eye. Some astigmatisms aren't ideal for contacts, and spending a few hundred dollars just to play an over priced VR system is ridiculous. This is something that needs to be fixed if the technology is going to move forward.

guywazeldatatt1112d ago

having an astigmatism in my right eye, I can attest to this. No matter what setting put on VR when playing it, it destroyed my eyes. I even had motion sickness and got to the point where I almost threw up during a private demo. It was awful.

kraenk121111d ago

Now we understand why you're hating on VR. Pretty selfish although I can understand your disappointment.

sammarshall1021111d ago

No one is going to want to play VR when they're getting motion sickness so I agree with you there

Septic1111d ago

Well that is worrying.


nitus101111d ago

If a person has a problem with their eyes then that is unfortunate for them and of course it may be possible that they will never be able to use a VR headset. Even if a small percentage can't use a VR headset why would you go out of your way condemning the product when a huge percentage can use the product effectively.

You have my sympathies however just because you can't use a VR headset why do you condemn a device that millions will be able to use without any problems.

nottfadeaway1112d ago

This is a troll article. VR is the future. Boo hoo. Get over yourself.

guywazeldatatt1112d ago

ugh you're missing the point.

lifeistranger1112d ago

And what is the point? Just because a few people may get sick that VR is a gimmick? It's total immersion. There's a reason why everyone is jumping on it. They know the technology is unrivaled. People want it. It won't go away.

guywazeldatatt1112d ago

@lifeistranger it's a gimmick because it will die out quickly because of oversaturation in the market. Too expensive and small market for those who will actually buy it. People will stick with consoles. VR is great technology, just not for gaming at this juncture.

WeAreLegion1111d ago

That's like saying consoles are over saturated. You really don't understand this industry and you definitely don't understand this technology. Or humans.

Pongwater1111d ago

Your oversaturation point makes no sense. PSVR works with the console, and as far as I know the other VR sets work with PC, so "people will stick with consoles" makes no sense either. Response to the price was fine, so VR will only fail if the quality and games aren't there, or if far more people get sick than currently are during previews.

Errorist761111d ago (Edited 1111d ago )

No, we got the point. You're feeling like you miss out and now you want the others to miss out too.

Of course normal console gaming is here to stay. No one ever stated otherwise.

DavidD1111d ago

@Darklink28 No mate YOU are missing the point. All of your speculation amounts to shit. VR is here to stay, it's an evolution of gaming akin to analogue controllers. And as for your point of over-saturation (a point which you over-saturated) there are 3 big names involved in VR hardly (your fave word coming up) over-saturated.
On to cost. Early adopters are aware they will pay more BUT it's those early adopters that have helped multiple platforms succeed. And to be perfectly frank in the case of Sony VR, it's a fantastic price point. No messing out of the box and you are good to go. Consider how people change their phone when a newer version comes out, phones like the Samsung Galaxy S7 is around £550 and yet in 2 years it will be almost certainly updated and people will upgrade again.
This is going on longer than I intended but your point of view has so many holes in it it's a literary colander.
I could go on but gf has rightly pointed out that small, narrow minded people will always be small, narrow minded people.
Look at your glass again and think "It's half full". Peace Out.

amiga-man1111d ago

Darklink your argument becomes more bizarre the more you try and defend it, VR is inevitable and will impact everyones lives eventually.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1111d ago
DirtyPete1112d ago

I am personally not a fan of vr. I have always loved to idea of playing in a room full of people and having fun that way but vr makes the experience way too personal for my taste. I can see some people loving it but me personally, it doesn't fit my taste at all. I just need a good game with a gripping story to be happy.

guywazeldatatt1112d ago

Actually it's so funny you say that. That's why I love Nintendo. They create those kinds of experiences. That's what Super Mario 3D World was all about. That's what Snow Cannon Games/Sarepta Studio's Shadow Puppeteer was all about: bringing gaming back to the living room. That's where gaming thrives. I like playing online, but I love playing with people in person way better. I'm not a Nintendo shill; I own all 3 consoles. But what you said really resonated with me DirtyPete.

lifeistranger1112d ago

VR games can have a gripping store and good gameplay. The time of people playing in a room is over. This is the online era. Get with the times.

guywazeldatatt1112d ago

Nintendo is doing awesome stuff without doing online. Some Sony and Microsoft stuff is doing amazing without online and having a gripping story, like Pete said, and good gameplay. It's not strictly the time of "online gaming." If that were the case single player experiences and campaigns would be gone. Only EA is doing that.

garrettbobbyferguson1111d ago

"This is the online era. Get with the times"

Are you 12? What kind of argument is this? What if I said "this is the crotch kicking era, get with the times grandpa".

DavidD1111d ago

You make a valid point, and, you say this is your opinion. Most people miss that this is all opinion and only time will tell.

LegendZelda1112d ago

Sounds like something Nintendo would do to further let down their fans

guywazeldatatt1112d ago

Nintendo is actually really smart staying out of this. Everyday people haven't even really used VR. They are on consoles. The technology is great but not there for gaming het. We don't live in a Sword Art Online world.