Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action
Subject: Re: VR still on the rise?
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 07:55:36 -0800
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <9fd37c77bb194fe241c2e9d40977bc485497502b@i2pn2.org>
References: <v9q5nj57lu7osjt56hianko86gjosnae0p@4ax.com>
 <iea6njplt42nlgs36eg4drpeu58j9hkv3k@4ax.com>
 <51ba2b0b0271822c5f749603b02501b0da69050f@i2pn2.org>
 <4g28njt13i8u2gf38vfp8r756fjc1qj0kt@4ax.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2024 15:55:36 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1351057"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="Qhe2PUx7m0g9bYSXAivnRF/BNu0vlRR08ycHrj9WPKg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
In-Reply-To: <4g28njt13i8u2gf38vfp8r756fjc1qj0kt@4ax.com>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 6058
Lines: 106

On 12/31/2024 7:35 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Dec 2024 16:07:02 -0800, Justisaur <justisaur@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> The Oculous my daughter still plays Beat Saber off and on, I think I
>> fired it up once last month.
>>
>> It's still got a long way to go tech and game wise.  It doesn't really
>> work well for interacting with anything that has solidity.  Swing a
>> sword - your character does it as fast as you do, and you can blenderize
>> NPCs, and your hand/ weapon just passes through or slides across.
>>
>> I suppose it works better for ranged FPS, but moving around is
>> disconcerting and unnatural compared to kbm or PC controller.
>>
>> It's getting better, but it'll probably be another 10 years until until
>> it's tried again, and I still don't see it being miniturized enough
>> then.  Maybe in 20.  If I make it to 75 maybe I'll see good VR.
>>
>> On the other hand there's too many people it doesn't work well for - me
>> with vertigo, and motion sickness, people who don't have true 3d vision
>> doesn't do anything for etc.
> 
> 
> For me, the biggest reasons I never purchased a VR device are
> a) price
> b) compatibility/control
> 
> Price is the big one (and given my looseness with my games and
> hardware purchases, may surprise you that it's something I balk at).
> But it's not so much an affordability issue as a "will I actually use
> this thing after I buy it". If it's cheap enough (or I've confidence
> that it will get some use), I'll throw down cash. I'll pop $50 for a
> game even if I assume it'll only get a single play-through. I'll drop
> $700 on a video-card because I figure it'll get used for several
> years.
> 
> I've no confidence with VR in either case. Every time I've used one, I
> walked away feeling it's a gimmick, and that if I purchased one, it
> would quickly end up on a shelf next to my SteamLink or joystick-
> with-HOTAS or any of the other nonsense gaming hardware I've
> accumulated. But even THEN I'd buy one if the price wasn't so
> outrageous. I'd get a Valve Index if it were under $50 USD. But a full
> kit-out is $1000 and that's just a bit much for a gimcrack
> dust-collector. And I think that's a major consideration for most
> users, especially since you also need a powerful PC to get the maximum
> result. Get a capable device down to the price of a game, and everyone
> will buy one. But when even the cheapest, shittiest Meta headset costs
> upwards of $300, it's not going to catch on.

I think the Meta price is good, maybe even $500 as a console competitor. 
  I got mine for free though, I certainly wouldn't have bought it 
knowing my vertigo issues, when I tried a friend's VR device of some 
years ago.

> 
> Which brings me to the second problem: compatibility issues and who
> controls the back-end. For instance, while I may not be in the
> majority in this, I _absolutely_ won't have anything to do with
> Facebook, so that rules out the Meta Quest/Oculus lines. 

As people have shown with all the shenanigans of big names, gamers don't 
care about who's making their games.

Supposedly it's easier for the Oculous to be used on the PC with steam 
since the last time I tried it, I keep intending to try it with 
something like Fallout, Skyrim, or Half-Life VR which look pretty cool, 
but really I don't have enough interest in the VR, and I know Half-Life 
would trigger my vertigo way too much as even the 2d does.

> Notice what I didn't put on the list as all that important to me? HOW
> WELL IT WORKS. As I've indicated, right now, I don't think VR works
> that well. It doesn't really solve a problem and it comes with a lot
> of downsides. 

It solves the problem of not feeling you're actually in a different 
place, or in the game.  At least partially.  The downsides though, yeah 
I'm not sure the downsides are worth it.  If you're one of the lucky 
(few?) people who aren't affected by any of the downsides perhaps.

> But I'd buy a device despite all that just for the
> novelty and in hopes of encouraging hardware- and software-developers
> to keep working at the problem. I'm not against adding another gimmick
> to my collection. I just don't want to pay a premium for it.

In that case I'd say get a Meta Quest 2 or 3.  I've certainly got retail 
value out of it, and way more than used (2 seems to be around $180)

> So yeah, I'd get a VR headset even though I know its uncomfortable to
> use for long periods, scarily isolates me from the world, doesn't
> offer up as-sharp visuals, and works poorly with my fucked-up eyes.

There's the reason not to get it.  F'd up eyes may make it not work for you.

> I'd still get one despite all that. _If_ the price were right, and I
> could use it confidently with my existing library of games.

Confidence, no.

-- 
-Justisaur

  ø-ø
(\_/)\
  `-'\ `--.___,
   ¶¬'\( ,_.-'
        \\
        ^'