I don't see VR taking off without a decent mass market price for people to adopt it. Too risky at $400+. Not a lot want to take that plunge if there's a danger of it not being supported in the long run.

VR is going through the same phases as 3D except 3D was cheaper and easier to implement in every way from the hardware manufacturers, to the game developers, to the consumers. Now, no one gives a fuck about 3D to a point where one of the industry's biggest pushers of 3D, Nintendo, is now making 3DSs without the 3D, Most TV manufacturers barely even advertise that their TVs are 3D compatible if they new models even are.

Every argument you can make in favor of VR you can make in favor of 3D. 3D had a far easier chance of succeeding and becoming an industry norm and it was a fad that came and went within a few years. VR isn't going to fare any better.

What Sony and Microsoft are doing is the right thing from VR; not sure why Apple or Nintendo would do better at this point.

Both are trying to make it mainstream, one with a very well established Play Station Four and the other one by bringing low price headset for PC (Windows 10). I think what Oculus and Vive is doing is really hurting the chances, not only because of the price but also the requirements (which is something Sony is elegantly solving imo), Oculus may be working on a mid entry headset tho but having those headsets at this price (even if better technically) is not going to help VR being relevant.

So yah, I don't think Nintendo and Apple can do better than what Sony is already doing and what Microsoft is working on.

VR makes 3D actually work though. 3D alone doesn't add anything to the experience since your viewpoint is still stuck in place. VR unlocks 3D, at least in games. 3D videos are almost worse than 360 videos. Both suck with plenty of distortian and scale issues. Nor is watching a movie where you could be looking the wrong way any fun. Only the Joshua Bell VR experience impressed me so far from video content. Yet that's very expensive to make with 3D mapped environment with plenty of video streams merged and projected in that space to give you the illusion you can move your head around (within a small area)

So yeah, for video it might go the way of 3D. For games it's totally different.

Yes. It seems the industrry thinks VR is going to convince casual gamers and non gamers to become adopters. Yet I doubt anyone that just wants to twiddle their thumbs with a bit of candy crush at the coffee shop or while watching tv is suddenly going to be excited to play games that demand your full attention, which kinda goes with VR. (Why play candy crush in VR...)

A new form of gaming might change that like the Wii did for a while with Wii sports.

I totally disagree.

VR is not a new idea. People have been making VR solutuons for decades now (remember Lawnmower man? That's 25 years old!) , and it's never seen mass success. I can remember going to a theme park decades ago and playing Duke Nukem 3D using a VR headset with a gun shaped controller. Two years after that VR area was replaced with something else because no one gave a shit anymore. This new VR fad will come and go too. Maybe next time it becomes a fad (and it will) it'll finally reach a point where it'll have mass appeal, but it definitely isn't close to there yet.

VR is just 3D + Expense. Once the novelty wears off, all you're left with is a handful of experiences that actually offers a legitimately enhanced experience and isn't a gimmick that people will become bored with. The vast majority of VR games are literally taking a game that doesn't need VR at all and making it VR for the sake of VR. But the expense? That's means that this round of VR was once again dead on arrival. It's still way, way, way too expensive for it to see mass adoption. You'll have to see great VR solutions for less than $100 that is easy to set up, maintain, and support before you'll ever see mass market success, and that's probably still decades away.

To be honest if any company has had any expirience with this tech its nintendo. They had the virtualboy and 3ds after all. They KNOW how to program popup 3D.

Yet 3D stuck around this time in the cinema, and doesn't seem to be declining at all. VR arcades aren't quite there, but developments are going very fast atm. Lightweight high res glasses for VR arcades aren't far off.

I had 3D in the 90's on a CRT projector. That was a fad and the fun wore off quickly. Great to play Descent 2 in 3D with fire balls floating through my room and behind the wall I was projecting on, yet after a month I was back to gaming in 2D. 3D didn't add anything. Yet this time, even with low res VR with all its problems, I don't want to go back to old fashioned gaming. It's very liberating not to be stuck to a fixed viewpoint with limited fov. It's not a gimmick. But it doesn't help the industry seems to be hell bent on promoting it with gimmicky experiences.

Will the mass market care? I dunno. I love dedicated surround sound yet most people are satisfied with headphones or tv speakers. Perhaps VR will become like that. Every movie and tv show support at least 5.1 sound though... Perhaps it will be easier to add a VR option in future game engines. Perhaps we should simply forget about special VR games and treat it as another display option. Perhaps social multiplayer games can break through in VR. Perhaps natural language interaction with AI characters will be the breakthrough point. The only thing I'm certain off is that I'm enjoying every bit of it right now and amd looking forward to all the things that are coming out soon.

Surround sound is a great parallel, and I'm glad you brought that up. Some people think games/movies/tv aren't nearly as good without it, and will pour thousands of dollars into an amazing home audio experience, but the vast majority of people are quite content with their TV speakers or a soundbar because its cheaper than a 5.1 or 7.1 surround sound system and the difference isn't worth it for them. Surround sound has existed for decades, and it has always, always been niche, no matter what advancements have been made, or how cheap surround sound systems get. But here's the thing. Surround sound is built in to pretty much every game engine, requires little -to-no effort from developers to fully support it, and it doesn't exactly require an immense amount of system resources to run, and most importantly, it actually has the potential to enhance the experience of every single game that supports it in a meangingful way. Something like a car blowing up behind you and hearing that explosion behind you adds a level of realism. But VR doesn't have that luxury. There are many games where VR is utterly pointless, like any non-first person games like GTA or Assasin's Creed, or sports games, or more casual games. It's a complete waste of time for titles like that because any type of "enhancement" you can think or making isn't actually going to make those games meaningfully more fun to play.

If you don't like that example, use Racing Wheel controllers for PCs/consoles as another example and look into how affordable they've become, and how most people who love racing games and play them regularly still aren't willing to buy a wheel, and many popular racing games have very limited racing wheel support, if any, even though racing wheels have been available for decades. Yet, there's people, like you, that will no longer play racing games without a wheel because how how "old fashioned" it feels. it doesn't change the fact that racing wheels, no matter how long they've been on the market, will always be a niche product because it has such limited appeal.

I have to disagree with you on the point that VR is pointless for non first person games. 3rd person works very well. The ability to freely look around and the high fov do enhance the experience without any further changes needed. The 3D effect helps with accuracy for jumps etc, and the sense of scale helps put everything in perspective in your mind. Actually for me it has pushed different genres back into my interests, it does make them more fun to play.

3rd person has mostly been a crutch, neccesary to solve the situational awareness problems that come with the low fov of first person games on a screen. It can still help in VR to dampen motion sickness problems, but it isn't neccesary anymore. You are much more aware of what happens around you. Rush of blood wouldn't even work on a traditional screen as half the targets and attacks would be out of view.

Btw surround sound doesn't do anything for 2D platformers, yet I'm excited to see how the lost bear turns out. An immersive 2D platformer for VR.

Other games I look forward too are Moss and Star Child. I'm very curious about those. First I'll check out how SuperHot translated to VR. And then there's Skyrim to see how well it works with existing games. (I have now worries, RE7 worked beautifully, yet I haven't played that on tv to compare)

You bring up racing wheels, yet those are like the name says, only for racing games. VR works for many more genres and is more comfortable to use too imo. I haven't bothered with racing wheels as I like to sit comfortably, feet up, change position now and then. VR has no problem with that. The only issues are when you have a motion tracked game and the arm rests get in the way. Which is also why I think roomscale has little future, or is a niche of a niche. Room scale stuff was fun in the beginning yet now I avoid that. I don't want to stand or wander around with a headset on. It's very cool as an introduction to VR yet that novelty wears off. RE7, Farpoint work great while seated after you get used to analog turning in VR in coordination with your head movements.
 
At the end of the day, I just want to sit down and relax. A headset lets me look around, and is more comfortable than staring at a screen in front of me. I won't use it to watch tv though. I tried and while the quality is quite good, the screen is too big and it's hard to drink and snack with a headset on!

I have no clue how limited the appeal is though. For me, it's the only 'enhancement' I'm still excited about almost a year of use later. Everything before it like 3D, racing wheels, eye toy / ps eye, wii motes, balance board games, move, didn't last for more than a few months at most.

Again... with those third person games, the enhancements you're discussing are very subtle and aren't going to make a meaningful difference to the average gamer. Pretty much every console gamer on this planet would rather save the cost of a VR headset than "miss out" on those enhancements. They just won't give a shit enough to go out and plunk down for one. They'll say "that's neat, but not $200 neat", and move on. Let's be honest, the vast majority of the appeal of VR is for first person games, this is obvious. If you're going to show off to a friend how great of an experience VR can be, and truly wow them, Lost Bear isn't going to make them go out and buy one. That's why it's similar to the racing wheel, because it's expensive technology, really only appeals to one type of game, and is really only adopted by hardcore enthuiasts. VR is niche, and always will be. Gaming on a TV/monitor will always be cheaper and close enough for the vast majority of gamers

Yes, Surround Sound doesn't do anything for 2D games. Thank fuck this is 2017 and 1987, and 99% of games are no longer 2D.  Besides, what does that even matter? I don't think anyone has gone to the store looking at speakers for their home theater and thought "This'll make all of my movies, tv shows, and pretty much all of my games more immersive, but it won't enhance LittleBigPlanet, so that's a hard pass for me". Besides, surround sound still meangingfully enhances far more games than VR ever will, will likely always be more expensive than surround sound, and still most gamers couldn't give enough of a shit about the enhanced experience surround sound makes to actually go out and buy a surround sound system, and they won't be bothered to go by a VR solution either. That's my point.