A bit of a cherrypicked screenshots.

But yeah, standalone VR headsets will never look as good as one's relying on external devices to power them, or will manage to push visuals to levels of equivalent hardware that renders for standard TV resolutions/framerates (apparently, Quest 3 is somewhere between XBONE and PS4 levels, all things considering). Eventually, maybe someone figures out how to do wireless that is as good as tethered connection, so externally powered headests become viable solution for folks (like myself) who hate cable in their VR gameplay.

Graphics will never be the selling point of VR, I don't think that's what holding it back. Bulkiness and screen-door effect (solvable), discomfort (somewhat solvable) and actual space required for playing (case by case solvable, but much more with standalone VR) are.

And even with all that problems, give Quest 3 to Nintendo and let them make Mario game for it, and it will be selling in 10s of millions.

In a parallel universe where Quest 3 is a Nintendo product, I think it would be doing considerably better, or at least have a lot more foothold in the mainstream. People would be blown away by Mario Kart and Mario and Zelda and Pokemon and Metroid Prime in VR. Absolutely. 

Even things like Animal Crossing, you could have the world pop up in front of you like the cutest little diorama come to life and people would absolutely lose their shit. It would be great. 

In a lot of ways the Quest VR headsets feel more like the natural evolution of the Wii. 

Yeah, Quest 2 was quite successful and could be called the first VR headset that really got into mainstream. If that was Nintendo product, with Mario and all their IPs behind it, it would be logical continuation of Wii and would easily hit much bigger numbers.

I experienced first hand when I introduced Quest to my wife and her sister, neither of them playing video games, how much of that same Wii vibe there is to whole VR appeal for mainstream. But discomfort of current bulky headsets cannot be denied as well for such audience, and I find it to probably be primary reason for VR not taking off more in the mainstream.

It's the main complaint though in R/PSVR.

I regularly see these posts (until people point out the repetition and it's quiet for a little while)
- Where are the hybrid games
- Sony abandoned VR, no AAA games
- Quest games barely get upgraded for PSVR2
- What game to use to show off VR to friends/family.

GT7 is considered the best PSVR2 game due to how immersive it is, from the graphics. It's attracting people that would never have touched GT7 otherwise. (And plenty then say, the gameplay isn't really for them, but I'll get a wheel for more immersion)

The couple 'exclusives' get recommended all the time above all else, RE8, RE4 remake as well as NMS for the looks and what you all can do. The conversation is always about can it run without reprojection, what's the resolution.

And many people say they hardly play VR anymore due to shorter / restrictive / worse looking games.

All the other things hold it back as well, but not being able to play their 'comfort' games in VR is one of the biggest hurdles. Most requested is always Skyrim, GTA, and many other big AAA games.

And thus I fully agree with your last point: "give Quest 3 to Nintendo and let them make Mario game for it, and it will be selling in 10s of millions."

People want something familiar, but not knock offs like Horizon CotM which faced huge backlash for being climb the mountain instead of an open Horizon game.


It's still the chicken and the egg problem. People wait for good games, industry waits for more headset sales.

All fair, but I think that it's the VR "core" audience, folks who don't mind the bulkiness and all the sweat and discomfort of current VR headsets (no matter how expensive/good they are), along with being more than willing to pay high costs of headsets along with PC/PS5 for such experiences, it's them who are more sensitive about visuals than other, much bigger audience (at least currently) who are just impressed with VR experience alone and are quite happy to enjoy even Quest 2 level of graphics.

Now, Quest 2 made a splash, but it didn't have something like Mario Kart VR to help it push to stratosphere - but even if it did, and attracted Wii crowd, I very much doubt it would do even half of Wii numbers - cause, again, in their current form factor, VR headsets are nowhere near as comfortable as they need to be to gain more traction with mainstream/casual market - which, fortunately, will be solved sooner or later. The only way I can see VR perhaps doing anything resembling "standard" console sales numbers until then is if Nintendo releases one, and that only for strength of their IPs, and I doubt they will do it with current tech.

So, my take is we're waiting for better tech (either much cheaper or much more comfortable, preferably both) in order for better mass VR adoption to happen, cause, currently, I don't think games alone, even AAA, can do much to move the needle that much.

That core audience are who are trying to get more people into VR. However that core is also greatly divided.

There are the VR purists, that want every VR game to be the total VR package, room scale, play standing with everything made for motion controls, body inventory, realistic gun play etc. They go for the fitness games (which suck, sweating with a VR headset on is the worst), the horror games and dismiss 3rd person VR games. HL Alyx gets all the praise.

And those that want to relax with VR, sit on the couch and enjoy their favorite games while being able to look around in the virtual worlds. They're not into all the VR mechanics and are just as happy with 3rd person VR games as 1st person. That crowd is only really catered to by the modding scene on PCVR.

There are kart games (Galaxy Kart), there are Mario like games (Max Mustard). But yes people look for the name, why is Astrobot not on PSVR2.

Quest 2 sold a ton of headsets, yet reality is that PSVR2 generates a lot more income from games. That hardcore crowd is also the one that is more inclined to spend money on games. But is currently pushed toward the PC adapter to be able to get what they want.
A friend of my oldest has a whole bunch of Quest headsets as he buys another one when a controller or something else breaks. Yet all he plays on it is Pavlov.

Quest is losing 3 to 4 Billion each quarter on their VR platform, that alone scares off any other company interested in VR.


But as you said it's the strength of IPs that will get people to try and stick with VR. Meta doesn't have that, Sony could go a long way yet isn't actively supporting their headset. Nintendo can make it popular.


Yet the other problem, comfort, has a long way to go. My oldest and his friends aren't all that interested in VR because they mostly play games like Rust together while on their phone, laptop etc. It seems the current generation is addicted to their secondary screen while gaming, or do their homework while hanging out in Rust. No idea how to 'solve' that. More multiplayer games to start with, PIP, link your phone, improved see through mode maybe. And should be as easy as putting reading glasses on/off. But then again home 3D failed as well which was as easy as putting cardboard glasses on.


So we have a niche hardcore audience that wants more than Quest games, and a casual audience that is wowed by VR but ultimately sticks with flat gaming for the games they actually want to play, comfort, friends and secondary screen included.

Conclusion, hybrid games are the way forward. Perhaps in future SDKs it becomes as easy as Praydog UEVR injector makes it look. Eye tracked foveated rendering standard in the SDK as a toggle so there's no performance loss to VR with VR headsets that support VRR since getting that locked frame rate is the hardest part of porting games to VR. (GT7 on PS5 pro still drops frames, I had it again last night with 5x time acceleration, sun going down on a wet track, very jarring with the new reprojection as the image 'jerks back' when the next frame arrives too late)

Full motion VR games will always stay a niche like motion controls on consoles. There were big breakout hits and with tons of marketing Kinect made a big splash. Yet every motion game has ultimately not led to general adoption of motion controls. 3 hour gaming session while standing, ducking, avoiding, grabbing all around your body as 'UI', it isn't for me. No matter how much I like VR, I like to sit down at the end of the day. My game time is 'limited' by what my back can endure. Plus I much rather go for a run outside than get sweaty in a headset, worst feeling there is.

Yeah, my younger son (now 16) is VR "purist" of the worst kind. Anything that is not from first person perspective and played with full body motion is not VR by his definition. Oh, and it should have as close to photorealistic visuals as possible - kids these days. Though, if I'm being honest, that "purist" view is really best way to experience VR, if possible - with untethered headset and big enough space for moving around, it really gives quite different experience than sitting down and playing.

Personally, I like both - I can loose myself in The Walking Dead: Saints and Sinners or Blade and Sorcery for hours, but also Moss 1/2 are near the top of my favourite VR games.

"And should be as easy as putting reading glasses on/off" - this is the key, IMO, what I was actually saying in previous posts. A lot of companies are trying to get to that point, hence my opinion that, from my POV, biggest problem of VR, comfort, will be solved fairly soon. And once it is, I think that VR will make huge leaps very quickly. But, your probably right, sitting down, with VR being just another layer on top of standard, flat experiences will probably be way more popular than full body motion games in the long run.

So, glasses like VR and Mario Kart VR...and it will print money.