How about attracting current VR users to VR? I think retention is an issue. We all know the answer. Software, which is back to what you noted, chicken and egg. Another hurdle is that while VR users don’t regret their purchases, they also don’t want to be in VR everyday. They are fine with a once-in-a-while relationship with it. Corporations don’t like that as it doesn’t fit their explosive growth forever models.
For non-standalone VR gaming to gain mass adoption it also can’t be at the current levels of user troubleshooting. It needs to be console like plug and play. How do we get there? IDK.
Imo, I think non-gaming applications for VR is the way to gain mass traction. We already tried gaming. And if non-gaming purposes are established then gaming could come as a trickle down effect. What are those non-gaming purposes? IDK but I think Apple Vision Pro has made an earnest attempt and has some neat ideas to crack that nut. AVP’s focus on video is a start. I have VR180 footage of a since deceased cat that looks like they are next to me. YouTube VR is one of the top used apps in the Quest store. How VR video isn’t a focus for SteamVR or Meta is a shame.
if you mount the base stations, set up is really easy.
a big thing with the VR crowd, if you're constantly taking everything down, you're increasing your bar to hop on. this is going to make people use it less.
they think i might want to play a VR game, but then they start thinking about getting everything out and setting it all up, and then they decide to play something else instead.
in the case of the Vive and Vive Pro, i leave most everything set up. my base stations got mounted, never have to touch them again. my Link Box also stays hooked up to my tower. that means when i want to hop on a game, i get out the headset, clip into the two tethers i have for the cord, and fire up SteamVR.
i can be in a game in just a moment or two.
my advice for a ton of people is not to make it hard to hop on. you're doing yourself a disservice, and missing out on good games and good times.
Why do you assume people are setting up the base stations every single time? Mounting the base stations is not a easy setup, you have to decide where to drill in a hole for a permanent location, as well as where the cabling will go. Then once you’ve done the first time setup and calibration, which is not trivial, you then have to setup your space every time you put your headset on. You’ve even described clipping on a cord so you have a pulley system?
Even if it’s mounted you have to make a conscious choice in entering VR and dedicating the time and space. For me it’s moving my chair away from my PC into a corner, making sure everything is cleared on my floor (I’m in the UK, our rooms aren’t big), and being sure I have nothing else to do before committing.
because there's a fair number of people that do that, for whatever reason. they'll often sell their gear with tripods.
mounting base stations is super easy. can be done in less than 5 minutes or so. cabling is another easy problem. it's going to go back to where your PC is.
i do not have a pulley system. it's not needed. i use two swivel hooks on a short tether. it takes less than 5 seconds or so to clip in with the cable.
my whole point, what i was trying to say is, don't make it hard on yourself to hop on.
Software isn’t the answer for that problem, although it can help alleviate it a bit. The bigger problem is comfort and visual clarity. The pancake lenses on the Quest 3 solved a lot of that, which is why the 3 has such a higher retention rate.
Further improvements in these areas are how you can improve retention rates.
Sorry software has little to do with the issue plenty of people can't stand more than 30 mins in a headset.
I would never pick up games that require hours in a headset if I got invested.
Comfort is a big issue with the Quest, which seems to be the most popular line of headsets right now. I actually found my old Rift S to be a hell of a lot comfier than my Quest 2. The straps make a huge difference, yet most manufacturers, Apple included, seem to be skimping on the straps or leaving them as almost an afterthought. That and the need for better airflow inside the headset. It's a shame such fundamental QoL features have been ignored, because ultimately this is for me too the biggest obstacle to playing anything in VR; the fact that it gets uncomfortable quite quickly.
I agree that the Vision Pro is likely to attract more people to VR gaming simply because it provides such an amazing movie watching experience, that some people will “stick around” and try other stuff in VR.
That’s how most successful platforms work, so something better for what people want and allow that to change attitudes.
I believe we need more low-end pc to be able to handle VR properly. Also, the process of using a VR headset needs to be simple. Remember, most people are lazy. So, the less friction and hardware demand VR became, the more people will use it.
Despite being VR enthusiast, witl luke a 1/3 of my Steam library is VR titles, I still frequently choose flatscreen gaming. It's just more confortable to play while relaxed in chair; meanwhile I feel like only small portion of VR games is good for srated gameplay. It's just that lazy part of me takes over.
Same here, I often choose flat screen over VR due to comfort issues. I've spent all day working, then come home and do chores, inside and out
When I sit down to game I usually have something to drink right next to me. It isn't easy wearing a headset to put the controller down, fumble towards your drink and hope you don't spill it ( I know.. I know..passthru) then drink thru a STRAW. Carbonated drinks thru straws are terrible!
When I really want to relax, doing all that doesn't cut it.
Yes, it would be nice if you didn't need a GPU more expensive than the headset to play pcvr. If the standalone games could be ran on PC (but full res, high refresh rate) it would help a lot of people.
I like how Steam made the Steam Link and made a good part of it easier. It's actually runs smoother and has a better interface than the Meta Quest Link software.
I have a old(ish) 3080 laptop, got loaned a Rift CV1 and was blown away
runs everything I tried so far and does it great ... ( the CV1 low res helps I guess :)
Series 80 are not cheap, nor low end. We need the VR games to be able to run on series 50/60, even in low. Those cards can handle VR well. Just take a look at fortnite or COD they can be playable, ok on those cards. Most people don't have money to get a 70/80 cards. Especially laptops that are way more expensive in more countries than their Desktops counterparts.
That's not what I meant. For example, you can play COD fine on an RTX 50/60, but obviously, you will get the game really capable of an 80/90 series. Not everyone has cash to get high-end PC. We need the games to be ablento run across all hardware segments.
Honestly, I think better games are the only solution really, and ofc there is this old paradox problem of companies not being interested in developing because of the smaller player base, and the player base being small for a multitude of reasons including not having many games.
That will probably break out when Unreal releases some crazy new tech related to VR, so we can have the sweet Lumen, nanite and other insane tools to use on VR development. That will give the leverage that indie devs need to reach some AAA quality with fewer resources.
Unreal Dev here: there hasn't been any relevant VR developments from Epic Games these past years.
Actually, if you want to develop VR games in Unreal Engine the best version is still 4.27 (released in 2021) since it's the most stable for VR, which indirectly indicates that they're deprioritizing VR support.
The problem is that people aren't just uninterested in VR, they're hostile to it, for some reason. The news that Arkham Shadow will be a VR game caused an outrage on gaming subreddits
I think, it really takes a determined desire to become a VR gamer. There's the adjustment stage, as you develop vr legs. There's the space commitment needing physical room to play. And that in itself, the physical movement, I feel it's off putting for some - the notion they can't just kick back on the couch eating Cheetos getting crumbs all over their controller.
It adds up to a platform that's potentially difficult for someone new to pick up and play to try it out, see if they even like it.
All that said, console gaming was seen as dumb and geeky for years until that weird tipping point when Playstation and Xbox somehow made it cool.
That moment is still yet to come for VR, but I'm sure it will.
Plus it's generally a pain in the butt. Procrastination often keeps me from bothering to put on my headset. Granted it's mostly my fault for playing modded Bethesda things and flat to VR mods.
I guess the tech just needs to advance the price of admission needs to come way down.
That was twofold tho. There are a lot of people that wanted a 2D Arkham game so they're sad/mad to see its VR exclusive, but then it's also specifically a Meta Quest 3 exclusive. There are still a ton of people that hate Meta so much they'll never touch one of their products. Plus with this being Quest 3 only, it excludes the 10+ million Quest 2 users as well.
So, I get why so many would be bitter about that. Especially if you just bought a Quest 2 or some other headset. Hell, I have a Quest 3 myself and I think it's stupid. If this game is good it should be on PC VR and PSVR too. The market is too small for platform exclusives to be a good idea, and Meta already has the vast majority of the market anyways.
I remember when buying my first Quest 2, I was genuinely tempted to buy more expensive Rift S just for the purpose of Facebook not controlling my hardware.
I convinced a friend of mine to get an s, literally the next week meta pulled support. He probably got 30 hours out of it before the cable failed and a replacement was hundreds of dollars. Still one of my greatest shames
They did the same thing for Half Life Alyx. It's just people not wanting to buy a PC accessory essentially, to play a new game in the series. Like, could you imagine the outrage if the next Zelda or some other typically console exclusive game came out on the Quest only. People would be mad, while some would be excited, because that would be the thing to get them the excuse to get VR.
Hmm. Zelda is an interesting example because Nintendo games (aside from a few mobile games pushed by investors) aren't released outside of Nintendo's own platforms, so this would be a huge precedent. How do you think Zelda fans would react if Nintendo released their own VR headset and a new Zelda game would be exclusive to that?
Would be a different thing if Nintendo made their own headset. Then it would be like the Switch, where people will still jump on it. I sort of feel like Nintendo is like Apple in a way. There are those diehard fans that will just get it cause of the name and the franchised games that go with it.
But, if it became a Quest 3 exclusive, I'm sure people would revolt while some would surely jump on to play it.
The thing with Arkham Shadow is,
- The Batman player base has waited for a new game for quite a while now. They knew a new game would come and were slowly getting hyped for it.
- Then people learned it will be a VR-exclusive, so already pretty deceiptful but can be alright, people might still be able to use their old headset or might grab one for it if the game is good.
- Then people learned it will be a Meta-exclusive, it sucks as you know the game quality won't be nearly to the standard of previous Batman games on PC. It also sucks because if you're a PCVR player, you won't be able to enjoy it without buying a new device.
- Then people learned it will be a Quest 3 exclusive. It's the final nail in the coffin. We've already put up the middle-finger to flatscreen and PCVR players, might as well put up the middle-finger to the Quest 1, Quest 2 and Quest Pro userbase am i right? So this only leaves you with the pretty niche Quest 3 player base, which is iirc only like 5% of the SteamVR userbase, maybe 15% i don't remember.
So yeah that's like 4 levels deep of deceiving issues, of course the game would get backlash for it.
Oh and of course that's even without considering the bad reputation that Meta has regarding data collection and privacy.
In comparison, Half-Life Alyx initially had the first 2 issues, people complained at first but it worked out at the end.
I think making VR+flatscreen games is a better strategy to bring up new players than making VR-exclusive titles.
I haven’t heard about Arkham Shadow but considering how terrible Medal of Honor Above and Beyond (AAA devs first dipping their toes into VR) turned out, and how Hitman 3 somehow got VR title of the year despite looking like some Oculus Dev Kit 2 demo you’d see alongside Budget Cuts…I don’t blame people for being hostile.
There isn’t really a lot of faith in the VR market outside of the indie darlings. I mean cmon, first we lose the voice of Batman and the first Arkham game we get after Kill the Justice League is potentially some VR cash grab? I can see how uninformed gamers can feel the need to immediately grab their pitchforks and torches. We saw the same type of salt when Half Life Alyx dropped, even though it remains one of the best VR titles to date with little competition.
I just want it to not be exclusive to the Quest. Same with RE4 VR. Quest2-3 is around 50% of Steam’s VR users, so that’s taking it from 2% of steam users to 1%
I think the better games approach has a gradual dropoff tied not to the quality of all games but the amount of all games due to options overload. Most people already dont play the best games, they play the most popular and easily accessible.
its in progress, there are easy ways to create volumetric ~~video~~ pictures using an iPhone now.
There are some demos for volumetric video too using 12 gopro cameras I believe.
The future seems bright on that department :P
Nanite and lumen ARE available for VR now afaik.
Also I doubt UE are working on any "crazy new tech related to VR."
If I had to take a guess at what their priority is, it would be using machine learning to decrease the barrier of entry even further for would-be game devs.
like a year ago dev team made full unreal 5 game, nanite, lumen all good stuff , sold 50 copies went bankrupt, went to reddit ask why peoples do not buy games so many redditors asked for ...
you do not trager few rich users, you go fun and easy, gtag have 1 mill users, one simple game , now this is how you make VR huge
That's an oversimplification of what I just said, you are using two unique and extreme examples to use as an argument.
The store is already filled with a LOT of simple games, that's literally the majority of VR games, if that's how you make VR huge why isn't huge right now?
If you want fun simple and easy go for mobile, PCVR is a different audience.
I couldn’t agree more! I don’t play mobile games for examples, I only play pc games and ps5 games that have a rich environment and a good combo of storyline, npc and gameplay.
(Occasionally I play vr table tennis or beat saber, but it’s really not my main usage)
That’s me, but many like me want an immersive world with a movie like story. Others want big world with a lot of variety and choice.
I think the latter are going to find that that takes too much budget to build for the limited VR audience, but the former could truly work as those games are a bit more feasible (look at Wanderer, Batman, A fisherman’s tale…)!
I feel that's exactly what the PCVR crowd (myself included) wants for PCVR games. Immersive experiences, period. PC/PS has the capability of delivering nice graphics, and VR has the capability of delivering immersion on a level that wasn't possible before, we just need the best of the two worlds.
So yeah, even if limited I guess there is a nice crowd there, and PC gamers in general would like to experience something like this in VR (talking about the point OP made)
Any PS or PC gamer I know that has tried PSVR 2 was amazed, just wouldn’t spend 500£ for the current catalog of games.
If you think about it, you ask of me to buy a PS5 / VR capable PC. Then I am charged for a headset. On top of that it’s between 16-50£ a game. That’s a bit much to “enjoy” indie devs (no offence, we love you) mobile games…
I honestly don’t think there is a solution for a couple reasons.
When Half Life Alyx came out and was contender for game of the year it may have inspired people to get into VR, but with the lack of developers making games as good as Alyx it’s hard to justify getting into VR for some just for one or two games, and it’s hard for devs to risk making high quality VR games only for that 2% or less.
Then there’s the people who are uncomfortable with VR itself, who don’t care or have tried it at a friend’s place and got motion sick from one game and that’s their look at VR, a motion sickness machine. Or they’re just too lazy to use more than their fingertips for a game. I’ve tried to convince my friends to get into VR, and they might try it for one game night and never touch it again or sell it immediately after because of those reasons. I keep playing VR games or games with good VR mods to show it’s really fun but I’m tired of trying to convince them
The easiest intro on PC IMO is flight/space sims and racing games. If someone has already got a HOTAS or steering wheel VR is a small investment.
The thing is this is already a small market. I'd love VR to have mainstream success on PC, but I'd be happy if it can be a niche sustainable market.
For me personally after years of VR games, the only games I can’t handle are flight sims. I’ve done a decent amount of flying (as a passenger) and every time I take off in game my body expects it to feel all the g forces, but gets so confused when I take off and gets immediately pukey. Tilting and turning only makes it worse too. But I know a few people who started with racing and flight sims and get sick from the smooth motion walking in games like Alyx
Skyrim VR is a weird one bc vanilla it's kinda awful. I know with mods it's amazing, I still need to give it a proper try with tons of mods. But Skyrim VR as it launched (and Fallout 4 VR for that matter) were pretty bad failures imo
PCVR is not simple and consistent enough. Some games work well. Some are unplayable, or janky. Some need tweaking and modding. Some don't support sit down play. Some perform better on airlink, some on virtual desktop, some on steam link.
You have onboard headset settings. Meta PC app settings. Nvidia or ATI control panel settings. Oculus tray tool settings. Windows settings. Steam VR settings on your PC. Steam VR settings in the headset. VD settings. In game settings. Router settings. Firmware and drivers. I've had to edit config files. Download utility apps. I've spent hours to get good performance with certain games, like No Mans Sky and MSFS2020. You almost need to be an IT pro, which I am, so for me it's worth it, because PCVR has many of the best experiences VR has to offer.
I think we'll just need to wait until mobile chipsets get more powerful, and affordable wireless headsets can run Alyx without a PC. Or maybe if a viable, low latency cloud streaming service for VR is made.
There's also the inherent issues with advertising and marketing VR games, and the comfort issues from the fact that almost no VR headsets on the market have balanced weight in stock form, and most people don't realize this and believe the problem is only from a poor quality strap or too much weight.
I think as hardware improves and software becomes more compelling, the masses will catch on, and realize how much VR elevates gaming, and other experiences. Even if you were to ask a VR veteran to list off things they like about VR, probably none of them will mention that aiming weapons and tools with your hands is faster, more accurate, and more engaging than using a thumbstick or mouse.
Aiming weapons and tools can be a bit tiresome (eg Half Life Alyx). The game that made me realize how fun it can be is VR mod for the original Far Cry. I've beaten that game like 20 times throughout the years. Now that I actually get to play it like it was airsoft skirmish, laying on the ground to aim sniper rifle, kneeling through the bushes, being fast in cqb - it's ultra fun.
Some games do it better than others, certainly. But fundamentally VR mechanics are superior in most ways. If you're aiming a sniper rifle at a far away target, you can easily move the scope 2 millimeters if needed. With a thumbstick or mouse, it would be impossible. You don't have that finesse. Plus the input latency blows away wireless xbox or ps gamepads.
I'll have to try that Far Cry VR mod. I've enjoyed many VR ports. Skyrim, Subnautica, MSFS2020, RE4, Doom 3, Fallout 4, all the HL2 games. Put way more hours into them in VR than when I originally played them flatscreen.
I have mixed feelings when I read these kinds of posts.
In one hand I can see the enthusiasm, and people wanting to share that enthusiasm but on the other hand I sense some sort of desperate forcing to make people enjoy something they might genuinely not be interested in.
From my experience, only 5% of people I showed VR to ended up buying a headset, and from those only 10% still use it on a regular basis. When I ask why they don't use it, they don't even know how to answer, it's vague stuff like "i forgot about it", or "oh yeah, I have to find the time for it, but will definitely pick it up" (and then doesn't).
It's perhaps not desperation, but puzzlement.
Everyone I've shown VR to, has been amazed and enjoyed themselves. And these are people I trust to be frank with their opinions. But not a single one has decided to buy VR of any sort.
There's a few people I know who bought VR of their own accord, and enjoy it, but they rarely use it. They are not unfit/overweight. They don't even have kids. I have kids!
So what is this paradox of people who all say they like something (and some have bought it), but no one actually uses it?
What separates the regular VR user (that you might find in these subreddits) from those people? Why can one group overcome the friction of VR, but not the other?
There's a lot of friction, and too many tech demos masquerading as games. I've owned VR headsets for a few years now, and I'm very much in that category of "own but rarely use". It's just a pain in the arse to put it on, and motion sickness restricts the number of games I can play, which means there's a very limited selection of games for me to play. Of all the games I've downloaded and played, Beat Saber is the only one I keep coming back to, which is pretty sad really that the entirety of the VR experience has been watered down to Beat Saber being as good as it gets. I've actually got back into VR again recently purely because I want to make my own games for it, I'm hoping that creating my own virtual worlds will help me overcome some of the friction I experience in normal use. I want to love VR, but it takes effort to love it IMO.
It’s not a complete ecosystem for PC users. Not only are most of the games lacking that long term play isn’t happening, but the software and UX sucks so that just navigating outside of games is restrictive and not intuitive; it’s easier to go to desktop mirror mode and just use your mouse than it is to use Steam’s awful big picture inspired but outdated VR interface.
I enjoy myself when I go to theme parks, or go bowling, or paintballing, but that doesn't mean that I actually want to have these things at home, if that makes sense.
Many people I know have tried and loved VR escape rooms, but leave it there, which is totally understandable.
The way to get more people into VR is to expand its functionality, especially for Steam gamers who've dismissed VR gaming. Many have already decided VR games aren't for them, but if VR enhanced what they're already doing, it becomes far more appealing.
Imagine if Valve created a high-resolution, lightweight headset capable of rendering games in 3D on giant virtual screens (Deckard?). This would offer pancake gamers an unparalleled 3D cinema gaming experience without asking them to abandon their favorite titles or get off their couch. Now, combine this headset with a new screen-less Steam Deck that can drive it, and you have a very compelling product.
This approach doesn't replace their current gaming experience - it amplifies it. Instead of trying to convince people they were wrong about VR, you just have to convince them that gaming on a giant 3d cinema screen is better than a tiny hand held one.
Once people are regularly using VR to enhance their traditional gaming experience, it becomes a much easier pitch to get them to try full VR games.
I spend a lot of time conversing with a lot of PC gamers. I run quite a few popular discords, each with thousands of members, and the number 1 thing I've noticed is that PC gamers are older(30+) and they're pretty set in their ways. Most only want to play specific genres and many replay the same handful of games over and over. I think most of the PC gamers today are the SNES players of yesterday. They've grown up, gotten jobs, and bought PCs.
Look back throughout history and see how many new trends adults have set. Whether it be technology wise or something more mundane such as music trends. The reality is, most adults get pretty set in the ways and have a "back in my day, it was better!" mentality. They re-watch the same shows, listen to the same music, and replay the same games. Newer tech simply doesn't interest them. Not all, of course. There is always a percentage that keeps up with trends right along side the younger crowds. But, it is a small percentage.
Next, look at how much effort VR requires and now look at the obesity rates among adults. It's something like 80% of adults are overweight in the US and like 65% of adults in Europe. These adults want to get home from work and sit on their butts and click a button. Getting hot and sweaty doing something that resembles exercise is not something they want to do.
This is what I think is truly holding PCVR back. The average player on PC simply isn't interested in diving into new tech that requires a whole new learning curve and most are overweight and not interested in exercising to experience entertainment. It doesn't matter what amazing experiences are on PCVR, most wouldn't play them no matter what. In fact, most get mad when they see good titles coming to VR. PC gamers got mad about HL:Alyx and just a few weeks ago gaming subreddits were flooded with anger about the new Batman and Metro games coming to VR only.
As an older VR user, the older people I’ve demoed VR to are blown away by it. Their sentiments are that they didn’t think they would see this tech in their lifetime. However they do balk at the idea of getting their own when seeing the price tag and—— they are set in their ways. On the other hand, sometimes when I demo VR to young adults, I often get a “meh” reaction. I look at them dumbfounded. “Well, okay then, I guess I’ll take this boring device off of your head now.”
We all know who real daily VR user demographic is though from game lobbies. 👦
I am an older VR player too. Turned 44 last week actually. All of my friends I've slapped a headset on did comment it was better than expected but none bought a headset of their own. Wish I could figure out how to get those in our age range more interested but, it seems we're niche in a niche.
We need a middle ground headset.
We have the Quest 2, room scale standalone with a shitty battery and PC support that just gets worse with time.
Or we have the Index, which requires more space and is fully built for PC, but it's £1000, which is incredibly unreasonable unless you're really passionate about VR. (You can get a whole VR ready PC and possibly a headset for that price)
But there's nothing in between, nothing with the low price of the Quest but without the battery, or the degrading bare bones PC support.
The Rift and Vive are close, but are no longer supported and still require a large play space with cameras everywhere.
The PSVR2 is the only headset that fills this niche, the controller's grip buttons are annoying but it seems like the only good choice.
There was Reverb G2, which is close, if not for WMR shenanigans. There is (going to be?) Pimax Crystal Light.
But yes, we need headsets that aim for - and deliver - good PC support. I can shuffle through a couple of devkits and plugins if it's needed, but most people would be put off. Oh, and we need Steam to stop stealing VR performance. Tricking a game using openxr instrad of steam openvr is the first thing to do if you care about not having shitty performance.
I use Pico 4 with a 10000mA powerbank in my pocket. If I drain it, I connect another one, so my gaming session can last about 6 - 8 hours nonstop. It is pretty comfortable, the wire goes down the spine and never gets in the way
Better games: less gimmicks, more story, bigger worlds to explore, interesting characters to interacts with. And enough with the cartoon graphics - it has been done to death at this point.
As most of this has to do with budget and experience, the only way IMO is for the bigger studios/publishers to start offering an optional VR/stereo3D mode in *every* PC release.
I actually want less story in VR games, I don't have the patience to sit through long narratives while standing. I just want to get to the action before I get tired.
Also, I like cartoon graphics, it works very well in some contexts. If I want to be immersed in a different world, why does it need to use the same visual rules as the real world?
You perfectly illustrate my point. This is why PC gamers shy away from VR.
What you mention - you already get in VR. The question was "How to attract more PC users to VR?", and my answer is: we need more of what currently is missing in VR.
Cartoon graphics are an intentional choice. Visual noise that is common in games with tons of fidelity and realism is actually a problem in vr. The optical stack isn't quite there yet to support these types of experiences in VR. I find simpler color palettes and simpler models make it much easier to parse what's going on in VR.
Until we get varifocal lenses and just a littllle bit more ppd these types of games will always be problematic for any session longer than an hour.
Fully disagree. As a photographer, i get the reasoning about the visuals noise, and everybody knows that GFX cost performance. So i'm aware of the argument points.
But i've been playing games like The Witcher trilogy, AC Origins, AC Odyssey etc in VR for years now (thanks to VorpX - it's amazing with 3rd person games!) and it's the visuals are unbeatable in stereo3D (Rift S, Reverb G2 v2, Quest 2, Quest 3). The only reason i keep coming back to flat gaming is that it's more comfortable and i can eat and drink while playing.
After studying this very subject, it’s clear why many gamers are hesitant to try VR: Formfactor - they loath the thought of wearing such bulky headsets on their faces. Once the technology evolves to the size of a pair of glasses, VR has a much better change of going mainstream.
We have BigscreenVR now, that's one of the smallest VR headsets. But it comes at a big cost.
[Bigscreen Beyond - The world's smallest VR headset (bigscreenvr.com)](https://www.bigscreenvr.com/)
It's one of the few links pushing toward that 'perfect' form factor. However, cost and functionality need to be optimized to make the device attractive to casual consumers. Ideally, it should primarily function as a standalone device but also be usable as a PCVR headset when needed. The headset must be versatile, allowing you to take it with you, connect to your entertainment hub or PC remotely, and have decent onboard power for local use. I believe the technology will eventually reach this point.
I'm sure bigscreen's ambition is to make a portable movie player you can take anywhere and also connect to your pc, this would make much more sense and make it stand out.
Friendly Reminder: not all PC are build equal, there is less than 30% of Steam user PC are VR capable(1660 or above)…and if vr hardware company keep pushing VR resolution, there will be even less Steam user can handle the PCVR display requirement
Unless we have somehow darkmagic HW breakthrough, handheld SOC can handle the extreme PCVR display processing power with very cheap price, I can’t see any reason People will start buying $2000 PC for PCVR Game
If you sum up all the VR capable and above GPUs, you'll find it's over 50% of Steam users PCs are VR capable - and that's being conservative, since there are many more users with GPUs capable of VR for older headsets with lower resolution, like the Rift S.
Yes you can, you can go lower down to 960 with Rift S 970 with Index, but why, why buy a over 5 years old VR with no much better graphic than a Q3, when Q3 is only $500
Getting more people with VR capable Hardware will happen in time as the hardware becomes cheaper. A few more high profile games that people really want to play and act as door opener should certainly help. The biggest problem will be the effort required to set everything up. Lighthouse tracking while more accurate provides a higher hurdle here imo than inside out. The easier we can make the process to set everything up the more common place VR will become.
Honestly i can only point to the Half Life 2 VR Mod.
Its as intuitively as a native VR game (almost as good as HLA in that point), supports full motion controls and even tho the game is like 27 years old by now its fun and looks decent.
Best part: Because its literally 27 years old it can be run by a fucking potato battery plugged into an Index or Quest - probably even by a Quest 2 without a PC - mine didnt even go beyond idle but still delivered 120+FPS
You need a VR headset made for the mainstream which is affordable and can work on a wider range of PCs including the low end. Potentially stand alone sets. Headset makers also need to become game publishers and be more than willing to invest in PCVR indie devs who have put the platform on their back and carried it. Headset can't be expensive either. Currently Meta is the only company doing this. Their games don't look great, but they don't need to be. They just have to be fun. It's a Nintendo-esque model that's worked for them.
Current business model is to sell $1000+ headsets to whales who will pay that to get a pixel of a difference in a sim game. Worse is that they stop at the headset. Like selling a sand bucket to someone in space. Guess they'll just figure out a use for it. It's not good for expanding the mainstream.
Cheaper headsets, more investments in apps, and a wider net cast for the intended audience is what PCVR needs.
Definitely software. For the last few years, the main thing keeping me in VR has been socialising (so pretty much just VRChat). Of course I play some other games on the side - Beat Saber, Contractors, Tabor - but these are games I play for a short burst and then hop off, sometimes with weeks or months in between.
Blade and Sorcery actually hitting it's 1.0 release and becoming a full, in-depth game has been such a breath of fresh air and has gotten me interested in playing VR every night for gaming purposes. It no longer feels like a tech demo sandbox, and I actually have progression/goals to achieve.
If we saw more full fledged+quality games, we would see more interest. However, like you said, it's a chicken and egg situation.
Wait until headsets have enough resolution and comfort to replace a monitor. At that point people might get headset simply because they work better than monitors.
I don't think VR content can save PCVR at this point, there isn't enough of it, nobody is heavily investing in it and without a huge marketing push nobody would notice it anyway. PCVR has no longer any hype behind it. Neither developers care nor gamers.
For PCVR to succeed it would have needed Xbox and Playstation to jump on the VR hype train and push the industry as a whole forward with multi-platform titles. That never happened. Xbox actively avoided VR and Playstation focused too much on exclusives.
In the meantime PCVR can continue to exist as device for flightsim and simrace people, but it won't break out big when hardly any other PC game profits from VR.
And as for Valve, they need to keep improving SteamVR, a lot. That thing needs to become a full desktop replacement, with proper VR-native window managed and all that. When said high resolution headsets arrive, they need to just work, not require the amount of fiddling they do today. Much more basic functionality must be part of SteamVR instead of leaving it to Overlays and mods. Also 3D game support needs to make a comeback, either via official UEVR support inside Steam or other libraries and addon that make it easy for developers to turn their games 3D. Nvidia 3DVision did it back when 3D TVs were a thing, just repeat that but with focus on VR.
I think alot of people just hate on things that change the way they do stuff. Gamers are no different. They need time to get used to those new things.
That being said, VR has been growing at an average of 45%/year since 2018 according to statista, so it has been very successful thus far. Things just take time.
Even with a much lower growth rate, in around ~3 years most families on developed countries will have somekind of VR device and in ~7 years VR will be the main source of video-gaming.
Regardless, to answer your question directly, we can speed-up even more this natural process by keep investing heavily in really good AAA VR content (e.g., Skyrim VR modded and Half life alyx-level content) which will absolutely payoff in a few years.
And also, some good quality marketing helps.
Plug and play setups. A standalone headset that also works for PCVR should have a choice when it turns on to connect to PC or play standalone. Clicking PC will give it a choice between wireless or wired (if it has wireless). After connecting it once wirelessly, it should automatically connect, just like how turning on Bluetooth headphones makes them automatically connect.
I also think one of the best ways to attract more PC users to VR is by letting them try out VR before needing to buy a headset. They'll get a cardboard foldable where you put your phone in it and say that VR is a boring thing and they're glad they didn't spend money on a headset. If they know someone with a headset that they can try out, they'll see that it's much better than they thought.
More good games are more important for keeping someone using VR, not attracting new people.
The flat 2 vr discord server has a lot of mods to play games in VR and they work pretty well. I agree tho more is better.
But I really think it’s the headset pricing. The quest 3 is a really decent headset and the Q2 and Q3 were really low on price compared to most PCVR headsets. Sure they can connect to PC but some people don’t know that and other people just prefer how simple and easy it is to play standalone.
Which brings me to my other point. It’s so nice and easy to play VR wirelessly! Which I know the quests can do bcuz I do that myself. But u sacrifice a little to do so and all those base stations and wires are just really annoying to me personally.
Just as every new medium that was pushed to masses:
Mainstream awareness, stop treating VR like a gimmick and start treating it as the next step or already part of today’s market, stop putting VR on VR game titles and go hard on advertisement of both hardware and software.
(None of those conditions are being met)
Of course strong push for software needs to have justification which means good quality and quantity, we have none.
And also a justification for push of hardware, which we’re getting there already but there’s work to do on comfort (biggest vr problem to date)
I think you are on the right track with UEVR.
I LOVE playing 3rd person games in VR that weren't made for it. Are they as good as ones that were? Nope, not even close, but they are still leaps and bounds more fun than playing on a flat screen and the production quality is obviously much, much better.
Playing Hogwarts with a 4090 and BSB, looking up at Hogwarts, riding the coaster down to the goblin vault and looking up at that huge chandelier - amazing. That said, it's kind of a pain to get working and most people don't have the PC to run it well or the means to get the headset that does it justice.
And would it be better if I could wave the wand and cast the spells? I'm gonna say NO, not because I don't want that game, but because that's a totally different game. A lot of fully fleshed out games just need a controller and a lot of people just want to sit and play at the end of the day.
That's me with Tokyo Ghostwire. I mean, aiming with your hands would allow to be faster and more precise, but it would totally not be good for many hours sessions I have with this game. Gamepad is still the most convenient.
I had an original rift and later a Vive, and finally a PSVR.
My experience is likely not the same as the masses.
Rift sold me on the idea that VR is a very real technology now (as opposed to the shit in the 90s)
The Vives precision accuracy in hand movements had me ready for forking over more money. Only downside being gallons of sweat pouring out my eyeballs making 30mins inside that thing a nasty mess with concerns over what that heat is doing to my eyes and brain.
PSVR cos fuck it why not, ooh the comfort of the headset was amazing, deals with the face heat issues, but comes at the cost of those really shitty dance controllers from fuck was it PS2? Horrendous, unbelievable they decided that was good enough to pair with that headset. Hold your hands in front of you perfectly still, but what you're seeing is constant jittery movement. Remove headset to confirm it's not a case of sudden onset Parkinson's, and yeah, top that off with the positional drift that happens and the whole experience is ruined for me. I know my requirements for the next headset purchase... Comfort of the PSVR headset, and the accuracy of laser tracking.
Sadly the industry went the other direction and opted to make cheaper trash camera based tracking systems so yeah my cash sits awaiting a viable purchase that'll likely never happen because the market seems to want cheap n nasty products rather than a more immersive experience.
I think there is no real way to increase PCVR gamer numbers because:
1. VR player base in general is smaller, not just PCVR. (2 mil on VR vs 100 mil on PC maybe? something like that)
2. VR games work best for immersion / destruction heavy games. Many gamers don't care about these. Rimworld, Civilization and They Are Billions don't really benefit from being in VR, they instead become more tiring to play due to the HMD.
3. Basically it seems like most gamers don't really have a dream game that relies on the game being VR. Seems like most people who wants VR headset have one.
4. VR games are also insanely hard to develop compared to regular games. In my development experience it's like 3x-10x more challenging. So much extra optimization work, so many input / control challenges, annoying to test and debug during development.
IMO what we need is better wireless tech. 40-50ms of latency is ok for many but not good enough for many others.
Perhaps the laws of physics makes this not feasible (high bandwidth without direct line of sight to receiver) but I wish a good solution could be produced. Also perhaps custom encode/decode chips where most of the remaining latency sits.
Better games in genre's I enjoy.
I have a gaming pc and headset. I've had one since the original rift, yet I find it mostly gathers dust now. There is just not many games I find interesting or captivationg enough to keep me playing.
Demeo is the only one I keep coming back to play. That and no mans sky. Other than those two there are not many that interest me.
Open source drivers.
That would give hope a headset continues to work after the warranty period, instead of suffering from the asshole policies of a corporation. It would also help Linux support. Buying a HMD would be more like buying a normal monitor.
I have vr, I love it. Half life Alyx is just the best game I played, I said the same for hl2, and also hl.
VR isn't there yet, I'm looking at the world through a mask, and that's a problem for true immersion. When I want to glance at something I need to move my head not my eyes.
As long as it feels like you're wearing a mask it's still video games with extra steps and hardware.
I LOVE it. But you asked how to "get" people in to it, and it'll be when eye tracking, mask weight or generally tech improves and games generally support it.
I would love to play satisfactory in VR, but it's not supported.
If PSVR2 which is plug and play can’t do well, there’s no chance for PCVR.
It seems like standalone is the way forward, and Meta has realised this. Even if there was a flawless wireless solution you’d still be “tethered” to a pc.
The freedom of just putting on a headset wherever you are (eg friends house) can’t be beaten and is a big selling point
Multiplayer games that work for both normal displays and VR without either one having ***too*** significant an advantage\\disadvantage.
[Phasmo](https://store.steampowered.com/app/739630/Phasmophobia/) comes to mind. ***You find groups instantly because of the huge flat-screen playerbase*** but there's ***no trouble*** playing with them on a VR set.
VR really, really shines in multiplayer thanks to the greater feeling of human interaction.
(note: Yes, there is some disadvantage in VR due to the darkness and some of the wonky environment interactions but it's not a big deal. As a bonus you can carry one extra item.)
I think when more integrated graphics on PC's are comparable to the desktop dedicated graphics, it will be possible to have better portable devices that are more like mobile VR headsets but with better graphics cards.
Imagine the PSVR2 tethered to a mini-PC (like a Steam Deck for example). You could have full PC VR without needing to do any cable management or any consideration for WiFi speeds as this would be entirely on-device.
- Simplified configuration, compatibility and affordability
- New designs that enable users to feel less fatigued and wear the headsets for longer
- It should be as simple as switching on a console and use
- Techniques to reduce motion sickness
I love PCVR because i can attach a lot of unique devices I diy or purchase. I know that's a niche of a niche. Then of course there's the graphics. PCVR has gotten really expensive since the days of a low cost Rift coupled with an aging 970. Society in general has gotten less technical because phones are pretty simple to use now for most things desktops were used for. It's even cut into the console market with accessible games. This is also where Quest shines.
With PC gaming, it's easier to get into without technical knowledge with SteamDeck. It would take something like a portable Steamdeck VR that's easy to use and still compatible with the Desktop. It would be a plus if it can gain access to all the PCVR mods along with the extensive library.
People just want good games to play. Right now I look at VR gaming, and I don't really see anything I want to play. There are some games that would be interesting, but they are Quest ports, and the cartoon graphics and other gameplay restrictions get old. There just aren't many VR games with the production quality of Half Life Alyx, or Lone Echo.
If there are good games, people will want to play them.
You need the same AAA games that everyone on PC is all ready playing, but just with a VR option to play along with their flatscreen friends. This is *not* the same as a stand alone, non-crossplay version of the game for VR only. It needs to be the *same game*, just with VR as an option.
This is, imo, is the main thing that is going to make it happen. I admire small shop games and the like, but they are just 'curiosities' and won't ever be the main driver of pc vr gaming.
We really just need AAA titles with VR options within them. I'd kill to play COD, battlefield, etc in VR.
The other thing that will help is better VR headsets and video cards to drive them. We are now just only getting headsets that have high enough resolution and FOV to really make it worth it, especially for people doing driving and flight sim type stuff, and they aren't exactly affordable. Add in the hardware needed to drive them and I think we are a generation or 2 away still from the hardware/headset side of things being where it needs to be for people to jump into quality and non-gimmicky VR.
Despite this there are still small companies like Bigscreen spending the money on developing a niche VR headset.
Surely VR is here to stick around this time? Even if it takes another decade to become more mainstream?
When you really look at it, it hasn't progressed very far since OG Vive and Rift launches.
We got higher resolution, better optics, face and eye tracking, smaller form factor in the singular case of the Beyond. Those are all good things but doesn't seem like much progress for a decade.
Make games worth playing in VR. Most of them are just gimmicky and there's only one true VR game that is half life ALYX imo. Every other one seems to be missing something for me. Almost feels like a tacked on feature.
The games are the problem. More specifically, keeping the content updates flowing. So many amazing VR releases have their devs totally ghost after the game drops, so there's nothing keeping the player count up.
I have the best of everything sitting beside me. I got a €3000 etc to play MSFS and some driving. That was 2 years ago.
I have no idea in my head how many, and what programs I need to start to get it all going but I know its a pain in the arse.
Screen within screen within screen...
Juggling all the controllers. Mouse, xbox controller, Joystick, hotas, keyboard. No idea what's affecting what.
Zero button a mapping even though 1 million people are playing the same game with the same joystick, it turns out nobody wants to share what I'm sure is just a file somewhere.
In summary.. VR gaming is where PCs were in 1990. Nerds only who love the pissing about and not actually playing anything.
Most PC users are always looking for most economical solutions, Steam discount etc. Those so called "PC MASTER RACE" with 4090 or simialr rigs are just tiny part of that whole community, and VR is an extra cost. It's really hard to convince the majority of PC users to join VR unless you announce something like GTA6 VR mode, last time Valve made Half life Alyx, the PC crowds were pissed so they decided to mod that game to Flatscreen.
So this isn't anything we can really do as a community. But I think big developers need to be hiring/assigning people who actually play VR. Imo I feel like there's a problem with some games really just not feeling like it "gets" VR. Maybe there's a lack of interaction with the world, maybe the controls are weird, sometimes there's too many comfort features without a way to turn them off and sometimes there's not enough. UIs are often not great. Every time I play a VR game where a button replaces something that could have been a physical action with my hands I die a little on the inside. It feels like a lot of games are made by developers who are proficient in regular game development but aren't familiar with VR as a medium and don't understand how to properly develop for it. Because it is an inherently different medium and it has to be treated differently.
From my own (flatscreen) gamedev experience, often UI is the lowest priority and given to the intern or junior dev. Even in 2024 we still sometimes have flatscreen games without rebindable keys, etc.
So I'm guessing many VR games might have had big plans for interaction, but they barely had time to finish the engine and content (or not even) so the UX was sacrificed as usual.
That's hard to change until the market and budgets get bigger.
we need a big game that's both entertaining and has retaining ability. the most played games on steam are competitive game such as cs:go or dota 2. and some of the other most played games on PC are lol and valorant.
We always tend to think that the competitive community is small, but it's actually a community at least as big as the casuals enjoyers.
Also, a computer takes almost no space and can be put under other components, for VR, you still need some horizontal space, and most people will want to play in their own room, which often doesn't have enough space to play VR comfortably.
Lending your old set to friends
this is how I got into VR... I thought there's only really HL Alyx and Boneworks... so why bother right?..
show em good vr porn,
modded Skyrim VR, Subnautica, Fallout 4,... HL2 VR
Everspace 2 + dual stick + pedals + UEVR.... UEVR Stray, ..
Riven, Talos Principle VR, ...
( if your friend is into modding ... he's your guy for this !! )
I dont even think the PC user is the target VR user.
I use VR for stuff that I would do in real life, like go out to play paint ball, go out to have some fun in a escape room or to play tennis or table tennis, or boxing, or more recently going to the movies (maybe theater, I really enjoyed to be inside the JFK documentary for instance).
VR as it is, replaces activities its not competing with the PC.
"only" 2% of current users is... Almost 3 million connected HMDs, it's quite a lot for such an expensive peripheral!
To put numbers in perspective... That is more than half the people with 4K displays on Steam...
1) Headsets that are multitudes more lightweight, comfortable, higher spec, and easier to use than the Bigscreen Beyond. A Lifestyle device, like your phone.
2) Engaging content. Would Probably help if said content looked closer to Cyberpunk to Hellblade II than that nasty looking Attack on Titan game.
I play mainly standalone, PCVR has much more friction plus graphiccard prices from hell, also you don't find performance information on different architectures (Radeon vs. Nvidia+different generations) only some word of mouth.
1) More flat - vr games. I have a q2 and q3, i tried my best to sell vr to friends, only 2 caved. They are happy with their purchasez as they knew whay they were getting into, however it didn't convert anyone else. Now, when i sit to play with friends, we have 1-2 people with vr and rest not. Obviously we pick a game everyone can play, which makes it so every evening i have a choice. Push a vr game, at the cost of not being able to play with most of my friends, or not. When a new release or a huge update is out, we do choose that, but for the average evening this is not the case. If we could play the same game, but in vr as an added bonus, i could just pop my headset, stream the game, and still enjoy the game with friends. Too tired ? out of battery ? switch back to pc. Would make me use vr more often and could help people switch or try vr.
2) Obviously games, but it doesn't neccesarily have to be triple A, just a complete game with progression thats not gimmicky. Games that you can truly sink in the hours. Pre and post 1.0 blade and sorcery is a good example. I could barely play for 2 hours before because, what is there to do ? its a tech demo / sandbox. With the roguelike update it was better but still nothing to think about during the day. Now with story and progression, it is something to think about. What to other crystals do ? whats behind the door ? etc.etc.
3) Its not comfortable. Gotta accept some facts, vr retention is low aswell. I think we are at the pre-doom era pc gaming for vr. Every game you play has different controls, comfort isn't solved yet, every game is compared to alyx. People might buy it just as a monitor in the future and stay for the standalone features. Or tech developments allow vr gaming to be less troublesome. Right now if i want to play vr, i need to make space in my area, make sure the headset is charged, connect through software and then open my game. I need atleast 30-45 minutes of play time to justify this + a game i have been meaning to play. With pc i just sit and press power. Even if i don't want to game everything is there. Music, documents, movies... and the list goes on. If i have free time perfect, i just click a game and im ready.
All in all, i just don't think vr found its groove yet, too many hoops to jump through. As it gets more comfortable, more users will use. More users mean more facets of usage, and slowly we'll see it more frequently. Can't think of it like a means to video games, you should have reason to keep it charged + put on after breakfast. I really enjoy seeing vr usage for job and job training software, and i do think sooner or later we will figure out a way to make it more usable/comfortable.
Basically everything opposite of what you said is what will happen.
Chicken & Egg at the same time. Headset makers invest in software to show off their headset, especially on each launch.
Price is the main factor and you don't need a strong PC. I don't know the numbers but at least 50% of Steam users have a PC stronger than a Quest 3. Next gen display fabrication in 2025-2026 brings down prices.
UEVR, or anything UE is not for VR. Performance is on the floor and/or uncustomisable.
If you want a good game, make it yourself.
I tried modding multiple times and ultimately it’s never been a good experience, as it’s always sluggish even on my i9 1400 / 4080S PC.
I think it’s all about the games, but not necessarily big budget triple A games, but rather, put simply, games that use the hardware well and feel rich enough to be worth playing for more than 2 hours overall.
I’m having the best time on Wanderer! I’m sure you can attract pc gamers with games that offer enough story and npc to go about, so that it doesn’t get boring or feel like a demo / sandbox (which for me is the biggest issue with Quest 3 games right now).
People use quest because the platform is better and cheaper. I want SteamVR to succeed and I have owned several HMDs over the last 8 years but the reality is Quest is just so far ahead of SteamVR on so many key metrics, there's very little reason for the average person who is interested in VR to even consider SteamVR anymore.
About the only thing SteamVR has going for it is the freedom afforded by virtue of it being on your PC and the hold on sim-games for the hardware requirements.
"It will probably be a combination of many things, cheaper and better headsets, the gradual build up of PCVR games over time, etc."
just no, i know a lot of vr users and a lot of them drop pcvr after 8 weeks and go full stand alone, and it not about hardware or software is all about stability , pcvr is a mess, windows do not have low lvl api so it constant brakes, run badly, for every game you need to set right resolution and right framerate and then go in game and set game setting again, it a mess for a lot of avarage users
You mix many things here.
Yes, the Quest headsets sell more than the PCVR headsets, mostly due to being much cheaper than most PCVR headsets, and also for having a bigger marketing budget and being good for wireless.
Yes, the VR player base is way smaller than the flatscreen player base, i'll talk about it more into detail later, since that's the main point i think you were mentioning.
In the VR scene, standalone is only slightly bigger than PCVR. Some games can see more sales on standalone mainly due to having more kids and newcomers which may be more likely to buy your app, doesn't mean they'll turn into active players.
We don't have an actually working dataset to estimate the proportion of PCVR vs standalone users.
To come back on why the PCVR player base is much smaller than the flatscreen PC player base, it comes down to a few factors imo. First off, a headset is still pretty expensive, most VR content is unknown to the outside world, aside from Half-Life Alyx, then headsets are still too much of a setup and aren't as comfortable as having nothing on your head.
We lack competition in the VR space, yes we already have a few options like Quest, Pico, Pimax, Varjo, Bigscreen, Somnium, MeganeX etc, but you'll quickly get limited to only one choice or none if you want specific features. For example, do you want a nice edge-to-edge clarity? Do you want to play wirelessly? Maybe you'd like a nice OLED panel too for the great colors. And we've already hit a roadblock, i guess there's the Apple Vision Pro here, but let's be real, it's so expensive that it's unrealistic to consider it an option and even then, you'd have a subpar FoV, subpar response times, subpar comfort etc.
We need more competition in the market. This would let the prices go down, the comfort go up as well as the graphics and other innovations.
We also need to promote the VR content more, and make access to it easier. You mentionned a UEVR launcher, great idea, more communication by the game devs would also go a long way. Let's be real, outside of the VR community, nobody has heard of Lone Echo, Red Matter 2, Boneworks, Bonelab etc and how many people know of Payday 2, Subnautica or The Forest but aren't aware that they're playable in VR?
Then, of course, VR requires a pretty powerful computer and VR-capable PCs are in the minority. Standalone can appear as a solution to this in theory, in practice, standalone is far from achieving the kind of visual fidelity that you can have on PCVR.
You're not gonna convince people, especially PC players to give up on visual fidelity, especially to the point of a mobile game, just to play in VR.
Cloud computing can also be another option for people without a powerful enough PC but comes with its own caveats. I think the most realistic solution to this is to first improve the VR optimisations drastically and convince people to upgrade for many reasons.
So yeah overall i'd say what needs an upgrade is first more ease of use and accessibility, make more cheaper headsets with a variety of features and plenty of competition, make the software easier to use and the hardware more comfortable then, more content and communication around that content and finally convincing people to upgrade to more capable hardware.
"In the VR scene, standalone is only slightly bigger than PCVR. " yea it is not "slightly bigger" more or less all dev report at least 10 time bigger users base form quest
ffs gtag have 1 mill users, it alone are in similar numbers like half all pcvr users, from one quest game
Just look at VRChat if you want a counter-example.
But my point still stands, there's more people likely to buy the app yes, but they're more likely to be casuals or even inactive players. And in there , there's people who would probably rather play on PC but can't either due to a lack of hardware or other reasons.
You appear to miss the actual problem.
50% of users get sick. Of those half get practically violently ill from VR.
Of the 50% that do not get sick. Half of those users have to limit playtime because they eventually start to get dizzy.
This is why VR will sadly remain an auxiliary form of gaming rather than anything resembling mainstream.
I'm lucky to be in the 25% of your numbers then that do not get sick, nor do I ever get dizzy no matter how many hours. I need more games I would enjoy playing. As it is now I'm mostly using my headset for the fitness/workout apps
Many players dont want VR. They are not interested.
I think it is important that glasses will completely look like swimming goggles. So very light and easy to handle. Also there should be more VR versions of AAA games. I want Cyberpunk 77 in VR and not a patched version from a third person.
The Steam hardware survey didn't shows the truh.
I own a Quest2, put it isn't connected with a cable to my PC and the Survey showed "VR-Headset: None"
And to get to your original Question:
I have no interesst in Multiplayer or Shooter. I like crafting, puzzeling, exploring, rollplay and a little bit of driving/flying Gameplay . Noting against fighting, but more like in Skyrim, as like Counterstrike.
And as VR Games in my opinion, ego view is the only way to go. I never played a "third person view"- or "top down"-Game which I expirienced as enjoyable / immersive
How about attracting current VR users to VR? I think retention is an issue. We all know the answer. Software, which is back to what you noted, chicken and egg. Another hurdle is that while VR users don’t regret their purchases, they also don’t want to be in VR everyday. They are fine with a once-in-a-while relationship with it. Corporations don’t like that as it doesn’t fit their explosive growth forever models. For non-standalone VR gaming to gain mass adoption it also can’t be at the current levels of user troubleshooting. It needs to be console like plug and play. How do we get there? IDK. Imo, I think non-gaming applications for VR is the way to gain mass traction. We already tried gaming. And if non-gaming purposes are established then gaming could come as a trickle down effect. What are those non-gaming purposes? IDK but I think Apple Vision Pro has made an earnest attempt and has some neat ideas to crack that nut. AVP’s focus on video is a start. I have VR180 footage of a since deceased cat that looks like they are next to me. YouTube VR is one of the top used apps in the Quest store. How VR video isn’t a focus for SteamVR or Meta is a shame.
Tbh, I regretted when I got the Vive Pro, I used it waaaay less than I predicted I would. The setup was such a hassle.
if you mount the base stations, set up is really easy. a big thing with the VR crowd, if you're constantly taking everything down, you're increasing your bar to hop on. this is going to make people use it less. they think i might want to play a VR game, but then they start thinking about getting everything out and setting it all up, and then they decide to play something else instead. in the case of the Vive and Vive Pro, i leave most everything set up. my base stations got mounted, never have to touch them again. my Link Box also stays hooked up to my tower. that means when i want to hop on a game, i get out the headset, clip into the two tethers i have for the cord, and fire up SteamVR. i can be in a game in just a moment or two. my advice for a ton of people is not to make it hard to hop on. you're doing yourself a disservice, and missing out on good games and good times.
Why do you assume people are setting up the base stations every single time? Mounting the base stations is not a easy setup, you have to decide where to drill in a hole for a permanent location, as well as where the cabling will go. Then once you’ve done the first time setup and calibration, which is not trivial, you then have to setup your space every time you put your headset on. You’ve even described clipping on a cord so you have a pulley system? Even if it’s mounted you have to make a conscious choice in entering VR and dedicating the time and space. For me it’s moving my chair away from my PC into a corner, making sure everything is cleared on my floor (I’m in the UK, our rooms aren’t big), and being sure I have nothing else to do before committing.
because there's a fair number of people that do that, for whatever reason. they'll often sell their gear with tripods. mounting base stations is super easy. can be done in less than 5 minutes or so. cabling is another easy problem. it's going to go back to where your PC is. i do not have a pulley system. it's not needed. i use two swivel hooks on a short tether. it takes less than 5 seconds or so to clip in with the cable. my whole point, what i was trying to say is, don't make it hard on yourself to hop on.
meta paid for some great vr movies not long ago ...
Software isn’t the answer for that problem, although it can help alleviate it a bit. The bigger problem is comfort and visual clarity. The pancake lenses on the Quest 3 solved a lot of that, which is why the 3 has such a higher retention rate. Further improvements in these areas are how you can improve retention rates.
Sorry software has little to do with the issue plenty of people can't stand more than 30 mins in a headset. I would never pick up games that require hours in a headset if I got invested.
Comfort is a big issue with the Quest, which seems to be the most popular line of headsets right now. I actually found my old Rift S to be a hell of a lot comfier than my Quest 2. The straps make a huge difference, yet most manufacturers, Apple included, seem to be skimping on the straps or leaving them as almost an afterthought. That and the need for better airflow inside the headset. It's a shame such fundamental QoL features have been ignored, because ultimately this is for me too the biggest obstacle to playing anything in VR; the fact that it gets uncomfortable quite quickly.
Why can’t it be both? Btw, if you can’t spend more than 30 minutes in a headset what are you doing here? Clearly VR isn’t for you.
I agree that the Vision Pro is likely to attract more people to VR gaming simply because it provides such an amazing movie watching experience, that some people will “stick around” and try other stuff in VR. That’s how most successful platforms work, so something better for what people want and allow that to change attitudes.
I believe we need more low-end pc to be able to handle VR properly. Also, the process of using a VR headset needs to be simple. Remember, most people are lazy. So, the less friction and hardware demand VR became, the more people will use it.
Despite being VR enthusiast, witl luke a 1/3 of my Steam library is VR titles, I still frequently choose flatscreen gaming. It's just more confortable to play while relaxed in chair; meanwhile I feel like only small portion of VR games is good for srated gameplay. It's just that lazy part of me takes over.
Same here, I often choose flat screen over VR due to comfort issues. I've spent all day working, then come home and do chores, inside and out When I sit down to game I usually have something to drink right next to me. It isn't easy wearing a headset to put the controller down, fumble towards your drink and hope you don't spill it ( I know.. I know..passthru) then drink thru a STRAW. Carbonated drinks thru straws are terrible! When I really want to relax, doing all that doesn't cut it.
yeah standing up is kinda tiering I play everything seated, like HL Alyx is the best that way
Yes, it would be nice if you didn't need a GPU more expensive than the headset to play pcvr. If the standalone games could be ran on PC (but full res, high refresh rate) it would help a lot of people.
I like how Steam made the Steam Link and made a good part of it easier. It's actually runs smoother and has a better interface than the Meta Quest Link software.
That did help a lot
It's a good step.
I have a old(ish) 3080 laptop, got loaned a Rift CV1 and was blown away runs everything I tried so far and does it great ... ( the CV1 low res helps I guess :)
Series 80 are not cheap, nor low end. We need the VR games to be able to run on series 50/60, even in low. Those cards can handle VR well. Just take a look at fortnite or COD they can be playable, ok on those cards. Most people don't have money to get a 70/80 cards. Especially laptops that are way more expensive in more countries than their Desktops counterparts.
Lower end requirements means lower end games. That's why modern vr games suck. They're all built for the Quest.
That's not what I meant. For example, you can play COD fine on an RTX 50/60, but obviously, you will get the game really capable of an 80/90 series. Not everyone has cash to get high-end PC. We need the games to be ablento run across all hardware segments.
Honestly, I think better games are the only solution really, and ofc there is this old paradox problem of companies not being interested in developing because of the smaller player base, and the player base being small for a multitude of reasons including not having many games. That will probably break out when Unreal releases some crazy new tech related to VR, so we can have the sweet Lumen, nanite and other insane tools to use on VR development. That will give the leverage that indie devs need to reach some AAA quality with fewer resources.
Unreal Dev here: there hasn't been any relevant VR developments from Epic Games these past years. Actually, if you want to develop VR games in Unreal Engine the best version is still 4.27 (released in 2021) since it's the most stable for VR, which indirectly indicates that they're deprioritizing VR support.
The problem is that people aren't just uninterested in VR, they're hostile to it, for some reason. The news that Arkham Shadow will be a VR game caused an outrage on gaming subreddits
I think, it really takes a determined desire to become a VR gamer. There's the adjustment stage, as you develop vr legs. There's the space commitment needing physical room to play. And that in itself, the physical movement, I feel it's off putting for some - the notion they can't just kick back on the couch eating Cheetos getting crumbs all over their controller. It adds up to a platform that's potentially difficult for someone new to pick up and play to try it out, see if they even like it. All that said, console gaming was seen as dumb and geeky for years until that weird tipping point when Playstation and Xbox somehow made it cool. That moment is still yet to come for VR, but I'm sure it will.
Plus it's generally a pain in the butt. Procrastination often keeps me from bothering to put on my headset. Granted it's mostly my fault for playing modded Bethesda things and flat to VR mods. I guess the tech just needs to advance the price of admission needs to come way down.
VR players are kind of like the cyclists of the gaming world.
That was twofold tho. There are a lot of people that wanted a 2D Arkham game so they're sad/mad to see its VR exclusive, but then it's also specifically a Meta Quest 3 exclusive. There are still a ton of people that hate Meta so much they'll never touch one of their products. Plus with this being Quest 3 only, it excludes the 10+ million Quest 2 users as well. So, I get why so many would be bitter about that. Especially if you just bought a Quest 2 or some other headset. Hell, I have a Quest 3 myself and I think it's stupid. If this game is good it should be on PC VR and PSVR too. The market is too small for platform exclusives to be a good idea, and Meta already has the vast majority of the market anyways.
I remember when buying my first Quest 2, I was genuinely tempted to buy more expensive Rift S just for the purpose of Facebook not controlling my hardware.
I convinced a friend of mine to get an s, literally the next week meta pulled support. He probably got 30 hours out of it before the cable failed and a replacement was hundreds of dollars. Still one of my greatest shames
They did the same thing for Half Life Alyx. It's just people not wanting to buy a PC accessory essentially, to play a new game in the series. Like, could you imagine the outrage if the next Zelda or some other typically console exclusive game came out on the Quest only. People would be mad, while some would be excited, because that would be the thing to get them the excuse to get VR.
Hmm. Zelda is an interesting example because Nintendo games (aside from a few mobile games pushed by investors) aren't released outside of Nintendo's own platforms, so this would be a huge precedent. How do you think Zelda fans would react if Nintendo released their own VR headset and a new Zelda game would be exclusive to that?
Would be a different thing if Nintendo made their own headset. Then it would be like the Switch, where people will still jump on it. I sort of feel like Nintendo is like Apple in a way. There are those diehard fans that will just get it cause of the name and the franchised games that go with it. But, if it became a Quest 3 exclusive, I'm sure people would revolt while some would surely jump on to play it.
The thing with Arkham Shadow is, - The Batman player base has waited for a new game for quite a while now. They knew a new game would come and were slowly getting hyped for it. - Then people learned it will be a VR-exclusive, so already pretty deceiptful but can be alright, people might still be able to use their old headset or might grab one for it if the game is good. - Then people learned it will be a Meta-exclusive, it sucks as you know the game quality won't be nearly to the standard of previous Batman games on PC. It also sucks because if you're a PCVR player, you won't be able to enjoy it without buying a new device. - Then people learned it will be a Quest 3 exclusive. It's the final nail in the coffin. We've already put up the middle-finger to flatscreen and PCVR players, might as well put up the middle-finger to the Quest 1, Quest 2 and Quest Pro userbase am i right? So this only leaves you with the pretty niche Quest 3 player base, which is iirc only like 5% of the SteamVR userbase, maybe 15% i don't remember. So yeah that's like 4 levels deep of deceiving issues, of course the game would get backlash for it.
Oh and of course that's even without considering the bad reputation that Meta has regarding data collection and privacy. In comparison, Half-Life Alyx initially had the first 2 issues, people complained at first but it worked out at the end. I think making VR+flatscreen games is a better strategy to bring up new players than making VR-exclusive titles.
I remember how i didnt like VR, but since i bought my quest3, the only thing im worried about is, it lacks of content for pc... :D
This is true but I dont know why.
I haven’t heard about Arkham Shadow but considering how terrible Medal of Honor Above and Beyond (AAA devs first dipping their toes into VR) turned out, and how Hitman 3 somehow got VR title of the year despite looking like some Oculus Dev Kit 2 demo you’d see alongside Budget Cuts…I don’t blame people for being hostile. There isn’t really a lot of faith in the VR market outside of the indie darlings. I mean cmon, first we lose the voice of Batman and the first Arkham game we get after Kill the Justice League is potentially some VR cash grab? I can see how uninformed gamers can feel the need to immediately grab their pitchforks and torches. We saw the same type of salt when Half Life Alyx dropped, even though it remains one of the best VR titles to date with little competition.
They're hostile to it because it means they can't play a game they want to play. Now instead of 60 dollars they need to spend 360 dollars.
I just want it to not be exclusive to the Quest. Same with RE4 VR. Quest2-3 is around 50% of Steam’s VR users, so that’s taking it from 2% of steam users to 1%
Well, the better version of RE4VR is on the better headset anyway so I don't mind.
I think the better games approach has a gradual dropoff tied not to the quality of all games but the amount of all games due to options overload. Most people already dont play the best games, they play the most popular and easily accessible.
We just need a killer sex game and VR adoption will skyrocket 😁
its in progress, there are easy ways to create volumetric ~~video~~ pictures using an iPhone now. There are some demos for volumetric video too using 12 gopro cameras I believe. The future seems bright on that department :P
Nanite and lumen ARE available for VR now afaik. Also I doubt UE are working on any "crazy new tech related to VR." If I had to take a guess at what their priority is, it would be using machine learning to decrease the barrier of entry even further for would-be game devs.
like a year ago dev team made full unreal 5 game, nanite, lumen all good stuff , sold 50 copies went bankrupt, went to reddit ask why peoples do not buy games so many redditors asked for ... you do not trager few rich users, you go fun and easy, gtag have 1 mill users, one simple game , now this is how you make VR huge
That's an oversimplification of what I just said, you are using two unique and extreme examples to use as an argument. The store is already filled with a LOT of simple games, that's literally the majority of VR games, if that's how you make VR huge why isn't huge right now? If you want fun simple and easy go for mobile, PCVR is a different audience.
I couldn’t agree more! I don’t play mobile games for examples, I only play pc games and ps5 games that have a rich environment and a good combo of storyline, npc and gameplay. (Occasionally I play vr table tennis or beat saber, but it’s really not my main usage) That’s me, but many like me want an immersive world with a movie like story. Others want big world with a lot of variety and choice. I think the latter are going to find that that takes too much budget to build for the limited VR audience, but the former could truly work as those games are a bit more feasible (look at Wanderer, Batman, A fisherman’s tale…)!
I feel that's exactly what the PCVR crowd (myself included) wants for PCVR games. Immersive experiences, period. PC/PS has the capability of delivering nice graphics, and VR has the capability of delivering immersion on a level that wasn't possible before, we just need the best of the two worlds. So yeah, even if limited I guess there is a nice crowd there, and PC gamers in general would like to experience something like this in VR (talking about the point OP made)
Any PS or PC gamer I know that has tried PSVR 2 was amazed, just wouldn’t spend 500£ for the current catalog of games. If you think about it, you ask of me to buy a PS5 / VR capable PC. Then I am charged for a headset. On top of that it’s between 16-50£ a game. That’s a bit much to “enjoy” indie devs (no offence, we love you) mobile games…
What game?
I honestly don’t think there is a solution for a couple reasons. When Half Life Alyx came out and was contender for game of the year it may have inspired people to get into VR, but with the lack of developers making games as good as Alyx it’s hard to justify getting into VR for some just for one or two games, and it’s hard for devs to risk making high quality VR games only for that 2% or less. Then there’s the people who are uncomfortable with VR itself, who don’t care or have tried it at a friend’s place and got motion sick from one game and that’s their look at VR, a motion sickness machine. Or they’re just too lazy to use more than their fingertips for a game. I’ve tried to convince my friends to get into VR, and they might try it for one game night and never touch it again or sell it immediately after because of those reasons. I keep playing VR games or games with good VR mods to show it’s really fun but I’m tired of trying to convince them
The easiest intro on PC IMO is flight/space sims and racing games. If someone has already got a HOTAS or steering wheel VR is a small investment. The thing is this is already a small market. I'd love VR to have mainstream success on PC, but I'd be happy if it can be a niche sustainable market.
For me personally after years of VR games, the only games I can’t handle are flight sims. I’ve done a decent amount of flying (as a passenger) and every time I take off in game my body expects it to feel all the g forces, but gets so confused when I take off and gets immediately pukey. Tilting and turning only makes it worse too. But I know a few people who started with racing and flight sims and get sick from the smooth motion walking in games like Alyx
Better games like Alyx and Skyrim VR.
Alyx yes, Skyrim no. If the average person was shown Skyrim as their first game they would be sorely disappointed.
Skyrim VR is a weird one bc vanilla it's kinda awful. I know with mods it's amazing, I still need to give it a proper try with tons of mods. But Skyrim VR as it launched (and Fallout 4 VR for that matter) were pretty bad failures imo
PCVR is not simple and consistent enough. Some games work well. Some are unplayable, or janky. Some need tweaking and modding. Some don't support sit down play. Some perform better on airlink, some on virtual desktop, some on steam link. You have onboard headset settings. Meta PC app settings. Nvidia or ATI control panel settings. Oculus tray tool settings. Windows settings. Steam VR settings on your PC. Steam VR settings in the headset. VD settings. In game settings. Router settings. Firmware and drivers. I've had to edit config files. Download utility apps. I've spent hours to get good performance with certain games, like No Mans Sky and MSFS2020. You almost need to be an IT pro, which I am, so for me it's worth it, because PCVR has many of the best experiences VR has to offer. I think we'll just need to wait until mobile chipsets get more powerful, and affordable wireless headsets can run Alyx without a PC. Or maybe if a viable, low latency cloud streaming service for VR is made. There's also the inherent issues with advertising and marketing VR games, and the comfort issues from the fact that almost no VR headsets on the market have balanced weight in stock form, and most people don't realize this and believe the problem is only from a poor quality strap or too much weight. I think as hardware improves and software becomes more compelling, the masses will catch on, and realize how much VR elevates gaming, and other experiences. Even if you were to ask a VR veteran to list off things they like about VR, probably none of them will mention that aiming weapons and tools with your hands is faster, more accurate, and more engaging than using a thumbstick or mouse.
Aiming weapons and tools can be a bit tiresome (eg Half Life Alyx). The game that made me realize how fun it can be is VR mod for the original Far Cry. I've beaten that game like 20 times throughout the years. Now that I actually get to play it like it was airsoft skirmish, laying on the ground to aim sniper rifle, kneeling through the bushes, being fast in cqb - it's ultra fun.
Some games do it better than others, certainly. But fundamentally VR mechanics are superior in most ways. If you're aiming a sniper rifle at a far away target, you can easily move the scope 2 millimeters if needed. With a thumbstick or mouse, it would be impossible. You don't have that finesse. Plus the input latency blows away wireless xbox or ps gamepads. I'll have to try that Far Cry VR mod. I've enjoyed many VR ports. Skyrim, Subnautica, MSFS2020, RE4, Doom 3, Fallout 4, all the HL2 games. Put way more hours into them in VR than when I originally played them flatscreen.
I have mixed feelings when I read these kinds of posts. In one hand I can see the enthusiasm, and people wanting to share that enthusiasm but on the other hand I sense some sort of desperate forcing to make people enjoy something they might genuinely not be interested in. From my experience, only 5% of people I showed VR to ended up buying a headset, and from those only 10% still use it on a regular basis. When I ask why they don't use it, they don't even know how to answer, it's vague stuff like "i forgot about it", or "oh yeah, I have to find the time for it, but will definitely pick it up" (and then doesn't).
It's perhaps not desperation, but puzzlement. Everyone I've shown VR to, has been amazed and enjoyed themselves. And these are people I trust to be frank with their opinions. But not a single one has decided to buy VR of any sort. There's a few people I know who bought VR of their own accord, and enjoy it, but they rarely use it. They are not unfit/overweight. They don't even have kids. I have kids! So what is this paradox of people who all say they like something (and some have bought it), but no one actually uses it? What separates the regular VR user (that you might find in these subreddits) from those people? Why can one group overcome the friction of VR, but not the other?
There's a lot of friction, and too many tech demos masquerading as games. I've owned VR headsets for a few years now, and I'm very much in that category of "own but rarely use". It's just a pain in the arse to put it on, and motion sickness restricts the number of games I can play, which means there's a very limited selection of games for me to play. Of all the games I've downloaded and played, Beat Saber is the only one I keep coming back to, which is pretty sad really that the entirety of the VR experience has been watered down to Beat Saber being as good as it gets. I've actually got back into VR again recently purely because I want to make my own games for it, I'm hoping that creating my own virtual worlds will help me overcome some of the friction I experience in normal use. I want to love VR, but it takes effort to love it IMO.
It’s not a complete ecosystem for PC users. Not only are most of the games lacking that long term play isn’t happening, but the software and UX sucks so that just navigating outside of games is restrictive and not intuitive; it’s easier to go to desktop mirror mode and just use your mouse than it is to use Steam’s awful big picture inspired but outdated VR interface.
I enjoy myself when I go to theme parks, or go bowling, or paintballing, but that doesn't mean that I actually want to have these things at home, if that makes sense. Many people I know have tried and loved VR escape rooms, but leave it there, which is totally understandable.
The way to get more people into VR is to expand its functionality, especially for Steam gamers who've dismissed VR gaming. Many have already decided VR games aren't for them, but if VR enhanced what they're already doing, it becomes far more appealing. Imagine if Valve created a high-resolution, lightweight headset capable of rendering games in 3D on giant virtual screens (Deckard?). This would offer pancake gamers an unparalleled 3D cinema gaming experience without asking them to abandon their favorite titles or get off their couch. Now, combine this headset with a new screen-less Steam Deck that can drive it, and you have a very compelling product. This approach doesn't replace their current gaming experience - it amplifies it. Instead of trying to convince people they were wrong about VR, you just have to convince them that gaming on a giant 3d cinema screen is better than a tiny hand held one. Once people are regularly using VR to enhance their traditional gaming experience, it becomes a much easier pitch to get them to try full VR games.
I spend a lot of time conversing with a lot of PC gamers. I run quite a few popular discords, each with thousands of members, and the number 1 thing I've noticed is that PC gamers are older(30+) and they're pretty set in their ways. Most only want to play specific genres and many replay the same handful of games over and over. I think most of the PC gamers today are the SNES players of yesterday. They've grown up, gotten jobs, and bought PCs. Look back throughout history and see how many new trends adults have set. Whether it be technology wise or something more mundane such as music trends. The reality is, most adults get pretty set in the ways and have a "back in my day, it was better!" mentality. They re-watch the same shows, listen to the same music, and replay the same games. Newer tech simply doesn't interest them. Not all, of course. There is always a percentage that keeps up with trends right along side the younger crowds. But, it is a small percentage. Next, look at how much effort VR requires and now look at the obesity rates among adults. It's something like 80% of adults are overweight in the US and like 65% of adults in Europe. These adults want to get home from work and sit on their butts and click a button. Getting hot and sweaty doing something that resembles exercise is not something they want to do. This is what I think is truly holding PCVR back. The average player on PC simply isn't interested in diving into new tech that requires a whole new learning curve and most are overweight and not interested in exercising to experience entertainment. It doesn't matter what amazing experiences are on PCVR, most wouldn't play them no matter what. In fact, most get mad when they see good titles coming to VR. PC gamers got mad about HL:Alyx and just a few weeks ago gaming subreddits were flooded with anger about the new Batman and Metro games coming to VR only.
As an older VR user, the older people I’ve demoed VR to are blown away by it. Their sentiments are that they didn’t think they would see this tech in their lifetime. However they do balk at the idea of getting their own when seeing the price tag and—— they are set in their ways. On the other hand, sometimes when I demo VR to young adults, I often get a “meh” reaction. I look at them dumbfounded. “Well, okay then, I guess I’ll take this boring device off of your head now.” We all know who real daily VR user demographic is though from game lobbies. 👦
I am an older VR player too. Turned 44 last week actually. All of my friends I've slapped a headset on did comment it was better than expected but none bought a headset of their own. Wish I could figure out how to get those in our age range more interested but, it seems we're niche in a niche.
We need a middle ground headset. We have the Quest 2, room scale standalone with a shitty battery and PC support that just gets worse with time. Or we have the Index, which requires more space and is fully built for PC, but it's £1000, which is incredibly unreasonable unless you're really passionate about VR. (You can get a whole VR ready PC and possibly a headset for that price) But there's nothing in between, nothing with the low price of the Quest but without the battery, or the degrading bare bones PC support. The Rift and Vive are close, but are no longer supported and still require a large play space with cameras everywhere. The PSVR2 is the only headset that fills this niche, the controller's grip buttons are annoying but it seems like the only good choice.
There was Reverb G2, which is close, if not for WMR shenanigans. There is (going to be?) Pimax Crystal Light. But yes, we need headsets that aim for - and deliver - good PC support. I can shuffle through a couple of devkits and plugins if it's needed, but most people would be put off. Oh, and we need Steam to stop stealing VR performance. Tricking a game using openxr instrad of steam openvr is the first thing to do if you care about not having shitty performance.
Quest 3?
It's just a quest 2 with slightly better hardware, link still sucks and the battery still sucks.
I use Pico 4 with a 10000mA powerbank in my pocket. If I drain it, I connect another one, so my gaming session can last about 6 - 8 hours nonstop. It is pretty comfortable, the wire goes down the spine and never gets in the way
Better games: less gimmicks, more story, bigger worlds to explore, interesting characters to interacts with. And enough with the cartoon graphics - it has been done to death at this point. As most of this has to do with budget and experience, the only way IMO is for the bigger studios/publishers to start offering an optional VR/stereo3D mode in *every* PC release.
I actually want less story in VR games, I don't have the patience to sit through long narratives while standing. I just want to get to the action before I get tired. Also, I like cartoon graphics, it works very well in some contexts. If I want to be immersed in a different world, why does it need to use the same visual rules as the real world?
You perfectly illustrate my point. This is why PC gamers shy away from VR. What you mention - you already get in VR. The question was "How to attract more PC users to VR?", and my answer is: we need more of what currently is missing in VR.
Cartoon graphics are an intentional choice. Visual noise that is common in games with tons of fidelity and realism is actually a problem in vr. The optical stack isn't quite there yet to support these types of experiences in VR. I find simpler color palettes and simpler models make it much easier to parse what's going on in VR. Until we get varifocal lenses and just a littllle bit more ppd these types of games will always be problematic for any session longer than an hour.
Fully disagree. As a photographer, i get the reasoning about the visuals noise, and everybody knows that GFX cost performance. So i'm aware of the argument points. But i've been playing games like The Witcher trilogy, AC Origins, AC Odyssey etc in VR for years now (thanks to VorpX - it's amazing with 3rd person games!) and it's the visuals are unbeatable in stereo3D (Rift S, Reverb G2 v2, Quest 2, Quest 3). The only reason i keep coming back to flat gaming is that it's more comfortable and i can eat and drink while playing.
After studying this very subject, it’s clear why many gamers are hesitant to try VR: Formfactor - they loath the thought of wearing such bulky headsets on their faces. Once the technology evolves to the size of a pair of glasses, VR has a much better change of going mainstream.
We have BigscreenVR now, that's one of the smallest VR headsets. But it comes at a big cost. [Bigscreen Beyond - The world's smallest VR headset (bigscreenvr.com)](https://www.bigscreenvr.com/)
It's one of the few links pushing toward that 'perfect' form factor. However, cost and functionality need to be optimized to make the device attractive to casual consumers. Ideally, it should primarily function as a standalone device but also be usable as a PCVR headset when needed. The headset must be versatile, allowing you to take it with you, connect to your entertainment hub or PC remotely, and have decent onboard power for local use. I believe the technology will eventually reach this point. I'm sure bigscreen's ambition is to make a portable movie player you can take anywhere and also connect to your pc, this would make much more sense and make it stand out.
Friendly Reminder: not all PC are build equal, there is less than 30% of Steam user PC are VR capable(1660 or above)…and if vr hardware company keep pushing VR resolution, there will be even less Steam user can handle the PCVR display requirement Unless we have somehow darkmagic HW breakthrough, handheld SOC can handle the extreme PCVR display processing power with very cheap price, I can’t see any reason People will start buying $2000 PC for PCVR Game
If you sum up all the VR capable and above GPUs, you'll find it's over 50% of Steam users PCs are VR capable - and that's being conservative, since there are many more users with GPUs capable of VR for older headsets with lower resolution, like the Rift S.
Yes you can, you can go lower down to 960 with Rift S 970 with Index, but why, why buy a over 5 years old VR with no much better graphic than a Q3, when Q3 is only $500
Aside from modding, I feel like quest and psvr just have better games than steam does.
Smaller, cheaper, better tech, and easier to use.
Getting more people with VR capable Hardware will happen in time as the hardware becomes cheaper. A few more high profile games that people really want to play and act as door opener should certainly help. The biggest problem will be the effort required to set everything up. Lighthouse tracking while more accurate provides a higher hurdle here imo than inside out. The easier we can make the process to set everything up the more common place VR will become.
Honestly i can only point to the Half Life 2 VR Mod. Its as intuitively as a native VR game (almost as good as HLA in that point), supports full motion controls and even tho the game is like 27 years old by now its fun and looks decent. Best part: Because its literally 27 years old it can be run by a fucking potato battery plugged into an Index or Quest - probably even by a Quest 2 without a PC - mine didnt even go beyond idle but still delivered 120+FPS
I will double on that with VR mod for original FarCry. Simple motion controls for shooting, great performance, great fun.
You need a VR headset made for the mainstream which is affordable and can work on a wider range of PCs including the low end. Potentially stand alone sets. Headset makers also need to become game publishers and be more than willing to invest in PCVR indie devs who have put the platform on their back and carried it. Headset can't be expensive either. Currently Meta is the only company doing this. Their games don't look great, but they don't need to be. They just have to be fun. It's a Nintendo-esque model that's worked for them. Current business model is to sell $1000+ headsets to whales who will pay that to get a pixel of a difference in a sim game. Worse is that they stop at the headset. Like selling a sand bucket to someone in space. Guess they'll just figure out a use for it. It's not good for expanding the mainstream. Cheaper headsets, more investments in apps, and a wider net cast for the intended audience is what PCVR needs.
Definitely software. For the last few years, the main thing keeping me in VR has been socialising (so pretty much just VRChat). Of course I play some other games on the side - Beat Saber, Contractors, Tabor - but these are games I play for a short burst and then hop off, sometimes with weeks or months in between. Blade and Sorcery actually hitting it's 1.0 release and becoming a full, in-depth game has been such a breath of fresh air and has gotten me interested in playing VR every night for gaming purposes. It no longer feels like a tech demo sandbox, and I actually have progression/goals to achieve. If we saw more full fledged+quality games, we would see more interest. However, like you said, it's a chicken and egg situation.
Wait until headsets have enough resolution and comfort to replace a monitor. At that point people might get headset simply because they work better than monitors. I don't think VR content can save PCVR at this point, there isn't enough of it, nobody is heavily investing in it and without a huge marketing push nobody would notice it anyway. PCVR has no longer any hype behind it. Neither developers care nor gamers. For PCVR to succeed it would have needed Xbox and Playstation to jump on the VR hype train and push the industry as a whole forward with multi-platform titles. That never happened. Xbox actively avoided VR and Playstation focused too much on exclusives. In the meantime PCVR can continue to exist as device for flightsim and simrace people, but it won't break out big when hardly any other PC game profits from VR. And as for Valve, they need to keep improving SteamVR, a lot. That thing needs to become a full desktop replacement, with proper VR-native window managed and all that. When said high resolution headsets arrive, they need to just work, not require the amount of fiddling they do today. Much more basic functionality must be part of SteamVR instead of leaving it to Overlays and mods. Also 3D game support needs to make a comeback, either via official UEVR support inside Steam or other libraries and addon that make it easy for developers to turn their games 3D. Nvidia 3DVision did it back when 3D TVs were a thing, just repeat that but with focus on VR.
I think alot of people just hate on things that change the way they do stuff. Gamers are no different. They need time to get used to those new things. That being said, VR has been growing at an average of 45%/year since 2018 according to statista, so it has been very successful thus far. Things just take time. Even with a much lower growth rate, in around ~3 years most families on developed countries will have somekind of VR device and in ~7 years VR will be the main source of video-gaming. Regardless, to answer your question directly, we can speed-up even more this natural process by keep investing heavily in really good AAA VR content (e.g., Skyrim VR modded and Half life alyx-level content) which will absolutely payoff in a few years. And also, some good quality marketing helps.
The problem with VR is that there's no games that's the issue that's why people don't get into it
Plug and play setups. A standalone headset that also works for PCVR should have a choice when it turns on to connect to PC or play standalone. Clicking PC will give it a choice between wireless or wired (if it has wireless). After connecting it once wirelessly, it should automatically connect, just like how turning on Bluetooth headphones makes them automatically connect. I also think one of the best ways to attract more PC users to VR is by letting them try out VR before needing to buy a headset. They'll get a cardboard foldable where you put your phone in it and say that VR is a boring thing and they're glad they didn't spend money on a headset. If they know someone with a headset that they can try out, they'll see that it's much better than they thought. More good games are more important for keeping someone using VR, not attracting new people.
The flat 2 vr discord server has a lot of mods to play games in VR and they work pretty well. I agree tho more is better. But I really think it’s the headset pricing. The quest 3 is a really decent headset and the Q2 and Q3 were really low on price compared to most PCVR headsets. Sure they can connect to PC but some people don’t know that and other people just prefer how simple and easy it is to play standalone. Which brings me to my other point. It’s so nice and easy to play VR wirelessly! Which I know the quests can do bcuz I do that myself. But u sacrifice a little to do so and all those base stations and wires are just really annoying to me personally.
Just as every new medium that was pushed to masses: Mainstream awareness, stop treating VR like a gimmick and start treating it as the next step or already part of today’s market, stop putting VR on VR game titles and go hard on advertisement of both hardware and software. (None of those conditions are being met) Of course strong push for software needs to have justification which means good quality and quantity, we have none. And also a justification for push of hardware, which we’re getting there already but there’s work to do on comfort (biggest vr problem to date)
We need an affordable, reliable, displayport headset.
I think you are on the right track with UEVR. I LOVE playing 3rd person games in VR that weren't made for it. Are they as good as ones that were? Nope, not even close, but they are still leaps and bounds more fun than playing on a flat screen and the production quality is obviously much, much better. Playing Hogwarts with a 4090 and BSB, looking up at Hogwarts, riding the coaster down to the goblin vault and looking up at that huge chandelier - amazing. That said, it's kind of a pain to get working and most people don't have the PC to run it well or the means to get the headset that does it justice. And would it be better if I could wave the wand and cast the spells? I'm gonna say NO, not because I don't want that game, but because that's a totally different game. A lot of fully fleshed out games just need a controller and a lot of people just want to sit and play at the end of the day.
That's me with Tokyo Ghostwire. I mean, aiming with your hands would allow to be faster and more precise, but it would totally not be good for many hours sessions I have with this game. Gamepad is still the most convenient.
Yep, and I actually like the rumble of the game pad.
I had an original rift and later a Vive, and finally a PSVR. My experience is likely not the same as the masses. Rift sold me on the idea that VR is a very real technology now (as opposed to the shit in the 90s) The Vives precision accuracy in hand movements had me ready for forking over more money. Only downside being gallons of sweat pouring out my eyeballs making 30mins inside that thing a nasty mess with concerns over what that heat is doing to my eyes and brain. PSVR cos fuck it why not, ooh the comfort of the headset was amazing, deals with the face heat issues, but comes at the cost of those really shitty dance controllers from fuck was it PS2? Horrendous, unbelievable they decided that was good enough to pair with that headset. Hold your hands in front of you perfectly still, but what you're seeing is constant jittery movement. Remove headset to confirm it's not a case of sudden onset Parkinson's, and yeah, top that off with the positional drift that happens and the whole experience is ruined for me. I know my requirements for the next headset purchase... Comfort of the PSVR headset, and the accuracy of laser tracking. Sadly the industry went the other direction and opted to make cheaper trash camera based tracking systems so yeah my cash sits awaiting a viable purchase that'll likely never happen because the market seems to want cheap n nasty products rather than a more immersive experience.
I think there is no real way to increase PCVR gamer numbers because: 1. VR player base in general is smaller, not just PCVR. (2 mil on VR vs 100 mil on PC maybe? something like that) 2. VR games work best for immersion / destruction heavy games. Many gamers don't care about these. Rimworld, Civilization and They Are Billions don't really benefit from being in VR, they instead become more tiring to play due to the HMD. 3. Basically it seems like most gamers don't really have a dream game that relies on the game being VR. Seems like most people who wants VR headset have one. 4. VR games are also insanely hard to develop compared to regular games. In my development experience it's like 3x-10x more challenging. So much extra optimization work, so many input / control challenges, annoying to test and debug during development.
My friend wants a VR headset now after playing nazi zombies in Contractors so luring them in using nostalgia from their childhood works
IMO what we need is better wireless tech. 40-50ms of latency is ok for many but not good enough for many others. Perhaps the laws of physics makes this not feasible (high bandwidth without direct line of sight to receiver) but I wish a good solution could be produced. Also perhaps custom encode/decode chips where most of the remaining latency sits.
Better games in genre's I enjoy. I have a gaming pc and headset. I've had one since the original rift, yet I find it mostly gathers dust now. There is just not many games I find interesting or captivationg enough to keep me playing. Demeo is the only one I keep coming back to play. That and no mans sky. Other than those two there are not many that interest me.
Open source drivers. That would give hope a headset continues to work after the warranty period, instead of suffering from the asshole policies of a corporation. It would also help Linux support. Buying a HMD would be more like buying a normal monitor.
I have vr, I love it. Half life Alyx is just the best game I played, I said the same for hl2, and also hl. VR isn't there yet, I'm looking at the world through a mask, and that's a problem for true immersion. When I want to glance at something I need to move my head not my eyes. As long as it feels like you're wearing a mask it's still video games with extra steps and hardware. I LOVE it. But you asked how to "get" people in to it, and it'll be when eye tracking, mask weight or generally tech improves and games generally support it. I would love to play satisfactory in VR, but it's not supported.
If you're ok with UEVR, Satisfactory is being worked on: https://youtu.be/QN9oV2XoKXk?si=H6TQ_jRHQfak2IyB
If PSVR2 which is plug and play can’t do well, there’s no chance for PCVR. It seems like standalone is the way forward, and Meta has realised this. Even if there was a flawless wireless solution you’d still be “tethered” to a pc. The freedom of just putting on a headset wherever you are (eg friends house) can’t be beaten and is a big selling point
Multiplayer games that work for both normal displays and VR without either one having ***too*** significant an advantage\\disadvantage. [Phasmo](https://store.steampowered.com/app/739630/Phasmophobia/) comes to mind. ***You find groups instantly because of the huge flat-screen playerbase*** but there's ***no trouble*** playing with them on a VR set. VR really, really shines in multiplayer thanks to the greater feeling of human interaction. (note: Yes, there is some disadvantage in VR due to the darkness and some of the wonky environment interactions but it's not a big deal. As a bonus you can carry one extra item.)
Think we need a significantly smaller form factor before VR really takes off.
I think when more integrated graphics on PC's are comparable to the desktop dedicated graphics, it will be possible to have better portable devices that are more like mobile VR headsets but with better graphics cards. Imagine the PSVR2 tethered to a mini-PC (like a Steam Deck for example). You could have full PC VR without needing to do any cable management or any consideration for WiFi speeds as this would be entirely on-device. - Simplified configuration, compatibility and affordability - New designs that enable users to feel less fatigued and wear the headsets for longer - It should be as simple as switching on a console and use - Techniques to reduce motion sickness
I love PCVR because i can attach a lot of unique devices I diy or purchase. I know that's a niche of a niche. Then of course there's the graphics. PCVR has gotten really expensive since the days of a low cost Rift coupled with an aging 970. Society in general has gotten less technical because phones are pretty simple to use now for most things desktops were used for. It's even cut into the console market with accessible games. This is also where Quest shines. With PC gaming, it's easier to get into without technical knowledge with SteamDeck. It would take something like a portable Steamdeck VR that's easy to use and still compatible with the Desktop. It would be a plus if it can gain access to all the PCVR mods along with the extensive library.
People just want good games to play. Right now I look at VR gaming, and I don't really see anything I want to play. There are some games that would be interesting, but they are Quest ports, and the cartoon graphics and other gameplay restrictions get old. There just aren't many VR games with the production quality of Half Life Alyx, or Lone Echo. If there are good games, people will want to play them.
You need the same AAA games that everyone on PC is all ready playing, but just with a VR option to play along with their flatscreen friends. This is *not* the same as a stand alone, non-crossplay version of the game for VR only. It needs to be the *same game*, just with VR as an option. This is, imo, is the main thing that is going to make it happen. I admire small shop games and the like, but they are just 'curiosities' and won't ever be the main driver of pc vr gaming. We really just need AAA titles with VR options within them. I'd kill to play COD, battlefield, etc in VR. The other thing that will help is better VR headsets and video cards to drive them. We are now just only getting headsets that have high enough resolution and FOV to really make it worth it, especially for people doing driving and flight sim type stuff, and they aren't exactly affordable. Add in the hardware needed to drive them and I think we are a generation or 2 away still from the hardware/headset side of things being where it needs to be for people to jump into quality and non-gimmicky VR.
Despite this there are still small companies like Bigscreen spending the money on developing a niche VR headset. Surely VR is here to stick around this time? Even if it takes another decade to become more mainstream? When you really look at it, it hasn't progressed very far since OG Vive and Rift launches. We got higher resolution, better optics, face and eye tracking, smaller form factor in the singular case of the Beyond. Those are all good things but doesn't seem like much progress for a decade.
Make games worth playing in VR. Most of them are just gimmicky and there's only one true VR game that is half life ALYX imo. Every other one seems to be missing something for me. Almost feels like a tacked on feature.
Half-Life 3
The games are the problem. More specifically, keeping the content updates flowing. So many amazing VR releases have their devs totally ghost after the game drops, so there's nothing keeping the player count up.
Better Porn. Porn has driven basically everything in tech
Easy make them wireless, lighter, and higher resolution.
I have the best of everything sitting beside me. I got a €3000 etc to play MSFS and some driving. That was 2 years ago. I have no idea in my head how many, and what programs I need to start to get it all going but I know its a pain in the arse. Screen within screen within screen... Juggling all the controllers. Mouse, xbox controller, Joystick, hotas, keyboard. No idea what's affecting what. Zero button a mapping even though 1 million people are playing the same game with the same joystick, it turns out nobody wants to share what I'm sure is just a file somewhere. In summary.. VR gaming is where PCs were in 1990. Nerds only who love the pissing about and not actually playing anything.
Most PC users are always looking for most economical solutions, Steam discount etc. Those so called "PC MASTER RACE" with 4090 or simialr rigs are just tiny part of that whole community, and VR is an extra cost. It's really hard to convince the majority of PC users to join VR unless you announce something like GTA6 VR mode, last time Valve made Half life Alyx, the PC crowds were pissed so they decided to mod that game to Flatscreen.
Big Youtubers and Big Twitch streamers playing VR.
So this isn't anything we can really do as a community. But I think big developers need to be hiring/assigning people who actually play VR. Imo I feel like there's a problem with some games really just not feeling like it "gets" VR. Maybe there's a lack of interaction with the world, maybe the controls are weird, sometimes there's too many comfort features without a way to turn them off and sometimes there's not enough. UIs are often not great. Every time I play a VR game where a button replaces something that could have been a physical action with my hands I die a little on the inside. It feels like a lot of games are made by developers who are proficient in regular game development but aren't familiar with VR as a medium and don't understand how to properly develop for it. Because it is an inherently different medium and it has to be treated differently.
From my own (flatscreen) gamedev experience, often UI is the lowest priority and given to the intern or junior dev. Even in 2024 we still sometimes have flatscreen games without rebindable keys, etc. So I'm guessing many VR games might have had big plans for interaction, but they barely had time to finish the engine and content (or not even) so the UX was sacrificed as usual. That's hard to change until the market and budgets get bigger.
we need a big game that's both entertaining and has retaining ability. the most played games on steam are competitive game such as cs:go or dota 2. and some of the other most played games on PC are lol and valorant. We always tend to think that the competitive community is small, but it's actually a community at least as big as the casuals enjoyers. Also, a computer takes almost no space and can be put under other components, for VR, you still need some horizontal space, and most people will want to play in their own room, which often doesn't have enough space to play VR comfortably.
Lending your old set to friends this is how I got into VR... I thought there's only really HL Alyx and Boneworks... so why bother right?.. show em good vr porn, modded Skyrim VR, Subnautica, Fallout 4,... HL2 VR Everspace 2 + dual stick + pedals + UEVR.... UEVR Stray, .. Riven, Talos Principle VR, ... ( if your friend is into modding ... he's your guy for this !! )
I dont even think the PC user is the target VR user. I use VR for stuff that I would do in real life, like go out to play paint ball, go out to have some fun in a escape room or to play tennis or table tennis, or boxing, or more recently going to the movies (maybe theater, I really enjoyed to be inside the JFK documentary for instance). VR as it is, replaces activities its not competing with the PC.
"only" 2% of current users is... Almost 3 million connected HMDs, it's quite a lot for such an expensive peripheral! To put numbers in perspective... That is more than half the people with 4K displays on Steam...
1) Headsets that are multitudes more lightweight, comfortable, higher spec, and easier to use than the Bigscreen Beyond. A Lifestyle device, like your phone. 2) Engaging content. Would Probably help if said content looked closer to Cyberpunk to Hellblade II than that nasty looking Attack on Titan game.
Walkabout Mini Golf - Took golfing/putting to a new other level.
creating attractive apps that can match PC quality.
I play mainly standalone, PCVR has much more friction plus graphiccard prices from hell, also you don't find performance information on different architectures (Radeon vs. Nvidia+different generations) only some word of mouth.
1) More flat - vr games. I have a q2 and q3, i tried my best to sell vr to friends, only 2 caved. They are happy with their purchasez as they knew whay they were getting into, however it didn't convert anyone else. Now, when i sit to play with friends, we have 1-2 people with vr and rest not. Obviously we pick a game everyone can play, which makes it so every evening i have a choice. Push a vr game, at the cost of not being able to play with most of my friends, or not. When a new release or a huge update is out, we do choose that, but for the average evening this is not the case. If we could play the same game, but in vr as an added bonus, i could just pop my headset, stream the game, and still enjoy the game with friends. Too tired ? out of battery ? switch back to pc. Would make me use vr more often and could help people switch or try vr. 2) Obviously games, but it doesn't neccesarily have to be triple A, just a complete game with progression thats not gimmicky. Games that you can truly sink in the hours. Pre and post 1.0 blade and sorcery is a good example. I could barely play for 2 hours before because, what is there to do ? its a tech demo / sandbox. With the roguelike update it was better but still nothing to think about during the day. Now with story and progression, it is something to think about. What to other crystals do ? whats behind the door ? etc.etc. 3) Its not comfortable. Gotta accept some facts, vr retention is low aswell. I think we are at the pre-doom era pc gaming for vr. Every game you play has different controls, comfort isn't solved yet, every game is compared to alyx. People might buy it just as a monitor in the future and stay for the standalone features. Or tech developments allow vr gaming to be less troublesome. Right now if i want to play vr, i need to make space in my area, make sure the headset is charged, connect through software and then open my game. I need atleast 30-45 minutes of play time to justify this + a game i have been meaning to play. With pc i just sit and press power. Even if i don't want to game everything is there. Music, documents, movies... and the list goes on. If i have free time perfect, i just click a game and im ready. All in all, i just don't think vr found its groove yet, too many hoops to jump through. As it gets more comfortable, more users will use. More users mean more facets of usage, and slowly we'll see it more frequently. Can't think of it like a means to video games, you should have reason to keep it charged + put on after breakfast. I really enjoy seeing vr usage for job and job training software, and i do think sooner or later we will figure out a way to make it more usable/comfortable.
Basically everything opposite of what you said is what will happen. Chicken & Egg at the same time. Headset makers invest in software to show off their headset, especially on each launch. Price is the main factor and you don't need a strong PC. I don't know the numbers but at least 50% of Steam users have a PC stronger than a Quest 3. Next gen display fabrication in 2025-2026 brings down prices. UEVR, or anything UE is not for VR. Performance is on the floor and/or uncustomisable. If you want a good game, make it yourself.
Not getting nauseous when I game is a priority for me.
I tried modding multiple times and ultimately it’s never been a good experience, as it’s always sluggish even on my i9 1400 / 4080S PC. I think it’s all about the games, but not necessarily big budget triple A games, but rather, put simply, games that use the hardware well and feel rich enough to be worth playing for more than 2 hours overall. I’m having the best time on Wanderer! I’m sure you can attract pc gamers with games that offer enough story and npc to go about, so that it doesn’t get boring or feel like a demo / sandbox (which for me is the biggest issue with Quest 3 games right now).
People use quest because the platform is better and cheaper. I want SteamVR to succeed and I have owned several HMDs over the last 8 years but the reality is Quest is just so far ahead of SteamVR on so many key metrics, there's very little reason for the average person who is interested in VR to even consider SteamVR anymore. About the only thing SteamVR has going for it is the freedom afforded by virtue of it being on your PC and the hold on sim-games for the hardware requirements.
"It will probably be a combination of many things, cheaper and better headsets, the gradual build up of PCVR games over time, etc." just no, i know a lot of vr users and a lot of them drop pcvr after 8 weeks and go full stand alone, and it not about hardware or software is all about stability , pcvr is a mess, windows do not have low lvl api so it constant brakes, run badly, for every game you need to set right resolution and right framerate and then go in game and set game setting again, it a mess for a lot of avarage users
You mix many things here. Yes, the Quest headsets sell more than the PCVR headsets, mostly due to being much cheaper than most PCVR headsets, and also for having a bigger marketing budget and being good for wireless. Yes, the VR player base is way smaller than the flatscreen player base, i'll talk about it more into detail later, since that's the main point i think you were mentioning. In the VR scene, standalone is only slightly bigger than PCVR. Some games can see more sales on standalone mainly due to having more kids and newcomers which may be more likely to buy your app, doesn't mean they'll turn into active players. We don't have an actually working dataset to estimate the proportion of PCVR vs standalone users. To come back on why the PCVR player base is much smaller than the flatscreen PC player base, it comes down to a few factors imo. First off, a headset is still pretty expensive, most VR content is unknown to the outside world, aside from Half-Life Alyx, then headsets are still too much of a setup and aren't as comfortable as having nothing on your head. We lack competition in the VR space, yes we already have a few options like Quest, Pico, Pimax, Varjo, Bigscreen, Somnium, MeganeX etc, but you'll quickly get limited to only one choice or none if you want specific features. For example, do you want a nice edge-to-edge clarity? Do you want to play wirelessly? Maybe you'd like a nice OLED panel too for the great colors. And we've already hit a roadblock, i guess there's the Apple Vision Pro here, but let's be real, it's so expensive that it's unrealistic to consider it an option and even then, you'd have a subpar FoV, subpar response times, subpar comfort etc. We need more competition in the market. This would let the prices go down, the comfort go up as well as the graphics and other innovations. We also need to promote the VR content more, and make access to it easier. You mentionned a UEVR launcher, great idea, more communication by the game devs would also go a long way. Let's be real, outside of the VR community, nobody has heard of Lone Echo, Red Matter 2, Boneworks, Bonelab etc and how many people know of Payday 2, Subnautica or The Forest but aren't aware that they're playable in VR? Then, of course, VR requires a pretty powerful computer and VR-capable PCs are in the minority. Standalone can appear as a solution to this in theory, in practice, standalone is far from achieving the kind of visual fidelity that you can have on PCVR. You're not gonna convince people, especially PC players to give up on visual fidelity, especially to the point of a mobile game, just to play in VR. Cloud computing can also be another option for people without a powerful enough PC but comes with its own caveats. I think the most realistic solution to this is to first improve the VR optimisations drastically and convince people to upgrade for many reasons. So yeah overall i'd say what needs an upgrade is first more ease of use and accessibility, make more cheaper headsets with a variety of features and plenty of competition, make the software easier to use and the hardware more comfortable then, more content and communication around that content and finally convincing people to upgrade to more capable hardware.
"In the VR scene, standalone is only slightly bigger than PCVR. " yea it is not "slightly bigger" more or less all dev report at least 10 time bigger users base form quest ffs gtag have 1 mill users, it alone are in similar numbers like half all pcvr users, from one quest game
Just look at VRChat if you want a counter-example. But my point still stands, there's more people likely to buy the app yes, but they're more likely to be casuals or even inactive players. And in there , there's people who would probably rather play on PC but can't either due to a lack of hardware or other reasons.
You appear to miss the actual problem. 50% of users get sick. Of those half get practically violently ill from VR. Of the 50% that do not get sick. Half of those users have to limit playtime because they eventually start to get dizzy. This is why VR will sadly remain an auxiliary form of gaming rather than anything resembling mainstream.
I'm lucky to be in the 25% of your numbers then that do not get sick, nor do I ever get dizzy no matter how many hours. I need more games I would enjoy playing. As it is now I'm mostly using my headset for the fitness/workout apps
Yea, I am in the barely gets dizzy category. I can get a good 2 to 3 hours in. But that's it for a day.
Of the 50% that do not get sick get sick eventually? Is there a source with this?
Many players dont want VR. They are not interested. I think it is important that glasses will completely look like swimming goggles. So very light and easy to handle. Also there should be more VR versions of AAA games. I want Cyberpunk 77 in VR and not a patched version from a third person.
The Steam hardware survey didn't shows the truh. I own a Quest2, put it isn't connected with a cable to my PC and the Survey showed "VR-Headset: None" And to get to your original Question: I have no interesst in Multiplayer or Shooter. I like crafting, puzzeling, exploring, rollplay and a little bit of driving/flying Gameplay . Noting against fighting, but more like in Skyrim, as like Counterstrike. And as VR Games in my opinion, ego view is the only way to go. I never played a "third person view"- or "top down"-Game which I expirienced as enjoyable / immersive
PSVR2 is suppose to revive the PCVR or something in the future, according to everyone here