I think there's a much simpler explanation here, one that covers all of the other failed stereoscopic 3D products: It's a cool novelty effect, but people's brains are already pretty good at reconstructing 3D from 2D, so there's little lasting value. Once the novelty wears off, most people stop caring.
I believe that explanation also covers the Brewster Stereoscope (500k units sold in the 1850s), the ViewMaster (the US DOD bought 100k units alone as part of the future of education), the 1950s wave of 3D movies, the 1990s wave of VR, the 2010s wave of 3D movies, and the rapid rise and fall of 3D TV.
It also covers my experience every time I try this stuff. A while back I rented an Oculus Quest. For the first week, everybody was super into it, and I really loved some of the games. By the end of the second week, nobody even noticed when I mailed it back; we had all returned to playing games on Switches and the consoles.
I think the reason we keep having this problem is that a mixture of the concept (3D is obviously better that 2D, right?) plus the wow from a novelty experience suffices to attract investor money. This time, gobs and gobs of it.
> It's a cool novelty effect, but people's brains are already pretty good at reconstructing 3D from 2D, so there's little lasting value. Once the novelty wears off, most people stop caring.
This might be true for some categories of games, and not true for other categories.
For example, I've played VR on/off since I think the first version of Oculus Rift, until now using a HP Reverb G2. For action games and most categories of games, it is just fun and useful for a small amount of time.
But when it comes to simulators like flight simulators and (realistic) racing games, I literally cannot go back to faux-3D anymore. The sense of depth you get when flying/driving and being able to turn your head around helps so much that going back to non-VR is just impossible now, there is no comparison.
I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling like this regarding simulators and VR. But can it hold up a whole market segment with just this? Unsure, but not impossible either, simulator rigs/hardware seems to be doing more-or-less OK even though it's very niche.
But I'll note that as entertainment experiences, plenty of people are happy to play flying and racing games on a 2D screen, so I suspect that this particular niche is quite small, similar to the fraction of dedicated fans who insist on 3D screenings of movies.
I'm sure it's not big enough to justify the billions spent on R&D, and I suspect it's too small to interest the major players in the long term. But perhaps the niches are enough to justify continued production of 3rd-party headsets.
VR is not that much about stereoscopic 3D, it is more about the 360° environment. You can get most of the immersive effect of VR with a large enough 2D display. 3D is an improvement, but not the most important one.
A VR headset works by putting small displays very close to the eyes to achieve a wide field of view, which is cheaper and more convenient than using large displays further away (like in CAVE system). But for that, one needs one set of optics per eye, as our eyes can't focus that close, and since we need one set per eye, we might as well show different pictures and support stereoscopic 3D.
In other words, VR headsets are a convenient way of displaying a wide field of view, and you get 3D for free.
I understand the argument, but I think the 360° environment came along in the era of Quake. In contrast to the 2D environment of platformers or top-down games, I think the true 3D environments of the Quake era were a big leap forward in terms of giving people a 3D experience. That it was seen through a flat monitor didn't much matter once you were in motion.
I think what VR adds to that is a more natural way of experiencing that 3D environment. But I'm not convinced that makes much of a difference to gaming audiences. The hardcore gamers were always fine with learning less-natural controls. And I don't think casual gamers care much about the 3D environments; quite a lot of popular games are 2D and people seem happy with it.
I also think the novelty 3D experience is more central to the gee-whiz appeal of VR than you do. It's really cool! Just like every stereoscopic 3D experience is really cool. Albeit briefly.
I agree. Ultimately, while being able to actually physically hide behind a cabinet in SUPERHOT VR was a really cool experience, I have quite similar memories from playing regular SUPERHOT despite of me sitting comfortably in front of a flat screen at the time. I can also vividly remember book scenes despite of only ever seeing black text on some paper in front of my eyes. The brain is quite good at abstracting the medium away.
Superhot is one of the games that most impressed me in VR. And then I looked up how well it sold in non-VR versions. At first that seemed wrong to me, but the more I thought about it, them more it made sense.
It was a huge hit as a non-VR game first and only later got a VR version. It doesn't feel like a VR conversion, but it's mostly because it just happened to translate into VR really well, both gameplay- and story-wise (but also because VR version is more like a standalone sequel than a port).
> there's little lasting value. Once the novelty wears off, most people stop caring.
i disagree. if we got half-life alyx level games as often as flatscreens people would still be playing. I do think we need lighter cooler headsets (at least compared to valve index) for longer play sessions.
I believe you would. But I'm confident I wouldn't. And I think the experience of 3D movies and 3D TV indicates most people are more like me in this. Or we might look at the rise in mobile and handheld gaming, which I think is a step away from VR. As anybody who has tried to get a child to put down a Switch or a mobile game knows, 2D is plenty immersive already.
The question isn't if people prefer it, it's if they prefer it enough to spend the time, money, and energy it currently requires to get that experience. I'd prefer lots of things if they were cheap and easy, but they aren't, so I don't bother.
I mean, I do! But I see plenty of people listening to stuff from their phones or mono Bluetooth speakers, so I don't think it's a strong preference. Heck, I'd rather have stereo, but my workshop speaker is mono and I don't care enough to upgrade it for the casual listening I do there.
I believe that explanation also covers the Brewster Stereoscope (500k units sold in the 1850s), the ViewMaster (the US DOD bought 100k units alone as part of the future of education), the 1950s wave of 3D movies, the 1990s wave of VR, the 2010s wave of 3D movies, and the rapid rise and fall of 3D TV.
It also covers my experience every time I try this stuff. A while back I rented an Oculus Quest. For the first week, everybody was super into it, and I really loved some of the games. By the end of the second week, nobody even noticed when I mailed it back; we had all returned to playing games on Switches and the consoles.
I think the reason we keep having this problem is that a mixture of the concept (3D is obviously better that 2D, right?) plus the wow from a novelty experience suffices to attract investor money. This time, gobs and gobs of it.