I still wonder how many people who agree with this have actually played games in VR for any length of time.
Sitting is great for cockpit experiences obviously, but in pretty much every other traditional game I've ever played in VR I ran into the limitations of DK2 tracking when I wanted to turn around or look at something on the ground more closely.
Hmm, that's right, unlike normal on-ear headphones they don't necessarily need to put any pressure on the ear. I guess I'll see soon enough when my Rift arrives!
Well obviously I have, and do.
DK2 tracking definitely has the problems you talk about though. CV1 is going to fix this in a few ways. Wider FOV camera makes it easier to sit or stand far enough away from it for it to be able to see you from head to toe, and tracking LEDs on the back of the headset are going to be a huge plus.
Driving with a wheel is probably the pinnacle of in home VR right now, even considering VR in terms of believability. It's one thing to use a tool to interact with the world around you, but interacting with the same interface you use to drive a car, and seeing the wheel turn the exact same number of degrees you turn it... well that's something else.
Plus it's an interface most of us already understand so well to do it subconsciously... and then you throw in much better haptics than you can get out of a controller and it gets even better.
I'm not kidding when I say the end goal is going to be robotic exoskeletons or neural implants or whatever. Room scale is the best way today to let people freely explore an environment, but it's only free within whatever bounds you can donate to the experience.
When I think of the three types of VR experience we'll be getting, starting in a couple of weeks, seated, standing and room scale... the one that I think is going to be the most transient is room scale. There's always going to be times I want to just sit down or stand relatively still and focus on a task. Most of the stuff we do in the real world for extended periods of time fit into those kinds of categories as it is.
Very rarely am I being very active in a small space. For stuff like sculpting / painting tools, and table top types of experiences I'm sure room scale will stick around... but people are going to really feel the boundaries. I don't like invisible walls in games.
And even looking at some of the stuff Valve were demoing at GDC I see a lot of experiences that are standing and front facing... like the archery demo (which is maybe at a push a 220 degree experience) and the slingshot demo.
Because it's going to be about what's the most fun... and sometimes that's going to be sitting down with a joypad. Sometimes that's going to be standing relatively still and looking forwards. Sometimes that's going to be 360 degree room scale.
And certainly the Vive is the only headset that supports *all* of those experiences... but I don't think roomscale will replace VR versions of traditional games, or standing types of games.
As exciting as it is that VR is going to allow for very new experiences, and room scale currently has the most potential for that... I think people are overlooking how much VR is going to revitalize the types of games we've already been playing.
But not for much longer. Watching the Tested guys at GDC they've thoroughly enjoyed all the kinds of VR they've tried. No one type more than the other.
Vive is the one to buy if you want all the kinds of experiences and have a suitable space for room scale VR. If you don't, or you're more interested in how VR might improve traditional gaming, then it might make sense to spend less money and get a PSVR or Oculus.
Eitherway I don't think you can go wrong... and eitherway, I think everyone will accommodate whatever becomes popular across all genres and types. If room scale is the thing, I think you'll see Oculus and Sony supporting it... and if that doesn't happen in the first year... I don't think that'll be too damaging to VR or any of the major companies pushing it forwards.
What's most exciting though, is that we're about to see this all play out. It's been far too long since we saw a seismic shift in interactive entertainment.
There's something I need to articulate regarding gameplay "depth" and VR. Obviously, a lot of people lament the lack of it with early VR games, but I really think we need to clarify what we mean by the "depth" of gameplay.
As an example, let's choose Budget Cuts. In that game, you throw knives by, well, physically throwing them, or as close as it currently gets. The relative position and movement of your controller 1:1 determines the physical flight path of the knive. What is the "depth" of that? Ultimately, I would argue it's very deep, just like mastering throwing knives in the real world is very deep.
The same thought applies to a lot of things, including even (on the face of it) simpler stuff like e.g. VR Minigolf.
VR minigolf is going to be awesome. No two ways about it.
