Though my curiosity about how the next few years will go isn't so much about a inside standard, but an outward leap in "next generation" definition for gamers. Game consoles greatest step from the 64 bit era happened around 2008 with development of Wii Motion plus, Kinect, and PS Move not exactly shaking up game development as much as 2D to 3D. Thinking back, the only successful games of that movement were Red Steel 2 and The Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, both with their own design flaws.
So Oculus shifting early on from Oculus3D to Oculus VR was a massive investment in future gaming as far as I can tell. One I immediately joined when putting on my rift, and needing my hands ASAP. So I bought a Hydra for cheap almost as a no-brainer. But we had long threads here, and still do about "is a hydra necessary to a good Rift game?" Which we seemed to agree that different games need different tech, but then I have to ask what games do we really want, and what do they need? Oculus has hinted may times in their Power Glove shirts and finger-waggling about the need for new inputs for VR, but at the moment seem content that enough games can be made with traditional controls in the mean time.
Then the VR Jam came and went, and Oculus made the interesting decision to limit input schemes to Mouse (circa 1970) and Keyboard (1910) and controller (1997). Which of course makes sense, as the focus was on games anyone can play with available tech. So a lot of the games are designed for PC/console, but viewed in VR.
Even for the consumer Rift to get off the ground, it seems there needs to be a transition generation of software and hardware for people to really understand the fact that "Yes VR can and will happen, and we are along for the ride." without too much of a creative or financial investment. The biggest hurdle here is how players perceive games.Palmer Luckey wrote:We don't want to make it so that people are tied into anything to use the Rift. You should be able to just buy a Rift. But it would be really interesting -- let's say we're able to sell a bunch of Rifts, and we say, "Hey, the average user is buying this accessory, that accessory, and this game, and we can make this much money," or if we were to work on first-party content and make back a few dollars that way. Potentially, you could sell the headset even cheaper than $300. If you can get the price really low, you can make it an impulse purchase.
How many times have you heard here, or elsewhere, "I play games to sit down relax after a long day". This idea of the audience of games determines the content, tone, emotional value and what you can ask of a player before they stop playing your game or don't buy it at all. The Wii shifted this idea, but just barely, and enough to make the sit-down crowd even more upset. So the question is how much does the Rift push the VR design forward, or how much is left to other companies to show games in that space as a medium worth "standing up" for?
And today, coming rapidly to market thanks to Kickstarter we will have the Omni and it's tracking system, the Virtualizer and it's tracking system, PrioVR's tracking system (Lite and Pro), Sixense's STEM tracking system(/Hydra), Tactical Haptics, Myo, Leap, the old guard of Wii-PSMove-Kinect all ready to be used in software for full or partial VR games and experiences. That's a lot, and breaking news Sony may compete in VR in 2014, assuming that will use it's own headset, PS Move, and PS4 Eye--throwing the question of what tech to use in VR for a loop.
To me VR (meaning in this case full body motion and begining haptics) seems at least 3-5 years away from software compatibility and public awareness and acceptance as a new form of gaming or a new form of media. This has once again been a long winded way of wondering what do you, who have spent way longer with your heads in VR than I, think are the intermediate steps from Rift based games to motion controlled based games to full motion VR experiences?
The price point for the current "VR generations stage thingy" is still high (at all levels, from AAA studio to Indie developer to consumers already focused on current console hardware), needing a PC capable of 3D 60@FPS, a Rift at bare minimum for games such as Routine, XING, Dream, Ether One, Eve Valkyrie, and potentially a tracking system for head, arms, and controllers with haptics for the full intended experience. Games like The Gallery are moving in this direction, and I'm extremely excited, but I'm wondering how many games do we need to make at this level before the idea of full motion even crossed the public's mind, or if a full motion Second Life/Oasis is already viable? Specifically on the software side here, despite the fact that numerous hardware companies seem to think the time is NOW.
Don't even get me started on digital scent technology and the rest! (aka the adaption rate of technologies needed to take VR to Holodeck). Also, there's the other angle, where I bought my Hydra knowing that even if VR doesn't take off, I could still be thrilled to build my own dream VR exerperience just for me with Rift and Hydra.
"The lesson; dear reader" is we all know what separates the experience (not just technology) of the Virtual Boy and purely 3D, headtracked Rift from the VR games we dream of and know are possible now, but is there a functional timeline of how one becomes the other?