[baldfat]

Half-Life 3 on VR would be the killer app. It would be this generations Lotus 1 2 3.

Though I personally feel VR for video games are a lot like Wii its awesome for a while then its collecting dust throughout the world. I really think the future is Augmented Reality and VR will be for mostly media consumption.

[whatever_dude]

I disagree with that. I played (and finished) HL2 in VR and while it was more of a prototype (e.g. loading screens were static) it already proved modern(ish) FPS games are not the best application of VR. Too many kinks of the genre do not translate well, while other features of VR are left unexplored. For that matter, racing or space exploration games (where the protagonist is seated) translate way better.

So I think the killer for VR will be something else entirely. Still from a first person perspective, but way different from a modern shooter. In the same way it took us a while to perfect what FPSs should be like, or what platformers should be like, we're a bit far from what the perfect VR experience genres will be.

[marricks]

FPS's are definitely not the killer app for VR, it's thinking too much in the old paradigm. Current gamers are spoiled with FPS's that have you turn faster than any human and the default speed is a light jog, which would make most people's stomach turn in VR.

I was most excited about playing HL2 in VR and I had to give up when Freeman stumbled and got up from the ground very near the beginning. The disorientation of having your visuals tell you you're getting up from laying on the ground all while your sitting is AWFUL.

The killer app for VR would have to leverage the strengths of VR, which I'd say is presence. Seeing someone standing by you and talking to you is pretty trippy in VR, I'd say anything with more social aspects would be a start. It might give story driven games a real edge in that platform.

[dyeje]

I don't think it's fair to judge the potential of VR FPS games based on playing a game that's over a decade old and was in no way designed for VR.

[whatever_dude]

But that's my point. It is still a good indication of what a modern FPS is, and of what HL3 would be. I don't see them changing the game radically to be a "native" VR title, which is what VR needs (and which may not even be what we call a FPS anymore).

[dyeje]

I agree, if HL3 is going to be one of the killer apps for VR then it will be radically different. I think Valve have the resources to pull it off, and I suppose we'll see what path they take.

[Kephael]

I hope Valve decide to use Half Life 3 as a benchmark VR title. Half Life 1 was a phenomenal take on the FPS genre, Half Life 2 added physics, and perhaps Half Life 3 can be the start of very high quality VR shooters. If Valve were to release Half Life 3 on their VR platform I would certainly have to buy their platform, there is no VR title that I absolutely must have currently.

[levesque]

I think the locomotion issues will be the end of this round of VR. Teleporting around the virtual space is not immersive by any means. Direct movement (e.g. with a joystick) with current head mounted displays automatically results in motion sickness for the majority of users. No solution in sight, as far as I know.

[moron4hire]

I've ran hundreds of demos on the DK2 over the last two years and in that time one person took the headset off because they felt weird. It's not "the majority of users" by any stretch. I don't know where you're getting your information from.

And we're not talking about being pitched over, puking your guts out, either. It's a mild discomfort that only persists if the user tries to push through it.

Locomotion is both difficult and overrated. I don't know how many people are going to want to physically run for cover in shooter game. Some will, for sure, but I expect new genres of games to become much more popular.

There is also a huge segment of non-game usage that I expect to be the dominant use case for the tech. VR telepresence blows the pants off of Skype, even with cartoon avatars.

[levesque]

There are multiple testimonies on the internet about head mounted displays along with joystick movement inducing motion sickness. It gets worse as the pace of the movements increase. Haven't run any experiments myself, so perhaps you are right. What is the scale of the DK2 demo? If it is a room scale demo you can't infer much from it. The issue would be the addition of the joystick movement with the head movement, resulting in a final movement vector that is in conflict with your inner ear. Any of those two movements taken on their own (e.g. moving your head while standing still, or moving with joystick while keeping your head straight) would not result in any conflicting signal.

Other applications of VR still apply, but this I believe will remain a major hinderance for FPS style games.

[AJ007]

First hand here, the DK1 was brutal, DK2 was ok. Besides what is actually being played another major variable is the machine driving it. If the frame rate is less than ideal it will cause issues.

The thing is I got motion sick in the early 90s playing Wolfenstein 3D and so did others. On like a 15" monitor. There were stories about people vomiting back then. When is the last time you heard of someone getting dizzy and puking after play call of duty? I haven't heard of FPS motion sickness since the 90s.

All of the technical nuances related to what invokes motion sickness in VR have been exhaustively studied and are actively worked on. However my experience makes me suspect there is some adaptability involved as well. I've spent most of the past decade in dense urban cores and if I haven't been in a vehicle in a week or two, a cab to the airport leaves me close to puking.

From a commercial standpoint the important thing is don't give your customers a shaky first demo that leaves them with dry heaves. Give something neutral like sitting in a movie theater, and gradually ease them in.

[timpattinson]

The plural of anecdote is not statistic.

[soylentcola]

I agree completely with the telepresence part. Depth cams + more ergonomic headsets + high speed networks can already offer a glimmer of what future VR telepresence could offer.

But I also agree with the previous comment regarding first-person locomotion in VR (at least as it's currently done). I've also spent quite a bit of time in my launch day DK2 and when you're actually walking it's OK, when you're sitting or standing in a way that mirrors your in-world avatar it's OK. But when you are standing or sitting and you use a gamepad or keyboard to handle "WASD" while using your head as "mouselook", it still either makes me queasy after a while or gives me a headache.

There are just too many little mismatches in most implementations that make it hard to take a typical FPS-style game and slap VR onto it. The simplest example I can think of is walking around with a gamepad and VR headset:

Imagine you are in a game with your DK2 on your head and an Xbox controller in your hands. You push forward on the stick and your character walks forward. OK...not too bad. Once you get over the initial dizziness it's pretty cool.

Then you want to turn right. You push the stick to the right and your perspective starts to pivot as well. Halfway through this turn, you want to look to the right. You turn your head to the right and as you do, your "turning motion" speeds up since you are turning both your body and your head.

Then when you stop pushing right on the stick, the speed of the pivot drops. When you stop moving your head, it stops completely. The whole thing is a mess of speeding up and slowing down changes in your angle of view. And this is just one simple motion. It's OK on a flat screen in front of you but when it fills your whole field of vision, it can get really disorienting and dizzying fast.

Consider that in a game, there are all sorts of combinations of movement on the X and Z axis, changes of view from pivoting your body, and changes of view on all three axes from moving your head. These are often fast and unpredictable. And all the while, if you're standing up, walking around a small room, or sitting in a chair, they don't necessarily match your actual position.

Either way, sorry for the wall of text. It's hard to describe things that are easier shown than told. I agree that finding new types of games and experiences are they key here. My main complaint in this field right now is the number of people who are still so focused on the FPS style of games because they were so immersive and popular on 2D screens. The goal should not immediately be to cram those into VR just because it would seem on the surface to be a perfect match.

[burkaman]

I think the solution is just that you get used to it after a little while.

[drzaiusapelord]

HL3 is a traditional FPS and a lot of people would be unhappy to play it with a teleport mechanism or other solution that solves the simulation sickness/locomotion problem, but drastically changes the game experience. Worse, VR will never have the install base PC's have right now, so Valve would have to skimp on HL3's budget to make it economically feasible as a VR-only game.

Portal 3 on the other hand seems likely. The teleport mechanic is already cooked into the game. You could play it in VR or non-VR without any changes or upsetting fans.

As a Vive owner, I don't want shoehorned in half-assed VR experiences. I want something that properly uses the medium. I think a lot of FPS fans are going to be ultimately be disappointed that standard WASD and or trackpad locomotion are just not an option in VR.