A question I ask of all VR gaming enthusiasts: how much time do you spend on VR games versus other games?

A while back I rented an Oculus Quest. For the first week, it was the hot property in the house. By the end of the second, the kids were back on their Switches and nobody even noticed when I returned it. Asking around, I know a bunch of people who own VR gear of one form or another, but I still haven't met anybody for whom it's a daily driver, or who spends most of their gaming time using it.

I'm pretty sure the whole VR industry is an op by Big Closet to sell more closets.

I have 9000 hours in steamVR... on linux. I can never go back to 2D tbh.

This headset looks like it finally brings the full experience and more out of the dev only space.

Okay I need details. What distro and headset? What are you using it for?

I've been playing with an Index on Gentoo but it's been a buggy mess and I really just wanna use it for VRChat without having to boot into Windows.

PSVR, Mostly X-Plane 11 now 12. Originally CentOS now Fedora.

Also watch pretty much all my movies on it and various incoming dev demonstrations.

X-Plane is looking like a "killer app" for this (already mac, linux and windows native, most of the devs are on mac)

What is your setup? Is this for a virtual desktop or are you gaming?

The only reason I keep a Windows partition around is to boot into VR, and I would love to nuke it forever. But I just haven't been able to get happy with VR on Linux yet.

PSVR, not high enough resolution for a virtual desktop, but the headset is comfy enough to burn many hours of the day in flight sim (X-Plane) and watching movies, little escapes that keep me mostly sane.

I was only griping the other week that its a disaster that PSVR is still the best value headset for linux (you can pick them up for like $100, none of the current alternatives are worth spending more on) with no upgrade path, PSVR2 hopes were dashed, this apple headset looks like I'll be moving most VR stuff to mac, I'm already on a macbook air for mobile, not touched windows for like a decade.

It was a daily driver for me. I game in waves. Sometimes an hour or 2 a day, then I will take a break for awhile. I found a lot of really excellent titles on the Quest. I had an absolute blast, but recently gave the headset away after about 2 years of heavy use. I’ll admit that I was choosing VR specially because I wanted to get a good sense of what Apple and Meta are pouring billions into as a bet for the future of computing.

One conclusion for me is that great software is great! There’s not much of a library on Quest, but the few gems pulled me in like my first game console all over again, an addicting and polished game paired with incredible immersion.

Another conclusion for me is that VR is uncomfortable in many ways. You have to stand and move for long stretches. You perform repetitive actions that can hurt your hands, your arms, your shoulders. The current hardware is heavy and awkward. It cuts you off from the world, restricts your field of view and prevents you from eating or drinking. And maybe worst of all, it creates bizarre dissociations between movement and body, eyes and objects, reality and unreality.

I still think the tech has incredible potential. One day we will live in an immersive physical/digital environment that will respond to our slightest intentions. But I now think this tech is decades away before it becomes as easy and ubiquitous as a cell phone.

If you want a really good peek at computing in 2050, pick up this Apple headset.

I used to spend a lot of time in Pavlov. Was playing PavZ pretty much every day. Then one day I stopped, and haven’t really been back. There’s definitely a lot of activation energy that goes into “getting into VR” and once you’re out, you don’t really want to put in the effort to get back in. HL Alyx was a big motivator for me, but I haven’t felt like that for other games yet.

I still occasionally come back to Pavlov for some good old Search & Destory gameplay. It is like childhood nostalgia but relive in an unimaginable way.

The fact that you cant walk around in the games really is a dealbreaker. It would be a nobrainer for all consoles if it werent for that unfortunate detail

There have been some really good experiments in room scale VR, both with actual basketball court sized play spaces and with smaller play spaces that used tricks like redirected walking. Honestly it’s mostly uncomfortable and tiring to walk around. They joystick works better once you get used to the motion.

I use my Quest pro to play video games that trick me into cardio workouts. Due to my body tiring out and the battery life, I play a max of two hours a day.

It probably eats up less than half of my video game time. I find that I play less video games now since VR is a different experience from pupetting an avatar with a game controller. You tend to use your whole body, which is great if you cant find the motivation to workout.

That makes sense.

One of the interesting questions for me is whether VR will get other platforms to take this use case more seriously. I have a Switch and regularly play Fitness Boxing. It's great in that I'm much more likely to stick with the workout versus just doing calisthenics on my own. But the fitness catalog is limited. I'd love for the next generation of the Switch to include better motion control so that movement games can be richer.

Good news: nearly every VR game on the Quest (that isn’t 3rd person) is a fitness app even though it’s unintentional. There is a ton of variety. Feel like boxing one day, slashing ninjas the next, rowing a boat, riding a bike, slashing boxes with lightsabers, dodging bullets like neo; all of that is possible and the variety is nice even with the small market VR has now. (I believe that will be the same with Apple Vision)

I think the quest 2’s price point is back to being close to the Nintendo switch.

As a personal anecdote, I lost 15 lbs playing VR video games. Every time I don’t have the motivation to workout, I just tell myself that I’m just going to play some video games.

Sure! But I would enjoy most or all of those the same way I play Fitness Boxing: with a screen. I think what makes VR good for fitness is the motion controllers, not the facehugger stereoscopy.

Conversely, when I rented the Quest, the kids ended up playing Beat Saber by sitting on the couch and twitching their wrists. They liked it, but they didn't find the motion part compelling. So although I totally believe you and others get fitness value out of VR, I just think that's not an intrinsic to VR.

> I just think that's not an intrinsic to VR

It is for now for at least half or more of the current apps. The exceptions tend to be the driving or flying sim games. Developers do try to cater to less active users, but from my personal observation if you don’t like being active then you probably won’t enjoy VR in its current state, which your first hand experience supports. It looks like Apple will change it though, and I’m sure their competition will copy them shortly

When I say it's not an intrinsic to VR, I mean that one can have physical motion games without having facehugger 3D, which currently defines the VR space.

I'll note that Wii Sports came out in 2006, for example. And it sold 8.9 million copies. But I also note that motion games remain a niche interest. I like them a lot, but they're a small fraction of game usage. That suggests to me that VR can't bank on that as a big enough consumer interest to keep VR economically viable.

There are a trickle of games that are not first person. This will grow as the anemic VR AR market grows.

VR’s biggest problem isn’t 1st person interaction, which btw isn’t a gimick like the Wii. It’s that most adults are intimidated by the face bucket of isolation UX. People won’t even try it let alone buy it to use it enough. Until XR can get over this hurdle, I feel that we won’t really know what people like or dislike.

It’s also hard to make good predictions and assumptions about a technology that you’re not really using yourself

> It’s also hard to make good predictions and assumptions about a technology that you’re not really using yourself

I'm not sure being a dedicated user makes forecasting any easier. E.g., the cryptocurrency skeptics were generally much more accurate than its ardent users. Having bought in often makes proponents of people. And people who use something but don't study how others use it may overgeneralize their personal experience.

Regardless, I try VR on occasion. I just don't weight my own experience very heavily, because there are plenty of successful things that aren't for me, and plenty of things I love that are terminally niche.

It’s not a great analogy because it’s easier to understand crypto without using it, mainly because you can’t use it in most instances.

XR on the other hand needs to be experienced in order to understand it. Otherwise, you’re not going to know or even understand all of the benefits and problems. I see this time and time again online. Ie you can read about scuba diving all you want, but until you actually do it regularly you’re not really going to know enough to comment like someone who actually does it. Given the low cost and availability of modern VR headsets, there’s not really an excuse for techies unless you’re a student

Ardent crypto fans will of course disagree. They say that you have to really get involved in the space to understand the true potential of smart contacts, defi, DAOs, and many of the other places where active development is happening. Otherwise you're just not competent to judge the potential of crypto.

Regardless, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me, in that I agree usage can help understand a thing. My point is that being a dedicated user may not help much with understand the broader impact on the world. Lots of people love crypto and believe it will change the world. Lots of people love VR and believe it will change the world. In both cases, I think they often let their personal ideas and personal experience blot out the recognition that they are specific individuals with very specific takes, and that their experiences, however magical, may not match the majority, and may not be enough to overcome competitive solutions or the economics of the space.

> Regardless, I'm not sure why you're arguing with me, in that I agree usage can help understand a thing. My point is that being a dedicated user may not help much with understand the broader impact on the world.

Unlike crypto, VR is an experience that is poorly captured by text, audio, and video. Why? Because it is a new medium in of itself. People cannot hope to understand it without using it beyond 30 minutes.

Conversely, you can easily explain AND experience crypto via traditional mediums like text

Again, you seem to be arguing, but I don't see the connection to points I'm actually making.

We’re both arguing (albeit politely)

I’ve made a clear argument. If you can’t a see a connection, then I don’t see any value in continuing this thread

About ~1h20m per day in a two-days-on-one-day-off interval in modded PC version of Beat Saber with custom song maps on a Quest 2 with "frankenquest" setup. It's surprisingly decent cardio. Been doing it for over a year at this point and have racked up several hundred hours of playtime.

Thanks! The fitness use case seems to be one thing that creates long-term users. It's surprising to me that's not a bigger part of VR marketing.

Although interestingly, I suspect this is less about facehugger 3D and more about motion-sensitive controllers. For example, consider this person who has been playing Fitness Boxing on the Switch for 3 years straight: https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comments/t3sk6j/a_lo...

In my case well over 90% - for simracing. Pancake mode doesn't come close for me, it's an entirely different experience.

However more than 2 hours straight is far more tiring in VR but for me that's due to eye fatigue rather than the HMD.

Is it an issue that you cannot see your hands on the wheel and the buttons that the wheel has for more complex cars like F1 with a ton of settings?

Thanks. And how much actual time is that? In, say, hours per week?

> A question I ask of all VR gaming enthusiasts: how much time do you spend on VR games versus other games?

My Oculus CV1 has been back in its box for several years now. I really enjoyed Eagle Flight, but that's about it. Turns out not that many games were designed for someone like me who wanted to play VR games with mouse and keyboard behind his desk, and those that were were mostly driving/flying sims. The experience of having a motorcycle helmet with a small and not very bright visor didn't help. If I buy another VR set, it will be the one where I'm finally allowed to use my peripheral vision.

Infinite is my answer. I sit down all day at my desk job. I like to move in my free time. VR gets me up and moving, I love that. I don't play console or PC games at all.

Thanks! And how much time is that?

Maybe 3 hours a week or so depending on what else is going on. Fairly frequently I hop into VR for a game of contractors for 40 mins at the end of my day (instead if watching TV or whatever). I also exercise occasionally in VR, maybe once or twice a month using Thrill of the Fight boxing.

> but I still haven't met anybody for whom it's a daily driver, or who spends most of their gaming time using it.

I think the last time I grabbed my VR headset was when my neck was getting tired but I still wanted to use my computer (laying down on my back). It actually worked!

I have a vive original and played about 200 hours of vr games. Haven’t taken it out of the box for years though because I don’t have the space for it anymore and just don’t really care about VR gaming that much.

Yeah, I hear that a fair bit. That's the kind of thing that makes me think it's like 3D movies: a fun novelty, but not a sea change.

As someone who has >1000 hours in VR (and is also a game developer), the simple answer is that there really have been only maybe a dozen games. And lots of mostly identical alternatives.

Boneworks/HL:Alyx/Pavlov: Shooter, VRChat/RecRoom/etc: Social, Beat Saber/Harmonix somethingsomething: Rythm, The Room, Jet Island... Where each of those alternatives have lots of mechanical convergence, so it "feels" like playing the same game if you overlook the button mapping of the controllers.

The tech works perfectly fine, but there are so many caveats and limitations that the possible design space is quite limited, or there has been too much inbreeding. Plus, developing for VR is much more expensive as a baseline because of the increased limitations, so you end up with generally lower quality games than a traditional medium.

All in all, I would say that in a scale from "Pong" (1972) to "Outer Wilds" (2019) we are maybe just after "Wolfenstein 3D" (1992) in relation to the VR gaming landscape: Games are fun, but most of everything is really bad and played out of a lack of better options, or a clone of something actually cool.

---

My point here is I don't entirely agree with you it's a novelty, I would say it's more of a variation that can become a staple with many people, but will never* be the main/only medium. Pizza, not bread&butter.

(And yes, that's half the definition of a novelty, but that's why I say I don't entirely agree with calling it such)

* Unless we invent the actual Matrix "full-body immersion with motor suspension" tech or something functionally equivalent (and I'm not even saying that's a good idea).

Thanks! A very interesting comment.

What strikes me as different from 1992-era games (and more like 1990s VR) is consistency of play. Even with the earlier generation of games, like NES titles or early Mac/PC games, you saw people putting in a lot of time over consistent periods. For many, video games replaced, say, board games. From what I see here and elsewhere, there are very few consistent VR users.

Maybe that's just down to the cost factors you describe. And maybe that's down to the competition being much better between modern consoles and the vast array of mobile games.

So I can believe you're right, it might be another way of gaming, coexisting in the same way that the PS5 and the Switch and phone games all coexist happily. But given the extra cost for both users and developers, it seems to me that it's also possible that there's a vicious circle ahead: High costs mean fewer games and fewer users. That leads to lower revenue, which means even fewer games, and therefore even fewer users.

At this point we must be somewhere near $50 billion invested in VR. If that level of subsidy isn't enough to get things going, I'm sure there are lots of CFOs asking exactly what it's going to take their VR units to become cash positive.

For the past 5 years or so, it has gone in spurts for me: no time in VR for months (sometimes even a year or more at a time), then nearly all my gaming time is in VR for a couple months or so.

Since the PSVR2's release, when I hang out with one of my friends, I play one of his VR games almost every time I'm there. That undoubtedly won't last forever, but it definitely has the best launch library of any headset so far IMO.

Maybe I'm just a really picky gamer, but for any given console generation, there are only a handful of games I truly love, but it's easier to enjoy a fine but not incredible game on a flat screen than it is in VR. A really good VR game makes you forget about everything else and gives you an experience unachievable outside of VR. If you're immersed in a story, a song, or intense gameplay, you forget about any discomfort coming from the headset being on your face. But if you're not enjoying it then you're going to get annoyed a lot faster than you would sitting on the couch looking at a TV.

That said, the PSVR 2 is looking to have the best library of VR games yet. Previously, you'd have incredible one-off titles such as Half-Life: Alyx release on Steam but then nothing for months or years, but Sony seems really committed to providing a large number of high-quality AAA experiences on the headset. It also has a ton of great games from smaller studios (most of which were already on Steam or the Quest, but with such big libraries on both of those platforms, they were kind of tough to find throughout all the mediocre titles: this isn't an argument in favor of stronger curation, just an observation.)

Nonetheless, I don't expect it to make up the majority of time someone would play video games anytime soon, and there are two reasons:

1. Most people don't have VR headsets yet, so even if I personally prefer Pavlov to other FPSs, only two of my friends have VR headsets, so it's not replacing those flat screen games. Maybe one day, but currently the most popular games run on nearly everything: Fortnite, Minecraft, Apex, Overwatch, CS:GO, LoL, DOTA2, Valorant, Rocket League, etc. I doubt those games' popularity stems entirely from the fact they're on tons of platforms OR have very low PC requirements (or are free to play, minus Minecraft), but it likely helps.

2. Nearly all VR gamers play flat screen games, but the majority of flat screen gamers do not have VR headsets. The Quest 2 may have sold around 20 million units, but nearly all of those owners likely have a Switch, PlayStation, Xbox or gaming PC. Medium-sized studios certainly are incentivized to create VR games due to less competition (getting a game released for PSVR2 nearly guarantees at least some sales, unlike releasing on flat screen), but large studios with huge marketing budgets looking to make a ton of money can make more by selling flat screen games. Maybe they'd get some additional sales by releasing it for VR, but it's not guaranteed (hopefully it becomes more profitable to port to VR as the number of users increases though.)

I’m the same way, for what’s it’s worth. I’ll put it away for a month or two and then get the urge to play Beatsaber or whatever and then oddly remember “hey, this is really freaking fun.” I’ll then play it every day for a while.

It’s weird how much of a barrier just putting on a headset (and maybe moving a coffee table) is. It would help if the Quest bootup/finding the play space was faster.

> Resident Evil 7 on PSVR1

Yikes. Hard pass from me but congrats on getting through that in vr