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.
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
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.