>before VR was out, people imagined how it could be used for racing, flight games, FPS with atmosphere, as a peripheral that could enhance the experience of already existing and future games
>turns out traditional games are a big no-no due to motion sickness, and only tech demo shovelware can be done
This thing sure sounds like a huge waste of money
VR devs realized this years ago, which is why they were forced to turn VR into a gimmick-fest of tech demos.
I want the motion sickness. If a game could elicit such a strong response form me I'd be thrilled to play it.
When I was a kid parents complained about square eyes, headaches and nausea from watching SMB. The devs promptly ignored them. What the fuck happened?
I remember when I first played Sonic Adventure, how many faggots got motion sick from watching me play.
I've also had many, many people over the years (including recently) telling me just how motion sick it makes them to watch me play twitch/arena shooters on a PC with a mouse.
While you go cry/puke in the corner I'll be enjoying VR.
I just wanted to play STALKER and Half-Life with a different display for maximum immersion. I thought VR headsets were just another output device, why are they all bundles with input devices? Nobody wanted motion controls to return.
This is not the same. You probably would have to have some acrobatic training to be able to stomach steep twists and turns that the imagery can elicit.
I'm not concerned about any VR-induced motion sickness so much as I am about potential eye/vision damage from extensive VR use.
This is exactly how I feel. I just wanted an actually good true 3D display. I don't even care that much about headtracking. Now it's all about gimmicky bullshit, I don't want to play a video game in a tiny fucking box.
But vr works just fine for things like racing and flight sims.
is the motion sickness a problem of early tech, as future VR will be able to do well with fast paced games, or is it something inherent to VR?