Most of the best VR experiences I've had were either uncomfortable to me to begin with, or are uncomfortable to many first time and casual users, judging from reviews.
If there was a virtual ski resort and I could feel like the air around me was cold, I would want to!
I'm not saying that no VR experiences can work and be more casual or less immersive (indeed there are some great ones that are just that), but to me the whole point of VR is about going to that next level of immersion and presence.
> In reality, most people would love a magic way to pick up objects from a distance
Many (maybe even most) good VR games have this. Half Life Alyx does it beautifully.
To respond to some points in the article:
> "If you can’t do something in VR because of a limited range of motion in real life, I think that you have failed as a VR developer."
This is nonsensical. Beat Saber would be pointless if you didn't have to wave your arms around, move, dodge. Games with shooting mechanics take on a whole new dimension when you're actually wielding a (virtual) gun with your hands and arms and when you can sidestep, duck, etc. They also allow you to do things (like teleport, jetpack, etc.) that you can't do in reality, but they'd be much worse if they didn't also force you to move (and be limited by your mobility) and use that as part of the control scheme and immersion.
What this statement really says to me is "I'm only interested in VR experiences where I don't need to move" not "you've failed as a VR developer".
> "Some people argue that VR should be a totally immersive experience. You look down, you see your hands, you move your hands around, and so on. Your view is restricted to your neck’s range of motion. While that’s cool, does that kind of immersion trump user experience?"
Yes, totally, in some cases. Often, that kind of immersion is the user experience.
Honestly, I think it's fine to say you want an app for watching TV in VR that's just a big floating screen and works great lying down. Or to criticise the control panel in BigScreen because it could be more usable from a reclined position in which the app otherwise still totally works anyway — that's totally valid feedback.
But to claim that these preferences are the most important thing about VR and that developers should prioritise apps and games for the lazy and casual user with those preferences over pushing the boundaries of the medium is a bit much.
If there was a virtual ski resort and I could feel like the air around me was cold, I would want to!
I'm not saying that no VR experiences can work and be more casual or less immersive (indeed there are some great ones that are just that), but to me the whole point of VR is about going to that next level of immersion and presence.
> In reality, most people would love a magic way to pick up objects from a distance
Many (maybe even most) good VR games have this. Half Life Alyx does it beautifully.
To respond to some points in the article:
> "If you can’t do something in VR because of a limited range of motion in real life, I think that you have failed as a VR developer."
This is nonsensical. Beat Saber would be pointless if you didn't have to wave your arms around, move, dodge. Games with shooting mechanics take on a whole new dimension when you're actually wielding a (virtual) gun with your hands and arms and when you can sidestep, duck, etc. They also allow you to do things (like teleport, jetpack, etc.) that you can't do in reality, but they'd be much worse if they didn't also force you to move (and be limited by your mobility) and use that as part of the control scheme and immersion.
What this statement really says to me is "I'm only interested in VR experiences where I don't need to move" not "you've failed as a VR developer".
> "Some people argue that VR should be a totally immersive experience. You look down, you see your hands, you move your hands around, and so on. Your view is restricted to your neck’s range of motion. While that’s cool, does that kind of immersion trump user experience?"
Yes, totally, in some cases. Often, that kind of immersion is the user experience.
Honestly, I think it's fine to say you want an app for watching TV in VR that's just a big floating screen and works great lying down. Or to criticise the control panel in BigScreen because it could be more usable from a reclined position in which the app otherwise still totally works anyway — that's totally valid feedback.
But to claim that these preferences are the most important thing about VR and that developers should prioritise apps and games for the lazy and casual user with those preferences over pushing the boundaries of the medium is a bit much.