This isn't the beginning of the end, but I wouldn't be one bit surprised if it was. A lot of experimental or simply new technology had a rough start as you said, but it's hard to see how VR is going to overcome some of these very basic issues of control. The more I watched that stream the more I thought that AR is probably a much more viable future than VR ever will. The Hololens is limited in scope right now and development kits are extremely expensive compared to the rift, yet I see so much more practical usage - the future even - than I can with strapping a sensory depriving headset on. Even 10-20 years down the road when these devices become simply a pair of cups that adhere over your eyes I think the idea of augmented reality is so much more convenient. So far the Occulus is still just a very expensive carnival ride, except it's officially out now and these are no longer cheap beta demos but full fledged products that some developers expect you to pay for. Unless the quality of these products rises at a dramatic rate, this will be yet another future that will get left behind. The hardware isn't going to get cheaper any time soon, so software is where they have to make their stand for relevance in the marketplace - and so far it's in pretty dire straights when one of the best games we've seen is something that was playable for free on Chrome years ago and the best part about it are these char avatars that bring nothing innovative to the actual gameplay.

I agree. Another problem I see with VR going forward is that it is difficult to demonstrate the appeal to a mainstream audience, especially given the price. Everyone says you have to "experience" VR in order to be convinced. I am very involved in gaming but never had the chance to really play a VR game or experience the Occulus except for one 5 minute demo where I weren't able to take control, which is probably still more time with the Rift than the average gamer has. And even with the appeal of VR, I am not sure if the novelty effect won't wear off after a couple of weeks or months. From what I saw yesterday, most of the current Software is glorified games for a 2D interface that allow you to move the camera (see Chronos, apparently one of the better games for VR).

The Vive is the next big hope for most, because of the input method. But even then I can't see myself spending hours jumping through my living room in order to play a game. That is a fun experience for 20 minutes at a mall or Dave'n'Busters, but nothing I want to do for a long period of time. Especially when the main reason I play games is to relax and wind down after a day's work.

So it is difficult to see how a larger audience will buy into VR that then in turn would make it appealing for developers to create meaningful games.

I can see the PSVR being a potential way to bring VR to a bigger market, provided Sony can create better gaming experiences than we saw yesterday at the release of the Rift, and that they don't mess up the eco-system with the PS4.5.

But that is a lot of if's, and it wouldn't be the first hardware hype to bomb spectacularly.

There is no excuse for the current state of the launch lineup. Forget other platforms having a slow start, those platforms cost a fraction of the price, their predecessors had an established consumer base and the games on them were a known quantity for consumers.

To that end, the Oculus start lineup is a burning trainwreck of the worst kind of greenlight and shovelware the PC has to offer. For hours on end, yesterday's stream featured the bored faces of the GB crew. There should have been knife fights to the death over who is allowed to play next. There wasn't even the desire to play that one must play game over and over. Instead is was a merciless grind through a bunch of games I am happy to never see again in my entire life.

I don't see VR taking off at all until the barrier to entry is significantly lowered. All of the current options are a big purchase on top of a big purchase. Occulus is requires a $1000 PC to be able to use, the Vive requires that as well as large empty room and, PSVR requires a PS4. What that means is that unless there is some serious price drops soon there is going to be a struggle to get most people to buy in. That is compounded by the fact that the only people who have gotten to try VR are people who either bought a dev kit, or gone to trade shows and stood in long lines for short demos. And, this all predicated on VR being worth it in the first place.

The launch lineup aside, it was disappointing to hear that Drew would not play racing games using VR due to the reduced fidelity of the experience. VR should be perfect for racing and other games where you are placed in a cockpit. I hope that this is just early days and that the quality will improve enough that the preferred way to play is with VR.

The hardware requirements are something I actually completely forgot about. At no point during the stream did I ever see a game that justified those extremely steep hardware specs. That is not to say I don't understand why they are so steep - but if we need extremely powerful computers to simply render that then as of right now this tech is way ahead of it's time and is definitely not ready to be sold as a commercial product.

Great post!

It seems that VR is being perceived by many as a new console or some gimmicky platform, but I think VR transcends this comparison and thus should be given a much longer amount of time to mature before any major declaration of failure is even considered. VR/AR is more like a potential successor to the TV. It's a new way to communicate with the digital world as it has the ability to convert the digital into something that is perceived as real and present in your physical space. So many things we currently do to represent media on a traditional screen is there to make up for limitation of data presented onto a 2D square in front of us. With VR that part changes, it doesn't have to trick you, your brain automatically believes what it's being fed, and when the abnormalities from the old systems betray your sense of presence you have problems. The models and factors we use to represent media on screen verses in VR are different "languages" built for different IO systems. What we are seeing is developers learning the new language. Some old stuff works, some has to be thrown away and new elements must be invented. This means that sometimes the boring old stuff that mostly works is what devs will use until someone figures out the next step. We use what we know until we know something better.

OP states: "Even when media frames problems in VR as “hurdles” there’s an implicit statement that a rich language of virtual reality will blossom and any complications will melt away, often for unstated reasons."

That's fair. I think the reason is because so many really smart people care a ton about this and will devote their lives and careers to it. It's "the future" because it’s THE dream. It's the doorway to sci-fi eden. We can make our ideas into real places and experiences, then go there. But the language we use to convert digital life into real life has to be worked out and refined. I think that's ok, that's exciting. To me it's proof this really is something special. This is the furthest we've come and now we enough people with access that we can start to experiment and iterate at a faster pace. That's enough for me to safely say: We will figure it out.

At first I think we will see lots of stopgap, cheesy, and lazy attempts to take advantage of the situation and content starvation so many users will have for the next few years. As we go, and even if VR plateaus at a near dead level, I think we will slowly start to brush away the old systems, and learn and evolve the new ones. The good will come and grow and it will be enough to keep VR alive.

I don't think VR will replace monitors and I don't think this will change the world all that much, but to those that want it, it will be there and getting better all the time.

TLDR: VR isn't a new console, it's a new (perhaps optional) communications medium. It very well could take it's sweet time to mature, but many smart and devoted people will continue to work on it regardless of what happens to these specific headset.

Edit: I think it should be said that I'm not basing my opinions on what we saw on the live stream yesterday. I've spent a lot of time with VR. I think it makes sense that the Rift launch line up is underwhelming and completely get other peoples hesitation. I'm still no less optimistic about this technology and it's potential applications.

@jamesfargoth: Sorry, but can you explain why VR is a new communication medium?

For what is released right now, it is a screen 1inch from your eyes where you can guide the camera by moving your head. Sure, the new controllers will implement some sort of new interaction, but it is still far away from the dream of "real" VR, which means feeling things and creating haptic feedback, i.e. being totally immersed.

You make a lot of assumptions about how VR will develop, which I would love to believe, but so far it can go either way.

@jamesfargoth: like I mentioned above, I think AR will do communication and every day interactions much better than VR. It's cool to see a person there with you, but you don't need all the motion tracking and superfluous controllers just to talk to someone. I can see a tiny "hologram" of a person you're speaking to appearing on your desk a lot more desirable than shutting myself out of the outside world for a phone call.

@humanity: AR is super exciting because it doesn't take you out of the world, and instead enhances it. Think about the applications! Imagine being able to see a whole new digital world on top of our own. But I don't really see the two as that separate of technologies. It's still virtual digital objects rendered in a way that tricks your brain, AR just does it in your world instead of in a new one.

@marv89: So by communications medium I mean a technology that allows us to send and/or receive data/information. VR allows us to do this with a part of our brain we don't directly control and thus allows things like instinctual reactions and intuition to have a role in the process. That's the difference. That's why it's important.

The only assumption I am making is that the John Carmacks and Michael Abrashes of the world aren't going to give up. Neither are the smaller indie teams that have witnessed what VR can do. Enough really smart people are convinced that VR is worth chasing after that I am sure it will get better and better.

@captaincoke:That may have been an issue with them not playing the game at the Rift's native resolution. Drew mentioned after than the Rift tech demo things was much clearer. But I agree that the headsets' resolutions need to improve.

@jamesfargoth: Yeah the possibilities of AR in every day use are amazing! I imagine it to be like what most people thought Google Glass would be. Walking down the street with GPS lines guiding you. Facebook profiles and such appearing above peoples heads. Prices and descriptions popping off the items on a store shelf. It all seems really exciting. Even the beginning levels of AR where you'd be tethered to a desk seem like a lot of cool options for design and engineering purposes.

The launch lineup for the Rift was certainly underwhelming, but I suppose you have to learn to walk before you can run. Look back at when videogames were first hitting retail. You had to have a creative mind and a vision of the future of the technology to believe that those could be something more than a forgettable gadget or a fad. I think you kind of have to take a similar long view with VR. The future for it could be bright, as long as one of these takes off. Weirdly, enough I think Sony's could be the one to do it even though it's tech is probably not up there with the Rift and Vive. Sony is experienced with launching hardware and they have a strong gaming pedigree. I'm going to be interested to see how these next two launch.

@humanity: I can't wait to see stuff like virtual calendars on your fridge at home that update in real time. A virtual filing cabinet with your digital photos nicely arranged, where you can grab them and hang them on your wall, or stretch it out onto your desk and edit them. I want all the elements of a typical operating system physically represented in my office.

Between this stream and a few recent augmented reality showcases (including microsoft hololens), I am a lot more skeptical of these technologies as useful for average consumer use. Most of the ideas floating up about augmented reality seems like an arbitrary way to do something you can already do physically or more efficiently on a computer screen. And the parts you can't do physically (like holographic phone calls, etc.) will just never be all that popular because they're not simple and efficient. It's the reason texting is more popular than calling someone and why no one really uses face time all that often. Sometimes these science fiction visions of the future just aren't that practical.

When it comes to the VR things though, I found myself actually liking the "experiences" a lot. And I could see a case for less interactive experiences in favor of being inside a well told story. But it's clear that games need to adapt to fit the strengths of VR because otherwise the case for buying into it seems lacking. But there's potential for unique experiences there and that's sort of where I put my small amount of hope.

The wallstreet journal's review got it perfect. "It's day one for the Rift, and I'm already ready for version two."

All I want from VR is Skyrim / Elite Dangerous with a gamepad, all the games made for VR look awkward / bad I still have no interest in motion controls.

I will be absolutely honest with my opinion on this. If the games offered for Oculus Rift dont improve in quality the only thing that can save VR as a mass consumer product is the porn industry. Unless Sony can offer us VR games with a bit more depth and quality in them.

Also watching movies and tv shows could be enchanced with VR. Just imagine being in Game of Thrones world as a person who is actually inside the events as they are happening. I have no idea if this is actually technically possible but I would get VR device immediatly if this would be the case.

I was real excited about the prospects of these headsets but as the mystery around VR fades I have become less and less excited. Yesterday's showcase was just underwhelming. I hear the argument that this is early times but I feel like all of these games could be played outside of VR on a screen with little change, so the question becomes what's the point?

I'm totally with you. As an observer, it sometimes even looked more confusing and imprecise than classical mouse/keyboard or controller inputs. Looking forward to hear the opinions of Jeff, Brad, Drew and Dan on the podcast, now that they had a night to think about it more.

Took the words right out of my mouth. As the launches got closer I felt myself getting caught up in the hype and possibilities to the point I was thinking of upgrading my PC or putting down money for a Playstation VR pre-order but after watching the stream yesterday my interest is dead at this point. Having a screen stuck to my face while I play with a controller like I have the past 30 years just seems incredibly lame and not the groundbreaking technology this was touted as.

I fear that like 3D a few years ago if they don't right this ship quick and demonstrate why people need this or produce some killer apps it's going to fade away and they'll have to try and re-launch VR again in 10-15 years when people have forgotten how bad the initial tech was and are willing to give it another shot.

I think that's just hipster gamer VR pessimism.

VR Pessimism is about the most annoying thing going with VR right now. I'm not saying everyone has to be a VR cheerleader and be naive to it's challenges, but there was a moment in the Live Stream yesterday where Dan is poo-pooing a VR app where he is LOOKING AROUND THE SURFACE OF MARS where I just wanted to find a stack of papers to fling into the air. What, you're not happy with the quality of the 3d OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SURFACE OF MARS, Dan?! That's not cool enough for you?

There is kind of an obnoxious feeling that everyone needs to be skeptical of VR until it "proves itself" to them. I don't understand that at all. It's not a municipal utility that your tax dollars are going to support. It's an electronic device. Buy one if you want it. Don't if you do not. But I do not believe for one second that the general public does not "understand" VR. I'm an 80s and 90s kid and, growing up, almost EVERY SINGLE cartoon or children's show featured a VR component. VR was considered, and IS STILL considered a 100% guaranteed aspect of "the future". Everyone understands VR. What is confusing about it? What is more, is that absolutely EVERYONE wants to try VR. THe concept of "put these glasses on your head and be transported to a different place" has been a ubiquitous concept in the public zeitgeist since the "Viewmaster" hit in the 70s.

Now will people pay 1000 dollars for a VR rig? Not everyone will. But in 2 years that price will be halved.

And that in itself is also worrying because the porn industry isn't necessarily as profitable with rampant piracy and a lot of the media consumed is free.

@bananasfoster: I don't think it's a matter of people not grasping the concepts of looking at something in a headset. It's why it would be useful. You know what most people told me when I bough my first touch screen phone? "Why would I want that?" They got what touch screens were and how they functioned, but it took a few generations of such phones before people in general actually saw the possibilities of a more advanced phone. And VR isn't even remotely as useful as a phone.

Despite people's hesitance of VR, I'm glad that there is a legitimate starting point.

Well I fully understand and agree with what you are saying. When I got my first MP3 player, a Creative Nomad, I remember a girl in my college art course rolling her eyes and asking me why I couldn't just use a CD player.

But that's the problem with people. Specifically uncreative people. Uncreative people can only think of things in terms of what they have already seen. A creative person can look at a new technology and see all the potentials that could be a possibility. An uncreative person just asks, How can I use this thing to do what I'm already doing.

It's funny, back in the day, Jeff Bakalar had a co-host on the 404 named Justin Yu. They would talk back and forth about how they were "with it" when it came to technology, and that they would never be as outdated as their parents were when it came to tech. Yet, when new social services and whatnot are rolled out, Jeff was the first person to say they were stupid. I wrote into the show and told Jeff that THAT'S the way you become old and outdated. You don't become old and outdated by being stupid. Nobody is truly stupid. You become old and outdated by thinking that what younger people do is dumb. "Why do I need a phone on me 24 hours a day? If someone wants to reach me they can just call my house.", "Why do I need to be on the internet at all times? People used to just talk to one another. If I want to know my best friends "status", I'll just ask him.", "Why do I need an MP3 player when CDs are just fine. I don't need to carry around all my music all the time. I can only listen to so many songs anyhow.", "Why do I need a screen strapped to my face. Looking at the TV is fine. I just want my old controller and my same games and my old TV."

@blannir: I think 3D and VR have similar trajectories, both were fads that went dormant for decades and then advances in technology led to a revival. They are both exciting to experience initially but with 3D the idea of having something on your face at all times was not worth it to people. I am rooting for VR but I just don't know if it will be something people will embrace in the long run considering it needs to be on their face at all times.

It is a mistake to expect gaming to be the initial big draw of VR. It will come, but only after the hardware base is there to support big numbers of software sales. That is when you will get the big companies putting the big money into developing VR experiences. But until then expect pr0n, live sporting events, and business/communication uses to carry VR on to gen2 and gen3.

It was something Dan said during the live stream yesterday, that he wouldn't want to have people over to his house to eat chips and watch a football game and then have them strap on headsets. But that is not how you do it with VR, Dan. I will meet you at the game in VR. Eat your own chips at your own house. Everyone could have a front row seat at the final four and be surrounded by all their friends. Lean over and talk. High five the dude next to you. Be part of a virtual wave.

Very true.

I think there has to be SOME level of "I'll play along" when discussing ANY new technology. If you are a curmudgeon and you refuse to even consider altering the way you do things, NO new technology is going to make any sense to you.

But I don't think that quality VR experiences are going to come from "big companies" putting in "big money". I think it's going to come from small, independent developers. As for WHY they would, it's a gold rush. ANytime there is a new technology, there is a user base who is hungry for new software. Remember when the iPad first released and a few lucky developers made bajillions of dollars with marginal apps just because there wasn't anything else offered? VR will be a similar scenario. But a few developers will hit something something that is truly worthwhile.

How many big developers have made iPad games worth playing? Few if any. But some startups like Fireproof games come along and make something like The Room and they nail just what makes the platform perfect for a certain type of game.

I'm happy to see this thing unfold. For now, I'm really cautious about the whole thing. It doesn't seen like something I'd want to wear for more than 20mins at a time. I haven't tried any VR so maybe I'll do a 180 when I do but people are worried and bitching about how everyone's living in their phones but now you want to strap screens right infront of your eye balls? Idk what it is. Maybe from all the sci-fi movies but it's kinda of a scary path we're on if VR takes off. I think gaming in VR will improve if VR succeeds, I don't think VR's success depends on VR gaming.

At least for me, I've been more interested in the professional applications of VR and yesterday's stream further pushed me in that direction. While it had some cool stuff, it didn't do much for me in the way of gaming interest.

Most of my current work days are spent with CAD software so I'm professionally curious what comes of VR in the areas of modeling. Will VR somehow become involved in the design process of buildings, mechanical systems, etc.? Could it be used as a training or practice tool in the medical field? What other fields out there could find a use for VR? I'm extremely curious to see what happens. Maybe the development of such tools ends up not being cost-effective and VR is only used for "extracurricular" activities. Whether VR succeeds or not, it's going to be an interesting time going forward as we see this further develop.

@bananasfoster: While the desire to create apps is strong in the small developers so far they seem incapable of creating anything other than short VR demos and simplistic rehashes of the same old stuff.

I wanna see occulus w/touch controls and the vive w/touch wand and how it work when you move around, Cause a occulus with a controller and you siting looks boring.

@liquiddragon: I agree. The gaming aspect is overblown for some, hence the dismay and said "surprise" at how lackluster it is. We don't even have a set terminology to describe all the forms of VR content. Yes, some of them are very "gamey", but there's so very little to play, so it wouldn't do anybody a favor to call it a game.

What to call this stuff, then, I wonder. "Presentuous movie", "Computer Generated Environment Experience of Virtual Nature"(CGEEVN or "c'geevan"), "Living paintings", "Empirical art", "Slice of life -VR", ...?

On the topic: As an almost graduated IT engineer I would say that the Rift seems like a very, very lovely toy. Ideally, my classmates and I would gather together and develop a Virtual World that would just good enough. We would jack in and never get out again.

Well, to some extent, I think it's shining a light on how the industry has almost completely forgotten how to make actual GAMES. They make "cinematic experiences", which, when you take away the analogy to a big screen movie experience, leave developers stymied on what to do.

The Rift isn't there.

Hopefully Sony actually releases a good VR game - VR Sports?

It needs a Mario 64 or Wii Sports, something that not only proves that the tech is interesting (it is and it has), but that you can create a full fledged experience that can only be pulled off in VR. While it's true that the N64 only launched with two games, they were both pretty fantastic, and it was enough to show that 3D was the future...even if you wound up getting a better glimpse of that future on the PS1.

Right now, I've seen a lot of interesting tech demos and one or two actually good games, but even those seem like "good games in VR" and not "good VR games." I've yet to see a title that screams "look at this amazing experience that you can't get anywhere else" and until we do, I fear for its chances at mass market adoption, at least in the video game world.

VR feels like an add-on that has the potential to be an amazing stand-alone product, but all forms of it are currently lacking the software necessary to prove it.

Really interesting seeing how much more negative everyone has suddenly become.

The GB stream seemed pretty good or at least what I expected. Generally, I'd say their opinions were sort of a known quantity when compared to other industry people who have been using these things at various events over the recent months/years. (I was at work so I was only able to catch about the first 4 hours of it) I was pretty glued to the screen the whole time and had to force myself to turn it for so I could go to bed. I find the VR discussion super fascinating

The games that seemed interesting to me--prior to watching some of the stream--ended up being the games they were interested in. And there were a couple that I hadn't seen footage of before that looked like something I'd buy.

I guess what I'm saying it that nothing is surprising so far and in turn I'm surprised that people expected something else? The majority of stuff looked like launch titles for a new console with a couple good ones in there. Now we wait, just like with consoles, for other software to come out that improves upon this.

I sort of discredit Drew's opinion on the driving because 1. He didn't seem to take advantage of the free head movement feature of VR (which I think is either because he hasn't spent much time with VR or, as a production person, he's watching Dan flailing his head around like an idiot which makes it unpleasant for the non-VR viewer and thinking to himself that he probably shouldn't do that) and 2. He wasn't using a wheel setup. I find it kind of crazy that people expect to play Sim racing games with a controller. That's its own separate issue. Specific to VR though I think having the wheel in front of you gives you a mental anchor and maybe makes you more inclined to freely move your head around because you always have a sense of where forward is? Plus it's more like a real vehicle.. where you actually move your head around to view mirrors or reversing etc. If you've ever had on-track instruction for performance driving, an instructor will always tell you to keep your eyes up and looking far ahead. They also tell you to always look where you want to go. If your car enters a spin, you should continue looking in the direction you would like to go as the body tends to naturally react and steer the car in that direction. Drew was stiff as a scarecrow in there, which I don't think I blame him for. Also in terms of fidelity, the PC they were using wasn't the best so.. expect some improvement there.

I will find out first hand when my various HMDs arrive. It is too early to judge this format, especially by people who have not experienced it themselves.

The oculus subreddit has turned into a big negative crap shoot since release because people seem to be obsessing over technical details? Its super funny to sit back and watch.

I think a lot of this argument is kinda moot when we can already play plenty of normal games in VR, which is what I wanted, you can play a game like Alien: Isolation right now with those headsets and I think that sounds like a pretty different experience. All this tech demo made for VR stuff seems like a distraction that is taking away from the fact we might get VR support to play games like Skyrim or Arma and that seems worth the price of admission alone.