once upon a time... there was a common sense that free locomotion couldnt be done because everyone would just get motionsick right? next thing i remeber is that there was almost an outcry over the fear that half life alyx would be teleport only. and it probably was until the very last minutes. the fear over motion sickness up to today is beyond me. it is exactly like you said. that problem solves itself by just getting over it.
That point of vr shouldnt be acsessible as it is is something i completely agree with. If someone feels sick on a rollercoaster because its uncomfortable, you aren't just going to make the rollercoaster less fast and more comfortable as that just misses the point of a rollercoaster. So why do the same for vr?
That intro part was painfully true (in both the literal and metaphorical sense). The whole "motion sickness" while VR gaming is just something the brain needs to adapt to, which it can if given time. Neuroplasticity truly is a marvelous thing. It all has to do with growth, which the Buddha has a marvelous quote on: "Change is painful. All growth is painful. But nothing is as painful as staying where you don't belong." In a sense I think people, myself included, have grown used to staying in places where we don't belong. The VR-gaming sphere can arguably be said to be somewhere it doesn't belong, ie. it's been sidelined by mainstream gamers and has become stuck in a cesspit of mediocrity that's poisoning it's full potential. My initial apprehension of VR was born of the same fear of the potential discomfort, but once I experienced it for myself and allowed my brain to adapt...I was sorry I hadn't tried it sooner.
Good ways to solve motion sickness: 1. Use motion vignette setting 2. Turn physically instead of using controllers(this one helps a lot) 3. Add some movement while walking instead of standing still(like walking in place or swinging arms, there are apps that let you move like that ingame instead of using joysticks) If these things don't work I think the only options left are "just get used to it" or "quit the game"
The reason people don’t like turning physically is because people can’t physically turn with a headset on without moving forward, I know this because this happens with my little brother.
@@josephkeen7224 What?! Ok... I did not expect issue like that to exist at all. I can do over 180° without even separating my feet from the ground. In case you don't know how to do it. If you want to turn for example left you need to: 1. Stand on the hill of left foot and front part of right foot 2. use your legs like you are trying to move your left leg forward and right leg backward but don't move your hill and front part that are touching the ground. It can turn but not slide on the ground. 3. Align your right foot with left or left with right however you prefer. And done. I've been in my country's equivalent of boy scouts so this was completely natural to me. I didn't expect anyone to not be able to turn in place. Edit: ua-cam.com/video/b06kC9RcgCY/v-deo.htmlsi=eQe71OomrQSrbEme Basically this but I personally don't do the step backwards at the beginning of 180 turn. But I guess that is better way to do it.
honestly the motion vignette shouldn't be enabled by default because we want to slightly push them into just dealing with it, kind of like throwing a kid in a pond and letting him figure out how to swim, while watching to make sure he doesnt drown. having the vignette be enabled by default is just letting the kid who is afraid of water learn to swim at his own pace, which could take several years, rather than just ripping the band aid off.
@@grecus4449 yeah, I honestly don’t get why it’s a problem ether, I wouldn’t have even considered it if I didn’t see someone not be able to turn without walking forward lol.
Ok so I'm not really in full agreement on this front. Accessibility is actually definitely important in games. There was a point in this where an arm cast was mentioned, I actually *did* regularly play VR with a cast, and a surprising number of games are actually very playable, moreso than Mouse/Keyboard due to a controller in your offhand being easier to use than a keyboard. Even now I find the strain on my wrist (the injury caused permanent nerve damage) is more noticeable when using a keyboard than with the controllers. I played a lot of Skyrim, Fallout 4, Minecraft etc in VR while my arm was broken, and the game that definitely had an accessibility feature that's nice? Beat Saber's one-handed mode. I am not of the opinion that all accessibility features require easy-win buttons. These are bad accessibility features. Deleting parts of the game is not the point, design should be focused around providing *alternative methods* that allow people who can't do one thing to pull things off in another way. Maybe instead of force pulls we could have an extendable claw arm or grapple gun. A mechanic that helps. I know in Fallout 4 VR, the teleport function requires AP to move, so it's a tradeoff. You have to sacrifice VATS capability or maneuvering during battle if you aren't using freemove. Idk man, there's ways to add these things without turning them into baby games.
Sure, add them, IF, it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the experience or neuter it. Player psychology has to be accounted for too, our tendency to abuse accessibility features to eek out an advantage and automate things through the path of least resistance, despite that path it being less interesting for us in the long run.
@@MrVRVoice Well that's my point. I think your dismissiveness towards accessibility in general comes off a little "baby with the bathwater" on that front. I normally agree with your content and I do agree *some* VR games are going to have inherent issues with them, but I think there are intelligent ways to increase accessibility without gimping the fun or challenge. Little things like toggle grab etc help a lot without really making the game *easier* per se.
@spinosauruskin Yeah sure, I’m not denying that nor have I ever denied there can be intelligent solutions sometimes. But sometimes there are not, and some will not be able to participate in order to retain the integrity and meaningfulness of a gameplay feature or interaction. And in much internet discourse surrounding the topic these days I feel the latter fact of reality and common sense is something we’ve become unreasonably averse to admitting, and at worse are irrationally hostile towards. Please try to assume awareness of such nuance if you think the person is reasonable generally. 🙏🏻
@spinosauruskin Most of the present VR industries’ software being so flaccid, uninspired, risk-averse, and generally afraid to ask a little else of the user beyond holding their controller forward and pressing a button is my argument, & I believe, ample proof of the fearful accessibility mindset gone too far to begin with. Which was given focus in the video commentary itself, so I’m just repeating myself at this stage.
Played boneworks when it was just released, and it took weeks before I could play it for more than 20 minutes. But it felt like an investment for all games to come, but I would feel horrible for an hour after playing. Now I never get motion sick. Games are so bad, I never play long enough to get motion sick 😂 (it's a joke)
I use teleport grab because (well yes laziness likely a factor) bending over causes the headset to come loose because most headstraps (using Bobo one at the moment) are rubbish and the weight of the HMD is not conducive to such movement at all times. At least with the Quest 3, the floor detection is also a bit rubbish and this is made worse with games which have terrible collision for the floor (so for example the VR floor is slightly below the real floor and thus you can't move your controllers low enough to touch the VR ground).
As much as I hate to evangelize, working a pretty sedentary job and generally not taking as much care of myself as I probably should I used to get really bad shoulder pain and didn't even have a full range of motion on the left side.... but after a friend of mine got me into VR, I wanted to play Saints & Sinners and Into the Radius, damnit! So I'd play for a bit, take breaks and stretch, then get back to it. ....I actually *do not get that shoulder pain anymore* and regained the motion range I had previously lost because having something I wanted to do incentivized me to actually exercise more. That probably says terrible things about me as a person, now that I think about it, but you know what? It is what it is. Still need to get to work on that physical crouching, though...😂
Yeah man, if you have a shoulder problem and no longer work on the range of motion and help it to heal, it'll just get worse. Every injury I've ever had, the Doc has always recommended some form of motion to help it avoid seizing up.
Love your content man but this felt needlessly polarising. You did catch yourself a little and say that people shouldn't take your opinions to extremes and that there are 'obviously' cases where accessibility options are fine to consider, but I don't think it would be unfair for someone to listen to this video and walk away assuming your opinion is that accessibility options are, as a rule, a detriment to the VR games that might include them. You've taken this company, who seem out of line with their approach to this as you rightfully point out, but instead of making the point that 'accessibilty shouldn't come at the cost of compromising a work of art, and it is acceptable for art that cannot accommodate everyone to exist', you seem to have held up their approach to the subject as one polar option (which is wrong) and then spent 20 minutes of the run time saying that accessibility needs do not need to be considered and if your legs fall off tomorrow its absolutely fine if you never get to enjoy a VR game again, which is... Weird, man. This was a super weird video.
Between this with the unnecessary mentions of DEI (that don't even make sense here and is a red flag of a dogwhistle) and the weird weight commentary on the Zenith video.. I dunno. I find his opinions on game design and VR design in general exceptional, but maybe just stick to VR game design rather than throwing stuff like that in there.
@@Holo121 You guys perfectly verbalised my thoughts on the matter. I am a patron because of good critique of VR hype culture, but this wasn't it. I am actually happy that more people commented in similar manner, because it gives me hope that Mr. VR Voice who clearly is an intelligent individual capable of self reflection (and that is not irony) will treat this feedback seriously. This video had reactionary/conservative vibes and it's not my cup of tea, despite ironically being older than Mr. VR Voice.
Is there an argument to be made for left-handed accessibility? The percentage is around 10% I think, but adding accessibility here usually amounts to swapping the joysticks. It seems many VR games don't include this option (or add it post-launch), such as Arizona Sunshine, when in reality it is quite simple to implement such rebinding (in fact I would love for each button to have rebind options in every game but that's another discussion).
Left handed accessibility should definitely always be added, but I don't think that's an issue at all since left handed accessibility can always be done without compromising the quality of a VR game's mechanics.
That article is dumb, but your reactionary opinion is also overstated. I think most people agree that accessibility options that break the game is bad, but accessibility options in general are good.
Lots of devs get caught in the trap of trying to appeal to everyone, and you end up in a scenario where there's a billion accessibility settings and a lack of a shared, consistent experience.
From the moment I started playing VR I never had to deal with motion sickness, even though I have horrible motion sickness in cars. Motion sickness is something you have to get through and you absolutely can get over it.
Higher hz normally helps with motion sickness a lot. I wish they'd focus more on higher hz, but they generally seem to settle on 90hz. I'm only just now starting to hear the next generation of headsets is going to release with 120hz, monitors have had those for like 10 years now geeze...
Listen don't get me wrong, it's a great clear, clean, pleasant voice for videos but genuinely, does your family have a coat of arms? Do you have titles to lands in Normandy? Are any of your cousins haemophiliacs?
The following is my standard response to people with motion sickness. "Maybe the following will help? Many people can train themselves out of motion sickness (not all). Whenever motion sickness occurs (at first), stop immediately and try again the next day, don't force yourself to endure it. And in games or experiences where the virtual and real movements are the same (e.g. Beat Saber), motion sickness is normally ruled out (unless perhaps you have too few frames per second?). And if the motion sickness has been trained away, you can use smooth locomotion, and do without teleport. A treadmill is then no longer really necessary, unless you really want it (everyone has to decide for themselves)." The manufacturers should actually do this, like this, or something similar, already when setting up the headset for the first time, in the software. In a conversation with a PSVR2 user, he said, there was no such thing when setting up the headset, which I actually, consider to be grossly negligent. And is also somehow damaging to Sony's business. Would be interesting, how many people have given up on VR, on the assumption that they couldn't get rid of their motion sickness.
I worked in Historic Scotland decades ago. We were the custodians of Scotland's ancient monuments. Many were castles, designed to keep armies of soldiers at bay. I had to write a guide on accessibility. What impressed me most, was that we tried. We saw disparity between buildings of similar design. Not that everything was or could be made accessible. But where concessions could be made, without destroying the fundamental character of the building, they were. Did any of these things stop enjoyment of the ancient ruins for anyone? No. But it was compromise. For VR compromise is also possible. Not everygame, not every feature, but somewhere between what you despise, and what you profess there is a middle ground. That's not your bag, but it is mine. Vive la difference. Only, not, if you subscribe to your point of view.
Please don’t be disingenuous Kroy, I’ve watched a few of your streams in the past and have a good enough sense of who you are to feel confident you’re both smart and mature enough to know I’m not espousing extremes only here -_- “despise”…This is a strong verb to paint on me. But I’m not sure what it is you think I despise exactly? The notion of accessibility? Compromise in general? I’d like to know. Also, your castle analogy I think is not a suitable comparison whatsoever in this case, VR gaming and sightseeing in a castle are activities we engage with in very different ways, with very different upper and lower limits, and with generally very different expectations. But then again, if I try to put myself in your shoes for a moment, assuming you would approach VR gaming primarily with a tourist or sightseeing mindset, and a player as secondary, then I can see why you made the castle comparison. In which case then, if I’m correct, you’re coming at VR gaming from a very different angle than myself, so “vive la difference”, as you said. Just keep in mind that the tourist attitude to gaming can still function well within more complex, demanding, in-depth game experiences that prioritise a deeper player experience, because as a tourist you can still get your jollies floating through it, just enjoying being there and appreciating it for that regardless of how you participate, usually with minimal compromise or loss to you because your expectations are already very easy to meet. You’re just happy to be there, and that’s fine and great. 👍🏻 But the inverse is not so true I believe, where primary focus going on the mass accessibility, sightseeing tourist aspect usually comes with a massive compromise and hard cap on what the experience can ask and expect of the participants, often to the point of being detrimentally bland or shallow to those who can and want to engage more (in varying levels), who I also believe greatly outnumber ‘tourists’ in general gaming, that are then left very unfulfilled and bored. The ‘compromise’ in this case is massively lopsided and the end result I would argue is rarely ever an actual compromise as we mean the word, but rather a significant neutering, pairing back, sacrifice, watering down etc etc, heavily catering to the tourist and/or limited gamer, at the cost of everyone else. It’s not a decent compromise in that case.
@@MrVRVoice "marketing BS to sell their services" 00:11:52 or there abouts. Despise? Too strong for something you think is bullshit? What would you prefer? As for my preference of VR. You're a VR purist and I have engaged with your content knowing that. Take everything you say of others in this video as self-reflection, you can view yourself as some others see you. The purist standpoint is not the only viable means for VR to be produced, and arguing so vehemently for it comes accross as entitled etc etc. I was not suggesting every castle have their spiral stair cases turned to ramps, nor do I think every game needs to cater for every type of VR gamer. Having a variety of VR games, some a few, others with many, accessibility features is a good thing. Making VR games accessible is not, necessarily a barrier or some sort of kool-aid infused virtue signalling. This is the narrative path often trodden by culture warriors. Your content *is* becoming more devisive of late, and thus alienating to some, and yet more attractive to others.
@@KroyInSpace Based on what I’ve read I think we’re more aligned than not when it comes to the variety and balance of things. My main complaint here has been the speculation over how this mindset has been culturally overbearing and stifling on the innovations for VR as a PHYSICAL medium, and the industry’s seeming aversion to accepting or admitting this innate physical requirement and expectation that comes with embodying oneself within the world with motion controllers as a primary input, is going to be exclusionary (at first) by its very nature, is making the software design very very shallow. I know you were not suggesting “every castle turn their spiral staircases to ramps…” etc etc. Nor did I state or try to imply that extreme from you, that would be ridiculous. I pointed out it for not being decently comparable in this case. The “marketing bs” is me quoting a viewer comment and responding to it. His name is onepulp. You can see my laser pointer over the comment as I read it. Though the way I read it does not make that clear so I can understand why you thought it was me. While I may generally lean toward some agreement in that sentiment, it is not something I would have concluded myself in that moment. As for the rest of the category you’ve lumped me into, see me as a ‘purist’ if you wish, whatever that entails. And the implication of me only wanting this ‘purist’ standpoint to be the *only* viable means…please, stop. Why are you taking my viewpoints to these extremes? You seriously believe I would have that be the *only* viable means of production in VR if I had my way…? That I don’t see there can be plenty of value to be had from a good diverse range of design experiences…? Come now -_- Again, I’ll assume you are quite contented and satisfied with what’s on offer at the moment, your needs are fulfilled. Genuinely glad for you, I really am. But maybe try and put yourself in my shoes this time around for a moment… I am lamenting a great lack of satisfactory experiences to meet my expectations from VR, and what I believe some of the contributing factors causing that seems to be. If there were even a small handful of semi-decent experiences on offer or those that even attempted more involved meaningful gameplay with moderate success, then this rant likely wouldn’t exist. But there is barely a pittance over all these years to now. And it’s such a pity for me, and quite a few others I’d guess. Your requests, expectations and needs from the medium appear to already be overwhelmingly catered to, so maybe it will be hard for you to have compassion for my complaints. Maybe a bit of self-reflection from yourself is on the cards that you might realise you’re making counter-points to arguments I’m not even making, and absolute end conditions for the medium I’m not even suggesting. 😕
The worst VR motion sickness I ever experienced was the first time I ever tried it, I was playing around with a google cardboard because I wanted to confirm if I could even see the VR effect that you can't get from flatscreen video and I was playing this little puzzle game where you need to angle your view around a scattered 3D object to make it look complete just a simple puzzle game, but moving your head would orbit the camera around the center of the room which was already really nauseating but the killer is I was sitting in my computer chair at the time and the bar that locks the chair tilt popped out of place and my chair tilted backwards on me and the combination if suddenly and unexpectedly falling backwards while having my phone right up against my eyes with this bizarre POV totally wrecked me, I felt horribly ill for about 6 ours and all I could do was lay in bed and feel awful on the bright side though, it did end up convincing me to buy into the first retail oculus rift and I never really got motion sick again, sliding and smooth turning through everything, falling or jumping in VR can make me feel a little weird but that's only for the duration of the fall beyond that and only loosely related to VR motion sickness the worst I've done is I tried to lean on a virtual table and nearly fell on my face, I once yeeted my controller across the room cause I threw a VR grenade or something and I didn't have my controller straps on and the obligatory 50 times I've punched the wall
Thank god for teleport grab. Forcing players to bend over or kneel every time they want to pick up something from the ground is bad design, plain and simple. It could be implemented, but as an option, not as the only method.
I have so much to say on this subject being a lover of games like boneworks, legendary tales, ancient dungeon that have a lot of motion, and then fact I was cruelly removed from vr because of health issues, I had no problem accepting vr was not in my foreseeable future, Devs do not need to cater to everybody, they'll sell more to a hardcore group than thing to appeal to everybody
I liked that you did not cut this Lawnmover Man part and added extra picture, lot of people today are not awere of that movie. They tried to make game adaptation using fmv since VR was a sci-fi on PC DOS gaming and general. I would be happy if some studio could acquire licence or bee inspired by it making a spiritial heir.
This is gonna be somewhat long because I think there is a lot to say here that is very important. Usually I agree with a lot of what you say Mr VR Voice, but in this case I'm gonna have to say this is an L of a take. First off, you sound like old man yelling at clouds here. Completely dissasociated from reality because you read one article about something. So let's start at the beginning. You're reading an article from a company that is attempting to push their playtesting services. If you're a developer that is making a game and you want to add accessibilty features and you yourself are not disabled it will be quite difficult to do so, so pushing devs towards those accessibility features (so that they can buy their services to playtest them) is in their interest. As such this article is twisted in a way to push that narrative. That sucks, it's not great, but this article is not from a trusted news source or gaming site or anything like that, it can do what it wants and it's up to the reader to determine the quality/veracity of the articles contents. Hell, the giant Book a Demo button should be a massive red flag for anyone reading this as if it's a source of truth (as you seem to be). It then goes through a number of actually true points. Increasing accessibility will absolutely increase your potential audience and thus also might increase your return on investment. That is irrefutably true, for instance. Having accessibility in your VR game does give you a potential brand boost as some sites might report on what your game is doing on the accessibility front. Look at Grounded, they got a bunch of recognition for adding an arachnophobia mode (even winning an award at The Game Awards when they didn't deserve it in comparison to others). But when it comes down to it, the more people who CAN play your game, the more people that MIGHT. This is a company, not a dev, so of course they're going to look at this like a product and not a piece of art. The thing I think that frustrates me most though is the indignation over people being sued for not having accessibility features. However, if you actually read the article and follow the link to the report on the lawsuit that they're talking about (and as far as I can tell this is the only one) it was about HTC Viveport Infinity not having subtitles on their VR content. The lawsuit would never apply to most indie devs (and all devs should be adding subtitles anyway), that said it is a good warning, some specific types of games are absolutely covered under the ADA and developers should be aware of what they have to do to be compliant with those things. In the case of games, that's basically making sure you have Subtitles as far as I can tell (which you say in the video should be the norm.. so you're on board for those requirements), but I'm not at all an expert and I didnt' make a 30 minute long video about something that I clearly don't know about (like you did). The article frames it as a threat, sure, but that's again because they're trying to sell you a product. Honestly, with your comments on DEI and the recent stuff in that Zenith video about one of the developers weight that was totally unnecessary, I gotta say I'm starting to worry about the type of content you're putting out here. If you can't keep that sort of shit to yourself maybe you shouldn't be livestreaming and stick to edited content. I love your takes on game design and VR and almost always agree with them, but maybe just.. stick to talking about the games themselves and don't reach for things to try and get people angry about. Don't' be the Fox News of VR News/Analysis (specifically talking about their pushing of fear/anger as a narrative here, not their political leanings). Also, just want to add down here for those who read this far: The irony that you go on a tirade about people pushing something as a major issue that only a small small minority of people are actually upset about in their bubble (even calling them mentally ill, what the fuck) while you're actively doing that about a single article you read honestly lacks so much self awareness that it feels like it has to be on purpose, but clearly isn't.
I think I got lucky with overcoming motion sickness in VR, Only took me a few days. I keep hearing people always complaining about motion sickness, but I never know if they ever put the time and effort in to adjust
Am I sounding overly sensitive by saying this feels like I’m being talked down to as someone who’s classified as disabled (bad eyesight caused by a nystagmus from Hydrocephalus, so I realize my experience is small, but I do have experience with accessibility). A large part of accessibility is making it so you can be on the same level as able bodied people with minimal assistance (look at braille for example), but this feels like when I was given a student aid in school when I obviously didn’t need it, and some things people can’t do (for example I can’t drive) but there can be ways around it. This feels like the stupid ass “differently abled” term. I will say designing your menus to actually be interacted with physically instead of using laser pointers has the duel advantage of being more immersive and being easier for me to see. Hopefully my stupid ass is wording things well.
When I first started VR, my First Game was Skyrim VR... At first Jumping made me nauseous, I had to look up when Jumping. Now I can Jump of High Hrothgar with no issues lmao.
Its crazy how MRvr can sound like the most serious mean guy but then it just kinda makes sense. Like i've been seeing things different since you made your toxic positivity video about the vr media. About motion sickness, i think its something devs have to work on aswell, because i have friends with 3K+ hours on vrchat, but then playing minecraft with the vr mod (non official), they end up getting motion sick. Motion sickness is definitely something you grow out of for most of us, but games can be enhanced to be easier to endure haha.
He points out the fact that we tend to be passive, give us the lazy option and WE WILL DO IT! Even if we have a disability VR can be helpful. He is SOOOOOO right, I actually am disabled and I play VR for this EXACT reason. Not well, but I do it, and it's fun, otherwise I absolutely would just sit here and let this broken body waste away, and I would be even worse for it. I watch his videos and they actually inspire me to get the hell up and at least try. You make a difference brother. Thank you.
This shit pisses me off so much because I actually am disabled, I purchased a PSVR 1 when it first came out and all the games over time thinking I would eventually get better, and when I did I'll have alllll these gamss (most of which turned out to be crap anyway) that I got on sale to play. Well... a PSVR 2 later, now a quest 3, turns out I'll never regain the use of my arm, my now removed intestines will never grow back.. and that's that. I never once though anyone should make a game so a pseudo 1 armed person unable to raise his "good arm" above his chin, or even open a door with ease, and now unable to bend over (small intestine stitched to the outside of my body, if I bend over it gets pinched and cut) the game maker should never should never be FORCED to make it so I could play it. Leave it open to modders or something those people are incredible! If they wanted to. They would have a better chance of making it fit the rare freak like me than the dev would. Game makers goal should be to simply make the game be as great as they can make it , and if I can play it somehow, awesome. Where there is a will, there is a very poorly functioning way, that's up to me, not the makers. I can play ghosts of Tabor with modifications I've rigged up out of coat hangers and my teeth, it looks ridiculous, I totally suck, but (shrug) I can play and even survive a round of two. I feel like the devs are being picked on, not people like myself. THAT, is unfair.
I agree with you absolutely. I'm on the side of "If a Dev trusts in their audience and makes a great game, people will play it." I think accessibility is a means to an end, and that end is trying to cater to people on every scale, including people who don't game or even want to game, with the goal of maximising profits, which likely means decisions by shareholders and pressure from people on social media that not only don't care about games, but they are just trying to farm engagement. I have a feeling you agree with me on this, but if they make a game that is great, but make a mode that dulls it down to the point of rubbish.. people will try a fraction of what they normally would, and the second they face resistance, they will make it so that they can breeze through. If there is one thing I really don't like about modern game development, it's that there are Devs, who have a dream to release a game, but in a bid to cater to as many as possible, they must dilute their game to the point that it is no longer the dream they had, but it will flop because it lacks a solid goal and isn't a reflection of the vision the dev had when they started. Being able to tell a true passion project from an overly accessible sh*tshow, is something that we as gamers, we can smell a mile away. Also that little quip about "Law suits on the rise", is an underhanded threat directly at Devs in a bit to scare them into capitulating to the masses, and by proxy, become no different to the ocean of sh*t that currently floods the market. If a company even breaths that idea towards a Dev, I wash my hands of them immediately, and will never look back. Accessibility used to mean helping struggling users that are passionate about a product, but now, Accessibility is a term people use as a weapon to attack Devs, and is mostly used by those that no only don't play games, but never ever will.
For context of why I made this: I think this discussion is an important one for VR in its current stage of growth as I feel strongly the pervasive socially posturing accessibility (linking closely to DEI [Diversity, Equity & inclusion]) ideology and its mandates are very much to the determent of VR gaming's growth and innovation.
A game made for everyone is a game thats fun for noone and for one flatscreen is good for people's with disabilitys vr is very much not accessible fundamentally inaccessible
when I started playing Vr games (Ghosts Of Tabor) I had pretty bad motion sickness for the first few weeks but I put 2 hours in every day when I had time and my motion sickness up and buggered off so you can over come it if you put the time in
I dunno Liam Neesons. You have some opinions I agree with like the nature of the medium can make motion controls for people with disabilities impossible without compromising the design. But then you go off about DEI which is mostly a racist dog whistle. I'm reminded of something someone important to me said years ago: "You're right but you don't have to be _such a Dick_ about it. It makes people _want_ to argue with you."
I'm a fan, but this is an insane take. "People will use it because people are lazy". You said moments before that people are adaptable , but you can't be bothered to turn off accessibility features if you want a more difficult / immersive experience? You seems to be hostile to things that don't specifically cater to you, while complaining disabled people are doing the same. I don't know man. I might be done here.
I do think the friction of VR/AR use is holding back the growth of the market, which in turn effects the budgets, number, scope and quality of games. Motion sickness is definitely part of that, but I think the size and weight of the headsets is a bigger issue. Then again I could be marginalising motion sickness because I'm unaffected. At least Meta has had success addressing the cost barrier, but there's still a way to go with the form factor if they are really chasing something more than a niche market. Let alone pursuing the vision of VR/AR being the next personal computing platform and a potential replacement for the smartphone. In terms of efforts at excessively broadening appeal making things crap, that's certainly something I agree with. I'd hardly limit it to catering to "inclusion" or the disabled though, or even to VR games. You see the same with video games generally and even with board games, trying to cater to more players and younger players. Dumb it down. Make it easier. Of course some of that's a matter of scale, commercial success becoming a necessity and the specifics of the monetisation. Thank god for passion projects, indie developers and modders. Maybe we should return to paying per "life"? The commercial incentives of coin operated arcade machines did at least keep the challenge level higher, even if it narrowed the types of games.
If you want your VR game to be accessible to everyone, then you're not making a VR game. You're making a flatscreen game that is played through a VR headset, not taking advantage of any of VR's uniqueness in fear of leaving someone out.
I'll never forget when I first started playing VR on my Oculus CV1. Can't remember exactly what my first game was but, I most definitely got motion sickness. For me it manifested as a very sudden feeling of MASSIVE fatigue. For the first 4-5 sessions of VR, I would start feeling this way after about 30 minutes. I would need to stop playing and literally go lay down for 30-40 minutes and "recover". Then suddenly... it stopped. My brain stopped believing that VR was real, it started compensating for the movement, and now I have absolutely Z E R O issue with smooth turn, snap turn, any kind of VR is totally fine for me. So yea, I roll my eyes when I hear some idiot say they get motion sickness and VR sucks because of that. Grow a fucking set.
VR voice once again SPITTING FACTS! I love this man. Even if I don't always agree he always has a great point and I eventually have to realize I'm probably just an overly sensitive lil bitch.
im lucky that i have family in vr so since i was like 12 ive used different evolutions of vr off and on i never understood the motion sickness i always just thought they were overreacting
If they made an amazing VR porn game, available for free, and it was extremely fast paced likely to make people motion sick... I suspect motion sickness would magically be gone in a month.
several thoughts i have in vail, you can only crouch a certain amount and no more beyond that, and it is bad for gameplay. i want to crouch THE WHOLE WAY DOWN. i cant get certain angles i want if im stuck in this garbage "crouch depth" and dont get me started on the virtual crouch nonsense. it is frustrating to have the urge to lay on my stomach when holding a position and be forced to do a stupid half crouch. the only games you should be sitting in are games where your character sits. when omni directional treadmills are more common, larger, and less expensive, i will be 100% buying one so i can run around in a video game and i will abandon the joystick unless i have no choice
A game that is made for "everyone" is made for "no one". If someone identifies as "lunar gendered" meaning their gender is based on the phases of the moon, and the game fails to retrieve info on the current phase of the moon, that would be "discrimination" because its not "inclusive" enough for the little gender minded people. What about someone who's coin gendered. What of the game doesn't remind them to flip their coin to know what gender they are?
once upon a time... there was a common sense that free locomotion couldnt be done because everyone would just get motionsick right? next thing i remeber is that there was almost an outcry over the fear that half life alyx would be teleport only. and it probably was until the very last minutes. the fear over motion sickness up to today is beyond me. it is exactly like you said. that problem solves itself by just getting over it.
That point of vr shouldnt be acsessible as it is is something i completely agree with. If someone feels sick on a rollercoaster because its uncomfortable, you aren't just going to make the rollercoaster less fast and more comfortable as that just misses the point of a rollercoaster. So why do the same for vr?
That intro part was painfully true (in both the literal and metaphorical sense). The whole "motion sickness" while VR gaming is just something the brain needs to adapt to, which it can if given time. Neuroplasticity truly is a marvelous thing.
It all has to do with growth, which the Buddha has a marvelous quote on:
"Change is painful. All growth is painful. But nothing is as painful as staying where you don't belong."
In a sense I think people, myself included, have grown used to staying in places where we don't belong. The VR-gaming sphere can arguably be said to be somewhere it doesn't belong, ie. it's been sidelined by mainstream gamers and has become stuck in a cesspit of mediocrity that's poisoning it's full potential.
My initial apprehension of VR was born of the same fear of the potential discomfort, but once I experienced it for myself and allowed my brain to adapt...I was sorry I hadn't tried it sooner.
120 fps minimum for immersion
Not all games need to be, but there isn't a reason some can't or shouldn't work toward being accessible if that's what the devs want.
Good ways to solve motion sickness:
1. Use motion vignette setting
2. Turn physically instead of using controllers(this one helps a lot)
3. Add some movement while walking instead of standing still(like walking in place or swinging arms, there are apps that let you move like that ingame instead of using joysticks)
If these things don't work I think the only options left are "just get used to it" or "quit the game"
The reason people don’t like turning physically is because people can’t physically turn with a headset on without moving forward, I know this because this happens with my little brother.
@@josephkeen7224 What?! Ok... I did not expect issue like that to exist at all. I can do over 180° without even separating my feet from the ground.
In case you don't know how to do it. If you want to turn for example left you need to:
1. Stand on the hill of left foot and front part of right foot
2. use your legs like you are trying to move your left leg forward and right leg backward but don't move your hill and front part that are touching the ground. It can turn but not slide on the ground.
3. Align your right foot with left or left with right however you prefer.
And done. I've been in my country's equivalent of boy scouts so this was completely natural to me. I didn't expect anyone to not be able to turn in place.
Edit: ua-cam.com/video/b06kC9RcgCY/v-deo.htmlsi=eQe71OomrQSrbEme
Basically this but I personally don't do the step backwards at the beginning of 180 turn. But I guess that is better way to do it.
honestly the motion vignette shouldn't be enabled by default because we want to slightly push them into just dealing with it, kind of like throwing a kid in a pond and letting him figure out how to swim, while watching to make sure he doesnt drown. having the vignette be enabled by default is just letting the kid who is afraid of water learn to swim at his own pace, which could take several years, rather than just ripping the band aid off.
@@grecus4449 yeah, I honestly don’t get why it’s a problem ether, I wouldn’t have even considered it if I didn’t see someone not be able to turn without walking forward lol.
@@VladdyDaddy45 I think that the motion vignette actually makes it worse, and I agree it should be off by default
Ok so I'm not really in full agreement on this front. Accessibility is actually definitely important in games.
There was a point in this where an arm cast was mentioned, I actually *did* regularly play VR with a cast, and a surprising number of games are actually very playable, moreso than Mouse/Keyboard due to a controller in your offhand being easier to use than a keyboard. Even now I find the strain on my wrist (the injury caused permanent nerve damage) is more noticeable when using a keyboard than with the controllers. I played a lot of Skyrim, Fallout 4, Minecraft etc in VR while my arm was broken, and the game that definitely had an accessibility feature that's nice? Beat Saber's one-handed mode.
I am not of the opinion that all accessibility features require easy-win buttons. These are bad accessibility features. Deleting parts of the game is not the point, design should be focused around providing *alternative methods* that allow people who can't do one thing to pull things off in another way. Maybe instead of force pulls we could have an extendable claw arm or grapple gun. A mechanic that helps. I know in Fallout 4 VR, the teleport function requires AP to move, so it's a tradeoff. You have to sacrifice VATS capability or maneuvering during battle if you aren't using freemove.
Idk man, there's ways to add these things without turning them into baby games.
Sure, add them, IF, it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the experience or neuter it. Player psychology has to be accounted for too, our tendency to abuse accessibility features to eek out an advantage and automate things through the path of least resistance, despite that path it being less interesting for us in the long run.
@@MrVRVoice Well that's my point. I think your dismissiveness towards accessibility in general comes off a little "baby with the bathwater" on that front. I normally agree with your content and I do agree *some* VR games are going to have inherent issues with them, but I think there are intelligent ways to increase accessibility without gimping the fun or challenge. Little things like toggle grab etc help a lot without really making the game *easier* per se.
@spinosauruskin Yeah sure, I’m not denying that nor have I ever denied there can be intelligent solutions sometimes. But sometimes there are not, and some will not be able to participate in order to retain the integrity and meaningfulness of a gameplay feature or interaction. And in much internet discourse surrounding the topic these days I feel the latter fact of reality and common sense is something we’ve become unreasonably averse to admitting, and at worse are irrationally hostile towards.
Please try to assume awareness of such nuance if you think the person is reasonable generally. 🙏🏻
@@MrVRVoice This is why I think it's better to talk specifics with mechanics relating to this issue rather than generalities.
@spinosauruskin Most of the present VR industries’ software being so flaccid, uninspired, risk-averse, and generally afraid to ask a little else of the user beyond holding their controller forward and pressing a button is my argument, & I believe, ample proof of the fearful accessibility mindset gone too far to begin with.
Which was given focus in the video commentary itself, so I’m just repeating myself at this stage.
Played boneworks when it was just released, and it took weeks before I could play it for more than 20 minutes. But it felt like an investment for all games to come, but I would feel horrible for an hour after playing.
Now I never get motion sick. Games are so bad, I never play long enough to get motion sick 😂 (it's a joke)
I use teleport grab because (well yes laziness likely a factor) bending over causes the headset to come loose because most headstraps (using Bobo one at the moment) are rubbish and the weight of the HMD is not conducive to such movement at all times. At least with the Quest 3, the floor detection is also a bit rubbish and this is made worse with games which have terrible collision for the floor (so for example the VR floor is slightly below the real floor and thus you can't move your controllers low enough to touch the VR ground).
As much as I hate to evangelize, working a pretty sedentary job and generally not taking as much care of myself as I probably should I used to get really bad shoulder pain and didn't even have a full range of motion on the left side.... but after a friend of mine got me into VR, I wanted to play Saints & Sinners and Into the Radius, damnit! So I'd play for a bit, take breaks and stretch, then get back to it.
....I actually *do not get that shoulder pain anymore* and regained the motion range I had previously lost because having something I wanted to do incentivized me to actually exercise more. That probably says terrible things about me as a person, now that I think about it, but you know what? It is what it is.
Still need to get to work on that physical crouching, though...😂
Yeah man, if you have a shoulder problem and no longer work on the range of motion and help it to heal, it'll just get worse. Every injury I've ever had, the Doc has always recommended some form of motion to help it avoid seizing up.
Love your content man but this felt needlessly polarising.
You did catch yourself a little and say that people shouldn't take your opinions to extremes and that there are 'obviously' cases where accessibility options are fine to consider, but I don't think it would be unfair for someone to listen to this video and walk away assuming your opinion is that accessibility options are, as a rule, a detriment to the VR games that might include them.
You've taken this company, who seem out of line with their approach to this as you rightfully point out, but instead of making the point that 'accessibilty shouldn't come at the cost of compromising a work of art, and it is acceptable for art that cannot accommodate everyone to exist', you seem to have held up their approach to the subject as one polar option (which is wrong) and then spent 20 minutes of the run time saying that accessibility needs do not need to be considered and if your legs fall off tomorrow its absolutely fine if you never get to enjoy a VR game again, which is... Weird, man. This was a super weird video.
Between this with the unnecessary mentions of DEI (that don't even make sense here and is a red flag of a dogwhistle) and the weird weight commentary on the Zenith video.. I dunno. I find his opinions on game design and VR design in general exceptional, but maybe just stick to VR game design rather than throwing stuff like that in there.
@@Holo121 You guys perfectly verbalised my thoughts on the matter. I am a patron because of good critique of VR hype culture, but this wasn't it. I am actually happy that more people commented in similar manner, because it gives me hope that Mr. VR Voice who clearly is an intelligent individual capable of self reflection (and that is not irony) will treat this feedback seriously. This video had reactionary/conservative vibes and it's not my cup of tea, despite ironically being older than Mr. VR Voice.
“On motion sickness, we just need to stop being so pathetic and get over it.” -Mr Vr 2024.
They found that 120 F.P.S is the minimum to avoid motion sickness v.R needs to reach at least that standard
This is something I I can't reach unless I run virtual desktop and I get tesselation and blurriness
I literally told my buddy this yesterday😂. He never wants to play co-op because doesn't play enough VR and he still gets motion sick.
Ginger root.. it absolutely works. Pill form, whatever but get it and it works. Eventually he won't need it
Is there an argument to be made for left-handed accessibility? The percentage is around 10% I think, but adding accessibility here usually amounts to swapping the joysticks. It seems many VR games don't include this option (or add it post-launch), such as Arizona Sunshine, when in reality it is quite simple to implement such rebinding (in fact I would love for each button to have rebind options in every game but that's another discussion).
this one I feel is easy enough to implement, so it should be.
Left handed accessibility should definitely always be added, but I don't think that's an issue at all since left handed accessibility can always be done without compromising the quality of a VR game's mechanics.
@@LUVIIKUU Ah very true, that does change it a bit
That article is dumb, but your reactionary opinion is also overstated. I think most people agree that accessibility options that break the game is bad, but accessibility options in general are good.
Lots of devs get caught in the trap of trying to appeal to everyone, and you end up in a scenario where there's a billion accessibility settings and a lack of a shared, consistent experience.
From the moment I started playing VR I never had to deal with motion sickness, even though I have horrible motion sickness in cars. Motion sickness is something you have to get through and you absolutely can get over it.
same here
Lucky
Higher hz normally helps with motion sickness a lot. I wish they'd focus more on higher hz, but they generally seem to settle on 90hz.
I'm only just now starting to hear the next generation of headsets is going to release with 120hz, monitors have had those for like 10 years now geeze...
crts have had it so its been longer than that so your point is even more solid than you thought
@@urekh I hate this catchup game we're playing, but at least we're finally starting to break 120hz and going to 240+
@@deama15 when do you think companies will make vr headsets with 240hz or higher displays?
@@urekh no idea, whenever the stupid hdmi/displayport companies release something that can handle it probably.
Listen don't get me wrong, it's a great clear, clean, pleasant voice for videos but genuinely, does your family have a coat of arms? Do you have titles to lands in Normandy? Are any of your cousins haemophiliacs?
The following is my standard response to people with motion sickness.
"Maybe the following will help?
Many people can train themselves out of motion sickness (not all).
Whenever motion sickness occurs (at first), stop immediately and try again the next day, don't force yourself to endure it.
And in games or experiences where the virtual and real movements are the same (e.g. Beat Saber),
motion sickness is normally ruled out (unless perhaps you have too few frames per second?).
And if the motion sickness has been trained away, you can use smooth locomotion,
and do without teleport.
A treadmill is then no longer really necessary, unless you really want it (everyone has to decide for themselves)."
The manufacturers should actually do this,
like this, or something similar,
already when setting up the headset for the first time,
in the software.
In a conversation with a PSVR2 user, he said,
there was no such thing when setting up the headset,
which I actually,
consider to be grossly negligent.
And is also somehow damaging to Sony's business.
Would be interesting,
how many people have given up on VR,
on the assumption that they couldn't get rid of their motion sickness.
I can’t be a astronaut, or a rocket scientist,
So it must be made easier for mEEEE
🙃
I worked in Historic Scotland decades ago. We were the custodians of Scotland's ancient monuments. Many were castles, designed to keep armies of soldiers at bay. I had to write a guide on accessibility. What impressed me most, was that we tried. We saw disparity between buildings of similar design. Not that everything was or could be made accessible. But where concessions could be made, without destroying the fundamental character of the building, they were. Did any of these things stop enjoyment of the ancient ruins for anyone? No. But it was compromise. For VR compromise is also possible. Not everygame, not every feature, but somewhere between what you despise, and what you profess there is a middle ground. That's not your bag, but it is mine. Vive la difference. Only, not, if you subscribe to your point of view.
Please don’t be disingenuous Kroy, I’ve watched a few of your streams in the past and have a good enough sense of who you are to feel confident you’re both smart and mature enough to know I’m not espousing extremes only here -_-
“despise”…This is a strong verb to paint on me. But I’m not sure what it is you think I despise exactly? The notion of accessibility? Compromise in general? I’d like to know.
Also, your castle analogy I think is not a suitable comparison whatsoever in this case, VR gaming and sightseeing in a castle are activities we engage with in very different ways, with very different upper and lower limits, and with generally very different expectations.
But then again, if I try to put myself in your shoes for a moment, assuming you would approach VR gaming primarily with a tourist or sightseeing mindset, and a player as secondary, then I can see why you made the castle comparison.
In which case then, if I’m correct, you’re coming at VR gaming from a very different angle than myself, so “vive la difference”, as you said.
Just keep in mind that the tourist attitude to gaming can still function well within more complex, demanding, in-depth game experiences that prioritise a deeper player experience, because as a tourist you can still get your jollies floating through it, just enjoying being there and appreciating it for that regardless of how you participate, usually with minimal compromise or loss to you because your expectations are already very easy to meet. You’re just happy to be there, and that’s fine and great. 👍🏻
But the inverse is not so true I believe, where primary focus going on the mass accessibility, sightseeing tourist aspect usually comes with a massive compromise and hard cap on what the experience can ask and expect of the participants, often to the point of being detrimentally bland or shallow to those who can and want to engage more (in varying levels), who I also believe greatly outnumber ‘tourists’ in general gaming, that are then left very unfulfilled and bored.
The ‘compromise’ in this case is massively lopsided and the end result I would argue is rarely ever an actual compromise as we mean the word, but rather a significant neutering, pairing back, sacrifice, watering down etc etc, heavily catering to the tourist and/or limited gamer, at the cost of everyone else. It’s not a decent compromise in that case.
@@MrVRVoice "marketing BS to sell their services" 00:11:52 or there abouts. Despise? Too strong for something you think is bullshit? What would you prefer?
As for my preference of VR. You're a VR purist and I have engaged with your content knowing that.
Take everything you say of others in this video as self-reflection, you can view yourself as some others see you. The purist standpoint is not the only viable means for VR to be produced, and arguing so vehemently for it comes accross as entitled etc etc.
I was not suggesting every castle have their spiral stair cases turned to ramps, nor do I think every game needs to cater for every type of VR gamer. Having a variety of VR games, some a few, others with many, accessibility features is a good thing.
Making VR games accessible is not, necessarily a barrier or some sort of kool-aid infused virtue signalling. This is the narrative path often trodden by culture warriors. Your content *is* becoming more devisive of late, and thus alienating to some, and yet more attractive to others.
@@KroyInSpace Based on what I’ve read I think we’re more aligned than not when it comes to the variety and balance of things.
My main complaint here has been the speculation over how this mindset has been culturally overbearing and stifling on the innovations for VR as a PHYSICAL medium, and the industry’s seeming aversion to accepting or admitting this innate physical requirement and expectation that comes with embodying oneself within the world with motion controllers as a primary input, is going to be exclusionary (at first) by its very nature, is making the software design very very shallow.
I know you were not suggesting “every castle turn their spiral staircases to ramps…” etc etc. Nor did I state or try to imply that extreme from you, that would be ridiculous. I pointed out it for not being decently comparable in this case.
The “marketing bs” is me quoting a viewer comment and responding to it. His name is onepulp. You can see my laser pointer over the comment as I read it. Though the way I read it does not make that clear so I can understand why you thought it was me.
While I may generally lean toward some agreement in that sentiment, it is not something I would have concluded myself in that moment.
As for the rest of the category you’ve lumped me into, see me as a ‘purist’ if you wish, whatever that entails.
And the implication of me only wanting this ‘purist’ standpoint to be the *only* viable means…please, stop. Why are you taking my viewpoints to these extremes? You seriously believe I would have that be the *only* viable means of production in VR if I had my way…? That I don’t see there can be plenty of value to be had from a good diverse range of design experiences…? Come now -_-
Again, I’ll assume you are quite contented and satisfied with what’s on offer at the moment, your needs are fulfilled. Genuinely glad for you, I really am. But maybe try and put yourself in my shoes this time around for a moment…
I am lamenting a great lack of satisfactory experiences to meet my expectations from VR, and what I believe some of the contributing factors causing that seems to be.
If there were even a small handful of semi-decent experiences on offer or those that even attempted more involved meaningful gameplay with moderate success, then this rant likely wouldn’t exist. But there is barely a pittance over all these years to now. And it’s such a pity for me, and quite a few others I’d guess.
Your requests, expectations and needs from the medium appear to already be overwhelmingly catered to, so maybe it will be hard for you to have compassion for my complaints.
Maybe a bit of self-reflection from yourself is on the cards that you might realise you’re making counter-points to arguments I’m not even making, and absolute end conditions for the medium I’m not even suggesting. 😕
The worst VR motion sickness I ever experienced was the first time I ever tried it, I was playing around with a google cardboard because I wanted to confirm if I could even see the VR effect that you can't get from flatscreen video and I was playing this little puzzle game where you need to angle your view around a scattered 3D object to make it look complete just a simple puzzle game, but moving your head would orbit the camera around the center of the room which was already really nauseating but the killer is I was sitting in my computer chair at the time and the bar that locks the chair tilt popped out of place and my chair tilted backwards on me and the combination if suddenly and unexpectedly falling backwards while having my phone right up against my eyes with this bizarre POV totally wrecked me, I felt horribly ill for about 6 ours and all I could do was lay in bed and feel awful
on the bright side though, it did end up convincing me to buy into the first retail oculus rift and I never really got motion sick again, sliding and smooth turning through everything, falling or jumping in VR can make me feel a little weird but that's only for the duration of the fall
beyond that and only loosely related to VR motion sickness the worst I've done is I tried to lean on a virtual table and nearly fell on my face, I once yeeted my controller across the room cause I threw a VR grenade or something and I didn't have my controller straps on and the obligatory 50 times I've punched the wall
Thank god for teleport grab. Forcing players to bend over or kneel every time they want to pick up something from the ground is bad design, plain and simple. It could be implemented, but as an option, not as the only method.
As the helldivers 2 developers say: “A game for everyone, is a game for no one”
That's some Master Splinter shit right there!
I have so much to say on this subject being a lover of games like boneworks, legendary tales, ancient dungeon that have a lot of motion, and then fact I was cruelly removed from vr because of health issues, I had no problem accepting vr was not in my foreseeable future, Devs do not need to cater to everybody, they'll sell more to a hardcore group than thing to appeal to everybody
I liked that you did not cut this Lawnmover Man part and added extra picture, lot of people today are not awere of that movie. They tried to make game adaptation using fmv since VR was a sci-fi on PC DOS gaming and general. I would be happy if some studio could acquire licence or bee inspired by it making a spiritial heir.
This is gonna be somewhat long because I think there is a lot to say here that is very important. Usually I agree with a lot of what you say Mr VR Voice, but in this case I'm gonna have to say this is an L of a take. First off, you sound like old man yelling at clouds here. Completely dissasociated from reality because you read one article about something. So let's start at the beginning. You're reading an article from a company that is attempting to push their playtesting services. If you're a developer that is making a game and you want to add accessibilty features and you yourself are not disabled it will be quite difficult to do so, so pushing devs towards those accessibility features (so that they can buy their services to playtest them) is in their interest. As such this article is twisted in a way to push that narrative. That sucks, it's not great, but this article is not from a trusted news source or gaming site or anything like that, it can do what it wants and it's up to the reader to determine the quality/veracity of the articles contents. Hell, the giant Book a Demo button should be a massive red flag for anyone reading this as if it's a source of truth (as you seem to be).
It then goes through a number of actually true points. Increasing accessibility will absolutely increase your potential audience and thus also might increase your return on investment. That is irrefutably true, for instance. Having accessibility in your VR game does give you a potential brand boost as some sites might report on what your game is doing on the accessibility front. Look at Grounded, they got a bunch of recognition for adding an arachnophobia mode (even winning an award at The Game Awards when they didn't deserve it in comparison to others). But when it comes down to it, the more people who CAN play your game, the more people that MIGHT. This is a company, not a dev, so of course they're going to look at this like a product and not a piece of art.
The thing I think that frustrates me most though is the indignation over people being sued for not having accessibility features. However, if you actually read the article and follow the link to the report on the lawsuit that they're talking about (and as far as I can tell this is the only one) it was about HTC Viveport Infinity not having subtitles on their VR content. The lawsuit would never apply to most indie devs (and all devs should be adding subtitles anyway), that said it is a good warning, some specific types of games are absolutely covered under the ADA and developers should be aware of what they have to do to be compliant with those things. In the case of games, that's basically making sure you have Subtitles as far as I can tell (which you say in the video should be the norm.. so you're on board for those requirements), but I'm not at all an expert and I didnt' make a 30 minute long video about something that I clearly don't know about (like you did). The article frames it as a threat, sure, but that's again because they're trying to sell you a product.
Honestly, with your comments on DEI and the recent stuff in that Zenith video about one of the developers weight that was totally unnecessary, I gotta say I'm starting to worry about the type of content you're putting out here. If you can't keep that sort of shit to yourself maybe you shouldn't be livestreaming and stick to edited content. I love your takes on game design and VR and almost always agree with them, but maybe just.. stick to talking about the games themselves and don't reach for things to try and get people angry about. Don't' be the Fox News of VR News/Analysis (specifically talking about their pushing of fear/anger as a narrative here, not their political leanings).
Also, just want to add down here for those who read this far: The irony that you go on a tirade about people pushing something as a major issue that only a small small minority of people are actually upset about in their bubble (even calling them mentally ill, what the fuck) while you're actively doing that about a single article you read honestly lacks so much self awareness that it feels like it has to be on purpose, but clearly isn't.
this was the final straw before I unsubed bc of the weird shit he says
I wish VR games could throw around player view like in flat first person games.
I think I got lucky with overcoming motion sickness in VR, Only took me a few days. I keep hearing people always complaining about motion sickness, but I never know if they ever put the time and effort in to adjust
the first vr game i played was minecraft vr it was a trial by fire
Am I sounding overly sensitive by saying this feels like I’m being talked down to as someone who’s classified as disabled (bad eyesight caused by a nystagmus from Hydrocephalus, so I realize my experience is small, but I do have experience with accessibility). A large part of accessibility is making it so you can be on the same level as able bodied people with minimal assistance (look at braille for example), but this feels like when I was given a student aid in school when I obviously didn’t need it, and some things people can’t do (for example I can’t drive) but there can be ways around it. This feels like the stupid ass “differently abled” term. I will say designing your menus to actually be interacted with physically instead of using laser pointers has the duel advantage of being more immersive and being easier for me to see. Hopefully my stupid ass is wording things well.
When I first started VR, my First Game was Skyrim VR... At first Jumping made me nauseous, I had to look up when Jumping. Now I can Jump of High Hrothgar with no issues lmao.
Its crazy how MRvr can sound like the most serious mean guy but then it just kinda makes sense.
Like i've been seeing things different since you made your toxic positivity video about the vr media.
About motion sickness, i think its something devs have to work on aswell, because i have friends with 3K+ hours on vrchat, but then playing minecraft with the vr mod (non official), they end up getting motion sick.
Motion sickness is definitely something you grow out of for most of us, but games can be enhanced to be easier to endure haha.
I do think half life alyx is really good tho, especially compared to a lot of vr games today.
He points out the fact that we tend to be passive, give us the lazy option and WE WILL DO IT! Even if we have a disability VR can be helpful. He is SOOOOOO right, I actually am disabled and I play VR for this EXACT reason. Not well, but I do it, and it's fun, otherwise I absolutely would just sit here and let this broken body waste away, and I would be even worse for it. I watch his videos and they actually inspire me to get the hell up and at least try.
You make a difference brother. Thank you.
This shit pisses me off so much because I actually am disabled, I purchased a PSVR 1 when it first came out and all the games over time thinking I would eventually get better, and when I did I'll have alllll these gamss (most of which turned out to be crap anyway) that I got on sale to play. Well... a PSVR 2 later, now a quest 3, turns out I'll never regain the use of my arm, my now removed intestines will never grow back.. and that's that. I never once though anyone should make a game so a pseudo 1 armed person unable to raise his "good arm" above his chin, or even open a door with ease, and now unable to bend over (small intestine stitched to the outside of my body, if I bend over it gets pinched and cut) the game maker should never should never be FORCED to make it so I could play it. Leave it open to modders or something those people are incredible! If they wanted to. They would have a better chance of making it fit the rare freak like me than the dev would.
Game makers goal should be to simply make the game be as great as they can make it , and if I can play it somehow, awesome.
Where there is a will, there is a very poorly functioning way, that's up to me, not the makers. I can play ghosts of Tabor with modifications I've rigged up out of coat hangers and my teeth, it looks ridiculous, I totally suck, but (shrug) I can play and even survive a round of two.
I feel like the devs are being picked on, not people like myself. THAT, is unfair.
I agree with you absolutely. I'm on the side of "If a Dev trusts in their audience and makes a great game, people will play it." I think accessibility is a means to an end, and that end is trying to cater to people on every scale, including people who don't game or even want to game, with the goal of maximising profits, which likely means decisions by shareholders and pressure from people on social media that not only don't care about games, but they are just trying to farm engagement.
I have a feeling you agree with me on this, but if they make a game that is great, but make a mode that dulls it down to the point of rubbish.. people will try a fraction of what they normally would, and the second they face resistance, they will make it so that they can breeze through.
If there is one thing I really don't like about modern game development, it's that there are Devs, who have a dream to release a game, but in a bid to cater to as many as possible, they must dilute their game to the point that it is no longer the dream they had, but it will flop because it lacks a solid goal and isn't a reflection of the vision the dev had when they started. Being able to tell a true passion project from an overly accessible sh*tshow, is something that we as gamers, we can smell a mile away.
Also that little quip about "Law suits on the rise", is an underhanded threat directly at Devs in a bit to scare them into capitulating to the masses, and by proxy, become no different to the ocean of sh*t that currently floods the market. If a company even breaths that idea towards a Dev, I wash my hands of them immediately, and will never look back.
Accessibility used to mean helping struggling users that are passionate about a product, but now, Accessibility is a term people use as a weapon to attack Devs, and is mostly used by those that no only don't play games, but never ever will.
I get motion sick really easy and I couldn't keep a headset on for more than 20 minutes but i kept trying now it's no issue,i play for hrs😁
For context of why I made this: I think this discussion is an important one for VR in its current stage of growth as I feel strongly the pervasive socially posturing accessibility (linking closely to DEI [Diversity, Equity & inclusion]) ideology and its mandates are very much to the determent of VR gaming's growth and innovation.
Main problem with VR access is having head mounted display so maybe developers should grant you that when buying the game or get sued.
A game made for everyone is a game thats fun for noone and for one flatscreen is good for people's with disabilitys vr is very much not accessible fundamentally inaccessible
when I started playing Vr games (Ghosts Of Tabor) I had pretty bad motion sickness for the first few weeks but I put 2 hours in every day when I had time and my motion sickness up and buggered off so you can over come it if you put the time in
I dunno Liam Neesons. You have some opinions I agree with like the nature of the medium can make motion controls for people with disabilities impossible without compromising the design. But then you go off about DEI which is mostly a racist dog whistle. I'm reminded of something someone important to me said years ago: "You're right but you don't have to be _such a Dick_ about it. It makes people _want_ to argue with you."
Over your head, child.
I'm a fan, but this is an insane take. "People will use it because people are lazy". You said moments before that people are adaptable , but you can't be bothered to turn off accessibility features if you want a more difficult / immersive experience?
You seems to be hostile to things that don't specifically cater to you, while complaining disabled people are doing the same.
I don't know man. I might be done here.
I do think the friction of VR/AR use is holding back the growth of the market, which in turn effects the budgets, number, scope and quality of games.
Motion sickness is definitely part of that, but I think the size and weight of the headsets is a bigger issue. Then again I could be marginalising motion sickness because I'm unaffected.
At least Meta has had success addressing the cost barrier, but there's still a way to go with the form factor if they are really chasing something more than a niche market. Let alone pursuing the vision of VR/AR being the next personal computing platform and a potential replacement for the smartphone.
In terms of efforts at excessively broadening appeal making things crap, that's certainly something I agree with. I'd hardly limit it to catering to "inclusion" or the disabled though, or even to VR games. You see the same with video games generally and even with board games, trying to cater to more players and younger players. Dumb it down. Make it easier. Of course some of that's a matter of scale, commercial success becoming a necessity and the specifics of the monetisation. Thank god for passion projects, indie developers and modders. Maybe we should return to paying per "life"? The commercial incentives of coin operated arcade machines did at least keep the challenge level higher, even if it narrowed the types of games.
If you want your VR game to be accessible to everyone, then you're not making a VR game.
You're making a flatscreen game that is played through a VR headset, not taking advantage of any of VR's uniqueness in fear of leaving someone out.
I'll never forget when I first started playing VR on my Oculus CV1. Can't remember exactly what my first game was but, I most definitely got motion sickness. For me it manifested as a very sudden feeling of MASSIVE fatigue. For the first 4-5 sessions of VR, I would start feeling this way after about 30 minutes. I would need to stop playing and literally go lay down for 30-40 minutes and "recover". Then suddenly... it stopped. My brain stopped believing that VR was real, it started compensating for the movement, and now I have absolutely Z E R O issue with smooth turn, snap turn, any kind of VR is totally fine for me.
So yea, I roll my eyes when I hear some idiot say they get motion sickness and VR sucks because of that. Grow a fucking set.
VR voice once again SPITTING FACTS! I love this man. Even if I don't always agree he always has a great point and I eventually have to realize I'm probably just an overly sensitive lil bitch.
This is like sueing bicycle makers because people who don't have legs can't ride a bike.
im lucky that i have family in vr so since i was like 12 ive used different evolutions of vr off and on i never understood the motion sickness i always just thought they were overreacting
If they made an amazing VR porn game, available for free, and it was extremely fast paced likely to make people motion sick... I suspect motion sickness would magically be gone in a month.
Love your video mr vr. Your points u make are spot on
several thoughts i have
in vail, you can only crouch a certain amount and no more beyond that, and it is bad for gameplay. i want to crouch THE WHOLE WAY DOWN. i cant get certain angles i want if im stuck in this garbage "crouch depth" and dont get me started on the virtual crouch nonsense. it is frustrating to have the urge to lay on my stomach when holding a position and be forced to do a stupid half crouch. the only games you should be sitting in are games where your character sits. when omni directional treadmills are more common, larger, and less expensive, i will be 100% buying one so i can run around in a video game and i will abandon the joystick unless i have no choice
Gotta hit the DEI parachute for more engagement lol
Tolerating and enduring is not what Americans do well. We want whatever we want and we want it RIGHT NOW DAMNIT! LET ME SPEAK TO YOUR MANAGER!
totally agree with you
A game that is made for "everyone" is made for "no one".
If someone identifies as "lunar gendered" meaning their gender is based on the phases of the moon, and the game fails to retrieve info on the current phase of the moon, that would be "discrimination" because its not "inclusive" enough for the little gender minded people. What about someone who's coin gendered.
What of the game doesn't remind them to flip their coin to know what gender they are?