Games may not be the killer app for VR | Opinion

Looked at from certain perspectives, the VR/AR market seems to be making steady progress.

Meta continues to launch headsets at mass-market price points, while Apple's insanely expensive Vision Pro, though it's hardly expanding the market much overall at that pricing level, represents another tech giant committing to the space and showcasing technological potential that will rapidly start turning up in cheaper devices. Sony, for its part, is more or less doing its own thing with PSVR 2, but at least seems to remain committed to supporting the device with a software release pipeline.

That's three powerhouse technology and content firms all with impressive headsets on the market; so things are going well, right?

Not according to game developers, it seems – at least not according to those surveyed in research published by Game Developer this week. The headline number here suggests that 56% of developers think the market for VR is declining or stagnating, versus just 23% who see growth.

Wearing my other hat as someone whose job involves running and analysing a lot of opinion polling data, I'm duty bound to point out some limitations of this kind of survey: only a subset of developers will have actual visibility of the commercial performance of VR, for example, with other respondents largely basing their assessment on vibes.

This survey is more useful as an assessment of how likely developers are to consider VR development than as a clear measurement of VR's commercial performance – but even taken just in that light, it's a pretty gloomy readout on a sector that's ostensibly building a major component of the future of gaming.

There's no denying that VR and AR hardware has progressed massively in recent years, and the headsets are now finding applications in all sorts of commercial and industrial settings, which pretty much guarantees that there's a solid future for the technology.

Nonetheless, the negativity of game developers about the prospects for the sector aren't hard to understand, because whatever future VR has built for itself in specialist commercial fields, it has clearly run into some major roadblocks on the gaming front – some of which are catch-22 situations regarding the nature of the core offering itself, and will be very tricky to unravel or solve.

At the heart of the problems lies the fact that the kind of progress in VR technology that has occurred has been incredibly impressive from the point of view of those engaged with the field, but has not necessarily been focused on the things that would actually convert a layperson with a casual interest in VR into a dedicated consumer.

Improvements in resolution and framerate, and innovations like foveated rendering, have come on in leaps and bounds, but those aspects are arguably less important to mass-market appeal than the innovations that have been far slower to appear, like improvements in form factor.

VR headsets, even at their best, remain heavy, bulky, uncomfortable, and honestly, a bit gross

VR headsets, even at their best, remain heavy, bulky, uncomfortable, and honestly, a bit gross: they steam up, the parts that touch your face get slicked with sweat, and the most effective solutions to those problems, like absorbent masks and balaclava-like headwear, suffer from looking ridiculous.

Even as tech giants fumble towards some way to balance out the incredibly isolating aspect of VR that many users find disquieting (the current approach being high quality video passthrough, as seen on the Quest 3 and Vision Pro), it's telling, I think, that what consumers actually seem to get most excited about is the dramatically lower-spec displays that are being stuffed into devices with a form factor more like regular sunglasses.

While many consumers may believe wholeheartedly that what they want is deep immersion, it's quite possible that in reality, what they'll actually use for more than five minutes before it goes to gather dust is a much less immersive device that can be engaged with much more casually.

If that hardware issue really is the heart of the problem with VR right now, then it will not be solved soon. For all the grand promises of companies like Magic Leap, we're still quite a way off from high quality VR-style experiences on devices in a sunglasses form factor, while some aspects, like light-leaks, will never be solvable without a more face-hugging headset.

I don't believe, however, that more lightweight and casually usable hardware is the solution in its entirety. I have come to realise that I am a member of a surprisingly widespread community with a shared embarrassing secret – namely a depressing number of assorted VR headsets that gather dust in my house.

People in my situation (there ought to be a support group) share a common story; we're keen to believe in the promise of VR, enthusiastic enough to buy into various facets of this horribly fragmented market (which is a major problem in itself), but then struggle to find reasons to continue spending extensive time actually using any of the damned things, with the hurdle to usage eventually reaching a point where they disappear into the back of the closet for good.

While many consumers may believe wholeheartedly that they want deep immersion, it's quite possible that what they'll actually use is a much less immersive device that can be engaged with much more casually

It's not that there aren't games to play, though true killer apps remain relatively thin on the ground. Rather, it's that VR has a high bar to engagement; it's a very hard thing to slot into your life. It's not like a console game you can spend a little while on unwinding after work, before heading to bed. VR is demanding. Clear the living room, move the coffee table, don the headset that isolates you from the world around you, check that the play area boundaries are still properly set up so you don't end up punching a hole in your TV…

VR developers have started to move towards more casual experiences, with a lot more games now built around the idea of sitting on a sofa to play in VR, but the devices themselves remain a faff, and the whole sofa thing is also a bit catch-22, because you know what's also a great way to enjoy a game from the sofa? That nice big TV you're worried about shoving a VR controller through, that's what.

Developers aren't the only people who seem to have noticed that there's a problem with getting people to engage with games in VR consistently and long-term. Headset manufacturers have also spotted the issue, and it's very telling that both Apple and Meta have shifted the messaging around their devices towards the idea of VR/AR as a tool for work and productivity, rather than a gaming platform.

Vision Pro is almost exclusively geared in this direction – and insane pricing aside, it is pretty amazing in its abilities in that regard. Meta Quest 3 is chasing the same functionality at a much more reasonable price point, and hot on Vision Pro's heels in some key respects. Working in an AR space will never be everyone's cup of tea, but it's not hard to see it becoming a part of the working day for a pretty decent number of people as the technology becomes cheaper and more ubiquitous.

If AR is the computing paradigm of the future, then games using those devices will [shine] when the barriers to entry drop because people own the devices already

Is that, perhaps, the actual moment of opportunity for VR/AR games? We have thus far treated games as being the inevitable killer apps for such platforms, as if headsets were game consoles you strapped to your head – but that's not how gaming got established on PCs, or on smartphones, which are much better analogues to the development of VR right now.

On those devices, games were fun things you could do on a piece of hardware you already own for other purposes – for work, or for communications. Long before the notion of a "Gaming PC" really existed, PC games ran on home and office PC hardware, and they were a fun thing you could do on your lunch break, or after work, or when you were meant to be doing your homework.

If AR is the computing paradigm of the future, at least for some people, then games using those devices will get their moment to shine when the barriers to entry drop because people own the devices already and are donning them for work purposes anyway.

So much of the development of VR in the past ten years has been game-centric, but perhaps that approach has now reached something of a logical dead end. VR headsets have to compete with televisions, PCs, and smartphones right now, and their barrier to entry makes it inevitable that consumers will reach for the easier option most of the time.

If other, more mainstream applications of the technology emerge and succeed, however, those barriers drop; why not sneak in some game time on your work headset, since you've already got it set up and ready to go? That, perhaps, is the crucial step we've been missing – that before a commercial future for games on these platforms can be secured, the platforms themselves need to grow in other directions and become more of a daily part of people's lives for other reasons.