I suspect that gesture input adoption, categorically, has emergent properties. Many different things have to "go right" for the input category to take off in a way that is hard to grok.
The use of gestures has to appeal to hardcore gamers (in this case). The motion tracking needs to be sufficiently advanced. There can't be a swifter, dopamine enhancing alternative (like mashing buttons on a keyboard). A critical mass of developers need to make games with gestures as a core mechanic. Etc...
I offer Pavlov VR as an example. Pavlov is like Counterstrike, except many of the mechanics are gesture based.
- You grab your gun off your back
- You actually need to look through the scope for zoom, physically bringing your head and hands into alignment
- You have to reach over your left shoulder to activate the walkie-talkie for remote communication
- Reloading is a multi-step process and varies from gun to gun
You might say that I'm proving your point about gestures mapping to real-life, but that's not why I bring up Pavlov. I'm using it to illustrate the aforementioned emergent properties, because all of those gestures add up to something unexpected: even with subpar graphics and a low budget, it is fun. Not only that, but it is fun in an unexpected, novel way for FPS games. Suddenly, your kill count, headshots, etc...don't matter as much. The immersion as well as the social element of the game are huge. You are so zoomed in, so in the moment, when you are in a firefight, poking out your head out to snipe the sniper before rushing back below the barrier, in a way that you wouldn't be in a 2D game.
Microsoft could technically have made a Pavlov Kinect, but who would play it? Almost no one. People would complain that traditional controls make much more sense, and they would have a point. It's simply awkward to squirm around in front of a 2D screen. There's a disconnect between the input modality (3D gestures) and the display modality (2D screen) when using the Kinect. In VR, both the input and the display are in 3D harmony.
The use of gestures has to appeal to hardcore gamers (in this case). The motion tracking needs to be sufficiently advanced. There can't be a swifter, dopamine enhancing alternative (like mashing buttons on a keyboard). A critical mass of developers need to make games with gestures as a core mechanic. Etc...
I offer Pavlov VR as an example. Pavlov is like Counterstrike, except many of the mechanics are gesture based.
- You grab your gun off your back
- You actually need to look through the scope for zoom, physically bringing your head and hands into alignment
- You have to reach over your left shoulder to activate the walkie-talkie for remote communication
- Reloading is a multi-step process and varies from gun to gun
You might say that I'm proving your point about gestures mapping to real-life, but that's not why I bring up Pavlov. I'm using it to illustrate the aforementioned emergent properties, because all of those gestures add up to something unexpected: even with subpar graphics and a low budget, it is fun. Not only that, but it is fun in an unexpected, novel way for FPS games. Suddenly, your kill count, headshots, etc...don't matter as much. The immersion as well as the social element of the game are huge. You are so zoomed in, so in the moment, when you are in a firefight, poking out your head out to snipe the sniper before rushing back below the barrier, in a way that you wouldn't be in a 2D game.
Microsoft could technically have made a Pavlov Kinect, but who would play it? Almost no one. People would complain that traditional controls make much more sense, and they would have a point. It's simply awkward to squirm around in front of a 2D screen. There's a disconnect between the input modality (3D gestures) and the display modality (2D screen) when using the Kinect. In VR, both the input and the display are in 3D harmony.