next »

[ViktorTheBoar]

Is the VR going down? D:

VR was up?

[s0]

who in their right mind would want to be or be associated with that guy

posting from my google glass while riding a segway and wearing a drinking helmet with 2 bottles containing a mix of Soylent™ and freshly squeezed Juicero™ smoothies affixed to it.

[Schoq]

drinking helmet

this Wearable had better be App Enabled or you might as well tell investors to throw their money in the bay

[eyeliner]

Today's headsets (or eyesets?) are just the first iteration.
This will take off when Hololense type glasses are common place and become more transportable, just like normal glasses.
Should be a few years ahead, though.

The sets today are way too individual, look ridiculous and are huge. Miniaturization will go a long way in helping VR get up.

[Richard Kain]

I picked up a PSVR in the recent Amazon sale. ($300 for the headset and camera, and three full downloadable games, very nice deal) I didn't get around to hooking it up and trying it until last night. (for various reasons) I was actually pretty pleased with the experience. I only tried one game so far. (Drive Club VR) So I still have a lot more to experience. But I was very pleased when I tested out the 3D movie support for it. The 3D movie playback in the PSVR is lower resolution than you would like. But the 3D support for it is rock-solid, and a considerably more pleasant experience than the passive and active tech you see with most 3D-capable televisions.

It may be a slightly more isolating experience at the moment, but there are ways around that. And some of the advantages that go along with it can easily compensate for that drawback. Once the prices start lowering, and the software offerings expand, we'll start to see an increase in adoption.

[voidSkipper]

It has its niches.

"VR or triples" threads on racing sim boards are now tipping in majority favour of VR.

[muki]

Just my opinion.

VR was an appealing idea 5 years ago because it promised to be around $350-400. I was hoping for stereo vision with a basic head accelerometer (no room tracking) for that price.

It then later became a bundle with the joystick attachments for a much higher cost, and I think that trapped a lot of people and devs. Consumers weren't willing to spend $1000+ unless many games used the bundled accessories that (from the consumer's point of view) appeared to jack the price up considerably. And devs were hesitant to make/modify many games that underwent fundamental compromises to use these accessories, unless there was a large enough consumer base to make it worth it.

Oh no! Trapped!

Which is why I think they fucked up with the accessories. I think they should have made cheap stereo vision with basic head movement a priority first, then a few years down the line whatever extra they wanted.

I also think they feared that simply stereo vision would be too hard to market, you can't post screenshots or video of it, you have to experience it. So their brand departments got them to add a bunch of accessories that were easier to show off through traditional media to attract people who didn't know what stereo vision was. They went all-in with the complete expensive experience devs were afraid to develop for instead of taking small baby steps into the market.

[s0]

what if humans as a species just on average really don't care that much about playing games with a screen stuck to their face really close to the eyes

well yeah, kinda. i think the number of people who actually care about a "total immersion experience" with videogames is much smaller than we think. "core" gamer culture is already a niche to begin with and people who want total immersion are their own sub niche within that.

i can see VR becoming big with sim type games like voidskipper mentions. everything else? not so much. but i could be wrong idk.

[Alevice]

Horror games

[s0]

technically all games are horror games...

[mks]

[Raptor85]

Just my opinion.

VR was an appealing idea 5 years ago because it promised to be around $350-400. I was hoping for stereo vision with a basic head accelerometer (no room tracking) for that price.

It then later became a bundle with the joystick attachments for a much higher cost, and I think that trapped a lot of people and devs. Consumers weren't willing to spend $1000+ unless many games used the bundled accessories that (from the consumer's point of view) appeared to jack the price up considerably. And devs were hesitant to make/modify many games that underwent fundamental compromises to use these accessories, unless there was a large enough consumer base to make it worth it.

Oh no! Trapped!

Which is why I think they fucked up with the accessories. I think they should have made cheap stereo vision with basic head movement a priority first, then a few years down the line whatever extra they wanted.

I also think they feared that simply stereo vision would be too hard to market, you can't post screenshots or video of it, you have to experience it. So their brand departments got them to add a bunch of accessories that were easier to show off through traditional media to attract people who didn't know what stereo vision was. They went all-in with the complete expensive experience devs were afraid to develop for instead of taking small baby steps into the market.

until the past few weeks you could buy the rift and touch sensors seperately, and most rift games didn't use them, the rift had dropped to $350.  Now, unfortunately, they're discontinuing the rift only package as nobody was buying it, people were only getting the one with touch bundled, so the $450 to $490 (depending on where you buy it) package is the only one available.

And you guys underestimate what consumers will pay, i mean, people pay all the time $800-$1000 for a phone just because the emoji's are cooler than the ones on that $200 phone that has almost the same hardware. And really, $450 is what, 3-4 days work tops for median income for middle class, it's not like it's really THAT expensive

[Schoq]

I barely know a single person irl who has that kind of money to spend on gimmick entertainment hardware. "middle class" is probably a much smaller demographic than you think

[joseph ¯\_(ツ)_/¯]

1- vr + vr ready computer costs an awful lot more than a new phone,
2- almost nobody pays full price for phones, usually bundled into a service they _need_,
3- phones have a much bigger audience than nerd games for weirdos
4- vr is not good as a videogame medium, so even among enthusiasts it would be surprising if a lot of vr units were moving at like, $200 with no added pc hardware cost
5- room scale vr requires space, being able and willing to drill into your walls, being able and willing to fuck with not working computer hardware a lot, etc
6- i make that '450 is 3-4 days work tops' money, and I can tell you: 1: most of it goes to food, living expenses, etc 2: none of my other irl friends make near as much as me

anyway in conclusion,

vr probably isnt dying because facebook, google, etc all want it to be successful so they can make money and springboard to other technologies that make sense, but maybe is dying because its an absolutely pointless invention even by videogame standards.

[Cobralad]

2- almost nobody pays full price for phones, usually bundled into a service they _need_,

i hope you like that new iphone and livin in Usa

[Richard Kain]

Which is why I think they fucked up with the accessories. I think they should have made cheap stereo vision with basic head movement a priority first, then a few years down the line whatever extra they wanted.

You are likely onto something there. VR is an overwhelming experience just by its very nature. And "cockpit" style games that encourage you to remain seated in one place are already one of the better applications of the technology. It might have been a mistake for Valve and later Occulus to start pushing for "stand-up" VR with spatial motion tracking. It's impressive tech, to be sure. I got to try out one of those games at PAX for the Occulus, with the touch controllers, and it was really nice. But I also ended up turned around when the demo ended. I hadn't even realized that I had turned in the opposite direction.

It's a lot easier to start "drifting" with the full-body, full-room version of this tech. Starting off with a more limited version that encourages sitting would have probably been the way to go, instead of trying to leap-frog forward. When you're pushing people into an experience like this, you have to take baby-steps.

[flatingo]

We have in Ukraine, HTC has long ceased to be sold. Before they were cool, and now their time is gone.
Now Samsung, Apple and Meizu we are in the lead.
But VR in the last time ceases in the world, after a loud noise.

[s0]

And you guys underestimate what consumers will pay, i mean, people pay all the time $800-$1000 for a phone just because the emoji's are cooler than the ones on that $200 phone that has almost the same hardware. And really, $450 is what, 3-4 days work tops for median income for middle class, it's not like it's really THAT expensive

i don't know anyone irl who has paid 800-1000$ for a phone. even disregarding that, a phone is much more widely useful than a VR headset which is an entertainment gimmick at the end of the day. you kinda have to weigh costs and benefits there. you're saying they're "only" 350-450 dollars. i could buy a nintendo switch or xbone + games for that money which will probably entertain me more.

[ｂ∀ ｋｋｕｓａ]

a ~1000$ phone is wealth you can display on everyday basis like shoes,watches and google glasses.

[s0]

a ~1000$ phone is wealth you can display on everyday basis like shoes,watches and google glasses.