Support NeoGAF

[GuitarAtomik]

Again, I'd say 3D TV's as an example of how people don't want to wear stuff, regardless of how comfortable it may be.
Another example is Google Glass, wasn't that a huge failure? Why? Expensive, a luxury, and people don't want to wear them.

3D TVs and Google Glass didn't pass the "sufficiently awesome for the price and hassle" barometer I laid out. I think VR does (or at the very least will) but that doesn't matter since your argument is that no matter how mind blowing the experience could hypothetically be, people won't want it because you have to put it on your face. No exceptions.

 

[bj00rn_]

Yeah this definitely leaves the door wide open for Sony

OR isn't the only HMD on the upcoming market. There is going to be dozens (or even more in the future) of HMDs in all kinds of ranges and technology. Not all these experiences has to be unreachable by the masses. The only point of the OVR CEO was that they are positioning themselves in the high end market, always has. You don't even need to run the OR at "max settings" (whatever that means..). We're talking about PC here, optionally everyone is free to dial it down.

 

[Seanspeed]

No exceptions.

 

[magnumpy]

I don't think any benefit can outweigh this cost just yet. That's a crazy amount of money for what is essentially, a luxury.
The last life altering tech was smartphones I'd say. (or it is the first to come mind) These became successful because
A) Everyone needs a phone. VR is a luxury.
B) Contract plans made them affordable.

how about VR using your cellphone?

 

[Foggy]

I don't think any benefit can outweigh this cost just yet. That's a crazy amount of money for what is essentially, a luxury.
The last life altering tech was smartphones I'd say. (or it is the first to come mind) These became successful because
A) Everyone needs a phone. VR is a luxury.
B) Contract plans made them affordable.

VR is more than just high-end PC ready. Mobile VR is already happening now and I'm sure there are already plans for tablet use. It's a luxury for sure, but not a $1500 luxury across the board. Millions of people already have tablets, mobile phones, and consoles. The crazy amount of money you're referring to is strictly for the PC enthusiast, for everyone else, it's a $300-ish add-on to a Samsung phone/tablet or PS4 that they already own. So we're talking a $300-ish cost added onto the physical inconvenience. If you still think that's far too high to overcome, well, that's just where we diverge I suppose.

 

[KJRS_1993]

No exceptions.

You rip the piss, but do you know of any other successful luxury items / entertainment products that you wear on your face?
Except for sunglasses, for the obvious reason they're more comfortable to wear than have the sun in your face, and are considered a fashion item.

how about VR using your cellphone?

Definitely more potential to work than Occulus and Morpheus, I would consider phone VR the most likely of the lot to be successful.
Everyone owns a phone, and if people don't have one capable of working it yet, they likely will when they compulsorily renew their contracts.

The "wearing it on the face" barrier can't be overstated though.

 

[MrCunningham]

Yeah this definitely leaves the door wide open for Sony, it will also help make the Morpheus seem like an even better deal than it otherwise would have been.

This is actually going to leave the door open for other VR headsets on the PC to come in and undercut Oculus. OSVR is a top contender with their $199.99 opensource headset that they are developing with Razer. Valve also has their own headset in the works too, which will create some competition in the PC market.

 

[Nzyme32]

You rip the piss, but do you know of any other successful luxury items / entertainment products that you wear on your face?
Except for sunglasses, for the obvious reason they're more comfortable to wear than have the sun in your face, and are considered a fashion item.

You should read up on exactly what was said about television and radio when they first came out. You sound exactly the same, and both have obviously been successful

 

[Bookoo]

You rip the piss, but do you know of any other successful luxury items / entertainment products that you wear on your face?
Except for sunglasses, for the obvious reason they're more comfortable to wear than have the sun in your face, and are considered a fashion item.

I don't think there ever has been any other luxury items / entertainment products that were worth wearing on my face.

Current VR is really the first one that offers the most compelling experience.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

You rip the piss, but do you know of any other successful luxury items / entertainment products that you wear on your face?

Scuba equipment
Ski masks
Motorcycle helmets
F1 driver crash helmets
Nightvision goggles
Oxygen masks for high-altitude climbing
Fighter Jet helmets
Space suit helmets

All of the above are required equipment to gain an experience that you otherwise would not be able to experience.
All of the above can be simulated as a VR experience for substantially less money (and in many cases less risk) than doing the real thing.

 

[DouglasteR]

Comparing TV3D to VR is like comparing monocycle with a race bike

 

[SinSilla]

Selling VR is tough (to the people that haven't had a chance to try).

Giving out minimum specs for something that is essentially a display device (and relying on developers to don't fuck shit up) and having to estimate a price for the whole package seems to be marketing nightmare.

And it shows, i really don't know what people expected and i'm baffled that there are so many enthusiastic gamers who have no love and/or no understanding of VR and what it brings to the table.

Reading so many comparisons to Nintendowiggle and 3D TV on Neogaf was something i didn't expect.

The "wearing it on the face" barrier can't be overstated though.

I also don't see whats up with peoples faces, whats the problem putting big goggles on if you can immersive yourself fully into another reality?

 

[GuitarAtomik]

You rip the piss, but do you know of any other successful luxury items / entertainment products that you wear on your face?
Except for sunglasses, for the obvious reason they're more comfortable to wear than have the sun in your face, and are considered a fashion item.

Correlation does not imply causation. Can you name another product that you can wear on your face that provides the level of new experience that VR does and was priced at a consumer level that failed?

The "wearing it on the face" barrier can't be overstated though.

I think it can. I think it's a negligible concern that is only a problem for people who either misunderstand the tech, or are overly conscious of what they look like at all times. I really think people won't give a shit once they put it on.

 

[KJRS_1993]

You should read up on exactly what was said about television and radio when they first came out. You sound exactly the same, and both have obviously been successful

I'm pretty interested, do you have a link anywhere to what they said when it came out?

Scuba equipment
Ski masks
Motorcycle helmets
F1 driver crash helmets
Nightvision goggles
Oxygen masks for high-altitude climbing
Fighter Jet helmets
Space suit helmets

All of the above are required equipment to gain an experience that you otherwise would not be able to experience.
All of the above can be simulated as a VR experience for substantially less money (and in many cases less risk) than doing the real thing.

Okay, so out of the above list, how many of these things do you actually own?
Furthermore, how much of these things do you wear for a practical purpose and not for a luxury?
Lastly, Space Suits? Fighter Jet helmets? We're comparing these to VR?

Correlation does not imply causation. Can you name another product that you can wear on your face that provides the level of new experience that VR does and was priced at a consumer level that failed?

I don't think it's priced at a consumer level. Not a consumer outside of enthusiasts anyway.
It'll sell, I don't doubt for a second it'll sell reasonably well considering the price. But one in every home? The next big thing? Not yet. Give it 5-10 years.


Either way you slice it, give it a few months and we'll see what happens. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'd happily own up to it.

 

[Seanspeed]

You rip the piss, but do you know of any other successful luxury items / entertainment products that you wear on your face?
Except for sunglasses, for the obvious reason they're more comfortable to wear than have the sun in your face, and are considered a fashion item.

Dude, people have gone over it already. And dozens and dozens of times in past threads with people(who inevitably haven't actually tried it) dismissing it because of the same old tired reasons.

You cant go by past precedents because nothing in the past has been like VR.

 

[KooopaKid]

I think it can. I think it's a negligible concern that is only a problem for people who either misunderstand the tech, or are overly conscious of what they look like at all times. I really think people won't give a shit once they put it on.

Strongly disagree. It's socially awkward. It will only be accepted amongst nerds or in dark places lol. A least for the time being.

 

[PulseONE]

I'm pretty interested, do you have a link anywhere to what they said when it came out?



Okay, so out of the above list, how many of these things do you actually own?
Furthermore, how much of these things do you wear for a practical purpose and not for a luxury?
Lastly, Space Suits? Fighter Jet helmets? We're comparing these to VR?


Either way you slice it, give it a few months and we'll see what happens. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'd happily own up to it.

I don't understand why it matters what you have to wear on your head. If it's an amazing experience people won't care how 'unfashionable' it looks.

 

[Seanspeed]

Strongly disagree. It's socially awkward. It will only be accepted amongst nerds or in dark places lol. A least for the time being.

You've discovered this through personal experience of trying VR around others?

 

[Foggy]

Either way you slice it, give it a few months and we'll see what happens. Hey, if I'm wrong, I'd happily own up to it.

Something to consider, we're going to need more than a few months to see what happens anyway. I can only speak for myself, but I'm sure most other people arguing with you would also agree that this thing isn't going to come out of the gates screaming and revolutionize things overnight. This is the early-adopter phase of this tech so we honestly need a 3-5 more years to really see how much of a success or failure it could end up being(and there are industry analysts backing up this projection). For better or worse, these threads/arguments/exchanges aren't going to go away and will in fact probably get more insufferable after it gets released into the wild. Best thing to do...try it if you get the chance!

 

[ShutterMunster]

This isn't a surprise and it's going to continue to be the crux for VR going forward. If you want visuals that match the current cream of the crop there is going to be a performance premium to do it in VR. This will not change as time goes on.

VR is fun, I'm happy it exists in a more obtainable form, but it is not going to be the standard of anything for at LEAST a decade+ and that's me being really generous.

 

[-SD-]

High-end PCs, PS4 and arcades. That's where modern VR is going to debut and possibly thrive, for a while. The re-beginnings of VR will be fickle and tough.

 

[Oppo]

Are there people super-hyped for the oculus who don't already have a PC setup?

My retirement-age dad asks me about Oculus stuff constantly. He has a 3 year old Mac mini and an iPad.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Again, I'd say 3D TV's as an example of how people don't want to wear stuff, regardless of how comfortable it may be.
Another example is Google Glass, wasn't that a huge failure? Why? Expensive, a luxury, and people don't want to wear them.

The problem is there's nothing that exists right now that gives you what VR will give, so you don't know if people will want to wear it or not. People wear bicycle helmets; sure they're not super comfortable but the the positives outweigh the negatives.

3D TV's didn't fail because of the glasses, it failed because the experience was not good enough to warrant wearing glasses. VR doesn't just offer 3D, it offers the possibilites of new types of experiences that stereoscopic 3D (Full depth unlike a 3D TV), head/body tracking, and an increased field of view allow.

Once again, smart glass doesn't offer anything that warrants wearing glasses if you don't already wear them. Once the tech gets better it will surely be worth it.

 

[KooopaKid]

You've discovered this through personal experience of trying VR around others?

What about you? In what places have you tried it? Gamescom? E3?
I can see it being acceptable in theme parks though.

 

[baphomet]

Strongly disagree. It's socially awkward. It will only be accepted amongst nerds or in dark places lol. A least for the time being.

Actually, its the opposite of that. Its an amazing experience that everyone wants to take turns using.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

Okay, so out of the above list, how many of these things do you actually own?

So you're not asking for luxury entertainment items that people buy, only ones that I specifically own?

Furthermore, how much of these things do you wear for a practical purpose and not for a luxury?

What's the actual difference between paying top dollar to hire a racing experience at brands Hatch for a day and being required to wear a helmet as a safety measure, and having the same experience in VR where wearing a VR helmet is the requirement?

You get the same experience. You have to wear a helmet.

Lastly, Space Suits? Fighter Jet helmets? We're comparing these to VR?

VR offers an immersive experience, and it isn't solely confined to experiences outside the purview of the super rich - you can add things that are impossible to do in real life too.
Like dinosaur watching.
Or standing on the top deck of the World Trade Centre.
Or anything else that can be conceived and rendered as CGI.

 

[Gumbie]

What about you? In what places have you tried it? Gamescom? E3?

I've brought out my DK2 at parties and everyone loved it and wanted to try it. The people who weren't using it watched along on the secondary display. There was nothing "socially awkward" about it.

 

[KJRS_1993]

Entire post.

I agree entirely.
Right now, I don't think the costs outweigh the potential benefits. Disclaimer - I am speaking as someone who has not tried it, but most people haven't either.

You disagree, and that's cool, the only way for us to really know for sure is to see how it goes when it comes out.

 

[magnumpy]

Definitely more potential to work than Occulus and Morpheus, I would consider phone VR the most likely of the lot to be successful.
Everyone owns a phone, and if people don't have one capable of working it yet, they likely will when they compulsorily renew their contracts.

I don't understand, the oculus gear VR is a product which uses your mobile phone

oculus has two products: the rift which is a high end PC product and the gear VR which uses your samsung cell phone

 

[Kinthalis]

You realize we're talking about the PS3 here, correct? And isn't the display in the Morpheus headset a 1080p display?

All i'm saying is that the requirements of 'good VR' aren't set in stone and that crisp, high-framerate visuals are not impossible to achieve on a console at all.

According to the PS4 fanboys on this thread the PC VR solutions will REQUIRE $2,000 machines, while, AT THE SAME TIME, they will only be driven by small indie games (which of course, have historically been known to push the envelope in terms of technical graphics achievements, don't you know!), while on the other hand Sony's VR will be able to do what $2,000 PC hardware can do EASILY, no problem whatsoever, and their VR experiences will be about high end, graphical quality, AAA, games only possible on a Sony console. PC will just be "haunted houses and 99% crap" (direct quotes).

This narrative is ridiculous, blind fanboyism, based on nothing but faith, given that we haven't seen any games announced for ANYTHING VR on ANY platform, aside from traditional games saying they will support VR in some way - and in that space PC is already well ahead.

 

[AllIsOneIsNone]

Actually, its the opposite of that. Its an amazing experience that everyone wants to take turns using.

Exactly. Just look up the reaction videos, everyone wants a turn.

I agree entirely.
Right now, I don't think the costs outweigh the potential benefits. Disclaimer - I am speaking as someone who has not tried it, but most people haven't either.

You disagree, and that's cool, the only way for us to really know for sure is to see how it goes when it comes out.

No doubt it won't be an immediate adoption like the smartphone, it's going to have to be through word of mouth and actually experiencing it, since it's a unique piece of tech that you have to see to understand. But the thing is, a lot of people have decent gaming rigs these days, PC gaming is alive and well. A lot of people may only need a gpu or RAM update to get them where they need. Decent PC's are fairly common in homes, people need to remember that when denying the adoption rate due to expenses.

 

[Canis lupus]

Oculus will be the least popular headset and considering their limited market, I don't expect many AAA games from them.

Yep, VR will be another short-lived (and recycled) trend like the motion controllers and 3D.

Just like the motion control hype of the last decade, it will probably be very popular for a while, and then when it's time for the next gen of VR headsets, they'll bomb or not become as popular because the old one is "good enough" for the mainstream. Like the Wii U, Kinect 2 etc. I feel like the technology is 5-10 years too early to the market, when the baseline hw needed for the "premium" VR is $1000 less.

 

[KingV]

I won't be buying a Morpheus or a Rift, but if I had to choose, Rift has more long term potential.

Morpheus is one of those things that is destined to be poorly supported, just like basically all expensive, nonstandard, console peripherals.

It could be great technology, but its likely to cost at least $250, which means it's likely to be poorly supported. Rift at least will have mods and indies to play with and will likely be usable into the next generation of consoles.

Imagine Kinect... But now it costs twice as much.

 

[Bookoo]

Exactly. Just look up the reaction videos, everyone wants a turn.

Yup my friend made fun of me so hard when I got DK1 and then the GearVR. Saying stuff like "what you are just going to sit there with a little screen on your face" "How anti-social"...blah blah blah.

Then he tried it and thought it was the coolest thing ever and then made me bring it over to his house one day to show his wife, sister, and brother. His brother now jokes he only wants to come over if I am bringing my headset.

Now my friend will probably not buy a PC to run a rift, but he does have a PS4. So he may be compelled to get that because the experience is so compelling and the fun of showing it off to other people.

 

[InaudibleWhispa]

What about you? In what places have you tried it? Gamescom? E3?
I can see it being acceptable in theme parks though.

I own a DK2. Rather than be socially awkward, every party I have people tell me to get it out. Watching people try it is fun. Trying it is even more fun. And I'm not just talking about my tech-savvy young friends, every time I have family over they ask me for a go. I've had 50 year olds who've never owned a game console come over to try it just because of word of mouth from other family members. They always ask me when and where they can get one. The experience is absolutely impressive enough to overcome any goofiness initially felt putting on a headset for most people in my experience, and the only people I've heard say otherwise are people who have no experience of owning and showing VR to other people.

 

[KJRS_1993]

I don't understand, the oculus gear VR is a product which uses your mobile phone

oculus has two products: the rift which is a high end PC product and the gear VR which uses your samsung cell phone

I'm talking about the one referenced in the thread title.

So you're not asking for luxury entertainment items that people buy, only ones that I specifically own?

What's the actual difference between paying top dollar to hire a racing experience at brands Hatch for a day and being required to wear a helmet as a safety measure, and having the same experience in VR where wearing a VR helmet is the requirement?

I'll broaden it for you then. Not just that you own personally, who do you know who owns a fighter jet helmet? A space suit? Why am I even entertaining this?

There's a shit ton of difference between scuba diving in a coral reef and going on a scuba diving experience on your sofa, as well as driving an actual speeding racecar instead of a VR one. You won't get the same experience by any stretch. I don't think it should really need explaining?

 

[KooopaKid]

I've brought out my DK2 at parties and everyone loved it and wanted to try it. The people who weren't using it watched along on the secondary display. There was nothing "socially awkward" about it.

Totally different atmosphere. Were people drunk?
It's the same thing as the Wii. They want to check out the new tech but here it won't go further than that. How long did they try it? Were the girls trying it also? If so for how long?

 

[Soi-Fong]

Actually, its the opposite of that. Its an amazing experience that everyone wants to take turns using.

Yup. Elite Dangerous with my X55 HOTAS on my rig equipped with a 780 Ti was a hoot. I mirrored the Oculus screen on another monitor and this allowed people outside the Oculus to take part.

This was only with the tutorial levels as well, but it was a blast for all those who got to try it.

Heck, I even showed them some of the experimental stuff Dolphin had like I showed them Paper Mario in the Rift. The visual style of the game just made sense for the Rift and it showed how much the Rift can enhance these games.

 

[GuitarAtomik]

I don't think it's priced at a consumer level. Not a consumer outside of enthusiasts anyway.
It'll sell, I don't doubt for a second it'll sell reasonably well considering the price. But one in every home? The next big thing? Not yet. Give it 5-10 years.

I don't think anyone that has been following VR closely for the past year or so expects it to be the next big thing out of the gate. No one informed is arguing that. But you are arguing that will never happen because you have to wear it on your face.

 

[MrNyarlathotep]

I'll broaden it for you then. Not just that you own personally, who do you know who owns a fighter jet helmet? A space suit? Why am I even entertaining this?

That's not the point. the point is how many people do you know that would love to fly a fighter jet? or control a space shuttle?

Because that's the audience for VR.

There's a shit ton of difference between scuba diving in a coral reef and going on a scuba diving experience on your sofa, as well as driving an actual speeding racecar instead of a VR one. You won't get the same experience by any stretch. I don't think it should really need explaining?

You get an experience that - due to the way your brain handles visual inputs - is 95% of that experience.
again, if you're shit talking VR as "basically the same as 3DTV", its because you haven't tried it.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

CEO Brendan Iribe said Oculus users would need to spend around $1,500 for the headset & a computer powerful enough to run it.

I suppose those numbers are based on a desktop computer. Imagine what a laptop with the same power costs, that's easy over $ 2,000.

Seems like Morpheus is the only VR-option for non-early adopters and -enthusiasts.

 

[KJRS_1993]

That's not the point. the point is how many people do you know that would love to fly a fighter jet? or control a space shuttle?

Because that's the audience for VR.

Plenty would want to, of course they would. I do.
How many people want to spend $1500 to pretend to? Not quite so many.

You get an experience that - due to the way your brain handles visual inputs - is 95% of that experience.
again, if you're shit talking VR as "basically the same as 3DTV", its because you haven't tried it.

And now all they have to do is attempt to convince the other 99% of people who haven't tried it to spend $1500 on it and then we'll have a VR success story.

I don't think VR is doomed to fail forever and so maybe I shouldn't have said "nothing on the face ever" so far. But the benefits won't be worth the costs for years and years yet.

Edit : this page has become a sea of green quotes and posts, so I'm dropping out of this for now. It's been good though, VR comparisons to fashionable wanking and space suits discounted. Adios.

 

[Hoo-doo]

According to the PS4 fanboys on this thread the PC VR solutions will REQUIRE $2,000 machines, while, AT THE SAME TIME, they will only be driven by small indie games (which of course, have historically been known to push the envelope in terms of technical graphics achievements, don't you know!), while on the other hand Sony's VR will be able to do what $2,000 PC hardware can do EASILY, no problem whatsoever, and their VR experiences will be about high end, graphical quality, AAA, games only possible on a Sony console. PC will just be "haunted houses and 99% crap" (direct quotes).

This narrative is ridiculous, blind fanboyism, based on nothing but faith, given that we haven't seen any games announced for ANYTHING VR on ANY platform, aside from traditional games saying they will support VR in some way - and in that space PC is already well ahead.

Are you just spinning a narrative in your head now? Where the hell are people saying the above?

Christ, calm down. I really don't see how my post warrants such a temper tantrum.

 

[Aces&Eights]

A $300-$400 Playstation 4 accessory is dead in the water as well anyway though.

Yeah, I don't know about that. Move and camera didn't take off but we are talking about VR here. With the current PS4 install base and some good old fashioned mass marketing, with it going on sale on Black Friday it could move some units. The real key will be word of mouth. If someone does get it and it is really, really awesome and they can't stop telling their friends and letting them try it out, then we could see it be a success. Sony just needs to do the exact opposite style marketing than what they do right now because they are the worst at advertising.

I own the PS4 but no Move or camera. IF I can get the 3 for $499.99 or less, I'm all in.

 

[Bitch Pudding]

VR is more than just high-end PC ready. (...) The crazy amount of money you're referring to is strictly for the PC enthusiast, for everyone else, it's a $300-ish add-on to a Samsung phone/tablet or PS4 that they already own. So we're talking a $300-ish cost added onto the physical inconvenience.

Yeah, but Morpheus is capable of closing the technology gap between low-end mobile VR and high-end PC VR - at low end mobile prices.

A $300-$400 Playstation 4 accessory is dead in the water as well anyway though.

I'd buy a $300 Morpheus on day one (and give a $400 a little rest...).

 

[Kinthalis]

Are you just spinning a narrative in your head now? Where the hell are people saying the above?

Christ, calm down. I really don't see how my post warrants such a temper tantrum.

Temper tantrum? Attempting to belittle my position by attacking my supposed tone is something 10 year olds do to each other in the school yard.

Let us elevate the discussion instead, no?

 

[TheJollyCorner]

is "a premium VR experience!" some kind of new buzz statement PC folks are pushing these days to dismiss the idea of console VR?

I'm seeing an awful lot of that in this thread.

Morpheus will be fine. I can't imagine Sony dumping whatever high amount of money into the R&D for VR, likely using the PS4 version as a tide-me-over or springboard to a potential pack in PS5 version, only for it to be a technical mess that's expensive and leaves people vomiting on their Move glow-balls.

PC gaming has always been the avenue to go if you want and can afford 'premium' experiences. VR will be no different. That said, I imagine a lot of stubborn PC gamers will be eating heaps of crow when Sony puts out a competent, consumer-friendly VR device that is plug-play out of the box.

 

[Seanspeed]

What about you? In what places have you tried it? Gamescom? E3?
I can see it being acceptable in theme parks though.

I'll take this response as "I have no personal experience with what I made claim to and was speaking purely from an ill-informed gut instinct perspective."

Anyways, VR with others around can be a lot of fun. People who actually own them will attest to that. I can see certain kids in their sensitive teenage years being hesitant, though. Ya know, where the world revolves around fitting in and doing the specified 'cool' thing. But teenagers are dumb and usually grow out of that.

 

[Hoo-doo]

Temper tantrum? Attempting to belittle my position by attacking my supposed tone is something 10 year olds do to each other in the school yard.

Let us elevate the discussion instead, no?

Read your last post again. Then read my post, the one you quoted.

Elevated discussion indeed.

 

[SinSilla]

At the same time people have no problem whatsoever dropping 2k on a big screen for their PS4.

For that money (~1500$) you get a gaming machine that beats every console out in performance and visual fidelity, a dedicated monitor and a virtual reality headset. How can anyone complain?