Reallink
Member
CV1 doesn't have a diopter adjustment, only an IPD slider. PSVR has nothing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Develop: PC VR sales has almost ground to a halt
- Thread starter Wollan
- Start date
CV1 doesn't have a diopter adjustment, only an IPD slider. PSVR has nothing.
To be fair, you watched a video where a guy picked out the worst 20 minutes of footage from dozens of hours of content.
I agree that the content isn't compelling, but I also don't think that video reflects reality.
TheBryanJZX90
Member
Well Sony doesn't have a great track record of consistent full fledged support for risky projects that may not be blockbusters right out of the gate. Looking at move, 3Dtv games, streaming games, the five or six half-assed video apps, home, PS mobile, damn there's actually more than I remembered. So I guess the end result is, don't get your hopes up that VR will finally be a thing just because Sony is doing it.
Aztechnology
Member
How in the world was that not included? The Vive has distance adjustments as well as IPD adjustments right? And PSVR at least has distance adjustment. Can those with impaired vision use the Vive or PSVR without glasses?
Is this false then?
Zelenogorsk
Banned
That's the point i was making? I was saying that if i wanted to buy it i would need to get contacts which would only add to the high cost of it. The whole point of my post was that i had to take off my glasses so it looked bad.
StudioTan
Hold on, friend! I'd love to share with you some swell news about the Windows 8 Metro UI! Wait, where are you going?
You can use glasses with it, your friend was just being cautious. It's more comfortable with contacts but I wear glasses with the Rift sometimes too.
Reallink
Member
Not false, it's just a different thing. Moving the lens closer to your eyes (what you quoted refers to) doesn't correct for vision impairments, it optimizes the field of view and is more of a fit adjustment. What you're wanting is a focus adjustment, which neither CV1, Vive, nor PSVR possess.
Starting to getting tired of this rhetoric. This forum is global, not everyone here live near by you
That's weird. Never tried proper VR but my Google cardboard headset works fine without my glasses and I'm like -6.5 prescription so normally can't see beyond the end of my nose.
That said, I've never had issues using VR with glasses on.
mercenar1e
Member
I have a high end system but I'm not picking up VR unless it hits $99-150. I haven't seen anything shown so far that makes me think I really need this.
Sanctuary
Member
jimmyjimmyo
Member
I have been offered a DK2 for a goodish price (under £200) would it be worth going for or at this stage is it a lame duck going forward.
My only VR experience was with the Samsung gear VR and I cancelled my PSVR pre-order as I would rather grab the neo first
My only VR experience was with the Samsung gear VR and I cancelled my PSVR pre-order as I would rather grab the neo first
Forever Changes
Banned
That's a pretty damn good deal, you could probably sell it for more if you don't like it.
AtomicShroom
Member
Once again proves the old saying that hardware doesn't sell hardware. Killer apps sell hardware. Unfortunately for VR, there aren't enough compelling games to go around, especially for the entry price...
I still think that's where a potentially fatal impasse occurs. Consumers want to wait for that big, AAA title before buying VR and developers want to wait for a sizeable increase in adoption before developing a big AAA title.
Fredrik
Member
I like 2D games too but I don't think the 3D revolution would have happened if the AAA teams continued to make 2D games while only smaller teams made the 3D games. 3D was the norm from day 1 at the PS1, Saturn, N64 launches. Everyone was aboard from day 1. But VR won't be the norm on PC or console for many years to come since the AAA teams are still focusing on non-VR and I think that is what will either delay the VR adoption for a very long time or even kill it off completely. VR must be the norm, then it'll attract the mainstream and even casuals. As it is it will sell to a small but highly excited crowd of core gamers with big wallets.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Well at least Bethesda/ID is reworking FO4 and DOOM for the Vive. Now if only we could get a compelling AAA open world with that kind of support
It would kind of break gameplay if it had teleport (well okay not with the blink ability), but I'd be over the moon if something as atmosphere-rich as the Dishonored games got the VR treatment. Immersion bump with that kind of detail dense world would be yuge.
Which is why I'm totally okay with hardware maker e.g. Oculus / FB bankrolling devs to create AAA content (but not just for the sake for exclusivity when the game is already in dev).
The industry itself needs to gain traction before we can start bickering about exclusivity etc.
Once the consumer base is mature enough, the supply side of the market will react and we can then have some competition (e.g. sony with the ps1 in a ninty dominated era).
I can see and understand why adoption rate has slowed down to a crawl. The entry price is still to high to go mainstream. Its an expensive tech for techie, enthusiast, and gamer not the regular Joe or kids. There are people who mention phones but they are heavily subsidize. I seen VR with head sets come and go over the years but never been able to gain ground due to the entry price. I think I seen various form of VR head sets since the early 90s. Not quite sure what kind though.
flipswitch
Member
Is it even possible to play a fps like doom and fo4 without feeling sick?
Teleporting wouldn't work as it would ruin the whole game, especially in doom.
I'm having enough trouble with Minecraft.
Teleporting wouldn't work as it would ruin the whole game, especially in doom.
I'm having enough trouble with Minecraft.
It's ok to be ignorant and make crazy conclusions that doesn't make any sense. But it's worth noting that the author of the article is using absolute steam user percentage values.
The GTX 970 is one of the most popular GPUs in recent history and it has only a 5.26% share on Steam, way above pretty much anything else. You shouldn't use absolute values to describe a trend, positive or negative. I think the author wanted those clicks pretty bad. And why is these numbers a metric for success anyway? Was scuba diving considered a failure because it never reached "mainstream" (no further comparison though.. and VR has a higher market potential)?
hooijdonk17
Member
It is a known fact that HD adoption by the pornography sector led to mass adoption of HD sets. We will need a lot more VR porn before the masses will be sold on the idea.
HandsomeCharles
Member
I've heard this before and I have a feeling it's bullshit. I had an HD TV long before streaming sites had HD porn, and I can't believe that the majority of watchers are buying blu-rays rather than just getting it online for free.
crazysapertonight
Member
Is it even possible to play a fps like doom and fo4 without feeling sick?
Teleporting wouldn't work as it would ruin the whole game, especially in doom.
I'm having enough trouble with Minecraft.
Teleporting works) And Beshesda use it)
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Yep. Expensive, unproven technology combined with games that appear to be shallow an you got a recipe for a nice product. The VR imo cannot be over $299 if it really wants to read mainstream success. Also, it need more in-depth, deep gameplay experiences over mini-games or short experiences.
Hell before Nintendo said a word many of us were unsure about the pacing people were expecting VR to increase at. And every time we questioned it there was a flood of familiar avatars telling us how wrong and backwards we were; constantly confusing uncertainty of imminent mainstream VR with whether or not VR would EVER (as in EVER ever) become a popular form of entertainment.
It was extremely annoying..... Now reading this thread everyones all "Well of course its niche for now". Like. What the hell, 2 years ago you guys were crucifying us for even suggesting such a thing.
BibiMaghoo
Member
Yeah I wanna see the receipts for this claim. I've heard it repeated as if a truism but never seen any evidence provided for it.
Zalusithix
Member
Your bog standard dumbphone is cheap as hell these days even without subsidizing. A phone with even lower capabilities in a much larger and awkward form factor was out of the reach of general consumers at the beginning of the tech.
Lister
Banned
Starting to getting tired of this rhetoric. This forum is global, not everyone here live near by you
Rhetoric? Lol. this is true fo ra LOt of people. sucks you aren't one of them, but that doesn't change for a many.
Aztechnology
Member
I'm pretty sure all the Gear VR does when I turn the adjustment wheel is to move it closer. I understand that they didn't focus on that because it can only compensate so much. - 6 or so maybe? So focusing on comfort for users who wear glasses was a better choice. It's just a little odd they didn't do that as well.
Not surprised.
I think the tech is still at least 5-10 years away from any potential mainstream success. Still much to clunky and low res, and far too expensive. The question is if it can survive as a niche until then or it will fade away and get stigmatized as a failed fad for another 20 years.
I think the tech is still at least 5-10 years away from any potential mainstream success. Still much to clunky and low res, and far too expensive. The question is if it can survive as a niche until then or it will fade away and get stigmatized as a failed fad for another 20 years.
Zalusithix
Member
AFAIK, the adjustment on the Gear VR changes the distance between the lenses and the screen, and thus the focus. The screen-lens distance for the Rift/Vive/PSVR is fixed. In the case of the Vive and PSVR, the whole assemblies move forwards and backwards for eye relief distance adjustment (to accommodate glasses better). Additionally, in the case of the the Rift and Vive, the distance between the lenses can change (IPD).
...by 'known fact' do you mean a sloppy assumption?
More than anything, HD adoption was the appeal of flat screen TVs being bigger and taking up less of the living room. Better picture quality was nice too, but that was part of the promise of a bigger screen.
DVDs and CDs were adopted not just because of quality, but the conveniences like no degrading with use (in theory) and not having to rewind/fast forward to find content. Cost and convenience will always trump 'quality', which is why people will usually choose lower image quality Netflix content over blu-rays, even if they're cheap.
VR right now represents a gigantic inconvenience most people's homes, and best suited to a gamer bedroom/den that can tolerate trailing cables and extra sensors. Even if VR was £100 or less I wouldn't want it in my living room as it is right now, but I can see the appeal. I own two sets of official Samba de Amigo Maracas, after all, but at least that was fun for multiple people.
Version 3.0
Member
These are fun, but one-sided. Where are all the ones predicting the Next Big Thing and whiffing? Like the Segway, for example. Remember when it was the mysterious "IT" that would "change the world"?
Or is that too touchy in a "VR might not be the next big thing" thread?
Or 3D TV's, or motion controllers.
wanderingprostheyltite
Member
Well motion controllers go hand in hand with VR, it may not be a big thing now but anyone that's tried Vive or Oculus Touch can see that as something potentially massive. Hand presence in a virtual world is a helluva drug
Latvian Hitman
Member
Uh, no? That actually didn't happen. I think you've confused HDTV adoption in the 2000's with VHS adoption in the 1980's.
What are you talking about? If you think Nintendo brought a reality check, then you clearly are living in the dark. VR sales expectations have been known for several years. The bigger a VR fan you are, the more you know this, because it's always being talked about. Only the haters are surprised right now or when Nintendo said something less than glowing, because they're the only ones who don't follow VR closely.
Zalusithix
Member
Don't worry, traditional gaming isn't going anywhere. VR and traditional gaming have next to no overlap at this point in time. Traditional gaming can't emulate VR, and vice versa. You won't be personally affected by VR thriving.
Or do you just have a habit of wishing that anything that you don't have an interest in dies off?
Reallink
Member
It depends on the focal distance of the lenses. CV1 is focused at infinity by design so you ain't seeing shit without glasses. No adjustment on the headset is going to change that. Vive is closer than infinity, but still quite blurry for me at -3.5 in both eyes. Again, no adjustment on the headset is going to fix that. I have no idea what Cardboard recommends, or whether the wide variety of component and HMD manufacturers even adhere to it.
I hope not. The potential is so obvious already with games like Job Simulator
the-pi-guy
Member
Expensive, not really worth the expense personally. Especially when there's very little content.
Dropped because few games were released to keep up interest.
Are you refuting the VR comparison or making his point?
the-pi-guy
Member
Are you refuting the VR comparison or making his point?
Probably both.
Don't think we can write VR off at this point, particularly on the basis that 3D and motion controls didn't do very well. Well MC did do very well, but I'd say developers lost interest.
They both had problems, and it's entirely possible VR will have the same problems, but it's also entirely possible it doesn't.