Price is the problem. VR systems outside of US are expensive. A PSVR for PS4 is rather cheap here. But something to work on PC on other hand costs almost double the price.

once you have tryed it if your like me you get hooked, i need VR rehab :). joking aside it is the future just not everyone has caught on yet, i look at it like this what would i rather do Play a game or be in the game .
prices are coming down you can pick up rift and touch for as little as £200 2h here in the uk.

sepheronxPrice is the problem. VR systems outside of US are expensive. A PSVR for PS4 is rather cheap here. But something to work on PC on other hand costs almost double the price.

Its not price alone. VR headsets have been as expensive as an average console, multiple times already and PSVR, like you mention, was really accessible. It even had a nice peak in sales.... and then it died. If people really wanted it, they could have jumped even after tasting PSVR... They knew there were better versions of it. Right now, in the VR topic, I see 200-300 dollar headsets of good quality pass by. That's what, two packs of toilet paper in 2020... :rolleyes:

The core of the problem is that VR does not really replace anything, it is an addition to a gamer's kit. So it better be good, or its just a gimmick. Its exactly like all the other one-day-fly peripherals we've had before... even the Wii didn't survive and Kinect was even unbundled from the X1 go figure... And even now, 95% of gaming is still done with most basic stuff (KB/M or controller). You can only do one thing at a time and there are tons of entertainment things to choose from. And then, when you start weighing pros and cons... you do meet the price argument, and it stacks on top of the other major and minor niggles.

- headsets still improve on a regular basis. Its a similar hardware race as the PC itself. People ain't got time for that. Many already drop the ball when they look at PC on its own, they buy console.
- current headsets still have notable drawbacks beyond price. Bulky, sweaty, missing features like eye tracking, etc.
- price of entry is on top of everything else
- you need a gaming space much larger or set up differently than you do for normal gaming
- content is very limited in scope, but also on top of everything else; this speaks to an effort vs gain balance that is out of order... Cross compatibility or support is an illusion. Even VR remakes are separate releases.
- for social interaction, it is and will remain in uncanny valley. For porn, its mighty fine I suppose, but that won't carry gaming.

Is it the future? Perhaps. But maybe we should say Alyx is the first real early adopters game that shows what VR could be. Not what it actually is. One game is not enough for that. Its a real shame it took so long for a truly decent title, because now the norm/bar is set very low. Alyx is the exception to a rule, at this time.

All VR headsets are currently sold out, with long shipping delays.

I bought a Windows live headset with controllers for dirt cheap a few weeks ago. I was impressed.
i Then thought "Maybe I'll get one of those steam link VR headsets". Then i saw the price....

Well, half life is good, but not $1500+ good.

Although, it has made me dig out my old G27 steering wheel and enjoy racing sims in a way I've not experienced before.

Alyx is absolutely amazing, although being a linear story i probably wont play through it again any time soon.

That said they have a fully working awesome VR engine, so i'm expecting Half life Deathmatch in VR soon

aww hell, garrys mod VR would be amazing

Vayra86Its not price alone. VR headsets have been as expensive as an average console, multiple times already and PSVR, like you mention, was really accessible. It even had a nice peak in sales.... and then it died. If people really wanted it, they could have jumped even after tasting PSVR... They knew there were better versions of it. Right now, in the VR topic, I see 200-300 dollar headsets of good quality pass by. That's what, two packs of toilet paper in 2020... :rolleyes:

The core of the problem is that VR does not really replace anything, it is an addition to a gamer's kit. So it better be good, or its just a gimmick. Its exactly like all the other one-day-fly peripherals we've had before... even the Wii didn't survive and Kinect was even unbundled from the X1 go figure... And even now, 95% of gaming is still done with most basic stuff (KB/M or controller). You can only do one thing at a time and there are tons of entertainment things to choose from. And then, when you start weighing pros and cons... you do meet the price argument, and it stacks on top of the other major and minor niggles.

- headsets still improve on a regular basis. Its a similar hardware race as the PC itself. People ain't got time for that. Many already drop the ball when they look at PC on its own, they buy console.
- current headsets still have notable drawbacks beyond price. Bulky, sweaty, missing features like eye tracking, etc.
- price of entry is on top of everything else
- you need a gaming space much larger or set up differently than you do for normal gaming
- content is very limited in scope, but also on top of everything else; this speaks to an effort vs gain balance that is out of order...
- for social interaction, it is and will remain in uncanny valley. For porn, its mighty fine I suppose, but that won't carry gaming.

Is it the future? Perhaps. But maybe we should say Alyx is the first real early adopters game that shows what VR could be. Not what it actually is. One game is not enough for that. Its a real shame it took so long for a truly decent title, because now the norm/bar is set very low. Alyx is the exception to a rule, at this time.

Something I would also add, aside from HL Alyx, there hasn't been that many killer games. 99% of released VR stuff are either tech demos, random nonsense shovelware or regular games with post launch, sub-par vr implementation (an afterthought if you will). Games like beat saber are cool for 15 minutes and then what, same gameplay loop forever. Racing games can be cool, but you aren't really interacting with anything...
You are essentially buying a VR headest to play 2, max 3 games. And while I think HL Alyx is amazing, and by far the best VR release to date, I don't consider dropping 300+ bucks to play it.

No reports have surfaced on the increased sales rate of VR headsets since the quarantine has been enacted in many countries across the globe.

Supply and demand - the headsets were already being sold out well ahead of the Alyx launch and before quarantine. It probably better to look at sales data from between December-March.

londisteAll VR headsets are currently sold out, with long shipping delays.

Nothing is hurting widespread adoption more than this at the moment. Valve had a perfect storm of huge hype driving demand, not enough stock on hand, and supply-chain issues thanks to COVID19. I think we would see substantially more players, reviews, sales, etc if the index was more widely available at the moment.

ShurikNSomething I would also add, aside from HL Alyx, there hasn't been that many killer games. 99% of released VR stuff are either tech demos, random nonsense shovelware or regular games with post launch, sub-par vr implementation (an afterthought if you will). Games like beat saber are cool for 15 minutes and then what, same gameplay loop forever. Racing games can be cool, but you aren't really interacting with anything...
You are essentially buying a VR headest to play 2, max 3 games. And while I think HL Alyx is amazing, and by far the best VR release to date, I don't consider dropping 300+ bucks to play it.

Have to agree with you though I think things are finally starting to improve. In the past few months we've gotten Alyx, Boneworks, and The Room which are all VR-only, high quality, full games. Alyx is obviously in a league all it's own, but the other two are each more impressive than the majority of titles from 2016-2019

"it peaked at 16,459 concurrent players on the day of release, and has since seemingly settled in a 3,000 average concurrent player count. This speaks nothing of the game's quality, as we've seen: it speaks to the adoption of VR."

Even 3000 is too much for a single-player. Although Multiplayer mode may increase the number of users, most people still won't get the expensive VR headsets just to play one (or few) game(s).

great -.- just another signal that the idiot studios will focus on casual. concentrating on people's lack of restraint and on OCD vice mechanics.
I hope Gaben has another 120 years in the tank. at least he looks the part.

sepheronxPrice is the problem. VR systems outside of US are expensive. A PSVR for PS4 is rather cheap here. But something to work on PC on other hand costs almost double the price.

Oh, what a shower of cold ice it was when I checked Valve's Index price... Since it's not locally available (that would have been very surprising), going through Amazon, the full set costs almost USD 2500 (shipping included, around USD 80, and I take it that Amazon already added the 50% customs tax and the 30% tax on foreign currency, otherwise I would be looking at around USD 4500 total) That's a lot of investment for a couple games that can be considered actual games and not simply tech demos...

Granted, I did choose the most expensive VR kit around, and price issues are exacerbated by local distortions... but it still is a lot of money.

There are a number of different factors at play here. Pairing it down to cost of HMD and available VR games to play or a "Killer" VR title doesn't do justice to the complexity.

HMD's from different manufacturers were selling out before Half-Life: Alyx was released but the supply started to become an issue around the time that the game was rumored / announced. Money isn't necessarily an issue because the ~$1000 USD Valve Index was back-ordered and difficult to keep in stock so Valve grossly underestimated demand. So while a lot of people will loudly cite cost of VR hardware as an impediment a lot of people silently just buy it.

Back in August 2018, I posted a thread on a Lenovo Explore WMR HMD model that was going for ~$99 USD without controllers and $199 with controllers. So prices have gone up and availability has gone down since then.

There are also a lot of people that unrealistically expect the best HMD that money can buy for pennies on the dollar and that isn't going to happen anytime soon. These are likely some of the same people that took issue with Intel's Extreme Edition processor pricing hitting the multi thousand dollar threshold. There is reason to bristle at this but only a change in the industry will change such things and in the meantime are you going to stop using a computer out of protest,...? Also no one needs an Intel EE processor (or a Xeon for that matter at least not for games).

People who are truly interested in VR don't necessarily need a "killer" app or game to sell them on it.

Conversely there are a people who are averse to VR and can't be sold on it no matter what.

They're bulky and an extra expense for almost no return.
Once they can make a decent VR headset for $100 it might build up enough of a following to catch on.

jmcslobThey're bulky and an extra expense for almost no return.
Once they can make a decent VR headset for $100 it might build up enough of a following to catch on.

Perhaps but there are issues with this.

First, as noted before, there were some WMR HMD's that hit that magic ~$100 you cited albeit without the controllers (~$200 with controllers). One would think they will get to such a price point eventually but the current economy may make this difficult for some time.

Second, there are always going to be those with big eyes that will overlook the ~$100 HMD and only consider the ~$1000 USD HMD. Some people only want the best and only see the best regardless of what else is on offer.

Finally a VR HMD in a lot of ways is analogous to a display / monitor for a PC (albeit more as an input / output accessory device rather then essentially just an output). Monitors have a range of prices, technologies and features. No one is saying a monitor has to be ~$100 or its too expensive. There is every reason to have a range of prices depending on the technology implemented on a wide range of products.

OctaveanPerhaps but there are issues with this.

First, as noted before, there were some WMR HMD's that hit that magic ~$100 you cited albeit without the controllers (~$200 with controllers). One would think they will get to such a price point eventually but the current economy may make this difficult for some time.

Second, there are always going to be those with big eyes that will overlook the ~$100 HMD and only consider the ~$1000 USD HMD. Some people only want the best and only see the best regardless of what else is on offer.

Finally a VR HMD in a lot of ways is analogous to a display / monitor for a PC (albeit more as an input / output accessory device rather then essentially just an output). Monitors have a range of prices, technologies and features. No one is saying a monitor has to be ~$100 or its too expensive. There is every reason to have a range of prices depending on the technology implemented on a wide range of products.

1) The current $100 models aren't there yet..I think Samsung has a decent set for $350ish...Once they can make a comparable model for $100 I really think VR will get a huge uptick...problem is because of low sales they can't reduce manufacturing costs that occur with higher volume orders which keeps pricing high which keeps sales low.

2) Right
3) I don't disagree at all...problem is simply a lack of "good enough" products at a price point the masses are willing to pay.

jmcslob3) I don't disagree at all...problem is simply a lack of "good enough" products at a price point the masses are willing to pay.

Indeed but "good enough" is a slippery slope and a moving target.

WMR and Oculus inside out tracking of the controllers is "good enough" but neither are as good Valve Steam controller tracking. Even the original Oculus Rift sensor tracking (up to three or four sensors) is better then any inside out tracking implementation to date. "Good enough" implies compromise.

Also the new Valve Index at ~$1000 USD will eventually be surpassed by a newer model and the price will drop. By then those that were interested in the Valve Index but were put off by the price will be looking at the successor not looking to buy the older model.

As the technology improves the newer products with the latest tech will simply cost more and fewer people are interested in buying the older tech that has been surpassed.

People who are interested in VR, really interested, and that have the means aren't sitting on the sidelines with reasons not to buy into it. They are just doing it.

Typical "VR is dead" TPU.

Sure keep going at it~

Vayra86The core of the problem is that VR does not really replace anything, it is an addition to a gamer's kit. So it better be good, or its just a gimmick. Its exactly like all the other one-day-fly peripherals we've had before... even the Wii didn't survive and Kinect was even unbundled from the X1 go figure... And even now, 95% of gaming is still done with most basic stuff (KB/M or controller). You can only do one thing at a time and there are tons of entertainment things to choose from. And then, when you start weighing pros and cons... you do meet the price argument, and it stacks on top of the other major and minor niggles.

- headsets still improve on a regular basis. Its a similar hardware race as the PC itself. People ain't got time for that. Many already drop the ball when they look at PC on its own, they buy console.
- current headsets still have notable drawbacks beyond price. Bulky, sweaty, missing features like eye tracking, etc.
- price of entry is on top of everything else
- you need a gaming space much larger or set up differently than you do for normal gaming
- content is very limited in scope, but also on top of everything else; this speaks to an effort vs gain balance that is out of order...
- for social interaction, it is and will remain in uncanny valley. For porn, its mighty fine I suppose, but that won't carry gaming.

Is it the future? Perhaps. But maybe we should say Alyx is the first real early adopters game that shows what VR could be. Not what it actually is. One game is not enough for that. Its a real shame it took so long for a truly decent title, because now the norm/bar is set very low. Alyx is the exception to a rule, at this time.

From the perspective of someone that owns and supports VR, I think the current boat anchors on adoption are--

-HMD price, and the supporting hardware required (which again is even more money) - In my opinion, $199 is the upper limit of mass adoption for the headset.

-Form Factor - I believe these will have to be something a little more than large pair of glasses or ski goggles and very light weight. The current size/weight is one of my biggest complaints as a user. Also, I believe they must have a wireless connection to the PC. I can say from experience that going from the tethered CV1 to the no wire, no sensor, Quest is a far bigger difference than what it may seem to be. Completely un-tethered, with no sensor set up, and as big of a boundary area as your physical space will allow provides many times more immersion. With the CV1, even though you may not feel the cable, you always are conscious of the fact that you are tethered. Once you remove that with the Quest, you focus much more on the virtual environment (its kind of odd just how much that comes into play).

-Consumer Expectation - This is a big one. If we compare to TV's and monitors, the first HDTV I had ever seen at a store was a Pioneer Plasma at Best Buy, with a $12,000 price tag. It then took a decade from the launch of HDTV until we actually had mainstream hi-def content. More recently, 4K was launched in 2012, 8 years ago. On the TV side that took several years to have a worthwhile amount of content to justify the purchase, and on the PC monitor side, we are just now barely able to use them at an acceptable frame rate..... 8 years later, and only with the highest end hardware available. The difference here, is that with TV/monitors, these were evolutionary steps of an existing product taking upwards of 10 years to become "mainsteam". With VR, it is ground zero. There wasn't a consumer headset prior to CV1. So, going back to consumer expectations-- We are in a day and age that anything new or different is balked at seemingly out of obligation 1st off, then it also has to be perfect, and cheap, with a wealth of day 1 content, on the first try, or...its declared a failure. Other notable products that I have lived through and have seen the before/after--- pagers, cell phones (not smart phones)... both were seen as something ridiculous that no one wanted/needed when they were first introduced, except for the few cutting edge tech enthusiasts. They were too large and too expensive to justify. Later, iPads (tablets) were immediately shot down and dismissed as something that we could already do at the time on our smart phones, but could not replace a laptop, and were destined to fail.

I do think that AR in the form of regular glasses (or perhaps HUD in cars?) will be the first mainstream use of AR/VR, opposed to the pure VR headsets we have today. There is something about being completely enclosed and cut off from your surroundings that really turn off a lot of people before the discussion of "what can it do?" ever even comes into play. And with AR, we are MUCH further out time and product wise than we are with acceptable VR.

"it peaked at 16,459 concurrent players on the day of release, and has since seemingly settled in a 3,000 average concurrent player count. This speaks nothing of the game's quality, as we've seen: it speaks to the adoption of VR."

Also to your point and worth noting-- the number of Twitch viewers on launch day peaked at 303,000 with a total viewing time of 4.1 million hours.

xkm1948Typical "VR is dead" TPU.

Sure keep going at it~

Perhaps you oughta take off the blinders and lose the schoolyard attitude on this subject, because its a lot more nuanced than that. I know its hard for you to hear people dislike VR or its entry barrier, if you need counseling let me know.

Franzen4RealFrom the perspective of someone that owns and supports VR, I think the current boat anchors on adoption are--

-HMD price, and the supporting hardware required (which again is even more money) - In my opinion, $199 is the upper limit of mass adoption for the headset.

-Form Factor - I believe these will have to be something a little more than large pair of glasses or ski goggles and very light weight. The current size/weight is one of my biggest complaints as a user. Also, I believe they must have a wireless connection to the PC. I can say from experience that going from the tethered CV1 to the no wire, no sensor, Quest is a far bigger difference than what it may seem to be. Completely un-tethered, with no sensor set up, and as big of a boundary area as your physical space will allow provides many times more immersion. With the CV1, even though you may not feel the cable, you always are conscious of the fact that you are tethered. Once you remove that with the Quest, you focus much more on the virtual environment (its kind of odd just how much that comes into play).

-Consumer Expectation - This is a big one. If we compare to TV's and monitors, the first HDTV I had ever seen at a store was a Pioneer Plasma at Best Buy, with a $12,000 price tag. It then took a decade from the launch of HDTV until we actually had mainstream hi-def content. More recently, 4K was launched in 2012, 8 years ago. On the TV side that took several years to have a worthwhile amount of content to justify the purchase, and on the PC monitor side, we are just now barely able to use them at an acceptable frame rate..... 8 years later, and only with the highest end hardware available. The difference here, is that with TV/monitors, these were evolutionary steps of an existing product taking upwards of 10 years to become "mainsteam". With VR, it is ground zero. There wasn't a consumer headset prior to CV1. So, going back to consumer expectations-- We are in a day and age that anything new or different is balked at seemingly out of obligation 1st off, then it also has to be perfect, and cheap, with a wealth of day 1 content, on the first try, or...its declared a failure. Other notable products that I have lived through and have seen the before/after--- pagers, cell phones (not smart phones)... both were seen as something ridiculous that no one wanted/needed when they were first introduced, except for the few cutting edge tech enthusiasts. They were too large and too expensive to justify. Later, iPads (tablets) were immediately shot down and dismissed as something that we could already do at the time on our smart phones, but could not replace a laptop, and were destined to fail.

I do think that AR in the form of regular glasses (or perhaps HUD in cars?) will be the first mainstream use of AR/VR, opposed to the pure VR headsets we have today. There is something about being completely enclosed and cut off from your surroundings that really turn off a lot of people before the discussion of "what can it do?" ever even comes into play. And with AR, we are MUCH further out time and product wise than we are with acceptable VR.



Also to your point and worth noting-- the number of Twitch viewers on launch day peaked at 303,000 with a total viewing time of 4.1 million hours.

100% my thoughts. Note as well that AR is already pretty mainstream. When I scan a QR code in my banking app, an AR generated chick with shopping bags gives me a thumbs up in the camera viewport :) And of course there is Pokemon GO and all that other stuff that exploded on mobile. The barrier for AR is a lot lower and it can be introduced gradually which happens as we speak.

The two aren't mutually exclusive though. But they will be competing over similar target audiences.

xkm1948Typical "VR is dead" TPU.

Sure keep going at it~

It's more like "VR is a Zombie"
It should be dead but it's not.
It's not dead because of what it is...it's not progressing because of the "total cost".
I actually thought Valve was going to take a financial loss like SONY and Microsoft does in order to really launch this...

No matter how good it is Alyx is pure trash as far as I'm concerned...yes I do realize that the 40,000 people that own the game feel differently.

The good news for VR is companies continue to make hardware. It also appears that more feature games are being produced for VR than even two years ago. Mass adoption may still take a while, but there's reason for continued optimism.

@Mindweaver Do you mods ever talk to the editors here? It seems there is a negative bias against VR from the editor team all the way back when VR first launched in 2016. Or maybe just to generate more clicks, after all a hateful perspective always attract more readers as we all know Internet is full of haters.

Also, it this your original idea @Raevenlord or consensus from the editor team? Have you ever tried one?

A) kids don't have jobs, hence have no money
B) people that have vision issues and need corrective eye-ware ( contacts are not for every one. )
C) issues wearing devices that cause motion sickness

Of course, most of the people that played it already had VR sets and have been interested in VR in general for a long time, those who didn't have them just moved on. I love Half-Life and suffice to say ... I moved on.

Franzen4RealMore recently, 4K was launched in 2012, 8 years ago. On the TV side that took several years to have a worthwhile amount of content to justify the purchase, and on the PC monitor side, we are just now barely able to use them at an acceptable frame rate..... 8 years later, and only with the highest end hardware available.

You make a good point.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a legit use case for 4K displays beyond gaming and I've had 4K displays for a number of years (possibly 5 or so years) regardless of GPU prowess with respect to gaming.

tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers

The good thing about the 4K resolution is that it scales well to 1080p if you don't have the GPU prowess to drive it for games. I get that if you're a hammer everything looks like a nail but there are definitely reasons to have a 4K display whether you can play at that resolution realistically or not (or have access to 4K media). Perhaps not for everyone but that doesn't change that facts because this is a question that individuals must answer for themselves.

Likewise even if we didn't have the mainstream VR industry at the ready it doesn't mitigate the legitimate use case of VR / AR in other aspects and other industries.