Think VR Is Dying? It's Just Getting Started, Says HTC

[Kinestron]

I'm waiting for the cost of entry to come down just a little bit more but most of all, I'm just waiting for a gaming experience that justifies buying into this new tech. Re-doing Skyrim is great and all but there is no Fortnite application that specifically benefits from VR that everyone must experience.

 

[Raunhofer]

Thank god, I already had to live through one VR craze in the 90's, the sooner this one dies too the better, maybe it can be nice and take "RGB everything" with it lol.

It's baffling how many people there are who actually want to see VR fail. What has the VR ever done to you? Did VR cancel your next Call Of Duty or take your next generic-FPS-shooter-we-have-seen-million-times-already-with-different-textures away? VR may be the first major step in gaming since the first electronic 2D-screen games and instead of cheering, we boo.

I can't be the only one who sees that we've reached the end-game here? Have you noticed how every new traditional "pancake" game is so similar with the previous games? You must have noticed it. We are going circles. Small iterations. Graphics evolution has almost halted, big studios are playing it safe and just pumping money to old franchises, we have more games (thanks to Steam sales etc) than ever before, yet, we feel there's nothing good to play. And still we act like this is it, this is the best it will ever get. Monitors, mouses, pads... To me, that's a terribly sad mindset.

It is understandable that the constant VR-hype may be annoying, but the hype has lasted this long for a reason. Tangible potential of VR is ridiculous and not at all unrealistic. It's there and for the first time ever we can actually see the technology fulfilling it. For some parts it already has but there's still a lot to come.
It is true that most games in VR at this point are pretty small and shallow. Still, people rave about them. Why? Because VR really kicks them to a whole new level. I would never touch many of them if they were 2D but here I am, playing them even after two years and still smiling like an idiot.

Stop being afraid. Stop being jelly if you can't afford the system right now. And most importantly, stop bashing something you have never experienced. Instead, be happy that the gaming is evolving, not dying.

Thank you for reading.
/rant

 

[StrayKAT]

It's baffling how many people there are who actually want to see VR fail. What has the VR ever done to you? Did VR cancel your next Call Of Duty or take your next generic-FPS-shooter-we-have-seen-million-times-already-with-different-textures away? VR may be the first major step in gaming since the first electronic 2D-screen games and instead of cheering, we boo.

I can't be the only one who sees that we've reached the end-game here? Have you noticed how every new traditional "pancake" game is so similar with the previous games? You must have noticed it. We are going circles. Small iterations. Graphics evolution has almost halted, big studios are playing it safe and just pumping money to old franchises, we have more games (thanks to Steam sales etc) than ever before, yet, we feel there's nothing good to play. And still we act like this is it, this is the best it will ever get. Monitors, mouses, pads... To me, that's a terribly sad mindset.

It is understandable that the constant VR-hype may be annoying, but the hype has lasted this long for a reason. Tangible potential of VR is ridiculous and not at all unrealistic. It's there and for the first time ever we can actually see the technology fulfilling it. For some parts it already has but there's still a lot to come.
It is true that most games in VR at this point are pretty small and shallow. Still, people rave about them. Why? Because VR really kicks them to a whole new level. I would never touch many of them if they were 2D but here I am, playing them even after two years and still smiling like an idiot.

Stop being afraid. Stop being jelly if you can't afford the system right now. And most importantly, stop bashing something you have never experienced. Instead, be happy that the gaming is evolving, not dying.

Thank you for reading.
/rant

You're acting like it's innocent, but it isn't. It's a paradigm shift... from something people are already comfortable with and have built tons of applications and games over decades using. You don't just change it overnight and expect people to be happy about it. Which is why I say only grannies could happy with a lot of it --- because they never gave a shit about computers or games to begin with. They expect the interfaces to cater to something "less computer like" and analogous to real world actions. While others were wiling to meet computers halfway and got used to the interfaces that existed (be it mice, keyboards, joysticks, etc). These all addressed a human/interface issue that stood the test of time and built a COLLOSAL following over decades. Then suddenly you just want upend things for the hell of it...because grandma isn't happy? Screw that.

edit: I'd partly say the same for tablet fad too. It's addressing an issue that no one WHO ACTUALLY USES computers gave a shit about. It's just clumsy for most uses... or nonexistent for anything robust.

edit:

I hate to sound harsh.. I didn't even realize how much some of this annoys me until I started typing. But all of these "flights of fancy" in trying to change interfaces has amounted to a lot of wasted time and money. Especially for Microsoft.. whose platforms I have an affinity for. Trying to do anything except simply making games nearly destroyed the Xbox One. They squandered all the leverage they got after the Xbox 360 with this stupidity. Then to top it off, they also squandered some of their advantage with Windows with 8 and tablets. A whole 2 or 3 years wasted on OS development.. because they read the roadmap wrong. Or some dipshit in charge thought it was going to be the "future".

 

[Fluffmeister]

Yes, any tech with an entry barrier of $1,000+ is just about to become mainstream.

Lies!

 

[robot zombie]

Tbh I don't think there's a nerd out there that wouldn't love VR. Just not in the form we can make it at the moment.
The need for more realism is why we fall for the 3D/VR fads every 10-20 years. We hope we're there. Every time.

Pretty much my feelings on it.

Every time we try VR again, I think everybody really does want it to succeed. But at the same time, if we really want VR to be good, we have to be able to say when it's just not good. One day we will have it and it will be awesome, when the technology surrounding it is ready. Every time we try, our means of putting all of the technological elements is better, and the elements themselves are better developed.

Personally I just don't think we're quite there yet. Just because there's a lot of money in it and there's a large enough cultural presence doesn't mean its officially a thing. Just means people want it and enough people are convinced it can work. And hey, maybe it can!

Right now, there seems to be a big scramble to develop a whole ton of new base tech in order to make VR as we currently conceive of it work. Some of it is really pretty amazing, but there are still so many things that need to be explored much, much more before this stuff works like its meant to. VR is just so vast - and there are so many areas of it that are in themselves so vast that you almost can't absorb it all. This stuff is all gonna take a long time to develop, and it has to be allowed to before making big moves. We can only branch out so much before needing to look to what's already there - it's a problem of time and resources. And what's already there isn't enough. The problems are too complex and we are lacking well-enough developed tools with which to solve them.

I think it will get there... ...we are going to develop things that give us the means to accomplish what we want to, and we're gonna use any technology we have available to develop more advanced technology. Such is the natural progression of things. But I really do think that when all of the ingredients are truly there, it'll sort of just make sense and it will all come together intuitively. People will be able to look at VR with all of its problems, already know of tech that'll mitigate it, and be able to put it to work. Just not seeing that yet. And don't get me wrong, it's worth trying, even if only to learn more about what needs to come first. I just think that's all it really is at this point.

The modern computer is a prime example... ...all of the different aspects that make up the machines we take for granted today had to develop on their own in order for us to even be able to conceive of such a use for them. The tools and materials had to come first. It took a long, long time for us to get there. And it wasn't all just people working on computer components. Many different things were developing at the same time. And they weren't all necessarily meant to improve computing - there were other good reasons to develop the tech - hence why enough people/money/time got tied-up in it. Things were taken and simply adapted. If it had all been just for computers, which at the time not a lot of people believed in, it never would have came to be. And yet that tech wound up facilitating huge advancements in modern computing... ...It's like "Finally! Because somebody over there came up with this, we can now easily do that! This is just what we needed!" It's this huge mix of people with completely different goals ultimately pushing each other forward simply by focusing on one simple, insular thing, seemingly unrelated. The focus isn't only on one thing but a whole lot of little things with the ultimate applications not fully known until people find ways to use them.

Now, of course, computer technology today is highly focused and self-feeding, but that's because it's matured atop a wide pool of pre-established tech. And still, very soon we are going to have to start branching out to move forward - we're reaching a point of stagnation where tech in general needs to evolve from the bottom up. It won't be until things happen elsewhere that we'll see another huge jump in how we envision these machines.

Point is, in order to get the tech needed to make VR work, we're gonna need to look beyond VR. Not everything in the ecosystem that would allow VR to manifest in a compelling way will be developed in the VR world. This has always been the downfall of it... ...the current state of technology just doesn't support it... and there's no way to just "Make it so." You just can't develop something so intricate and specialized without the right set of already mature tech to build on. Doesn't matter how hard you try. If our general capabilities aren't there, it will fail. The tech needed is going to continue to grow with or without VR. If we're ever to have it, the tech needed will manifest eventually. And then we'll be able to do it much more easily. That's inevitable. It's only a question of when.

But as things are now, it's like trying to make a raft to sail the ocean out of leaves in a time when no large enough trees are growing to support it. Sure, you can do it with a lot of effort, but it'll be a rough trip, if you make it at all. Give it time and the trees will grow, and you'll stand a much better chance of making it across the ocean in your new raft. In the meantime maybe focus on making axes, or maybe stronger rope.

 

[RejZoR]

I still dont get the hate of RGB. Im glad I dont have to buy new fans and lights everytime I wanna chance the color of my computer. I can just go into the software and change it on the fly.

Hating on it is just dumb.

Mostly because a lot of companies don't even release fans without any RGB crap at all. Meaning, if I don't need the RGB nonsense, I'm paying for something I don't need.

 

[dorsetknob]

As i walk around my local Tech and Electronics Stores There is a noticeable lack of VR Tech on Display ( = No Sales).
this will remain a Niche Market untill prices = mainstream consumer Acceptable

 

[RejZoR]

There is also game support. When you shell out 400€ just for an useless headset and minimum of that for a capable graphic card to run it and then be able to play 20 games is a bad investment. If it were the same and you had 500 games available, that would be different. Which is why VR should be adopted as immersion tool first and not as something stand alone and special for which you need to specifically code games from ground up.

Meaning, like I've said, keep VR's for head tracking and 100% immersion into game world, but control games with gamepad on consoles or keyboard/mouse on PC. This way they could make games VR capable with a "simple" patch that makes it stereoscopic and becomes head tracking aware (like viewing around game world freely and tilting head left and right to lean left and right in a game. This instantly expands game support to hundreds with minimal effort. And immersion factor is important. It's different if you look at the desk, monitor, wall behind it, all surrounding room. Or you only see nothing but ingame world where enemies and things fly straight in your face. Or you look at the right and you see a zombie right next to your face. Brown pants guaranteed. You can't experience such thing with monitor.

I have a 500€ CPU, 150€ soundcard, 800€ SSD, 800€ graphic card, surely a VR wouldn't be a problem from financial standpoint. But I have no interest in it because it's a stupid investment with limited usability. So, clearly just price isn't a factor.

VR has so much potential but they approached it in totally wrong way and that's why it's failing. You only go with fancy swinging controllers when they become a norm in homes, not the opposite. Their ambitions were not in sync with consumers.

 

[Raunhofer]

You're acting like it's innocent, but it isn't. It's a paradigm shift... from something people are already comfortable with and have built tons of applications and games over decades using. You don't just change it overnight and expect people to be happy about it. Which is why I say only grannies could happy with a lot of it --- because they never gave a shit about computers or games to begin with. They expect the interfaces to cater to something "less computer like" and analogous to real world actions. While others were wiling to meet computers halfway and got used to the interfaces that existed (be it mice, keyboards, joysticks, etc). These all addressed a human/interface issue that stood the test of time and built a COLLOSAL following over decades. Then suddenly you just want upend things for the hell of it...because grandma isn't happy? Screw that.

edit: I'd partly say the same for tablet fad too. It's addressing an issue that no one WHO ACTUALLY USES computers gave a shit about. It's just clumsy for most uses... or nonexistent for anything robust.

edit:

I hate to sound harsh.. I didn't even realize how much some of this annoys me until I started typing. But all of these "flights of fancy" in trying to change interfaces has amounted to a lot of wasted time and money. Especially for Microsoft.. whose platforms I have an affinity for. Trying to do anything except simply making games nearly destroyed the Xbox One. They squandered all the leverage they got after the Xbox 360 with this stupidity. Then to top it off, they also squandered some of their advantage with Windows with 8 and tablets. A whole 2 or 3 years wasted on OS development.. because they read the roadmap wrong. Or some dipshit in charge thought it was going to be the "future".

I agree with many points you said; Wii, Kinect, 3D-glasses... they're just vigorously marketed crap. No-one wished for them but still we got them. But hey, VR isn't like that. With VR there was demand way before there was technology to pull it off. Nearly every gamer would probably agree with me that more immersion is better than less immersion. Nearly every gamer would probably agree with me that it would be amazing to be inside the games. Moms, grannies and everyone else would probably agree with me that pulling a virtual trigger with your real hand is a more natural input method than moving a cursor and pressing some button. My mom can't play Quake, but she sure can play Beat Saber, Job Simulator and stuff like that. And the thing is, it is instantaneously fun. No need to "get it" to enjoy gaming. No-one needs instructions how to turn your head in VR or how to rotate your arm to swing a sword. That's some real power.

Granted, 1st Gen of VR isn't for everyone. The overall cost of a system can be pretty high and the system can be a pain to install. But think further. Imagine the point where all you need is to put glasses on and you are there. No need to learn basics of PC, keyboards, mouses, etc. Sounds distant? Wrong. Oculus is releasing their Santa Cruz project ~next year and it is just that:

We are closing the point where you can purchase a single $300-500 system that provides gaming experiences that beat the shit out of everything that consoles or $2000 behemoth PCs can ever offer. The graphics probably won't be as good (at first) but it will surely be more immersive and fun.

However, with all these great technological advancements one problem remains: quality content. That is the real issue point that is up to us to solve. It doesn't matter how great VR devices will evolve if there's nothing to do with them. Devs can't afford to go develop great VR-games if we are against VR, and if we don't have great games, we have nothing to do with our great technology. A classic chicken or the egg problem. This is why it is crucial that we stop talking crap and maybe first time ever, actually hype something that really deserves it.

It's actually pretty emotional to play something like Robo Recall. You shortly realize that holy shit, this right here may be the best gaming experience you have ever had, and in the same time realize the devs probably can't do full time these experiences because ppl are so fixated to LCD-monitors, thinking they are avoiding some fad.

VR will go mainstream. It is too powerful to not. The question is whether it'll take 50 or 5 years. It's up to us to choose.

 

[StrayKAT]

I agree with many points you said; Wii, Kinect, 3D-glasses... they're just vigorously marketed crap. No-one wished for them but still we got them. But hey, VR isn't like that. With VR there was demand way before there was technology to pull it off. Nearly every gamer would probably agree with me that more immersion is better than less immersion. Nearly every gamer would probably agree with me that it would be amazing to be inside the games. Moms, grannies and everyone else would probably agree with me that pulling a virtual trigger with your real hand is a more natural input method than moving a cursor and pressing some button. My mom can't play Quake, but she sure can play Beat Saber, Job Simulator and stuff like that. And the thing is, it is instantaneously fun. No need to "get it" to enjoy gaming. No-one needs instructions how to turn your head in VR or how to rotate your arm to swing a sword. That's some real power.

Granted, 1st Gen of VR isn't for everyone. The overall cost of a system can be pretty high and the system can be a pain to install. But think further. Imagine the point where all you need is to put glasses on and you are there. No need to learn basics of PC, keyboards, mouses, etc. Sounds distant? Wrong. Oculus is releasing their Santa Cruz project ~next year and it is just that:

We are closing the point where you can purchase a single $300-500 system that provides gaming experiences that beat the shit out of everything that consoles or $2000 behemoth PCs can ever offer. The graphics probably won't be as good (at first) but it will surely be more immersive and fun.

However, with all these great technological advancements one problem remains: quality content. That is the real issue point that is up to us to solve. It doesn't matter how great VR devices will evolve if there's nothing to do with them. Devs can't afford to go develop great VR-games if we are against VR, and if we don't have great games, we have nothing to do with our great technology. A classic chicken or the egg problem. This is why it is crucial that we stop talking crap and maybe first time ever, actually hype something that really deserves it.

I get that..

Thing is, a lot of games are not meant to be analogous to real life. The "gamey" part iof games is just in the implementation of puzzles and pattern recognition. Which is purely a mental exercise. Even with all of the visual cues, it's still revolving around mental acuity. Even something as simple as Super Mario or other platformers. The "fun" in the game is about timing (like when to jump on moving platforms) rather than "feeling like you're there".

There's only so many games where "feeling like you're there" is a benefit. Like a Skyrim or something. But even then, not all FPS are about feeling like you're there either. The "trick" and "fun" of many FPS is more about pattern recognition and mastering map layouts. Especially mutiplayer maps.

And forget strategy games.. there's no point to VR with them.

Same thing with a typical "boss fight". The "fun" there is discovering the patterns of the boss.. be it Dark Souls or some adventure game like God of War. Timing your attacks right when he "powers up" or prepares for a move. VR isn't going to make this better. The "game" is already there, no matter the interface. And the people who frown on games like this and just want simulatory experiences are just not fans of existing games at all and/or suck at them. i.e. The grannies.

I guess my point is that VR has limited application, even for games. I hate the selling point that we'd all be graduating to some better interface... because we wouldn't be. It would work for some games, and not for others. And the push by some companies to VR-ify everything annoys me just like they attempted to sell that with motion.

 

[dorsetknob]

Granted, 1st Gen of VR isn't for everyone. The overall cost of a system can be pretty high and the system can be a pain to install. But think further. Imagine the point where all you need is to put glasses on and you are there. No need to learn basics of PC, keyboards, mouses, etc. Sounds distant? Wrong. Oculus is releasing their Santa Cruz project ~next year and it is just that:

"Smirk" Oh the Youth This is not 1st Gen VR (Retail)
1st Gen Retail VR was Circa 1994

 

[ZeppMan217]

According to Steam, 0.7% of its users have a VR headset. For comparison, 2.9% use Steam on a Mac and 0.5% use Steam on a Linux based system.

 

[StrayKAT]

According to Steam, 0.7% of its users have a VR headset. For comparison, 2.9% use Steam on a Mac and 0.5% use Steam on a Linux based system.

lol

Yeah, we'll have that VR revolution any day now. Much like the Linux Gaming revolution.

 

[Raunhofer]

I get that..

Thing is, a lot of games are not meant to be analogous to real life. The "gamey" part iof games is just in the implementation of puzzles and pattern recognition. Which is purely a mental exercise. Even with all of the visual cues, it's still revolving around mental acuity. Even something as simple as Super Mario or other platformers. The "fun" in the game is about timing (like when to jump on moving platforms) rather than "feeling like you're there".

There's only so many games where "feeling like you're there" is a benefit. Like a Skyrim or something. But even then, not all FPS are about feeling like you're there either. The "trick" and "fun" of many FPS is more about pattern recognition and mastering map layouts. Especially mutiplayer maps.

And forget strategy games.. there's no point to VR with them.

Same thing with a typical "boss fight". The "fun" there is discovering the patterns of the boss.. be it Dark Souls or some adventure game like God of War. Timing your attacks right when he "powers up" or prepares for a move. VR isn't going to make this better. The "game" is already there, no matter the interface. And the people who frown on games like this and just want simulatory experiences are just not fans of existing games at all and/or suck at them. i.e. The grannies.

I guess my point is that VR has limited application, even for games. I hate the selling point that we'd all be graduating to some better interface... because we wouldn't be. It would work for some games, and not for others. And the push by some companies to VR-ify everything annoys me just like they attempted to sell that with motion.

Thank you for bringing this out. It's a common misconception that VR is only about FPS and immersion. Even the most basic platform-games benefit of VR and there are many proofs of that like Moss, Chronos and Edge of Nowhere. You know the feeling when you are playing some platform-game with your Xbox and there's a hard jump to make, right? You are not sure whether you can make the jump and the camera angle is a bit problematic, maybe the character is blocking the view? In VR you can just lean and see over the character and the jumps are really easy as you have a true depth perception! It's a real revolution to realize how much easier platformers are when you can "feel" the distances of gaps and such. You just combo-jump stuff and admire the gorgeous artwork as you play forward. VR of course allows other elements too, for example in Moss you could use your hand to pick your little fellow back up, control the enemies and even pet the main character (a mouse). Sounds dumb but it really helps to create an affection to the main protagonist.

You mention bosses. Imagine when the boss is not just some 3D-model on a flat screen but instead, you see this actually huge monster and feel frightened. One of the most anticipated games right now is Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice VR that will be released next Tuesday. You play it with a gamepad.

Immersion is not just the feeling that you are somewhere else. Immersion can mean a lot of things but generally speaking it supercharges games. I don't think VR will replace all pancake games. TV didn't replace radios or radio books. The world isn't binary. There's value in everything but VR is not just about some specific games or genres.

And forget strategy games.. there's no point to VR with them.

I'm not sure what to say to this one as one of my most favorite VR-games is a RTS called Brass Tactics. Beyond that, imagine god games like Populous or Dungeon Keeper in VR. Would be pretty awesome, huh?

And my all time favorite VR game? Chronos. A gamepad game.

In this video you can see a direct comparison of game mechanics in Pavlov and CS:GO. Pavlov is a popular FPS-shooter that basically mimics CS. It is created by a one man. Yup, the one guy couldn't do as good graphics or animations as in CS:GO but see how much more depth the game has just because it's in VR?

And before you mention, yes, you can play seated if you want. And no, you don't need much room. You can just stand.

Pretty amazing stuff.

"Smirk" Oh the Youth This is not 1st Gen VR (Retail)
1st Gen Retail VR was Circa 1994

This VR-wave is generally called the first generation. I'm not sure why. Maybe because this is the first time we have actually serious consumer grade gear? I'm not that young

 

[StrayKAT]

Thank you for bringing this out. It's a common misconception that VR is only about FPS and immersion. Even the most basic platform-games benefit of VR and there are many proofs of that like Moss, Chronos and Edge of Nowhere. You know the feeling when you are playing some platform-game with your Xbox and there's a hard jump to make, right? You are not sure whether you can make the jump and the camera angle is a bit problematic, maybe the character is blocking the view? In VR you can just lean and see over the character and the jumps are really easy as you have a true depth perception! It's a real revolution to realize how much easier platformers are when you can "feel" the distances of gaps and such. You just combo-jump stuff and admire the gorgeous artwork as you play forward. VR of course allows other elements too, for example in Moss you could use your hand to pick your little fellow back up, control the enemies and even pet the main character (a mouse). Sounds dumb but it really helps to create an affection to the main protagonist.

You mention bosses. Imagine when the boss is not just some 3D-model on a flat screen but instead, you see this actually huge monster and feel frightened. One of the most anticipated games right now is Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice VR that will be released next Tuesday. You play it with a gamepad.

Immersion is not just the feeling that you are somewhere else. Immersion can mean a lot of things but generally speaking it supercharges games. I don't think VR will replace all pancake games. TV didn't replace radios or radio books. The world isn't binary. There's value in everything but VR is not just about some specific games or genres.


I'm not sure what to say to this one as one of my most favorite VR-games is a RTS called Brass Tactics. Beyond that, imagine god games like Populous or Dungeon Keeper in VR. Would be pretty awesome, huh?

And my all time favorite VR game? Chronos. A gamepad game.

In this video you can see a direct comparison of game mechanics in Pavlov and CS:GO. Pavlov is a popular FPS-shooter that basically mimics CS. It is created by a one man. Yup, the one guy couldn't do as good graphics or animations as in CS:GO but see how much more depth the game has just because it's in VR?

And before you mention, yes, you can play seated if you want. And no, you don't need much room. You can just stand.
Pretty amazing stuff.

Well, as long as you can play some of these with typical controls, I can understand it a bit more. It's the motion and whole package part that annoys me more.

Although, as far as platformers go, I never worried about the distance of jumps. I know they're there for a reason, and I won't fall, except through timing or interference. Unless it's like a totally broken game, like some bugged games of the past.

 

[Raunhofer]

Well, as long as you can play some of these with typical controls, I can understand it a bit more. It's the motion and whole package part that annoys me more.

Although, as far as platformers go, I never worried about the distance of jumps. I know they're there for a reason, and I won't fall, except through timing or interference. Unless it's like a totally broken game, like some bugged games of the past.

Yeah, and I'm not saying that playing Super Mario in VR would make the traditional way of playing it feel totally obsolete. It just opens some doors for new mechanics while refining the existing ones.

Sometimes you just want to lay down and play some Xbox/PS/PC/Switch, that's cool.

 

[Rahmat Sofyan]

3D monitor de javu ... slowly sinking and no any new news so far ..

 

[enxo218]

to say the paltry s/w selection that utilises vr is insufficient to justify the h/w expense would be a massive understatement

 

[bug]

to say the paltry s/w selection that utilises vr is insufficient to justify the h/w expense would be a massive understatement

This is the chicken and egg problem like this faces. And since this is nothing new, the solution isn't new either. Step 1: make the hardware cheap enough for users that buy something casually will consider it, to get an installed base. Step 2: with a significant installed base, approach developers and enrich the ecosystem.

There's one loophole to the above though: if you can show a killer application for the hardware, you can get the significant installed base while the hardware is not so cheap. More enthusiasts will flock to it sooner in this case.

But the feeling I get regarding VR is investors are in the "cut losses" phase.

 

[DRDNA]

I play a lot of Race Sims, Assetto Corsa, Project Cars 2, RaceRoom and a few almost Sims like Dirt Rally, Dirt 4, Sebastien Loeb Rally and WRC 6 and 7 and the Vive would be great for them games, especially the first 3 sims i mentioned as i already interface with the race games with a wheel and peddles and being able to see them pesky crash bangers would be awesome and may provider cleaner cornering. They also say the VR interface with the race sims is pretty dang good. The cost has me slow to adopt into the what ifs i hate it.....but i sure do want to try it out!

 

[bug]

I play a lot of Race Sims, Assetto Corsa, Project Cars 2, RaceRoom and a few almost Sims like Dirt Rally, Dirt 4, Sebastien Loeb Rally and WRC 6 and 7 and the Vive would be great for them games, especially the first 3 sims i mentioned as i already interface with the race games with a wheel and peddles and being able to see them pesky crash bangers would be awesome and may provider cleaner cornering. They also say the VR interface with the race sims is pretty dang good. The cost has me slow to adopt into the what ifs i hate it.....but i sure do want to try it out!

Do try before taking the plunge. I tried some demos and VR didn't really work for me (even if I wasn't contemplating buying). The image was ok-ish (though my session wasn't longer than 10 minutes), but the controls made sure I was never really immersed. Of course ymmv, but for that kind of money, you'd better make sure you love it first.

 

[Eric3988]

Lol why is there so much hate for VR and RGB here? Let's save the hate for something better like Crypto, okay? Anyways, I'm glad HTC and others are still supporting the technology even if it's not widespread or particularly profitable. VR technology has the chance to change computing forever like the printing press was to books. I think right now, the engineering needs to catch up so we can miniturize and cut down the cost per unit to make the technology accessible to the masses. We'll not know if this is the case for another 20yrs, but I wouldn't be quick to write off the industry as a whole. Who knows? Maybe in the time when our children go to the movies with their kids instead of looking at a big screen everyone will be wearing VR devices instead?

 

[cyneater]

VR? what happened to 3d monitors and movies....

VR is just another Fad...

 

[newtekie1]

VR isn't dying, says a VR Headset manufacturer. In other news, coal power is still going strong and there's absolutely nothing to worry about says a coal mine owner.

 

[NC37]

Thank god, I already had to live through one VR craze in the 90's, the sooner this one dies too the better, maybe it can be nice and take "RGB everything" with it lol.

So funny how often people gloss over that in the 90s. Like VR is a new thing.

Tech has gotten much better, but it's not new. It's gimmick hardware until they get the prices for sets down and resolve the health issues.