Yeah, you were kinda right, but for the wrong reasons. Developers do not have a big problem with it, not because it's anything like doing different settings for PC graphics cards (because it isn't) but because all they have to do is take a couple devs, give them a couple weeks,and build in PS4 Pro support into their games. They don't have to build in fully fleshed out modes. They don't need to create higher poly count models, or higher quality testures, or more fluid animations. All they need to do is make the game run on the PS4 Pro. That's it. To be clear, this does make every PS4 game perform slightly worse because the PS4 exists. This was not what Sony expected of developers when they told them of the PS4 Pro at first. Developers refused to do it and pushed back. I was 100% right there.

VR Can take as it wants? Okay. Well then why are kicking up a stink when I say the technology, price and experience isn't there yet? If it's still taking it's time, then the VR experience isn't ready for mainstream, and won't be for some time, if ever, correct?   If this technology is 10-15-20 years away from maybe having a chance at becoming mainstream, then you are in agreement with me.

You do realize people are arguing with me because I said that VR as it is today is still niche and will be for the forseeable future, right?

I don't think it will take that long. In 10 years I think it will be fairly mainstream and common place, much like how many people were playing online games in 1998 versus 2008? 

Basically no one had the internet in 1993, everyone and their grandma (literally) had it by 2003. Very few people had a VHS or home video player in 1980, by 1990 everyone had it. 

Very few people had an HDTV in 2003, almost everyone had it by 2013. 

10 years is a long time, in 10 years VR will be ready if not sooner. 5 years from now the type of VR is going to put what's available today to shame. PS5 VR is going to destroy what's available right now, but other companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Occulus, Samsung, and sure, Nintendo will all start upping the ante as well. 

It's inevitable, PS4 VR as clunky as it is is just the first real step towards virtual immersion in convincing 3D worlds at. The sex/porn industry will also be a game changer for this tech as the tech improves and becomes far less cumbersome. Smartphones too, as they get more and more powerful, "cheapo VR" is going to become better and better. 

The difference is, in all of those examples, the internet, HDTV, whatever, there was a clear and obvious improvement to people's lives/entertainment experience. Are you so sure that an entirely new way to communicate with people online, or HDTVs becoming so common and so cheap that you couldn't easily buy a CRT TV in 2013 is the same as people being willing and content to wear a virtual reality headset to have an enhanced, more immersive experience in some games, or even view porn? Are you sure that average person will see the value in that and will be willing to pay for that?

I know 10 years is a long time. I still don't see why it's "inevitable that VR will become mainstream". Even with all of those companies making much more advanced VR headsets, I really, really don't think the average gamer is going to want to own one. There are tens of millions of gamers on this planet right now that can add a PSVR to their PS4 for $200-$300 and have chosen and will continue to choose not to. Why do you think most of them, or even half of them would be lining up to buy them if they were suddenly sold at $100? I know I've brought up racing wheels before. A $100-$200 racing wheel of today kicks the shit out of a $800 wheel of 10 years ago in every way imaginable. Almost every gamer I know owns a few racing games, yet almost none of them own racing wheels, and they haven't gotten significantly more popular over the years, despite all of the improvements and lower costs, mostly because at the end of the day, your average console gamer doesn't want to store a racing wheel, and spend all of the time and effort bringing it out, and setting it up just to use a few times a month or whatever. The game pad is "good enough". What makes you think VR is going to cross that threshold where it's worth the pain in the ass and the cost of ownership to the average gamer?

P.S. You can already get VR porn. In signifcant quanities. Probably with the uhh...add-ons you speak of. It doesn't seem to have made a dent in VR sales. Porn pushed internet sales because it was far easier, cheaper and more convenient than driving down to the local video store, going into the porno section, and getting judged by the cashier as you rented it. VR might offer a better experience, but how many people are going to be arsed to break out a VR headset just to get their rocks off when regular porn is "good enough"?

I have used an Oculus Rift and a PSVR and have over 50 hours use between the two units. What is it with VR fans and their insistence that anyone who doesn't buy in like it's the greatest thing to ever hit gaming history mustn't have played it? It's completely off base, and frankly at this point, probably should be put under consideration for moderation. It's completely derailing and its happened again and again and again and again.

You don't have any evidence that Oculus Rift and HTC Vive did't sell more than 700K each in their first six months? Let's try basic logic and reasoning. HTC Vive had an estimate 250K sales in 2016, Oculus had an estimated 400K. The Oculus Rift came out in March 2016, the HTC Vive came out in April. So if HTC Vive only sold 250K in 2016, and they released in April 2016, they sold 250K units in 8 months. If Oculus Rift came out in March, and sold 400K in 2016, the Oculus Rift sold 400K units in 9 months. Now, I don't know about you, but I find it difficult to compute how a each company can sell less than 700K combined in all of 2016, which well includes the first six months of release for each, but still somehow not be able to figure that the Virtual Boy outsold each unit in its six months it was on the market. If you want to explain that math to me I'm all ears, but I'm pretty that reasoning is more solid than the VR industry. Here's my source by the way:

https://haptic.al/latest-virtual-reality-headset-sales-so-far-9553e42f60b5

Yeah, Facebook spent $2Billion on Oculus.At the time of the sale, industry veterans predicted Oculus could net Facebook $7 Billion in sales per year by 2020. What are the odds they meet those lofty goals? In fact I'd bet if facebook sold Oculus off now they'd be selling it for a  far chunk less than $2 Bullion they bought it for.  Perhaps that's why they slashed prices in 2017, because you know, sales weren't meeting expectations. But don't take my word for it.

https://business.financialpost.com/technology/facebook-realizes-vr-is-still-a-tough-sell-slashes-prices-on-oculus-headset

How many of those family members have $800 smart phones or dropped $800-$1000 on LCD TVs? I'm betting close to all of them. If that is the case, isn't it interesting that they see the value of spending $800 on a smart phone or $800 on a TV, but see $600 ($400 on Black Friday) and balk at the idea?

Better yet, how many of them bought a Wii at $200 and watched it collect dust after 6 months? 

How come no one is still claiming that motion controls are the future of gaming? How come the PS4 and X1 shipped with standard controllers?

My credentials *do not matter* for the argument that I'm making even a little bit. I don't need "credentials" to look at PSVR sales and not be impressed. I'm not more credible if I prefix my argument with "I have a PSVR headset and I think Moss and Superhot are some of the greatest video game experiences ever!" You're a moderator. You should know better than that.

Source it happens more than not? All you have to go by is people claiming they use the units or not. How come you don't "ask for the credentials" for those more optimistic about the future of VR than I am? Ohh right. Because you assume that anyone singing its praises *must* have tried it, and anyone who hasn't *must not* have. Again. You're a moderation. That's not acceptable.

1) It doesn't really matter. Estimations are fine because
2) The Virtual Boy is considered a total embarrassment to Nintendo. It was a huge flop by any reasonable person's perspective. Oculus Rift and HTC Vive sales were *at best* around the same level as the Virtual Boy because we know PSVR has been outselling both of those by a signifcant margin, and PSVR sales are only at 3 million units. Yet, neither are considered flops, because? Lowered expectations.

Strange that you're suggesting them to get a $1000 PC and a separate VR unit. Why suggest the most expensive solution if they're concerned about cost? Why not pitch them a $400 PS4+PSVR Black Friday combo?

If you're not claiming VR is going to become anything other than a niche product then you;re not in disagreement with me. "A big avenue right alongside controller gaming" is a pretty nebulous term though. You could argue that PSVR meets that criteria pretty easily.

Never. The answer is never. I never even said the Virtual Boy was a good VR implementation because it wasn't. But it was a consumer-level commercially available VR product. There's no denying that. The fact that it's seen as such a poor implementation today has much to do with hindsight.

Whose to say in 20 years time we won't look back at PSVR or Oculus RIft or HTC Vive and think that they were also poor VR implementations? This cycle has repeated itself many times in the world of VR. This is just the latest one.

You've asked people that were optimistic about VR about their credentials? Where? In this thread? You only asked me. If you can't be unbiased about this, then it seems unreasonable for your to participate. You're a moderator, and you're holding people to two different standards based on your bias.

If they're waiting for PC solutions, they're going to be waiting a long, long time for the price to come down.
----
What's wrong with my comparisons? The only comparisons I'm making are VR solutions to VR solutions.

DonFerrari said:

So it seems PSVR alone have over 3:1 over all competitors together, seems like a PS2 level of domination... but PSVR is doing okayish to bad numbers.

DonFerrari said:

Not sure how it would be better to play outside of 1st person view, unless we think about a "god perspective"

I guess the difference from Gear VR will be gigantic. But still Oculus and Vive are better than PSVR but not on similar scale difference.

What kind of game do you like for people to hint the best experiences they had on the gente?

That was the point. That is what people said about those products in the beggining as they slowly gained traction. Cars, TVs, and Smartphones where not overnight success's, they took decades of consumer availability before they became mainstream, and decades more before they became the norm.

PSVR, HTC Vive, and Oculus Rift are the first actual viable consumer VR devices that have hit the market. They are not mass market ready. They do a great job offering an enjoyable VR expereince, but it takes work from the user to make it happen. Getting set up to play is much like old cars where you had to crank it over, adjust the timing and fuel mixture manually and on the fly to keep them running. It is not something everyone is willing to deal with even if it offers a better expereince. To some the improved expereince itself, might not even be there even if it took zero effort. With each revision going forward though, the expereince gap between TV and Controller to VR Headset and Motion Tracking Peripherals will only increase, while usability will become easier and easier. 

It may be another decade or even two before AR/VR becomes Main stream, and yet another before it becomes the norm, but I believe it is just as inevitable as Cars, TV, and Smartphones. It may not be Sony, HTC, or Oculus that mak it happen, but some company out their will get the balance of expereince and ease of use nailed, and AR/VR will enhance every aspect of our lives, and more so than any other products that have come before.

The Virtual Boy was (despite its name) no VR headset, it was a different kind of head-mounted display! It was missing the essential feature of motion sensors, so you can look around in a virtual world by head movements. Without this motion input, it was just a bad monochrome monitor with very low resolution, low contrast (red & black... really?) and low FOV strapped to your head.

SEGA's VR glasses weren't a "viable consumer VR device" either: it remained only a prototype, and was never released to the general public. Then CEO Tom Kalinske stated that the system was not released due to it inducing motion sickness and severe headaches in users.

The most promising commercial VR headset in the 1990s was the Forte VFX1, but it still had much more issues than benefits and died with MS-DOS.

You make it sound that there were viable consumer VR devices available after the 1990s all the time and that the Oculus Rift/Vive/PSVR were nothing special at all.

So which consumer VR headsets were the best and second best in 2000 - 2004? Which consumer VR headsets were the best and second best in 2005 - 2009? Which consumer VR headsets were the best and second best in 2010 - 2014?

Okay, so if you know all of the consumer level VR headsets in the past, and pretend they didn't count for a variety of arbitrary reasons, then this new series are the first.

Manufacturers stopped trying to make VR headsets for the masses for years because they always sold horrifically bad and weren't great experiences. Did that ever happen with cars, or tvs or smartphones? No? Hmm.... I wonder why. Just because this new grouping is better doesn't mean we can just discount the past and pretend it never happened. We don't say that the first real commercially viable television were HD LCD panels because they were *so much better* than the CRT TVs before them. We don't say the Tesla Model X was the first real commercially viable SUV because it was the first one to get a five star safety rating in every category and had so many features that mass-market SUVs never had in the past? We don't say the iPhone was the first commercially viable smartphone because it was *so much better* than the ones that came before it. But in VR? Let's ignore the decades of failed VR headsets. Let's pretend VR *really started* with the Oculus Rift.

Sorry. That's a fairy tale you tell yourself to make VR sound like it's more than the niche product than it's always ever been. Need I remind you that the Virtual Boy actually sold at a higher rate than the HTC Vive and Oculus Rift before Nintendo canned it?  

That's precisely one of my points.  

There's 4 people in my family who have been asking me about prices because they are interested in buying one.  But the current price scares them off.  

I also don't think the comparison to headsets 20 years ago makes any sense.  The current headsets are wildly better and even these ones are low tier.  

I don't think it will take that long. In 10 years I think it will be fairly mainstream and common place, much like how many people were playing online games in 1998 versus 2008? 

Basically no one had the internet in 1993, everyone and their grandma (literally) had it by 2003. Very few people had a VHS or home video player in 1980, by 1990 everyone had it. 

Very few people had an HDTV in 2003, almost everyone had it by 2013. 

10 years is a long time, in 10 years VR will be ready if not sooner. 5 years from now the type of VR is going to put what's available today to shame. PS5 VR is going to destroy what's available right now, but other companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Occulus, Samsung, and sure, Nintendo will all start upping the ante as well. 

It's inevitable, PS4 VR as clunky as it is is just the first real step towards virtual immersion in convincing 3D worlds at. The sex/porn industry will also be a game changer for this tech as the tech improves and becomes far less cumbersome. Smartphones too, as they get more and more powerful, "cheapo VR" is going to become better and better. 

Because VR is more dependant on technology changes due to immersion being kinda the point. The better the tech, the better the feeling of immersion. Someone could look at the internet in 1993 and say "yeah that's cute, but I don't see it being very appealling to anyone but computer dorks, sending electronic mail and checking stock quotes will get boring after a week, I'll stick to my newspaper" but many tech advances and user interface changes quickly made that from a "kinda neat" thing to "must have". 

I actually think Ready Player One is not that far off from the what the future is going to be. 

People aren't going to just have VR porn, they'll have virtual relationships online. What's going to happen at some point is the meeting point of increasing technology + user friendliness. 

Touchscreens and "smart phones" were around for ages before the iPhone, but the iPhone combined it all into one sleek, easy to use package, that really pushed the user experience and the technology also had caught up to allow a fast/fluid mobile OS.

IMO that moment is coming for VR. Someone, sooner or later is going to make a single unit that is 

1.) Cheap

2.) Light/not heavy, faaaaar more comfortable. 

3.) Doesn't have tons of wires. 

4.) Have visual fidelity and can create worlds on a technical level that will make what we have today look like a PS2 game and begin to match/look like Hollywood CGI. 

It's just inevitable. The technology is only going to get better and better with time because processors keep getting better. 

The whole thing about Sega VR or Virtual Boy is just silly. Those systems couldn't even process really 3D graphics, they're analogous to the Famicom/NES having an online service in 1987. PS4 VR of today is more like where online was with Dreamcast/early PS2 days. Still very raw, but you can see where it will go. 

Because frankly it happens more often than not.  

It's not derailing.  I'm just asking about your credentials.  

A couple of things:

1.)  That's assuming those numbers are 100% correct.  There's of course a margin of error with an estimations like that.

2.) Virtual Boy didn't actually sell 770k in the first 8 months.  They shipped that much, but they were still selling 10's of thousands several months later.

Actually very likely.  

Their biggest headset is with Samsung, the GearVR which is closer to 10 million units sold.  Lower prices and better quality headsets will go a long way.

Maybe 1 of them.  Not sure what phone that one has, but the rest I know haven't spent that kind of money on either of those things.

It's closer to $1000 in order to get their PC ready.  It's still incredibly pricey.

Only 1 for sure.  I doubt the others ever bought a Wii.  

I never considered motion controls to be the future of gaming.  

I don't consider VR to be "the" future of gaming, either.  But I'm hopeful that it becomes a big avenue right alongside controller gaming.  And I expect it to happen eventually if developers keep supporting it.  

No you still don't get it. Those examples are nonsensical because the benefit to the average consumer became abundant apparently very quickly. It was very obvious within a decade of the first commercial automobiles that they were far better than horses to get around and move things, but no one could afford them. It was very obvous that the television offered people a cinema-like experience in their own home, and allowed news and other media outlets to share information more effectively, but no one could afford them. Smartphones allowed business people and others comminicate far more effectively than a standard cell phone, but no one could afford them..Meanwhile, what is the the advantage VR offers over regular gaming? Ignoring all of the drawbacks and limitations, at the end of the day, some games in some genres feel more immersive. That's it. Not exactly the kind of thing that takes an industry by storm. As I said, all of those products I mention before became massive successes the moment they became affordable to the average consumer. You are completely off base claiming that cars, TVs and smartphones took decades to become mainstream. They took decades to become affordable while the wealthy used them to enhance their lives. VR doesn't have that limitation, and hasn't since the 90's, possibly earlier.
It's complete horseshit that PCVR, HTC Vive and Oculus Rift are the first viable consumer VR devices. The fucking Sega Genesis had a VR headset planned for it for fuck sakes. Nintendo actually released the Virtual Boy, and as it turns out "the future" wasn't worth only gaming at 20-30 minutes at a time until they got used to it? How can you possibly keep pretending that the gaming industry hasn't been pushing VR in one way or another since the 90s? Current VR headsets are just the first ones to benefit from internet hype. They are as mass market ready as any VR headset will ever be. All PSVR requires is putting a camera on top of your TV. It's as complicated to set up as a Wii. Somehow they managed to sell 100 million of them, while might I add, many people advocated that motion controls were the future of gaming, and how that was going to change the industry as we know it going forward. Yet here we are a decade later, and the only gaming experience that consistently uses motion control is.... VR.

VR has zero excuses, and that doesn't change no matter how many frail excuses you try to make. If VR was going to make it mainstream, it would have done so by now.

AR/VR is going to "enhance every aspect of our lives" is it? lol. Now I've heard it all. Maybe Sony should make that universal OS you're advocating for VR exclusive, because that makes about as much sense as any of your ideas about pretty much anything when it comes to gaming.

How many of those family members have $800 smart phones or dropped $800-$1000 on LCD TVs? I'm betting close to all of them. If that is the case, isn't it interesting that they see the value of spending $800 on a smart phone or $800 on a TV, but see $600 ($400 on Black Friday) and balk at the idea?

Better yet, how many of them bought a Wii at $200 and watched it collect dust after 6 months? How come no one is still claiming that motion controls are the future of gaming? How come the PS4 and X1 shipped with standard controllers?

The difference is, in all of those examples, the internet, HDTV, whatever, there was a clear and obvious improvement to people's lives/entertainment experience. Are you so sure that an entirely new way to communicate with people online, or HDTVs becoming so common and so cheap that you couldn't easily buy a CRT TV in 2013 is the same as people being willing and content to wear a virtual reality headset to have an enhanced, more immersive experience in some games, or even view porn? Are you sure that average person will see the value in that and will be willing to pay for that?

I know 10 years is a long time. I still don't see why it's "inevitable that VR will become mainstream". Even with all of those companies making much more advanced VR headsets, I really, really don't think the average gamer is going to want to own one. There are tens of millions of gamers on this planet right now that can add a PSVR to their PS4 for $200-$300 and have chosen and will continue to choose not to. Why do you think most of them, or even half of them would be lining up to buy them if they were suddenly sold at $100? I know I've brought up racing wheels before. A $100-$200 racing wheel of today kicks the shit out of a $800 wheel of 10 years ago in every way imaginable. Almost every gamer I know owns a few racing games, yet almost none of them own racing wheels, and they haven't gotten significantly more popular over the years, despite all of the improvements and lower costs, mostly because at the end of the day, your average console gamer doesn't want to store a racing wheel, and spend all of the time and effort bringing it out, and setting it up just to use a few times a month or whatever. The game pad is "good enough". What makes you think VR is going to cross that threshold where it's worth the pain in the ass and the cost of ownership to the average gamer?

P.S. You can already get VR porn. In signifcant quanities. Probably with the uhh...add-ons you speak of. It doesn't seem to have made a dent in VR sales. Porn pushed internet sales because it was far easier, cheaper and more convenient than driving down to the local video store, going into the porno section, and getting judged by the cashier as you rented it. VR might offer a better experience, but how many people are going to be arsed to break out a VR headset just to get their rocks off when regular porn is "good enough"?

You're still not answering the question. What makes you think the average console gamer is going to decide that VR is worth the time, money and effort to own one and keep using one for years and years to come??

100 million people bought Wiis because they were cheap, easy to use, and fun to play. How come that didn't usher in a new age of primary controls for most video games and video game consoles being motion-based?

Over 24 million people bought a Kinect add-on for their Xbox 360 because it was cheap, easy to use, and fun to play. How come that didn't user in a  new age of primary controls for games and consoles being camera/gesture/voice activated?

Both of those new, more immersive ways of gaming existed in primitive forms for years and years and years, and saw no real success. Then Nintendo/MS "got them right", sold tens of  millions of them, and less than a decade later? Tumbleweeds. Nintendo/MS aren't even as committed to it as they used to be.

Even *if* VR hits a critical mass, becomes a hit product and sells, say, 50 million units over a console "generation", that *still* doesn't mean that VR has surpassed even more than a "fad" status if 5 years after that VR units are being sold on buy-and-sell ads for $20 like millions of Wiis and Kinects are sold for every single day today. How do you know that VR isnt going to follow suit? What makes VR different?

P.S. You know how the "whole thing about Sega VR and Virtual Boy is "just silly" because they couldn't do most of what VR headsets can do today? Then you go on and say the technology for VR is going to become *so advanced* that it makes current VR "look like PS2 games", aren't you doing the exact same thing? It's only silly in hindsight. All you're doing is just pushing the measuring sticks down the line. Aren't you just letting yourself off the hook so that if/when some new VR unit comes out in 10/20 years time that blows PSVR out of the water in an currently indescribable way, yet only sells, say, 5 million units over 3 years. Are you going to say that PSVR/Oculus/Vive "weren't really commercially viable", and that "VR is taking baby steps"? What then?

Let me put it to you this way: What does VR have to do in the next 10 years order to be considered "a niche product" in your eyes?

P.P.S. Doesn't the Oculus Go meet 3 of your 4 criteria?

My credentials *do not matter* for the argument that I'm making even a little bit. I don't need "credentials" to look at PSVR sales and not be impressed. I'm not more credible if I prefix my argument with "I have a PSVR headset and I think Moss and Superhot are some of the greatest video game experiences ever!" You're a moderator. You should know better than that.

Source it happens more than not? All you have to go by is people claiming they use the units or not. How come you don't "ask for the credentials" for those more optimistic about the future of VR than I am? Ohh right. Because you assume that anyone singing its praises *must* have tried it, and anyone who hasn't *must not* have. Again. You're a moderation. That's not acceptable.
---
1) It doesn't really matter. Estimations are fine because
2) The Virtual Boy is considered a total embarrassment to Nintendo. It was a huge flop by any reasonable person's perspective. Oculus Rift and HTC Vive sales were *at best* around the same level as the Virtual Boy because we know PSVR has been outselling both of those by a signifcant margin, and PSVR sales are only at 3 million units. Yet, neither are considered flops, because? Lowered expectations.
---
Strange that you're suggesting them to get a $1000 PC and a separate VR unit. Why suggest the most expensive solution if they're concerned about cost? Why not pitch them a $400 PS4+PSVR Black Friday combo?
---
If you're not claiming VR is going to become anything other than a niche product then you;re not in disagreement with me. "A big avenue right alongside controller gaming" is a pretty nebulous term though. You could argue that PSVR meets that criteria pretty easily.

Considering your reasoning them even gaming should be considered a failure.

Since 1958 we have had videogames, but only 1977 we had something acceptable from customer view on Atari, and even so only in PS1 (in 1995) we crossed then 100M sales. Must be a failure to take almost 40 years to hit high sales. And considering how much cellphones, TVs and cars sell then even today gaming is a failure.

No, you have to remember that companies are stupid and like to take loss, VGC users usually are more inteligent and have better market knowledge.

So are we comparing someone dropping 800 on something people consider essential like smartphones and TVs versus an accessory? So why don't we again declare consoles are a failure since at a gen we get at most 250M consoles sold. Something iPhone do much more yearly with ease, or considering all cellphones and TVs we probably do 10x over per gen.

It's pretty clear the advantage VR brings to gaming, you just don't like it. But you refuse to accept that you are being very negative.

By your view since we had motion gaming since NES Gloves then it failed for not having success in 20 years and Wii and Kinect wouldn't ever happen right?

I shall remember you that in VGC is more allowed over optimism than criticism or negativity? You are here for over 3 years now.

Virtual Boy is an embarrassment because it is a HH, something Nintendo sold north of 50M with ease so less than 1M is embarrassing. But unless you have the projections from Oculus and Vive showing they wanted to sell 50M your comparison is bogus.

I don't consider VR to be a failure. I consider it niche. There's a big difference.
---
People have thought plenty of things have had mass-market potential that never came to fruition. Just because Oculus Rift was valued at 2 billion at once upon a time doesn't mean it still is. When they bought it, Facebook projected to ship $2.8 Billion dollars of Oculus VR headsets by 2020. Looks like they might miss that projection by 80% or more.
---
No, I am comparing someone willing to drop $800 on a smartphone when they can still buy $50 flip phones without issue to someone being unwilling to spend $400-$600 on a VR experience. They're willing to pay for all of the "extras" a smartphone offers (never mind the cost of the monthly data plan) but won't drop a smaller chunk of change on a VR solution? That tells you something about how these consumers value VR -not very highly. And again, I haven't declared anything a failure. PSVR, Oculus, HTC Vive are pretty decent VR experiences, catering to a niche market that doesn't appear to be nearly as big as the big VR fans on this site would have others believe.
---
It's pretty clear the advantage VR brings to some games, and genres. But not all. In fact, I'd say it adds fairly minimal value to most non-first person games that aren't designed from the ground up to take advantage of VR like, say, Moss. And for what it's worth, I like VR just fine for what it is. I just don't see it ever becoming a mainstream product. How "negative" of me!
---
Glad you brought up motion controls. There were what? A dozen motion control solution from pretty much every major gaming company in the 90's. There were blocks you stuck around your TV, and rings full of sensors you had to stand in. All kinds of wacky shit that never worked quite right and never really made the gaming experience better. And thats how it stayed for years and years and year, and then we had the Wii and "Wow motion controls! Grandma just bought a Wii for herself! Wii Bowling is a game changer! The future of gaming is here! I never want to play with a standard controller again!" and then MS came out with the Kinect and "Wow! Look how your voice can be used to enhance the gameplay experience, look how I can bounce a basketball around my living room and the Kinect can track it! The future of gaming is here! Look how this clearly makes my gaming experience better" Amazing! Tens of millions sold! And then? *crickets*. It was over as quick as it started. The fad came and went, and gamers went back to sitting on their couches, looking at their TVs, using controllers.

Imagine that. Anyone want to argue that games that primarily use motion controls and games that use camera/voice interaction as primary inputs aren't niche in 2018? In fact, in 2013, MS was punished by gamers for having the audacity of forcing gamers to buy a Kinect if they wanted an Xbox One. Do you remember that shitstorm? All over a device that "clearly brings an advantage to games" that no one wanted to pay for.  But VR, that *totally* couldn't never, ever follow a similar path. Nope. Not possible. VR is the future! It WILL become a mass-market device! Because reasons!
---
Virtual boy was a handheld? Since when? If Virtual Boy was a handheld then the NES was a handheld, because the only thing you held in your hand was the controller. Have you even used a Virtual Boy? (I'm still doing that right, right?)