Quantcast
View Post
Intrinsic said:
TheSpindler said:
Yeah I've been seeing the VR hype-train for a while now, and I still don't get why people think this will be successful anytime soon.

VR being successful needs to be taken up by the masses and there are too many roadblocks to that atm. Sony coming in wont really help as Sony has a checklist approach to tech like this. It exists but they wont go full steam ahead with it for it to be successful. A few games will come out from them, they'll fund a few more through third parties and some indies will jump on, and maybe some of the bigger companies will have a VR mode or something, and that'll be it.

How it looks, its graphics really don't matter, its success depends on developer support(which it seems will be a pain, along with the fact that most developers wont be supporting VR anyway) and it being cheap enough to afford and appealing enough for the consumer to pick up, which again comes down to games and how much games and which high profile or good games will have them.

There's also stuff like aesthetics(while wearing them) and awkwardness for the average consumer, but i don't think that its that much of a problem for most.

Here is the problem I have with arguments like these. While if looked at in of itself they seem sound they really are completely flawed cause they are based on theories that simply don't work or apply. I'll try and explain. 

 

  1. Aesthetics, awkwardness....these are arguments based on past VR examples. At a time when things like 6" smart phones didn't even exist. Fact is that the world over is more tech inclined than ever before and as long as VR today works and can create unique experiences that people like they will try it out. 
  2. Then there are those that talks about there not being a market for it or how small the market is. What I ask is how can anyone know how small or big the market is when VR has not even hit the mainstream yet?
  3. And all this talk about Sony and what kinds support Sony would have to do to make it work. How can some just seem to not notice that unlike every other proprietary tech Sony has pushed and abandoned, this is one thing that they aren't the only ones doing. As it stabds , there are a total of five VR solutions pending release. 3 for home and Two for mobile. The whole fate of VR doesn't solely rest on Sony's hands. And any dev trying to make VR content will naturally try and support as many platforms as possible. 
  4. Lastly, its being extremely narrow minded if people think the fate of VR is tied to gaming. I think gaming is just a small part of it. Just for the early adopters. The way VR will take the mainstream will probably not have a lot to do with games. 

 


1)  No, I based that on the current model of Morpheusand all the other VR headsets.  It's a cumbersome thing attached to your head.  If it were something simple or more discreet then fine but as it is now then no.  But mileage may vary among people.  I'd like to see some surveys done on what people think of the hdeadsets though.  That'd be interesting.  And the world is more tech inclined to discreet and less intrusive hardware, thanks partly to Apple I guess.

2)That argument cuts both ways.  Neither of us know how big the argument is, except that argument is more in my favour due to the history and cost barriers.  Unless you can see you widescale adoption of this tech from the mainstream of a device this costly with no basis in neccessitiy(need to own)?

3)  Just because other people have adopted and pushing the tech doesn't mean it'll take off and it doesn't mean if it does take off that Sony wont have to sell their own hardware as well.  What works for the goose may not work for the gander.

4)  I never said it was tied to gaming, but all my other arguments apply to other industries(industries that involve mainstream adoption of the tech) as well.   Ironically enough I think VR has its best bet on videogames.  That or in dentists offices.