potato_hamster said:
We're talking about how VR could be become mainstream and you're comparing it to audiophile level surround sound set ups that the vast majority of the people that even bother with surround sound would never even consider such an option. And now you're arguing that surround sound has less utility because surround sound is apparently only useful when you have it cranked to 11 (horse shit), and because since Surround Sound solutions have been out so long, they used to be complicated to set up, even though ones created in the two decades are pretty much all plug and play? Are you intentionally being this obtuse?
Let me put it in your terms. Instead of talking about a PS4+ PSVR combo, which is the cheapest, bare minimum, most widely accepted VR solution ever, instead we're going to talk about the optimal VR experience.So now, for this argument, VR costs at least $4000 because the optimal experience (highest frame rate possible) involves two GTX 1080 Tis, and an HTC Vive, and a Backpack PC case that runs off of battery power. Ohh wait, we can't forget that platform that allows you to run in place, and all of those extra specailized controllers that make those specific games that much better. There's another $1500-$2000 . How could I possibly forget that racing wheel, and full motion force feedback chair/chassis for that epic racing experience? There's another $5000 easy. And the best part? To get that truly immersive sound experience, guess what I need? A surround sound system! Looks like all of those knocks against surround sound you just came up with now suddenly apply to VR too! And let's remember that I can't play VR while my kids are around because they might trip on the cords and break something. Are you getting my point?
Maybe we should stick to what the average consumer is likely going to to pick up at Best Buy, like I was doing this whole time. It's not an audiophile surround sound system with $200 worth of speaker wire, and it's not a PC with $1400 in graphics cards, is it?
Now for the standalone bit. You're right, standalone might be more appealing, if it wasn't going to be significantly more expensive than anything tethered is going to be. Sony doesn't require a PS4 to use the PSVR for fun, it actually does the vast majority of the required processing for the unit. Take that away, and now you need to build that processing power into something about the same size as a 3DS since you'd have to be wearing it, plus some means of powering the equipment, including the external light sources/cameras that are used for tracking. If you haven't guessed, none of this is ever going to ever be comparable in price to a PSVR style solution. I thought we were talking about how VR can/can't become mainstream, not how to make VR appeal to more niches of people. All you're doing is imagining more VR solutions that you want to experience, but considering you're a hardcore early adopter, and is about as niche as you can get for this type of thing, what you want doesn't matter. You need to put yourself in the shoes of the type of person that goes into a gamestop and asks the clerk for advice for which console to get between a playstation and an xbox, and needs to be told about all of the different models. He doesn't own a 4K TV, and he probably doesn't own a Surround Sound system. Like it or not, that's your average gamer, and that's who VR has to appeal to, and they are not going to pay a significant premium to have a solution that doesn't require a TV, or allows them to pair with another VR unit in the same room.
|
Currently Online 
