By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
potato_hamster on 18 July 2017
Edit Thread
SvennoJ said:
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.

You're doing the same dismissing $200 standalone solutions (coming next year) as not good enough. Netflix and mobile games already have proven the masses don't care about high end graphics or audiophile surround. PSVR combo is not the bear minimum, Google daydream is. So if we're talking about mass adoption then yes the $200 OR standalone next year and Google Daydream 2.0 platform are relevant. Just as a $200 surround sound solution is relevant.

But true, for the average gamer PSVR is too expensive. They'll buy the base model for use on a normal tv and won't consider expensive peripherals at all. Next gen needs to have a cheap bundle with the headset.

What $200 headset? You mean the rumors that Occulus Rift is going to make a $200 headset? There was rumors Sony was going to announce a PSP3 at E3 as well. I'll believe it when I see it. And considering this unit is supposedly stand alone, I wouldn't hold my breath that it won't quickly give the average person a massive headache due to the poor resoluton  and framerate. See that's the thing about cheap VR experiences, they literally make people sick.

If you want to call jamming your cellphone in a box you strap to your head like the Google Daydream as something that will lead to mass adoption, then why are we seeing Samsung literally giving Gear VR away with Galaxy phones instead of charging people for them?

https://www.gottabemobile.com/how-to-claim-free-gear-vr-with-galaxy-s8-pre-order/

Ohh that's right, because the average user doesn't give a shit about that quality of the Gear VR experience enough to pay for it. I know a bunch of people that recieved free Gear VRs, but I don't know anyone that has used it more than once if they even bothered taking it out of the box.  There's always at least a few dozen of these new and unopened up on the local classifieds as people try to get money out of these free devices they couldn't even bother trying. These cellphone headsets are not the bare minimum, and if they are, then it's confirmed that VR will never see mass adoption.