the-pi-guy said:
I think there's a good chance it will. You keep comparing it to the iPhone when that comparison doesn't make sense right now. A phone has a ton of obvious uses, you can justify spending some money on it. The iPhone itself was a very slick device. VR on the other hand has few uses. It's fricken amazing, but there's only a handful of things that I can actually do with it. There are very few AAA titles, most experiences are very small. The headset is warm and bulky, there are still a lot of wires. The only real reason to have it right now, is to have the experience. It's a great experience, but there's no comparisons. Most people haven't used a headset. They don't know what it actually adds to their experience. Over the next 10 years as long as companies are still interested in developing for it, we'll start to see the costs drop, we'll start to see high quality, low weight, wireless headsets. We'll also start to see some real applications for it. I'm pessimistic, but I'm hopeful. I'm still surprised how much is going on in VR, and what will tell if it ends up being successful in 10 years, is what happens in the next few years.
Because we use those kinds of terms all the time with hardware. Even if it doesn't make any sense, because you almost always have to make arbitrary decisions. |
I just want to clarify. I never thought the iPhone was a good comparison, it's a comparison that many VR fans have used since the first iPhone "only" sold several million units its first year and now it sells like gangbusters. I brought it up because the VR progression has made the divide between the two even greater.
Look, the writing is on the wall and it's not good. Oculus's next two headsets are standalone units. It appears they might have given up on PC-powered units altogether and are now focusing on affordable standalone units. Meanwhile the Rift is pulling up on 3 years old and not aging well. HTC on the other hand, has gone completely in the other direction and is releasing Vive Pros at $1400. Sony is just chugging along and accepting dwindling VR sales, and churning out some neat little VR titles that no one had heard of.
let's be clear, I think VR, as it always has been, is here to stay. You'll keep seeing more VR headsets released over the years, and a steady stream of VR games that almost no one will buy and almost no one will play. But it just simply isn't ready for mainstream today. It's still very much an "early adopter" device and it doesn't look like it's crossing into crossing over into mainstream gaming any time soon. I think VR is just going to cater to it's hardcore niche fanbase, and I think companies like Sony and MS are just going to give up the market to these smaller players as it's becoming increasingly clear it just isn't worth their time. Just like EVE Online, there's nothing wrong with having a small, hardcore, dedicated fanbase. I just think VR enthusiasts need to accept that thats far more likely the future of VR than, as some have suggested, having GTA VI being a VR exclusive.
Even though the term "generation" has always been nebulous, we don't call the generation the NES came out the first generation even though there was a period of years before it where video game sales had flat lined. We acknowledge the past. We start with the first home console as the first generation, and build out from there. To call this latest batch of home VR headsets as "the first generation" completely ignores the past personal VR headsets, or lumps in literally decades of VR technology as one generation. That's even more ridiculous. By all means, find out a way to sort out past VR headsets into past generaitons, and let these VR units be, I don't know, generation four, and be done with it.
