By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
the-pi-guy said:
potato_hamster said:

Smartphones obviously aren't niche because they're higher end than a flip phone, but wireless VR is more niche because it's a high cost for an added benefit that many aren't willing to pay for - like Ferraris. Not many people are willing to pay for VR as it is, why would they be willing to pay for VR that's wireless. Wouldn't it be better to work on options that minimize the number of wires a VR headset requires, and come up with solutions to minimize the impact of a tethered solution than invest in an enhancement to VR that doesn't address many of VR's dominant issues?

Wireless VR is more convenient.  We have had a few people in this very thread complaining about wires.  And there are plenty of people who are waiting for wireless VR.  

Convenience is a big issue with VR.  

potato_hamster said:

So HTC Vive games are playable on Oculus Rift and vice versa? That sounds like news to me. That's probably because it is news. From May:

"There’s not as many headsets out there as we thought there might be a couple of years ago,” Conte noted. “It’s growing, and it’s actually growing at a pretty decent pace, but every decision that you make you should be thinking about: How does this get my title into the most users’ hands as possible?"

There has been an easy work around to play Oculus games on the Vive for at least the past year and a half.  

The few Oculus Rift "exclusives" were still playable on the Vive.  

potato_hamster said:  

But even if it is, it doesn't mean that the PSVR is going to be even a $100 accessory in 10 years time, if they're still being sold. Much like the WIi U, I suspect the cost of manufacturing a PSVR isn't something that lends itself to significant decreases to its Bill of Materials.

The cost of screens is the most expensive part of the headset.  That is a big part that is decreasing in price.  It's already been sold at $200.  

potato_hamster said:

I also think I have a pretty good idea of what people think of VR. Most of what I've heard is something along the lines of "Woah that's awesome! Where can I get one, and how much? A PSVR costs $300? It's cool, but not $300 cool."

You mean people aren't buying the headset because of the price?  Who'd a thunk.  

It's almost like I've been saying that's one of the biggest issues the system has, in nearly every post I've made.  

potato_hamster said:

Did you just try to argue that a console's game's library (or lack of one) is a marketing issue? 


No I did not.  Awareness of a console's game library is a marketing issue.  

Sure, wireless VR is more convenient. Is it a convenience that people are willing to pay for in terms of sacrificing performance or paying hundreds extra for? It appears not. Again, most of the complaints about wired VR isn't based on the wire going to the headset. It has to do with how that wire is positioned with the headset, the wire's length, how there's no solution for minimizing it's impact on using the headset. It has to do with the extra VR processing box that has its own power requirements, and own cables,. It has to do with the camera and other sensors you may have to place in your gaming space. It's a complicated mess that's tedious to set up. Many of those issues aren't solved just by removing the data tether of the headset, and a wireless solution abandons the requirements of those sensors, then it severely limits the motion tracking capabilities of the device itself down to Gear VR territory. Which means many of the convenience issues are fundamental to VR solutions themselves that has little to nothing to do with whether the headset is wireless or not. let 's put it this way. Let's assume that wireless pack works just as well as the tether for the Oculus Rift. Does that really make the device that much more convenient to use to justfy the $400 price tag?

I bet if you gave two VR buyers a $500 budget, and they could get a wired VR headset like Oculus Rift for $200, and then spend the other $300 in games and accessories, or they could get a wireless VR headset again, similar to Oculus Rift with no wired thether, for $400, and spend the other $100 in games and accessories, buyers would choose the wired headset over 90% of the time. I think you're grossly overestimating the value of removing that tether completely.

Using a work around to get around digital locks is akin to saying that DRM isn't an issue for a game because hey look you can get this tool that removes all the DRM, or that the Switch is backwards compatible with old Nintendo titles because look how easy it is to hack a Switch with custom firmware and play emulators. It certainly wasn't Oculus's intent to permit HTC Vive owners to play these Oculus Exclusive games, and hat's the point.

Just because the PSVR has been sold art $200 doesn't mean it can be sold at $50 or even $100 without a loss in the future. Again, look at the Wii U. That saw minimal price drops because it was so expensive to make and Nintendo just couldn't lower the Bill of Materials to a point where they could lower the price by even $50 more without taking a loss. You're assuming that Sony can make the PSVR headset for $50-$100 in the years they come. Maybe they can, but perhaps not. Let's not assume.

So what is it? Are people not buying VR Headsets because of the price? Or are people not buying VR headsets because of the lack of marketing? They can't know that VR headsets are too expensive if they don't know that these VR Headsets exist. If there's a $150 VR Headset that outperforms a HTC Vive, why are people still paying 2-3 times as much for Rifts and Vives? Nintendo sold tens of millions of Wiis through word of mouth, one first hand experience, and a $200 price tag. What's VR's excuse? If lack of knowledge of the games library is the reason headsets aren't selling, and you think  they would sell if people only knew about these great system selling games that no one has heard of,  I can't help but find that laughable. You have arguably the biggest player in video games for the past two decades,  Sony, pushing PSVR very strongly for years, created TV commercials for it, created ads for major gaming sites, featured it prominently at every major conference including E3, and even started giving out free PSVR games with PS+. What more could VR ever ask for? Furthermore, I get Oculus Rift ads popup in my facebook all the time. What more does VR need? The Initial marketing push has not paid off, and it appears that the Sony has decided to stop investing and market a technology that isn't performing as expected.

Look, If creating a $150 solution that's capable of out-performing a top-of-the-line $800 headset in just two years then price is no longer a constraint for VR success. Since that hasn't even that hasn't made a notable blip in the market, it's safe to assume VR is beyond fucked, and will never be more than a niche product. If it turns out that $150 solution is the Oculus Go, and is only better than the HTC Vive in the sense that it has higher resolution screens, then that was incredibly disingenuous of you.