All of Microsoft wishes a lot of things these days, mostly cause every product they make is getting stomped by someone or another.

But that doesn't mean the products are worse. That said, Windows is still by far market leader, doesn't make it the best os out there.

Hey, just a quick VR update here for anyone who's interested. The Oculus CEO said today that the Rift will cost "At least $300".

I don't know about you, but that's a lower number than I would have expected them to go with. Mostly because I have honestly been expecting the Rift to cost at or near $500. Even if the Rift comes in at $399, that's a totally reasonable price for the HMD and what it comes bundled with (the sensor, the controller, ect.). It also makes me think that $299 more PSVR may even be a bit higher than what we'll actually see as a starting price.

I say this because PSVR should be cheaper than the Rift. It has a lower resolution screen, it doesn't have the magnetometer than the Rift has, it doesn't come with any audio as far as I'm aware, you've almost certainly be able to get it without the PS Camera or any controllers. I mean, it does have the separate unit that splits the image, but I can't imagine that will outweigh the costs of all of those other things.

Anyways, seeing as we don't really have a PSVR or VR thread, this seemed like a good place to post this.

After thinking about this more. The fact that Phil had to downplay it tells they (Microsoft gaming) thinks it's going to be big. This is just preemptive damage control.

Then again being one of the few people who has experienced VR I see it as the future of gaming. It truly takes gaming somewhere new, feels fresh, and creates new experience that has truly drawn out the inner child in me that most modern gaming has not,

It doesn't matter which device it was: Aperturel, Morpheus, or even Occulus. They all provided amazing experiences that made me wanting more. I too was a skeptic, but once you've had your first good VR experience, I think many of the naysayers will be hooked.

Maybe, I think he was being honest when he said he hopes it's not the future. But I do think it has more to do with MS not wanting to get caught with it's pants down than it does with the actual tech or experience itself.

I am 100% with you on having a good VR experience. I was a pretty big skeptic of VR when Oculus first showed up, but after having a really good VR experience I'm sold. I'm just waiting to see what the support will be like, and how much they'll cost.

My logic? WTF is wrong with you?

I never said anything about one being more casual or hardcore than the other one.
You were the one making that claim.

I think both will have games that will benefit from it, I just like the AR more because it looks cooler to me.
This has nothing to do with Sony / MS either. I might get Occulus Rift if VR turns out to be the new hotness. I doubt it though.

I will get AR anyway, because of the non-gaming stuff (read: porn). Well if it turns out to be ridiculously overpriced I might have to wait.

I bolded for you. Want to try again?

Look at your article:

• A virtual world that appears real to any observer, seen through an HMD and augmented through three-dimensional sound and tactile stimuli
• A computer that maintains the world model in real time
• The ability for users to manipulate virtual objects in a realistic, intuitive way

Are you hands gamepads? Do you move yourself in this 3D space? Whatever you are having to see this fantasy is pretty good. I want some.

Obviously a company that wants my money knows things better than i. Its only natural. I should just give them my wallet no questions asked.

I have listened to what others have said. I am pretty sure i didnt dispute this is a partial form of VR. But, its not significantly different than what we already have. What i dispute is why call this VR and not what we already have since the difference is minimal.

You also talk like i came here to change people's opinions. I agreed with Phil spencer and gave my opinion... after that i have been dragged into a debate over my opinion.

I am not beeing obtuse. I am simply not beeing naive into thinking this is something its not.

If that is what you think then i am happy for you, but this isnt VR for me. Not even close, not in the classic definition nor the vision.

I also struggle to realise how people can't realise that this technology isnt revolutionary, practical or healthy. It doesnt require any sortof studies to see those. You just need common sense.

I even know that some phones already do this VR thing. You don't even need occulus or PS VR.

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/how-to/gadget/how-make-google-cardboard-vr-headset-v2-3585298/

Phone in your face. Also revolutionary.

Don't agree? All fine.

That's correct, VR has been around at least as a concept since the 1950's. The first VR HMD actually game out in 1961 and was called Headsight. The VR we see today is an evolution of that same principle, which predates the Holodeck by more than a decade. So what we are getting today is most certainly VR.

Your "That's correct" is illogical. You article is a contest of "who thought up first". There is no way to verify that. I am assuming these people have wrote books in wich they envisioned these things, wich i'm not even sure. At wich point, its what i said in the first place. Even the concept itself you linked on the article, i already disputed as its not correspondant to what we have in these "new" devices. So, its not VR.

And ofc the first VR set that came out was what could be made. I wouldnt expect "the real thing" to have come out and us not knowing about it. This VR headset thing has been tried time and time again. Its sort of like 3D. The fad that comes and goes.

But you know... i feel like i am hurting sensibilities by beeing so blunt and honest about what i think this truly is (perhaps cause i already experienced this cycle come and go before). I don't mean to destroy dreams. If this is the VR you envisioned, then i am happy for you and for all of you that are happy with it. Props to you guys and hope you enjoy it.

Haha peoples issue with your point of view has nothing to do with you being blunt or honest. It's because you are being amazingly obtuse and the very premise of your assertion is just incorrect.

You seem to be under the notion that simply because modern VR isn't the ultimate expression of what VR can be, that it isn't VR at all. That's like saying that the International Space Station isn't a space station at all because it isn't the Death Star.

The current form of VR meets the definitons of what VR is. That's it, that's really the whole argument that needs to be had. Does what he have now meet the definition of VR? Currently, yes.