So a low cost option that doesn't require a phone is a replacement for a free option that requires a device that you had to buy to get the device for free? That does not compute.The smartphone ownership requirement isn't exactly a barrier for a prospective VR user.
GearVR only worked with a single type of phone.
I can't even comprehend how you think the biggest challenge of having a PC as your VR processor is data transfer. Perhaps you should checkout what something like a Displayport protocol is capable of handling. Remember the headset only needs to send location/tracking data to the PC and the PC only needs to send a video signal back to the headset. Bandwidth isn't an issue. Who said anything about it needing to be wireless? That's just needless expense.
I said that one reason why they were investing in stand alone VR is because it's the easiest way to do wireless VR. They already have a non-wireless option that they are heralding as their high end option until their next headset is done.
There are some people that are waiting for VR to be wireless, because it'll be as consumer friendly as possible.
What? How are they different markets? Stop acting like Sony has no competition. Microsoft and Nintendo would like a word. In fact there's just as many major competitors in the home console space (3) as there is in the VR space (3). Furthermore. No competition for controllers? Everyone gets the same controller? Is that why $200 SCUF PS4 controllers exist? Is that why $30 licensed wired third party controllers exist? Is that why there's about a dozen different third party controller manufacturers exist that make PS4 controllers? Is that why you can buy arcade sticks, and wired controllers, and controllers without touchpads? Because "everyone gets the same controller"? That's actually not the case at all. Sony offers a "standard controller" and other companies offer everything else above and below that, kinda like how Sony offers PSVR and others companies offer everything else above and below that. It's a lot more similar than you're giving it credit for.
I never said Sony has no competition. Most people don't get a third party controller.
The best comparison for VR headsets are either TV screens or phones.
Technically if you're going with that logic, there are tons of other VR companies.
VR is not 3 companies directly competing with each other. They are also not 3 companies competing with their own software, any of these headsets can play the exact same games that the Vive can play. Some of them are even using the exact same tracking technology as the Vive.
How come the prices of these video game consoles are going up instead of down? How come the cheapest video game console I could purchase on release in 1985 was $199 but the cheapest video game console I could purchase on release in 2017 was $299?
Well there's inflation.
You're also comparing massively improved hardware to old hardware, instead of old hardware to old hardware like I am, all while ignoring that there are tons of other cheaper options.
For example, you could be talking about the Raspberry Pi. The Pi 0 costs $5, and is capable of emulating early games. The Pi 3B costs $35 and is capable of emulating PS One games.
What makes you think that in 10 years VR Headset manufacturers are going to be content with releasing units that are competitive with 10 year old VR headsets for as little as possible? What makes you think there's going to be a market for that any more than there's a market for those cheap @games handhelds that play old built in genesis games?
How about, because it's already starting to happen?
There are already headsets with specs that beat the Vive for less than $150.
Looks to me there are dozens of different models that Gear VRs are compatibile with, and again, most importantly, the Gear VR Samsung smartphone purchasers were given with their phones were free were compatible with the phones they just bought.
So you decided to move the goalpost and focus on wireless VR. That's a non-starter. There's an even more niche market for Wireless VR devices than there are for VR devices.
I never said that VR is three companies competing with each other. I said there are three main competitors. Sony, HTC, and Oculus make up the vast majoriity of VR headset purchases. Let's not pick nits.
You're comparing old hardware to old hardware when you say (paraphrasing) "In 10 years time, they can probably make a better VR headset for $50". It sounds to me like you're talking about the technology and pricing of 10 years from now, not today. There might be tons of other cheaper ways to emulate PS1 games, but that doesn't mean that 10 years from now the latest and greatest technology of that era is going to be cheaper to be than the latest and greatest technology of this one. There's no reason to expect the Oculus Rift 3 of 2028 is going to cost less than $200 on release, for example. If the prices aren't going down, then the devices aren't getting cheaper, are they?
If there are already headsets that cost $150 and beat the Vive, then VR has even less of an excuse for why it is not succeeding, and it means the VR industry as a whole is in much more dire shape than even I imagined.