Good to know Borderlands has full movement.

I tried teleportation in The Solus project which simply skips certain puzzles when in teleportation mode yet makes certain traversal a lot easier, too easy. Luckily if you use a DS4 next to move you can sprint and smoothly turn, way better than teleportation. Doom VFR, only used it for the jump into body frag gimmick or when you need to go up a 2 inch ledge lol. I also tried it in Skyrim as the Werewolf quest line is still bugged (never fixed) and the only way to get through the gate was to glitch teleport through it.

I can't remember a good use of teleportation, just being frustrated not being able to move how I want, so I started avoiding games that don't offer full motion and preferably smooth rotation as well. I find teleportation and step wise rotation more sickening than simply letting me run around with the DS4 like in RE7. The jarring jumps are tiring, blinders while turning make me feel claustrophobic, all these so called comfort options do exactly the opposite for me. Most comfortable to me is fast rotation, forward is always forward (not auto move in the direction you are looking), strafing and no tunnel vision / blinders while turning. You know, exactly the way we've been playing first person games for the past 20 years :)

After 2 years I still enjoyed RE7's control scheme the best. Simple, move with the analog stick, shoot where you are looking. In Skyrim I did settle on dual move with unfortunately snap turn (set to quick and small increments to tap tap tap tap turn simulating sort of fast rotation). Using both hands independently is far superior in Skyrim, however sprinting was messed up with move. When you sprint it starts strafing in the direction you are looking and slows down when you try to look to the side, messed up.

What PSVR needs is the Switch controllers.

Would love to see Amnesia for VR. It would be a perfect fit.

Current state of the technology doesn't have my interest as entertainment devices at all.

I'd purely want it for professional creation puposes. Great programs are being developed for drawing, sculpting, and animating in 3D these years, and VR adds so much more value to those than it does to games, in my opinion.

Because it's a low cost option that doesn't require a phone.  

Because that processing solution capable of playing and rendering entire games is already available in smart phones.  The tracking in the Oculus Go is not that sophisticated.  

Offloading to the PC requires reliably sending to the headset a huge amount of video data at somewhere around 90 Hz.  We're talking about reliably sending more data than many $300 routers are even capable of sending.  And doing it with very little latency.  

There is only 1 wireless pack on the market, and it's $300 and it still doesn't keep up with the demands of the Vive.  Let alone the Vive Pro.  The Oculus Go is a cheap device that manages to have a higher resolution than the Vive.  

Because the trend thus far is reducing prices, and higher quality headsets.  

Two very different markets.  

Sony sells controllers at a hefty profit.  There are no tiers for controllers, everyone gets the same controller. 

VR has low end and high end tiers which sell at different prices.  There is also a lot more competition in the VR space.   

That's fair.  I've only had teleportation in Arizona Sunshine and Farlands.

Teleportation isn't my favorite, but they felt fine in those games.  

What I'd really like to see is something like the Oculus Touch controllers:

They are awesome.  They have the gamepad form factor and can be used like a regular gamepad.   But then they are also great in VR, because they just mold to your hands.  

Also fun is that you can let go of the controllers by stretching out your hands and using the ring.  And you can wave your hands in a virtual space.  

Yea, the Touch controllers are already very good, I just think that a system to keep them in your palms without needing to grip them at all (like the planned "Valva Knuckle" controllers seem to get) would be another great update to them and further extend the range of gameplay/immersion they can provide. Hopefully Sony can combine all that into their next gen motion controllers for VR.

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.

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.

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.

Let's try a different example then.

http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Launch_price


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? I mean sure, 10 years after Nintendo released the NES, Sony did release the PS1 which was more than capable of everything the NES was capable of, but it didn't cost $50, did it? 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?

GearVR only worked with a single type of phone.  

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.  

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.

-StarVR

-Lenovo

-Samsung

-Google

-PiMax

-Asus

-HP

-Acer

-Razer

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.  

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.  

How about, because it's already starting to happen?

There are already headsets with specs that beat the Vive for less than $150.  

https://www.unlockunit.com/blog/samsung-gear-vr-compatible-phones/

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.

Maybe far down the line but right now it's too expensive for the few games it would be fun to use it for.

That's because you asked if it was strange that Oculus released 2 stand alone headsets in a row.  I said no, because it's the easiest way to do wireless VR.  

Anyone who is interested in VR is interested in wireless VR, as it is less restricting.  So no, it's not more niche.  

I was pointing out that Sony, HTC and Oculus are not competing with each other the same way Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony are.  

Except that it isn't what I mean in at all.  I'm talking about something that's roughly the same spec as right now.  

I'm talking about price drops with PSVR.  I'm not saying that PSVR 2 will be released cheaper, I'm saying PSVR could remain on the market and be a low cost option.  

Again there are plenty of reasons why things don't sell.  

Marketing, software are big ones that are holding VR back.