By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do You Own a VR Device?

 

Do You Own a VR Device?

Yes, and it's awesome 168 13.05%
 
Yes, it's alright 84 6.53%
 
Yes, but I regret it 43 3.34%
 
No, but I really want one 143 11.11%
 
No, but I'm considering it 243 18.88%
 
No, not interested at all 606 47.09%
 
Total:1,287
John2290 said:
CladInShadows said:
Just curious, but for those who have VR, how's the horror selection? Because VR was made for horror, as far as I'm concerned.

Depends on the system, If you want scares PCVR is the way to go, there's a lot more stuff however and I can only speak for PSVR here (which has quite a decent selection of horror) most games that would be amazing or greatly scary just feel mediocre to good at best in the shadow of RE7. It sets the bar way to high that anything else doesn't even come close. There are a few games with good jump scares like Rush of blood, The inpatient, The persistence the first time you play, etc but nothing the builds pure fear and anxiety like you're being chased by a killer in a dream like in RE7. 

That said though, Transference, A VR game by Frodo baggins is sitting on my ps4 waiting for 3 hours I can sit down and play it in full. Apparently it does better than most and there is a new game out yesterday I hav'nt tried yet, Home sweet home. 

Despite the reviews I actually really loved Here They Lie. Early game, sure, but really fucks with your mind and pretty scary at times. Feels like a surrealistic Lynch movie or something like that. 



Around the Network
the-pi-guy said:


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

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

There really is no sense in discussing with the hamster...you're wasting your time.

 

User Banned By ~PwerlvlAmy

Last edited by PwerlvlAmy - on 12 October 2018

the-pi-guy said:

SvennoJ said: 

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.

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.  

SvennoJ said: 

What PSVR needs is the Switch controllers.

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.  

Yup, those look awesome. Anything with analog sticks is an improvement. If Sony would allow me to hold two DS4s, one in each hand, it would be better than move!

I played Arizona sunshine first with Aim, was great for movement, awkward when using the flashlight and you could not dual wield of course.
Second play through was with move, awkward for movement and rotation but I got used to it halfway into the game.
I did not try teleportation.

Teleportation isn't always bad, there is Portal of course, Blink power in Dishonored and Unreal tournament and other fps games that use a teleport disc you can shoot up ledges. That's all in addition to having free movement. Port Portal to PSVR!!! (And not like portal stories sigh)

What I don't get is that while Vive has those awesome controllers, it seems to be the platform most limited to teleportation!



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Nogamez said:
Yes PSVR and samsung Gear. VR is ok, but the low resolution and motion sickness kills it abit for me, and the absolute faff of wires and the fact that i cant use my 4k tv whilst VR is set up. All adds up to not a very user freindly set up. Stuff like Rush of blood and Resi 7 are fantastic games though.

Are you sure you're experiencing VR right? Have you tried purchasing 10 more games just to see? And then 10 more after that? 

Probs bought about 8 games, and yeah i dont need to buy 20 games to know if i like a system, like i said faffing with wires and no 4k, as in i have to unplug my vr set up to get 4k display on ps4 pro is annoying. 



Nogamez said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Are you sure you're experiencing VR right? Have you tried purchasing 10 more games just to see? And then 10 more after that? 

Probs bought about 8 games, and yeah i dont need to buy 20 games to know if i like a system, like i said faffing with wires and no 4k, as in i have to unplug my vr set up to get 4k display on ps4 pro is annoying. 

The V2 Headset gets rid of that, but 4K should work regardless, only HDR doesn’t work with V1. Btw the guy asking that question wasn’t serious.



Around the Network

I have the Gear VR for my Samsung Galaxy S7. It overheats the phone and kicks me out of VR. There's an "error" message that pops up saying this. Since you knew this Samsung, why did you allow for this to happen in the first place...?



the-pi-guy said:

 

potato_hamster said: 

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.

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.  

potato_hamster said: 

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.

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

potato_hamster said: 

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?

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.  

potato_hamster said: 

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.

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

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

It still makes absolutely no sense. Two different wireless VR headsets are necessary because one of them is the "easiest way to do wireless VR". If you say so. And Wireless VR isn't more niche than VR? That's like saying supercars aren't niche because Ford Fiesta ST owners would also like to own a Ferrari despite their inability or unwillingness to buy one.

Sony HTC and Oculus aren't competing against each other directly? Really? So do you think a PSVR owner is just as likely to buy an HTC Vive as someone who doesn't own a PSVR? If you don't, then how are they not competing against each other directly? This reeks of the "Nintendo isn't competing against Sony and Microsoft" arguments that are equally nonsensical.

... you honestly think the PSVR is going to be on the market 10 years from now and with revisions and technological advancements, could cost $50 at that time? Well I can assure you there's about as likely chance of that happening as KBG is of getting his Nintendo Switch that makes phone calls.

You're right, there are plenty of reasons why things don't sell, but devices that apparently have swaths of people waiting to jump in and buy when the price is right don't have issues selling, especially ones that apparently everyone wants to buy upon trying for the first time. It makes absolutely no sense to argue that marketing is a problem when two of the biggest players in VR are Sony and fucking Facebook,with the support of one of the biggest cell phone manufacturers in the world that has given away millions of VR devices for free.



potato_hamster said:

It still makes absolutely no sense. Two different wireless VR headsets are necessary because one of them is the "easiest way to do wireless VR". If you say so. And Wireless VR isn't more niche than VR? That's like saying supercars aren't niche because Ford Fiesta ST owners would also like to own a Ferrari despite their inability or unwillingness to buy one.

That comparison makes absolutely no sense.  

Are smartphones niche because they are higher end than a flip phone?

You just keep finding bizarre comparisons to try proving your point, even when there are comparisons that are more applicable.  

potato_hamster said:

Sony HTC and Oculus aren't competing against each other directly? Really? So do you think a PSVR owner is just as likely to buy an HTC Vive as someone who doesn't own a PSVR? If you don't, then how are they not competing against each other directly? This reeks of the "Nintendo isn't competing against Sony and Microsoft" arguments that are equally nonsensical.

No, I didn't say they aren't competing, but that the competition between is different.  

The software market between the HTC and Oculus are different (from MS and Sony) because any software you buy for one is playable on the other.   This is important because if Vive and Oculus sold 500k headsets each, that is not 2 separate markets of 500k.  That's a single market of nearly 1 million.  

potato_hamster said: 

... you honestly think the PSVR is going to be on the market 10 years from now and with revisions and technological advancements, could cost $50 at that time? Well I can assure you there's about as likely chance of that happening as KBG is of getting his Nintendo Switch that makes phone calls.

No.  

What I think is likely is that PS5 will support PSVR as a low cost option.  The PSVR itself could be $50-$100 in 6 years.  

potato_hamster said:

You're right, there are plenty of reasons why things don't sell, but devices that apparently have swaths of people waiting to jump in and buy when the price is right don't have issues selling, especially ones that apparently everyone wants to buy upon trying for the first time. 

Where did I say there were swaths of people waiting to jump in?

I talk a lot to people about VR, people that aren't gamers to hardcore gamers.  So I have a pretty good idea about what people think of VR.  

potato_hamster said:

It makes absolutely no sense to argue that marketing is a problem when two of the biggest players in VR are Sony and fucking Facebook,with the support of one of the biggest cell phone manufacturers in the world that has given away millions of VR devices for free.

Marketing is a lot more than just product existence awareness.  

Another part of marketing for VR includes trying to get people to understand what VR does for the experience.  Just because people know of VR, doesn't mean they know what the experience is.  Another part of marketing for any system, is marketing uses/games.  



I have the PSVR and enjoy the experiences it provides.

I played RE VII and Skyrim, both on TV and In VR. And really, as far as I’m concerned, once you play those in VR, there’s no going back.

Even if you play with a controller, the immersion the headset provides compared to a TV with a right analog stick is simply not comparable.
Personally, I don’t mind the lack of proper motion controls for certain games because I don’t see myself flailing my arms hours on end without feeling fatigue, while I don’t have any problem turning my head to look around for an extended period of time.



the-pi-guy said:
potato_hamster said:

It still makes absolutely no sense. Two different wireless VR headsets are necessary because one of them is the "easiest way to do wireless VR". If you say so. And Wireless VR isn't more niche than VR? That's like saying supercars aren't niche because Ford Fiesta ST owners would also like to own a Ferrari despite their inability or unwillingness to buy one.

That comparison makes absolutely no sense.  

Are smartphones niche because they are higher end than a flip phone?

You just keep finding bizarre comparisons to try proving your point, even when there are comparisons that are more applicable.  

potato_hamster said:

Sony HTC and Oculus aren't competing against each other directly? Really? So do you think a PSVR owner is just as likely to buy an HTC Vive as someone who doesn't own a PSVR? If you don't, then how are they not competing against each other directly? This reeks of the "Nintendo isn't competing against Sony and Microsoft" arguments that are equally nonsensical.

No, I didn't say they aren't competing, but that the competition between is different.  

The software market between the HTC and Oculus are different (from MS and Sony) because any software you buy for one is playable on the other.   This is important because if Vive and Oculus sold 500k headsets each, that is not 2 separate markets of 500k.  That's a single market of nearly 1 million.  

potato_hamster said: 

... you honestly think the PSVR is going to be on the market 10 years from now and with revisions and technological advancements, could cost $50 at that time? Well I can assure you there's about as likely chance of that happening as KBG is of getting his Nintendo Switch that makes phone calls.

No.  

What I think is likely is that PS5 will support PSVR as a low cost option.  The PSVR itself could be $50-$100 in 6 years.  

potato_hamster said:

You're right, there are plenty of reasons why things don't sell, but devices that apparently have swaths of people waiting to jump in and buy when the price is right don't have issues selling, especially ones that apparently everyone wants to buy upon trying for the first time. 

Where did I say there were swaths of people waiting to jump in?

I talk a lot to people about VR, people that aren't gamers to hardcore gamers.  So I have a pretty good idea about what people think of VR.  

potato_hamster said:

It makes absolutely no sense to argue that marketing is a problem when two of the biggest players in VR are Sony and fucking Facebook,with the support of one of the biggest cell phone manufacturers in the world that has given away millions of VR devices for free.

Marketing is a lot more than just product existence awareness.  

Another part of marketing for VR includes trying to get people to understand what VR does for the experience.  Just because people know of VR, doesn't mean they know what the experience is.  Another part of marketing for any system, is marketing uses/games.  

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?

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:

https://uploadvr.com/oculus-now-says-doesnt-want-exclusive-games/

"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?"

 Oculus had to abandon its exclusivity deals because of poor sales. So HTC and Oculus are no longer competing with each other in the same was as Microsoft and Sony do, but this is a new thing. Let's not pretend that the Oculus Rit didn't spend the first 4 years of its life with exclusive titles, and paying to keep titles away from HTC and PSVR users.

I can't think of many instances where new playstation hardware was compatible with accessories from previous consoles. 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.

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."

Did you just try to argue that a console's game's library (or lack of one) is a marketing issue? Also, if you need people to use your device in order to understand it enough to want to buy one, you're never going to sell very many.