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
Errorist76 said:
Nogamez said:

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.

Oh ok i thought HDR was 4k but guess not. He wasnt oh right guess i didnt detect the sarcasm lol



Around the Network
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:

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?"
 

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.  



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:

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?"
 

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.




potato_hamster said:

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?


Incorrect.  The tracking capabilities of the GearVR are not inherent with the type of tracking.  It's just a limitation of the current technology.  Oculus Quest doesn't have those limitations.

Who said anything about justifying a $400 wireless pack?  I didn't.  What is your insistence with trying to argue with me about things I don't even think?

potato_hamster said:

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.

Again, this has nothing to do with anything I've claimed.  

I'm not saying "People are going to be lining up to buy a $800 wireless headset instead of a $400 wired one."

I'm saying "People are more likely to buy a $400 wireless headset instead of a $400 wired one".

potato_hamster said:

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.

Sure, it's an assumption.  But it's not an unreasonable assumption.  Do you really think to make something like the Wii U in 10 years would cost as much as it does now?

potato_hamster said: 

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.

People are buying Vive and Rift, instead of the cheaper headsets because they have better marketing and brand awareness.  

The big reasons people are not buying VR:

-It's expensive

-There are too few uses to justify the cost.  The most mainstream game on a headset is Skyrim, a 7 year old game.  Either the best games like Astrobot have to be marketed or popular titles have to be brought over.

-They don't know what it adds to the experience, until they've tried it.  

potato_hamster said: 

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.

No, you can find some mixed reality headsets for around $150 with higher resolution, with an actual tracking system.  Vive is still the better tracker.

But the tracking system is one of the cheaper parts of the headsets.  



the-pi-guy said:
potato_hamster said:

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?


Incorrect.  The tracking capabilities of the GearVR are not inherent with the type of tracking.  It's just a limitation of the current technology.  Oculus Quest doesn't have those limitations.

Who said anything about justifying a $400 wireless pack?  I didn't.  What is your insistence with trying to argue with me about things I don't even think?

potato_hamster said:

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.

Again, this has nothing to do with anything I've claimed.  

I'm not saying "People are going to be lining up to buy a $800 wireless headset instead of a $400 wired one."

I'm saying "People are more likely to buy a $400 wireless headset instead of a $400 wired one".

potato_hamster said:

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.

Sure, it's an assumption.  But it's not an unreasonable assumption.  Do you really think to make something like the Wii U in 10 years would cost as much as it does now?

potato_hamster said: 

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.

People are buying Vive and Rift, instead of the cheaper headsets because they have better marketing and brand awareness.  

The big reasons people are not buying VR:

-It's expensive

-There are too few uses to justify the cost.  The most mainstream game on a headset is Skyrim, a 7 year old game.  Either the best games like Astrobot have to be marketed or popular titles have to be brought over.

-They don't know what it adds to the experience, until they've tried it.  

potato_hamster said: 

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.

No, you can find some mixed reality headsets for around $150 with higher resolution, with an actual tracking system.  Vive is still the better tracker.

But the tracking system is one of the cheaper parts of the headsets.  

The Oculus Quest tracks as well as the Oculus Rift with no need for external sensors? I know it has a sensor-less solution, but I also know there are severe limitations in terms of maintaining orientation without fixed reference points. I suspect this solution will suffer from every other sensor-less solution - low fidelity, less accurate motion tracking, and the need the need to recalibrate often. The Rift, Vive and PSVR don't use fixed references for fun - they're far more expensive to produce - they do so because they're magnitudes better than sensorless solutions. In the Case of the Oculus go, it's only going to be able to read the controllers when they're within direct line of sight of the sensors, and that's going to lead to more issues. So like I said, Samsung Gear VR territory, this won't be much better than using an internal gyroscope of a cell phone.

Okay, so you're going to make ridiculous claims. A $400 wireless VR headset will never perform as well as a $400 tethered headset made developed during the same time period. Going with a wireless solution means sacrificing everything else, since you know, a VR device that's totally self-contained has to make sacrifices in order to be self-contained vs something that delegates the processing to another device. To be clear, you think most prospective VR buyers would prefer a wireless VR headset over one that does everything else VR related better? Because if not, that means people are going to have to pay extra to get that same quality of VR experience on a wireless headset. There's no two ways about it.

Well i mean, it kinda is an unreasonable assumption... the Wii U is now 6 years old. I would hope that after 16 years that tech would advance enough that you could make a wii u-like device for cheaper than the Wii U? But using the Wii U's BOM? It might actually be more expensive to make as there may be critical components inside it like processors that are no longer produced in 10 years since you know, no one has a use for them any more, meaning that some components might cost most to produce in 10 years than they do today. Perhaps you should look into instances where companies try to resurrect and start re-making 10-15-20 year old electronics and find out they actually cost more to make today than they did 20 years ago. it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Let me give you a realistic example. let's take the PS1 classic. That undoubtedly shares almost zero components in common with the original PS1, but also doesn't play the same discs, use the same memory cards, or use the same controllers. But let's say Sony wanted to actually re-release the PS1 in all of it's classic glory, with 100% compatibility with all old PS1 games, which likely means exact replication. There are a pile of custom chips in that PS1, along with controller ports, memory card ports etc that are no longer made, and that might mean that fabricating them today means creating them at today's rates, that may require old fabrication processes that are actually more expensive to employ today than it was i decades ago. it could mean that producing a PS1 today using the same technology that the original PS1 used costs more today than it did in 1998.

You think the only reason that poople are buying Oculus Rift or HTC Vive over other headsets is brand awareness and marketing, and not because, you know, they're better VR headsets and better ecosystems with better games libraries? If you say so. I'm not sure how you think devices that are pretty much not stocked at retail stores are getting sales off of brand awareness, as if HTC and Oculus are recognizable brands to the average consumer. I'd say most VR buyers are people that have done their homework, which means they're probablly looking up reviews, most all of which put HTC Vive and Oculus Rift at the top of the PC VR pile by far.

Another big reason for not buying VR: People prefer to game on televisions with gamepads, and don't think VR adds to that in a meaningful way
Another big reason: Motion sickness. Some people flat out can't use VR.

And again, if people have to use a product in order to get the experience necessary to want to buy one, you're never going to sell very many.

... you do realize that your phones accelerometer is "an actual tracking system", right? Sure it's very basic, and not very reliable or accurate, but it is "an actual tracking system".



Around the Network
potato_hamster said:

The Oculus Quest tracks as well as the Oculus Rift with no need for external sensors? I know it has a sensor-less solution, but I also know there are severe limitations in terms of maintaining orientation without fixed reference points. I suspect this solution will suffer from every other sensor-less solution - low fidelity, less accurate motion tracking, and the need the need to recalibrate often. The Rift, Vive and PSVR don't use fixed references for fun - they're far more expensive to produce - they do so because they're magnitudes better than sensorless solutions. In the Case of the Oculus go, it's only going to be able to read the controllers when they're within direct line of sight of the sensors, and that's going to lead to more issues. So like I said, Samsung Gear VR territory, this won't be much better than using an internal gyroscope of a cell phone.

The Oculus Quest works by making a 3D map of the environment.  It doesn't work by using gyroscopes like the cheaper options.  

Really, I don't know how close it is to the Rift, but it'll probably be closer than we expect.  

potato_hamster said:

Okay, so you're going to make ridiculous claims. A $400 wireless VR headset will never perform as well as a $400 tethered headset made developed during the same time period. Going with a wireless solution means sacrificing everything else, since you know, a VR device that's totally self-contained has to make sacrifices in order to be self-contained vs something that delegates the processing to another device. To be clear, you think most prospective VR buyers would prefer a wireless VR headset over one that does everything else VR related better? Because if not, that means people are going to have to pay extra to get that same quality of VR experience on a wireless headset. There's no two ways about it.

Correct.

But the technology is changing very quickly.  There are already headsets with 2 4K screens.  We might not be that far off, of wired headsets disappearing completely.  (Relatively speaking)

potato_hamster said:

Well i mean, it kinda is an unreasonable assumption... the Wii U is now 6 years old. I would hope that after 16 years that tech would advance enough that you could make a wii u-like device for cheaper than the Wii U? But using the Wii U's BOM? It might actually be more expensive to make as there may be critical components inside it like processors that are no longer produced in 10 years since you know, no one has a use for them any more, meaning that some components might cost most to produce in 10 years than they do today. Perhaps you should look into instances where companies try to resurrect and start re-making 10-15-20 year old electronics and find out they actually cost more to make today than they did 20 years ago. it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Let me give you a realistic example. let's take the PS1 classic. That undoubtedly shares almost zero components in common with the original PS1, but also doesn't play the same discs, use the same memory cards, or use the same controllers. But let's say Sony wanted to actually re-release the PS1 in all of it's classic glory, with 100% compatibility with all old PS1 games, which likely means exact replication. There are a pile of custom chips in that PS1, along with controller ports, memory card ports etc that are no longer made, and that might mean that fabricating them today means creating them at today's rates, that may require old fabrication processes that are actually more expensive to employ today than it was i decades ago. it could mean that producing a PS1 today using the same technology that the original PS1 used costs more today than it did in 1998.

You're certainly correct.  

I'm not necessarily saying using the exact same materials.  
Certain aspects of the headset are very likely to drop in price.  Other aspects aren't as likely.   

potato_hamster said:

You think the only reason that poople are buying Oculus Rift or HTC Vive over other headsets is brand awareness and marketing, and not because, you know, they're better VR headsets and better ecosystems with better games libraries? If you say so. I'm not sure how you think devices that are pretty much not stocked at retail stores are getting sales off of brand awareness, as if HTC and Oculus are recognizable brands to the average consumer. I'd say most VR buyers are people that have done their homework, which means they're probablly looking up reviews, most all of which put HTC Vive and Oculus Rift at the top of the PC VR pile by far.

The HTC Vive works through Steam VR.  All of its games are playable on any PC headset.  

The only real advantage they have over the others is somewhat superior tracking.

Oculus Rift is sold at Best Buy, the Vive is available at gamestop. 

potato_hamster said:

Another big reason for not buying VR: People prefer to game on televisions with gamepads, and don't think VR adds to that in a meaningful way
Another big reason: Motion sickness. Some people flat out can't use VR.

Correct.  People are working extensively on figuring out how to handle the latter.  

potato_hamster said:

And again, if people have to use a product in order to get the experience necessary to want to buy one, you're never going to sell very many.

The thing you don't seem to understand is, I think you're probably right.  

potato_hamster said:

... you do realize that your phones accelerometer is "an actual tracking system", right? Sure it's very basic, and not very reliable or accurate, but it is "an actual tracking system".

Sure.  



the-pi-guy said:
potato_hamster said:

The Oculus Quest tracks as well as the Oculus Rift with no need for external sensors? I know it has a sensor-less solution, but I also know there are severe limitations in terms of maintaining orientation without fixed reference points. I suspect this solution will suffer from every other sensor-less solution - low fidelity, less accurate motion tracking, and the need the need to recalibrate often. The Rift, Vive and PSVR don't use fixed references for fun - they're far more expensive to produce - they do so because they're magnitudes better than sensorless solutions. In the Case of the Oculus go, it's only going to be able to read the controllers when they're within direct line of sight of the sensors, and that's going to lead to more issues. So like I said, Samsung Gear VR territory, this won't be much better than using an internal gyroscope of a cell phone.

The Oculus Quest works by making a 3D map of the environment.  It doesn't work by using gyroscopes like the cheaper options.  

Really, I don't know how close it is to the Rift, but it'll probably be closer than we expect.  

potato_hamster said:

Okay, so you're going to make ridiculous claims. A $400 wireless VR headset will never perform as well as a $400 tethered headset made developed during the same time period. Going with a wireless solution means sacrificing everything else, since you know, a VR device that's totally self-contained has to make sacrifices in order to be self-contained vs something that delegates the processing to another device. To be clear, you think most prospective VR buyers would prefer a wireless VR headset over one that does everything else VR related better? Because if not, that means people are going to have to pay extra to get that same quality of VR experience on a wireless headset. There's no two ways about it.

Correct.

But the technology is changing very quickly.  There are already headsets with 2 4K screens.  We might not be that far off, of wired headsets disappearing completely.  (Relatively speaking)

potato_hamster said:

Well i mean, it kinda is an unreasonable assumption... the Wii U is now 6 years old. I would hope that after 16 years that tech would advance enough that you could make a wii u-like device for cheaper than the Wii U? But using the Wii U's BOM? It might actually be more expensive to make as there may be critical components inside it like processors that are no longer produced in 10 years since you know, no one has a use for them any more, meaning that some components might cost most to produce in 10 years than they do today. Perhaps you should look into instances where companies try to resurrect and start re-making 10-15-20 year old electronics and find out they actually cost more to make today than they did 20 years ago. it's not as simple as you're making it out to be. Let me give you a realistic example. let's take the PS1 classic. That undoubtedly shares almost zero components in common with the original PS1, but also doesn't play the same discs, use the same memory cards, or use the same controllers. But let's say Sony wanted to actually re-release the PS1 in all of it's classic glory, with 100% compatibility with all old PS1 games, which likely means exact replication. There are a pile of custom chips in that PS1, along with controller ports, memory card ports etc that are no longer made, and that might mean that fabricating them today means creating them at today's rates, that may require old fabrication processes that are actually more expensive to employ today than it was i decades ago. it could mean that producing a PS1 today using the same technology that the original PS1 used costs more today than it did in 1998.

You're certainly correct.  

I'm not necessarily saying using the exact same materials.  
Certain aspects of the headset are very likely to drop in price.  Other aspects aren't as likely.   

potato_hamster said:

You think the only reason that poople are buying Oculus Rift or HTC Vive over other headsets is brand awareness and marketing, and not because, you know, they're better VR headsets and better ecosystems with better games libraries? If you say so. I'm not sure how you think devices that are pretty much not stocked at retail stores are getting sales off of brand awareness, as if HTC and Oculus are recognizable brands to the average consumer. I'd say most VR buyers are people that have done their homework, which means they're probablly looking up reviews, most all of which put HTC Vive and Oculus Rift at the top of the PC VR pile by far.

The HTC Vive works through Steam VR.  All of its games are playable on any PC headset.  

The only real advantage they have over the others is somewhat superior tracking.

Oculus Rift is sold at Best Buy, the Vive is available at gamestop. 

potato_hamster said:

Another big reason for not buying VR: People prefer to game on televisions with gamepads, and don't think VR adds to that in a meaningful way
Another big reason: Motion sickness. Some people flat out can't use VR.

Correct.  People are working extensively on figuring out how to handle the latter.  

potato_hamster said:

And again, if people have to use a product in order to get the experience necessary to want to buy one, you're never going to sell very many.

The thing you don't seem to understand is, I think you're probably right.  

potato_hamster said:

... you do realize that your phones accelerometer is "an actual tracking system", right? Sure it's very basic, and not very reliable or accurate, but it is "an actual tracking system".

Sure.  

It can map the environment all it wants, it still needs to know where it is in that environment, and without fixed points to determine that, it means it's going to have to re calibrate itself constantly or else suffer from all the other issues devices suffer from in every other non-fixed point solution. This is something that has been explored a variety of different ways in robotics, and the Quest's solution isn't exactly a novel concept, and the limitations of it are very well understood.  The Rift and HTC Vive use fixed points because decades of research has proven its the cheapest and most effective solution for positional tracking. The Wii uses a very basic version of it in Wii Remotes.

Wired headsets will almost definitely not go away any time soon. Its by far the easiest way to shave cost of of a VR headset. A wired headset will always be cheaper than a wireless headset with the same capabilities.

It doesn't matter if certain aspects of PSVR drops in price if the critical components don't.

Yes I know the HTC Vive works through steam. I said it was Oculus that had exclusive titles that they decided to abandon for the greater good of VR. You can bet if 30 million Oculus Rifts were sold at this point all of those totals would still be exclusive. The only advantage they have is "somewhat superior tracking"? So anyone who buys a HTC Vive or a Oculus Rift in 2018 is esentially wasting their money in your eyes, I assume?

People have been trying to figure out how to cure motion sickness for decades now. That doesn't mean they're going to.

It's the strangest thing. It's pretty clear you more or less agree with my points overall, but continue to argue back and forth over the minutia.



John2290 said:

I thought the Go was great too until I bought a pro and downloaded a 5k VR video. Now PSVR beats everything in terms of porn and 180 degree videos. Maybe the Odessy on a beastly PC can do better but the screen is the limitation on Vive and Oculus. The more pixels you add to PSVR for porn videos the better it looks, the others cap and the Go can't seem to handle much over 1440p with a dtable framerate which starts to look like dog shite after viewing 4k and above

So how do you play 5k videos (5160x2880 = 14.9 MegaPixels) on your PS4 Pro?

As far as I know the limits of the PS4 Pro are 8.3 MegaPixels, so 3840x2160 with 16:9 aspect or 4080x2040 with 2:1 aspect.



I got a Vive a few years ago and its pretty awesome. But the set up is so complicated that I haven’t been using it much lately. And for the most part, it’s games are more arcade experiences and tech demos then deep games you want to spend hours playing.

Honestly, I think games like Space Pirate Simular demonstrate that VR is a much better fit for the arcades then a home experience. There’s a Star Wars VR experience I got to check out earlier this year that is WAY beyond anything that could be done at home that shows just how far it can go, even with today’s tech. You can hold real guns, you can feel actual feat from the lava around you, you get a little jolt when lasers hit you...stuff like that is what VR ought to be aiming for, period. It doesn’t need to all be as elebaorate as Star Wars, but smaller arcade experiences like SPS are simply what the tech’s best suited for right now, and that’s not worth the high price tag.



For anyone who is interested: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tondYxB9Vo



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3