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?
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".
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?
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:
-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.
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.