Virtual Reality

[VR46]

?529 is a hell of a price, and how many of those sold were ebay scalpers?

Really does put it in the market for the elite PC enthusiasts.

Shame they force you to buy the bundled controller, headset, case etc etc. Selling a version without them could have easily knocked ?100 off.

In a way pleased it's that price as it ruled me out instantly. Don't really expect the Valve/HTC version to be much cheaper either.

Seems PS4 and it's PSVR, could come in as the winner in VR after all. Price and software/dev support is critical from here on in.

Just hope this isn't the start of the nail in the coffin for VR until the next attempt.

This says it all



Luckey didn't help with the price bomb after saying so many titmes the price was expected to be much lower

Luckey's mention of "communication" is a reference to his claim that Rift would be "roughly in that $350 ballpark, but it will cost more than that" in an interview. Indeed, in an interview with Eurogamer in 2014, Luckey said Oculus wanted to hit a $200-$400 launch price for Rift.

[Digfox]

From the sounds of it the games, controller and remote wouldn't be anywhere near ?100: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/20...ey-on-the-rift

I'm still not convinced they aren't making money or that they are selling these for a loss, but this might just be an irrational reaction.

[Cornflakes]

The issue with psvr is, the ps4 is already over a year old, the hardware was already dated when released, we still have no confirmation if the psvr will be supported by the ps5, or if a second generation will be releasedwhen the ps5 hits the market and it being tied to the ps family. So in a sense non of these first generation vr solutions are ready for the mainstream market.

[Asura]

The issue with psvr is, the ps4 is already over a year old, the hardware was already dated when released, we still have no confirmation if the psvr will be supported by the ps5, or if a second generation will be releasedwhen the ps5 hits the market and it being tied to the ps family. So in a sense non of these first generation vr solutions are ready for the mainstream market.

My main concern with PSVR is that we saw what happened to Playstation Move, despite the technology being superb. For instance, I played Killzone 3 and Sorcery using the Move last Summer and they were the first games to actually do what I expected from the Wii (but never quite got). It was still ditched very quickly.

[Neon Ignition]

Without every PS4 having a VR unit for most devs it won't make sense to develop anything meaningful for it. You'd be releasing on a competitive market platform to a limited audience, same reason why Kinect and Move recieved such weak software support. It's like the mountain climb demo, the sense of depth and scale is likely very good but its still just a tech demo underneath. Ace Combat 7 might use it well though. It's utterly redundant in several genres though. Even if PSVR was cost $99, it doesn't get around any of the practical issues that killed off the previous peripherals either.

Hell, even if they released a $50 perfect Holodeck it would likely see users get bored beyond its porn uses after a while. People love passive options, until someone creates a holodeck style tech where you still only have to sit on your couch and wear no tech yourself it'll continue to be a string of living room fads.

I think mostly it comes down to the same thing that fuels new release apathy. Many gamers crave that sense of wow from the old days. Every year there's a new future for gaming be it digital only, Kinect, 3DTV, 4K, Android Consoles, glassesless 3D, Hololens, Steam machines/controllers etc.

In 1996 a kid sat down an put the disc for the new Tomb Raider in his new Playstation console.

Twenty years later in 2016 a kid will sit down and put the disc of the new Tomb Raider in his new Playstation console.

The future of gaming isn't coming, it's been here for decades already and its a little box that plays games through a connected controller.

Improvements will come along but it'd be nice if companies more focused on the content than the input device. It always reminds of the constant 'future threats' to cinema in the 90's.

[QualityChimp]

I know where you're coming from, [MENTION=345]Superman Falls[/MENTION], and I mostly agree with you, but it feels like you're saying "Why bother? it'll flop anyway, like all the other tech."

However, I know you can ultimately boil it down to saying the PS4 is the same as the Magnavox Odyssey because it's a controller, plugged into a console, going into a telly, but think of all the successful things on a PS4 setup that you take for granted now, that were once cutting-edge tech: wireless, rechargeable joypads; analogue sticks and triggers; capacitive touchpad; accelerometer; gyroscope; hard drive; broadband connectivity; PS Network; HDMI connectivity; 1080p resolution; motion sensing camera; replaceable HDD; USB ports and so on.

I want them to keep trying so they find some more future tech to enhance the gaming experience!

I really like Oculus Rift the few times I've tried it, even though as a glasses-wearer it's always blurred.
I really hope that one day, VR is an affordable, well-implemented enhancement to our gaming experiences and these early days of home versions are solid ground to work from.

[VR46]

Good points by you both, but for the mainstream it seems we are still further away then a mainstream acceptable price than I thought sadly.

Good first post here if you have five minutes to read it.

https://forums.oculus.com/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=28695

With them not taking any money up front (they did with DK1 & DK2, $50 I think it was), there is nothing to stop people cancelling orders in their droves once the stark reality of price hits home.

Can't wait for the reviews and opinions to start arriving in a couple of months time.

QC - I tried the DK2 with and without glasses and was much better without, my prescription is only small though.

[Dogg Thang]

People can cancel and some probably will but the fact that they sold out shows the interest is there, even at this high price.

I think I'm putting VR into a different category than most so my expectations have been very different. I mean, how much were the earliest 4k televisions? How much are they now? I don't know but I'm guessing more expensive than this and some probably hitting multiples of this price. I'm honestly not sure why this should cost less than it does.

But it sounds like Oculus themselves have done a poor job at managing those expectations and implied it would be a good deal cheaper.

[Neon Ignition]

I definitely think there's a place for it, but I feel by the time it's in a position where it's genuinely ready for mass market success it will have been buried under years of complaints, issues, concerns, compatibility etc issues and noise. Even then it's not really compatible with the realities of its audiences lives.


The ideas that tend to hold are the ones that have scope to be cheap components, industry standards and practical to everyday use. VR doesn't fit any of those as it holds all the same issues 3DTV, Kinect etc fell to.

In fact, possibly the best comparison for VR and probably the one I'm best leaving it at is arcade sticks or racing wheels. Supported by the genres they best cater for and often premium quality items. A consistently selling piece of tech across generations but ultimately, always a niche audience one.

[Neon Ignition]

Forgot the add, in terms of price it definitely needs to be much lower. The trouble is the tech might be expensive but what it delivers is, whilst unique, extremely limited. A 4KTV is expensive but it has practical and everyday uses for the entire family individually and together.

VR is a very solitary experience. Currently having enough headsets and tech for multiple users costs wonga crazy money and VR holds no real home use beyond gaming. Families will never watch films and TV programmes with it as even if it was cheap it removes the social element, offers nothing that 3DTV didn't for none gaming use and for parents is likely much greater concern for childrens eyes than 3DS was on launch.

I do find it curious with the preorders that they haven't given any tangible indicator of the number of preorders made available. Someone on GAF pointe out that once upon a time the WiiU broe preorder records. The second wave will be key and as they've so far done a really poor job of communicating the PC requirements for OR I'd expect a PR backlash post release

[Dogg Thang]

I see the potential for VR as being far greater than a game peripheral. Check back in 15 years and quote me if I'm wrong!

[Neon Ignition]

But as what? It's useless for film and programme watching, limited by genre for gaming?

[Dogg Thang]

Virtual studios and office space, replacing skype and many paid services such as Bluejeans. Conferences without the travel costs. Social spaces. The type of thing that Second Life once was for whatever types of people used that but in a way that reaches different people. I see kids hanging out with other kids, like an immersive cross between real life and Tumblr (as horrifying as that sounds). I see virtual education spaces, taking over from or complimenting universities. I see narrative and exploratory experiences that are more interactive movies than our current games. And I see mixes of all the above.

And for me, the big revolution (and the one that will rule VR) will be when the infrastructure of all that becomes seamless. The company that puts the framework down for expandable VR experiences that all these can be built on.

[Neon Ignition]

Business is definitely one of the main ways it will prevail, so many uses and applications. For true VResque full integration into everyday lives etc though, that I see having to wait until the day Holo technology is nailed. I can't shake the headset as being a limitation current VR will be held back by.

[QualityChimp]

Plus, of course:
[hide][/hide]

Why is it useless for film and programme watching? I'd quite like to go to a virtual IMAX cinema from the comfort of my own home!