I dunno , apple seems to be doing okay with lightning headphones.
Anyway the experiances will just get better on VR and the price will come down so consumers will keep picking it up.
Rift, Vive, and Virtual Reality
- Thread starter idsn6
- Start date
Anyway the experiances will just get better on VR and the price will come down so consumers will keep picking it up.
That's not the same. People want iPhones (mobile phones). Headphones are a forced peripheral. Look at Apple TV for a more apt analogy. Or 3DTV. Or imagine Apple trying to sell icecubes to Eskimos. Or a 6 foot lump of concrete designed to stand in the middle of the living room. If businesses could make people want the stuff they sell, there'd never be a failed business venture. As it is, consumers are fickle and unpredictable, leaving companies guessing at what they'll want, sometimes succeeding, sometimes finding the rug disappear from under them as quickly as it was placed there.
VR is great on paper. It generates a lot of buzz. It could take off, but then it could fail. It's naive to think otherwise, to think that people can be brainwashed into sticking a helmet on and engaging in virtual experiences if they aren't intrinsically interested. I'm not going to buy a Saxophone no matter how much some companies might want me to...
VR is great on paper. It generates a lot of buzz. It could take off, but then it could fail. It's naive to think otherwise, to think that people can be brainwashed into sticking a helmet on and engaging in virtual experiences if they aren't intrinsically interested. I'm not going to buy a Saxophone no matter how much some companies might want me to...
Not to mention Apple's recent stuff isn't even that eccentric anymore really but rather whimsical, I think this will be the key deciding VR's future too, it is clearly something that constantly gets portrayed as eccentric, but thing is , it's rather whimsy.
Last edited:
But it won't always be a helmet, it won't always be this expensive, and it won't always carry with it the significant caveats compared to traditional mounted or mobile displays. The features that a theoretical head mounted display can provide have proven value because it's a superset of every form of passive and interactive media that has ever existed or could ever exist, it's just a matter of technological maturity. Short of an apocalyptic tech market crash that cripples all tech R&D investment, VR/AR is going to be in our future sooner or later.
Also remember that the batch of consumer HMDs that exist today essentially still share the same DNA as the maker-community kits cobbled together 4+ years ago. The core components haven't changed very much since that time - everything from the displays, optics, communication, rendering, etc are all similarly borrowed from other industries. Much of the work that's taken us from where we were with the DK1 to what we have now is in research, software engineering, manufacturing refinement, and sourcing of more costly parts. We're still very much day-zero in this family of technologies.
If you look at the timeframe when the Rift CV1 first existed in the form of prototypes, you're talking about an Oculus that only just a few months prior was acquired by Facebook, so it's probably not an exaggeration to say that the products that we have now are still very much of a pre-Facebook lineage. Ever since we first had some clue as to what the timing and specifications would be for this first generation, the writing was on the wall that we would need to wait until a gen2 or gen3 iteration for it to be something the average consumer should be interested in.
I don't doubt the initial interest, but the long term success is questionable.
In theory, eventually. But for now it requires an expensive helmet and will for a whiles, and that will in turn affect whether people are really interested or not, and that will in turn determine whether future investment is worth it or not.
eg. 3DTV. It was a novelty. It needed active glasses, or fancy displays. It could have become cheaper and better, but consumer lost interest so TV companies didn't bother investing so much. So no 240 Hz active active glasses, or 8k autostereoscopic displays.
Or Kinect. Amazing tech, massive appeal. Short lived, people gave up wanting to play wiggle games on the whole, devs stopped supporting it, and instead of the market becoming saturated with computer vision interfaces and gaming and wild R&D pushing the tech (and there were plenty of startups) it's all gone quiet.
VR is going to have a significant early impact, I'm sure, but I think its long term future is as unpredictable as every other new tech.
Gear VR costs $100 , Google Daydream is $80. Yes they require expensive phones but people are already buying those phones. They will just add on the cost of vr. Gear VR works with the s6 line also so the price of the phone is quite cheap now.
3DTV isn't the same as VR. Yes you have to put something on your head but VR can be used anywhere and you don't have to bring a giant tv with you just a phone. With VR you can lay in bed and use it. Or sit on a chair or go find corner. The cost of entry is also cheaper than 3D TV was and content is cheaper or free.
Also Kinect is still being used. Its whats powering HoloLens and I am sure a lot of stuff in the future
I don't understand the argument here. Are you saying that 3D TV wasn't 'the next big thing' that people turned down? Are you saying the interest in Kinect type technologies and bouncing around in front of a TV is as strong now as it was when Kinect 1 sold 24 million units?
You've said that VR is going to made big by big investment. I'm citing 3D TV as an example of the industry pushing an idea and being unable to make it big. Even when it became a commodity feature and people have 3D capable TVs without even realising it, no-one's bothering to make 3D content on a grand scale. It is and was impossible for anyone to make 3DTV something that mainstream would adopt. It is impossible for any company to make VR big as well. If VR becomes big, it'll be because the people want it regardless of what big business's plans are. And it's that fickleness and unpredictability that means VR might go the same way as Wii, Kinect, 3DTV, and countless other grand ideas and be a forgotten fad in a few years' time.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I tried GearVR and can say for sure that it's not nearly comparable to PSVR as a VR experience, at least in what relates to interactive content, head tracking, image latency, etc..
I doubt GearVR will/would ever convince as many people as PSVR is capable of.
You can't possibly compare the amount of investment being made between 3D TVs and VR. Oculus was bought for $2B. That's probably a lot more than the sum of investment made on all 3D TVs and content.
I doubt GearVR will/would ever convince as many people as PSVR is capable of.
You can't possibly compare the amount of investment being made between 3D TVs and VR. Oculus was bought for $2B. That's probably a lot more than the sum of investment made on all 3D TVs and content.
That's a singular bonkers shell-out by a company with too much money and nothing to spend it on; hardly representative of the value of the VR business or what it'll grow into. Wouldn't be the first time someone overspent on a company for a futures it just couldn't deliver.
And what does the amount matter? Or do you believe the same as Eastmen that consumer habits can be bought for a certain amount of money? If so, what's your estimate for how much MS had to spend to get everyone (200 million households) buying a Kinect console and bouncing around in front of the TV for the next 20 years? How much would have to be invested to get consumers driving cars that require 6" heels and large furry hats to drive?
And what does the amount matter? Or do you believe the same as Eastmen that consumer habits can be bought for a certain amount of money? If so, what's your estimate for how much MS had to spend to get everyone (200 million households) buying a Kinect console and bouncing around in front of the TV for the next 20 years? How much would have to be invested to get consumers driving cars that require 6" heels and large furry hats to drive?
Both 3D TV and Kinect had gameplay limitations. Kinect was laggy and initially Microsoft forced you to play without a controller, and could not enhance existing games. Later better with Kinect failed to take off, because Microsoft hadn't sufficiently prepared to make good use of a combination of controller and Kinect. By the time the second Kinect came around, they bullishly made it a packin, which could have worked if they had made it essential Xbox experience but couldn't again, here one big problem being that by this time they had lost all connection to the first wave that buys the console who are ironically relatively conservative and hardcore.
3D TV had potential too, but failed for similar reasons. Sacrifices for existing games and content were too high to make it practical. In particular lag was a big issue to start with, and the gains on a regular Tab display were relatively modest (though I personally thought it was really cool).
But PlayStation VR is a bit different. It is a superset of many of these features. It offers 3D but this 3D world is completely around you and you can freely look around, giving you a very powerful additional input, but also greatly increasing your level of immersion as well as greatly enhancing the dimensional interpretation of a 3D space. The display has lower lag than any existing display and will play better than most TVs even for regular games. It is a working additional TV, and Sony's default controller works perfectly with it, in terms of games easily making it visible in the game world so that they can show control hints right next to the controller and use it for additional 3D input.
Above all, it just does that thing we've seen in movies for over 30 years - put you in a completely different world. It's amazing and awesome. Of course Kudos to Rift and Vive too, but those still feel like beta products to me for how you have to wear them and in particular not working well with glasses. But that too will pass.
Even if it is too expensive for mass adoption on day one, I think this one is never going away.
3D TV had potential too, but failed for similar reasons. Sacrifices for existing games and content were too high to make it practical. In particular lag was a big issue to start with, and the gains on a regular Tab display were relatively modest (though I personally thought it was really cool).
But PlayStation VR is a bit different. It is a superset of many of these features. It offers 3D but this 3D world is completely around you and you can freely look around, giving you a very powerful additional input, but also greatly increasing your level of immersion as well as greatly enhancing the dimensional interpretation of a 3D space. The display has lower lag than any existing display and will play better than most TVs even for regular games. It is a working additional TV, and Sony's default controller works perfectly with it, in terms of games easily making it visible in the game world so that they can show control hints right next to the controller and use it for additional 3D input.
Above all, it just does that thing we've seen in movies for over 30 years - put you in a completely different world. It's amazing and awesome. Of course Kudos to Rift and Vive too, but those still feel like beta products to me for how you have to wear them and in particular not working well with glasses. But that too will pass.
Even if it is too expensive for mass adoption on day one, I think this one is never going away.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
I believe more money into the pool means more money for marketing pushes. And marketing money results in mindshare and purchases.
Regardless, as I've stated before I've yet to encounter a single person that wasn't very impressed with PSVR. Lines are formed at local stores to try it and everyone comes out impressed. Given that it's a $400 product you find on the shelves practically everywhere and bring home (not something you order online for >700€ and wait for weeks to come (in selected countries)), don't count on the Vive+Oculus market as reference.
I'm not saying VR will fail. I'm not saying it's unimpressive. I'm not likening it to other failed products other than other failed products were released with the belief that the investment would be worth it, and sometimes even showed amazing consumer interest, but they still failed to take off once people got over the initial honeymoon period and the product failed to capture them long term. With every big success, Wii, Kinect, etc, people (and investors!) looked at massive consumer enthusiasm and predicted a whole new world, but it didn't come to pass. Short term success does not equate to long term future, and no amount of money can make people want something that they naturally don't want. That's really my point. You can't buy success. You have to invest to get success, but you can't buy it, and companies investing in VR will not ensure its success because you literally can't do that.
Not sure why there isn't more agreement with me on this point, because I don't believe any of you really think Joe Public's buying habits can be bought and controlled. Even the might of Apple has found they can't make people buy stuff they don't want to buy, and have to work to make products that people actually want.
Not sure why there isn't more agreement with me on this point, because I don't believe any of you really think Joe Public's buying habits can be bought and controlled. Even the might of Apple has found they can't make people buy stuff they don't want to buy, and have to work to make products that people actually want.
Last edited:
I agree with all that of course. Just not with the 'as unpredictable as' part. It is the 'people want this' that I am seeing, not the 'companies want me to want this real bad' part. I see a lot of games from devs that would probably make more money with 2D games but are themselves just really passionate about how good this is.
I find this argument quite frustrating. Have you actually worn a properly fitted rift? Granted I've seen the issues glasses wearers can experience (at least without proper effort put into the fitting) and it's a definite problem, but if you don't wear glasses and it's adjusted properly then it's no more difficult or uncomfortable than slipping on a baseball cap, and frankly, it's a lot more convenient than PSVR (which I recently tried in a Sony store in Shanghai) because you don't have to faf around with headphones or a power switch and it's a damn sight lighter (weightless as far as I'm concerned). It's also literally about half the size which might not matter when it's on your head, but the things got to be stored somewhere when it's not.
Add to that the best in class headset and hand controllers, incredibly slick software stack, and now servicable room scale abilities and I really think it's quite harsh to describe it a beta product in comparison to PSVR.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I have, and I've even seen it on YouTube and streams. Where people with PSVR (Rift and Vive as well) got some of their friends to try their headset. And their reactions was just meh, compared to most of the other people. The most recent one was with a YouTuber showing off the Resident Evil 7 Kitchen demo to friends. Half the people (who were already hyped about VR) were all, "Ooooh, Oh shit! AAAAAH." And the other half of people were just like, "meh, can I punch the girl in the face? Why can't I punch the girl in the face? Why can't I tip my chair over? Oh, I got stabbed in the leg? Whatever."
As well, compare long term effects. Rift and Vive had the exact same reaction from people at launch. But as more "games" were released, their interest slowly died out due to how limited the scope of games in VR are compared to conventional games. And it doesn't help that the VR content that continues to be released monthly on Steam aren't exactly changing anyone's views on VR's long term viability.
Some of those same people are once again really hyped with PSVR launch, but I don't see that lasting either. While it has a larger library, it suffers from the same limitations as Vive and Rift.
I give PSVR a longer life compared to Rift and Vive, but only because of a larger library. I have serious doubts still as to whether it can break the mold of short term interest that VR has garnered time and again over the past 2 decades, despite the fact that VR now is far more immersive and far more polished that previous attempts.
It's quite likely to maintain a strong niche following. Hell, there's some users on this forum that still swear by 3D stereoscopic (non-VR) games.
Regards,
SB
I am saying the buy in for 3d tvs was higher than mobile vr is. Also the content for VR is much cheaper than 3d tv content was.
Kinect is transitioning to a vital part of hardware used to enable other technologies like HoloLens and may very well be a huge part of vr in the future.
Also the buy in for Kinect hardware is more expensive than vr.
Vr is going to get pushed and people will want it because they are already buying it in droves. Gear vr is very popular and more are coming
That's though exactly my problem with it. I hear you, the PC VR experiences are high end, especially if you have good PC hardware. My PC should be pretty good with it too, and if I could spare the 800 euros, I'd probably get one of my own maybe one generation onwards. I have long doubted which one to get, but I kept running into limitations for me personally (the Rift wasn't regularly available in Europe, it didn't come with the controllers, it was a hassle to mount with glasses ... ) The PSVR just didn't seem to have almost any of these limitations, and sure enough it's extremely user friendly and comfortable (anyone so far had the thing on in seconds), all games run at good framerates, and only a few ports suffer a bit in the image quality department. And the slight difference in resolution turns out to really be countered by the better subpixel setup as well, giving basically zero screen-door effect or light-shafts (although during the brief periods when the display is off you get some dark green pixels mixed in with the black at times). That's pretty good for a headset that cost me just half, especially because I already had the camera and two Move controllers. And though it is clear that the Rift's controllers are superior, the superiority of the DS4 right now more than counters that for me - because I expect a lot of games that will work in both 2D and VR modes.
But anyway, I love that Vive and Rift exists, and all headsets benefit each other. I'm sure that we'll see improvements on all ends too. Personally I also look forward to someone hacking a PC driver for the Playstation VR headset.
If Shifty's right, then the same persons who attribute utmost importance to it , could well be the very same persons who deem it unimportant and quixotic the next day.
I spent the last week more then two hours every evening using the Rift in Elite Dangerous. I like it _very_ much! But... these damned god rays or better the high contrast smear the Rift shows is pretty unbearable after a while. I don't know how often I wiped the lenses clean because I thought there is grease on them.
This is a major point for the PSVR in my book. I am really temped to install the DK2 again just for Elite and their proper lenses.
This is a major point for the PSVR in my book. I am really temped to install the DK2 again just for Elite and their proper lenses.
