$600 for the The Oculus Rift?

The Bucket

New member
May 4, 2010
531
0
0
RandV80 said:
rgrekejin said:
I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?
People have different preferences for different things. Those that enjoy a visual immersion (this includes myself) should absolutely love VR, while those that don't care for (I'm guessing yourself) it probably won't think twice about needing VR. The only thing I really want to add here is in the battle between preference was pretty big when Avatar started the 3D theater phase, and your side lost... badly.
As someone who's cautiously optimistic about VR, the counterpoint to this is that battle also happened when 3D tvs were being majorly pushed, and we know which "side" lost then :3
 

Hairless Mammoth

New member
Jan 23, 2013
1,595
0
0
The current price tag is going to make sales difficult. Although, the Rift has competition about to release their own VR equipment. The competing VR solutions and early adopters should cause the price to fall, hopefully fast enough to more enough units to warrant more VR supporting games. If the prices can't fall fast enough. or the whole VR phenomenon doesn't win over enough of the game market, I still see VR surviving in its own niche.

Beyond games, I see VR easily being adopted for various training programs and other non-gaming uses, at the current prices and capabilities. Even if a full VR rig costs a lot to the average consumer, they may still use one often for work or in a class.
 

rgrekejin

New member
Mar 6, 2011
267
0
0
RandV80 said:
rgrekejin said:
I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?
People have different preferences for different things. Those that enjoy a visual immersion (this includes myself) should absolutely love VR, while those that don't care for (I'm guessing yourself) it probably won't think twice about needing VR. The only thing I really want to add here is in the battle between preference was pretty big when Avatar started the 3D theater phase, and your side lost... badly.
Did they, though? Avatar made huge money because it was exploiting the early phase of this cycle, when decent 3D was a new and breathtaking thing. No 3D movie has done anywhere near as well since, and the general consensus in the film industry is that 3D is dying out. People are seeing less and less movies in 3D. In 2010, 52% of moviegoers had seen at least one movie in 3D that year. By 2014, that number had fallen to 27%. The fall from grace of 3D movies kind of proves my point - people loved them at first, when the tech was fresh and new, but after seeing a few movies in 3D, most people became acclimated to the gimmick and decided it wasn't worth the extra expense. To put it bluntly, nobody cares about 3D these days. No movies are made natively for 3D - they're all just regular 2D movies with shoddy 3D effects added in post-production so that they can gouge a little extra money out of the few people who are still willing to pony up the extra bucks for 3D.
 

pearcinator

New member
Apr 8, 2009
1,212
0
0
Whatever VR tech porn supports is the VR tech that will succeed.

VHS beat Betamax because porn

Blu-Ray beat HD DVD because porn

Mobile Phones started getting bigger screens again because porn

So, I think the smartest option is to wait until all the VR hardwares are out and to see which one porn adopts.
 

rgrekejin

New member
Mar 6, 2011
267
0
0
pearcinator said:
Whatever VR tech porn supports is the VR tech that will succeed.

VHS beat Betamax because porn

Blu-Ray beat HD DVD because porn

Mobile Phones started getting bigger screens again because porn

So, I think the smartest option is to wait until all the VR hardwares are out and to see which one porn adopts.
I see this argument get thrown around a lot, and I don't think it's *quite* a spurious correlation, but it's certainly close to one. It's also pretty heavy revisionist history.

Although porn may indeed have had something to do with it, VHS beat out Betamax because VHS tapes had a longer runtime. When first introduced, Betamax tapes ran a maximum of 60 minutes, whereas VHS tapes could run for 240 minutes, enough time for a full-length theatrical movie. By the time a Betamax tape was introduced that was long enough to actually hold an entire movie on a single tape, VHS had already won the format war. It had just as much to do with Disney as it did with porn.

As for HD-DVD vs BluRay... who the hell even *buys* hardcopy porn in the age of BluRays? Porn has mostly been distributed by download since at least 2006. BluRay won the format war because 5 of the 6 major movie studios initially decided to release their movies on BluRay, which they did because BluRay had superior built-in DRM to HD-DVD. Only 3 major studios supported HD-DVD out of the gate(Warner Bros and Paramount supported both), meaning that BluRay had exclusive movies from three studios, whereas HD-DVD only had one (Universal). Additionally, Blockbuster (which still mattered back in 2006) decided to carry only BluRay. That was pretty much it for HD-DVD.

The "porn always decides the winner of the format wars" thing gets passed around because it's funny to think about, but ultimately, it's probably more urban legend than fact.
 

RandV80

New member
Oct 1, 2009
1,507
0
0
The Bucket said:
RandV80 said:
rgrekejin said:
I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?
People have different preferences for different things. Those that enjoy a visual immersion (this includes myself) should absolutely love VR, while those that don't care for (I'm guessing yourself) it probably won't think twice about needing VR. The only thing I really want to add here is in the battle between preference was pretty big when Avatar started the 3D theater phase, and your side lost... badly.
As someone who's cautiously optimistic about VR, the counterpoint to this is that battle also happened when 3D tvs were being majorly pushed, and we know which "side" lost then :3
Yes there's that, and to be honest I barely even knew that these 3D TV's were a thing! I think a big problem with those though are that people already went out and bought themselves a big screen flat panel TV's just before the big 2008/09 market crash, so there isn't really a need to replace them. Also if I recall weren't the glasses for these TV's ridiculously expensive, like $200 each?

I was looking at Avatar as more visual porn though. There are a lot of people who weren't able to see it like this and just got caught up on it being nothing more than a rehashed Pocahontas movie. I can understand as I'm the same way with audio, whether it's a single mono channel coming from my TV or the highest end surround sound theater experience it's all the same to me. But in the end there were far more people loved the visual experience of avatar than there were those that didn't feel it. I imagine it will be much the same when you can directly immerse yourself into the game/media with a VR headset at an affordable price.
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,837
0
0
$350 was within the realm of possibility for me.

$600 and I'm no longer paying rent. For a gaming peripheral (one I wasn't a core supporter of from the beginning too) this is impossible for my wallet to open up for. This is a shame because I tried one of the dev kits my friend had and it seemed like something worth pursuing but I just can't do it.
 

SilverUchiha

New member
Dec 25, 2008
1,604
0
0
I would love to see VR succeed. I certainly have no interest in it myself at this time, but I think the premise is nice.

Multiple reasons for not wanting to dive in myself. I wear glasses and VR headsets don't really jive well with glasses. Every VR game I've seen looks like an old N64 game or possibly PS2. I'm not a graphics snob, but if I'm going to have something jammed into my eyes, I want images that won't cause headaches. I go back to play the old Golden Eye game now and just looking at a normal TV screen of that hurts my head.

But, more than that, I have yet to see a game that also looks fun to play. Yes, they all are varying degrees of functional with a focus on showing off the potential of the tech. But that's just it. There's not really a deep narrative story like I get with other games. There's no meaningful challenge. And if we're just getting re-releases of games I already have, then I'm not really interested in shelling out $600 + (probably need a new machine for VR) just to replay a game like, say, Portal, but with VR capability. Not a worthwhile price of admission. Then I've even seen some games where it's a third-person game with the headset... What's the point of that exactly? I like third-person games and being able to see my character that I made. But why would I want to do anything not-first-person with a VR headset? That sort of misses the point... or perhaps I'm missing some other point that doesn't quite make sense to me.

Ultimately, I don't see VR taking off just yet or maybe even for a while. The next big hurdle I see is making it a viable platform for gaming, work, entertainment, anything. For that, you need to convince publishers of that. And they didn't feel confident making games for the WiiU, which is just adding an optional touch-pad. Here, we're asking for specific kinds of visuals and specific types of games. And my faith in the triple-A market for being able to do that is very... low at best. And those are the games you really need to sell the device. Again, WiiU failed to pull in big name third-party titles and that's why it's in the spot it's in. VR will likely have that problem PLUS a higher price tag and still being more inconvenient to use for the average consumer than even the WiiU gamepad or a Mouse-N-Keyboard (PC gamer, but I understand people not liking that set up). I wish VR the best of luck, but it'll probably be a while before it's truly mainstream.
 

Pyrian

Hat Man
Legacy
Apr 21, 2020
1,399
8
13
San Diego, CA
Country
US
Gender
Male
I think 3rd person actually works better than first person in VR. You have less movement problems. The sense of presence is no less for not inhabiting an avatar.
 

fenrizz

New member
Feb 7, 2009
2,790
0
0
rgrekejin said:
As for HD-DVD vs BluRay... who the hell even *buys* hardcopy porn in the age of BluRays? Porn has mostly been distributed by download since at least 2006. BluRay won the format war because 5 of the 6 major movie studios initially decided to release their movies on BluRay, which they did because BluRay had superior built-in DRM to HD-DVD. Only 3 major studios supported HD-DVD out of the gate(Warner Bros and Paramount supported both), meaning that BluRay had exclusive movies from three studios, whereas HD-DVD only had one (Universal). Additionally, Blockbuster (which still mattered back in 2006) decided to carry only BluRay. That was pretty much it for HD-DVD.
Also, the PS3 had a built in BluRay which meant BluRay had a much bigger install base than that of HD-DVD.

rgrekejin said:
The "porn always decides the winner of the format wars" thing gets passed around because it's funny to think about, but ultimately, it's probably more urban legend than fact.
Indeed.

OT:
My biggest problem with VR (not ath I have much experience with it) is the lack of tactile feedback.
Sure I can look around a lot, but I can't see my hands or my feet.

Although Elite Dangerous with HOTAS and VR-goggles looks promising.
 

pookie101

New member
Jul 5, 2015
1,162
0
0
when i checked the list of compatible games it works out to be a list of 4 games i own work with VR.

i checked and i need a new video card to get this to work, and im australian all up with shipping and upgrade i wouldnt exactly be getting much change out of $2000 AUD.. thats more than i paid for this computer full stop and the video card i have works fine as it is at the moment.

yeah i may like eurotruck simulator 2 and i am curious what it would be like in VR but i donty like it enough to be basically spending $500 to try it
 

Czann

New member
Jan 22, 2014
317
0
0
fix-the-spade said:
Czann said:
But I have a problem with this price range killing VR in the cradle. I want it to thrive not die.
I don't think this is going to happen.

HDTVs cost thousands when new, so did 4k panels. Now 1080p is bog standard and 4k is more money but not traumatically so.
That's my hope. Another one is that inferior and cheaper hardware will not win over the better options.
 

AyaReiko

New member
Aug 9, 2008
354
0
0
Olas said:
I'm glad the first major VR product is fairly high-end. VR needs to prove itself as something truly exciting and desirable to people, and that means it needs to be good and work well. If they just pumped out a cheaper but crappier version that didn't work quite right people are more likely to lose interest in the tech.
And just how would VR do that if the userbase is small?

And it's not just going to cost $600 to get the OR for the average user, it's going to cost them upwards of over $2000 to get the thing and a system capable enough to run it. For tech that hasn't been proven to have any legs, that's beyond way too much for nearly anyone.

OR is only going to be bought by a niche audience only. For devs, that small audience isn't going to be close to big enough to make content that makes the most out of OR's hardware.
 

grigjd3

New member
Mar 4, 2011
541
0
0
albino boo said:
Olas said:
Because nearly all 100,000 users will buy it, or at least a much larger percentage will than if it's on a crowded platform. These people paid 600 dollars for the device, I imagine they'll wanna get they're money's worth from it. Besides, some kinds of games can be adapted to VR fairly easily without having to change much with the main game. Basically I'm just parroting what Totalbiscuit said in his recent vid on the topic, I'd check that out if you want to hear the case argued better.
Console sales are in the millions and gaming pcs are in the same magnitude. At 100k sales there is not simply enough of user base to even port an existing game to it. A team of 5 people working for 3 months will cost at least $50k and there is no guarantee of extra sales.
You're vastly underestimating the cost of five developers for three months. Try $150K. Remember, employees cost companies a lot more than their paycheck. Companies pay benefits like subsidizing health insurance and they pay a payroll tax. A typical game developer at a AAA studio likely costs at least $100,000 a year. Further, you need to provide facilities for the developers to work in and equipment. I would imagine that if a company like Bethesda were to port their latest game (Fallout 4) over, we're talking about at least a half-million dollar investment (if not far, far more).
 

Magmarock

New member
Sep 1, 2011
479
0
0
Remember a decent computer monitor can cost up to over a thousand AU dollars. So it's no surprise to me that the rift is $600. However that being said I personally have no interest in the Rift. Yes I have tried it and yes it is really immersive. However there are some issues.

1. Too immersive: This thing can really trick your brain, but when you try to grab an in game object with your real hands it's really disorienting.

2. It's a hassle: Putting this thing on to play games is annoying. Although I am willing to do that with headphones

3. it's a little anti social, in other words you look silly wearing it.

4. it's only appropriate with certain games. A niche accessory for niche games for a niche market.
 

Ender910_v1legacy

New member
Oct 22, 2009
209
0
0
albino boo said:
Olas said:
I'm glad the first major VR product is fairly high-end. VR needs to prove itself as something truly exciting and desirable to people, and that means it needs to be good and work well. If they just pumped out a cheaper but crappier version that didn't work quite right people are more likely to lose interest in the tech.
The counter argument is why would any developer spend time on money adapting or creating content for a peripheral that only has 100,000 users.
Probably so they can get a few steps ahead in the game when VR does become the main thing. For development companies in an extremely fast-paced and competitive industry, it's an investment that could pay off pretty well. That's why there's already VR support in a number of games (both indie and AAA).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support

rgrekejin said:
I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?
3D TV's aren't really comparable to VR. For all intents and purposes, 3D TV is, for all intents and purposes, just a visual filter, with fairly limited potential in advancing the way a film or TV show tell a story and portray characters. Further, it has little more impact on gaming than something like... a new shader mask. It doesn't improve performance or optimization, and it really doesn't add much of anything in the way of how you can interact in the game.

VR on the other hand? VR completely changes the game for first person view. It offers the easiest and most intuitive method for separating the player's POV from character movement. As an example, say you're running your character down an alley, running from a zombie or whatever. You don't have to turn your entire character's body just to glance behind you. You don't even need to slow down or stop your character's movement, you just turn your head and look, and then turn your head back like you would in real life (minus the zombie). And then there's the VR motion controllers, which goes even further towards making player interaction less clunky (especially for melee combat, which has always been a challenge to implement realistically in a game).

Ah, and one other thing. With the right kind of hardware design, VR can actually reduce the stress on computer/console. Basically, eye tracking FOV. The computer/console would be able to render at a much smaller resolution than normal for an optimal view, thus saving a LOT of performance.
 

Albino Boo

New member
Jun 14, 2010
4,667
0
0
Ender910 said:
albino boo said:
Olas said:
I'm glad the first major VR product is fairly high-end. VR needs to prove itself as something truly exciting and desirable to people, and that means it needs to be good and work well. If they just pumped out a cheaper but crappier version that didn't work quite right people are more likely to lose interest in the tech.
The counter argument is why would any developer spend time on money adapting or creating content for a peripheral that only has 100,000 users.
Probably so they can get a few steps ahead in the game when VR does become the main thing. For development companies in an extremely fast-paced and competitive industry, it's an investment that could pay off pretty well. That's why there's already VR support in a number of games (both indie and AAA).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_Oculus_Rift_support
The number of AAA games on that list is one and that has partial support.
 

votemarvel

Regular Member
Legacy
Apr 11, 2020
1,353
3
13
Country
England
SlumlordThanatos said:
That being said...VR isn't going to vanish again. Virtual Reality is close. Very close. We can practically taste it, because there is only one real obstacle to overcome, and it's fairly minor. All someone needs to do is figure out a way to drastically cut the cost of production, and we're fucking there.

It's only a matter of time. I'm confident that it'll finally be able to take off within the next decade.
There is a huge stepping stone that needs to be addressed and that is VR making you feel as if you are part of the world.

Just being able to see and hear the virtual world isn't enough. You need to be able to feel the ground beneath your feet, the texture of the object in your hand, the wind blowing through your hair.

Limiting the user to just two of their senses is not enough. Otherwise they are just going to feel like a ghost moving through the world, there but not truly a part of it.
 

rgrekejin

New member
Mar 6, 2011
267
0
0
Ender910 said:
rgrekejin said:
I suspect that VR's primary problem isn't going to turn out to be cost. Rather, its going to suffer the same problem as 3D TV/movies - once that new tech smell fades, and you put enough time in on the device that you stop going "OMG I'm IN the GAME!" every time you strap it on, you realize that it really doesn't add enough to the experience to justify the additional expense and inconvenience of using it. I'm certain enthusiasts will disagree, but then, there are still some people who love their 3D TVs. And I'm certain that I'm going to get jumped on here by a bunch of people who swear up and down that if I'd actually tried VR with whatever their preferred device is instead of the previous iteration of that same device, then I'd know what "real" VR is and I'd wonder how I ever lived without it. I guess the only possible response to that is that we'll see, won't we?
3D TV's aren't really comparable to VR. For all intents and purposes, 3D TV is, for all intents and purposes, just a visual filter, with fairly limited potential in advancing the way a film or TV show tell a story and portray characters. Further, it has little more impact on gaming than something like... a new shader mask. It doesn't improve performance or optimization, and it really doesn't add much of anything in the way of how you can interact in the game.

VR on the other hand? VR completely changes the game for first person view. It offers the easiest and most intuitive method for separating the player's POV from character movement. As an example, say you're running your character down an alley, running from a zombie or whatever. You don't have to turn your entire character's body just to glance behind you. You don't even need to slow down or stop your character's movement, you just turn your head and look, and then turn your head back like you would in real life (minus the zombie). And then there's the VR motion controllers, which goes even further towards making player interaction less clunky (especially for melee combat, which has always been a challenge to implement realistically in a game).

Ah, and one other thing. With the right kind of hardware design, VR can actually reduce the stress on computer/console. Basically, eye tracking FOV. The computer/console would be able to render at a much smaller resolution than normal for an optimal view, thus saving a LOT of performance.
I wasn't aware that separating player POV from character movement has been a problem for anyone since the implementation of the player-controlled camera.

...and then there's the bit where you talk about motion controls somehow making something *less* clunky, which runs contrary to literally every single experience anybody has ever had with every implementation of motion controls ever.

I'm just not seeing what problems VR solves that actually needed solving. Does it really improve immersion? Sure, especially at first, but that will likely break down over time as people get used to the tech and it loses its Wow-factor, especially since, as another user noted, VR is capable of providing feedback to at most two senses. I'm just not convinced that whatever increase in immersion it can provide is going to be enough to make people want to strap on a big 'ol pair of goggles tethered to a computer by a few feet of wire. It's inconvenient. It's expensive. And worst of all (for a lot of people) it looks incredibly silly. Something more in the vein of the hololens, I think, which doesn't require you to completely isolate yourself from the outside world, might have a better chance of success.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
albino boo said:
Olas said:
Because nearly all 100,000 users will buy it, or at least a much larger percentage will than if it's on a crowded platform. These people paid 600 dollars for the device, I imagine they'll wanna get they're money's worth from it. Besides, some kinds of games can be adapted to VR fairly easily without having to change much with the main game. Basically I'm just parroting what Totalbiscuit said in his recent vid on the topic, I'd check that out if you want to hear the case argued better.
Console sales are in the millions and gaming pcs are in the same magnitude. At 100k sales there is not simply enough of user base to even port an existing game to it. A team of 5 people working for 3 months will cost at least $50k and there is no guarantee of extra sales.
1. If we're actually gonna start crunching numbers, I wouldn't mind knowing where this 100k figure came from.

2. When I said some games can be easily adapted to VR, I wasn't just talking about ports of completed games, I was talking about games built from the ground up with optional VR support. Ports of popular existing games are not only possible but inevitable, even if it's done through the modding community. People who drop money on VR to begin with are going to seek out games that validate their investment, so having VR support will be a strong selling point for those invested in the technology.

3. You say that console sales are in the millions, but developers already focusing on the PC crowd, especially the high-end PC crowd, won't really care what console sales are like. For those games the net loss from narrowing the userbase is much smaller than it would be for an Assassin's Creed or Tomb Raider, which apparently can't bank unless the population of Beijing pre-orders it.

4. While high sales are obviously ideal, those producing games also want certainty as much as possible. Making a game VR native might have the downside of limiting the potential player-base, but it also provides assurance that it'll get good sales among the player base it does have, at least while the number of VR equipped games is small.