Insane amount of VR Headsets in the pipeline...VR clearly alive and well

  • 54 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for schu
#1 Posted by schu (10054 posts) -

I am sure I am forgetting some, but here are some of the most anticipated headsets:

Valve Index

Oculus Rift S

Vive Pro Eye

StarVR One

Acer Ojo

HP Reverb

Can we now stop the bullshit threads about VR being dead?

Avatar image for son-goku7523
#2 Edited by Son-Goku7523 (955 posts) -

This won't stop the haters and fanboys from proclaiming the death of VR. I swear we'll be in 2039 with people's sunglasses doubling as VR headsets and these same fools will still be declaring that VR is dead.

Avatar image for i_p_daily
#3 Posted by I_P_Daily (12280 posts) -

Its dead already, let it rest in peace.

Avatar image for KBFloYd
#4 Edited by KBFloYd (21884 posts) -

haha.... enjoy your dead niche garbage.

once a VR set hits 30 million 50 million or 100million then you can celebrate.

otherwise enjoy you dead niche garabge that no one cares about.

hopefully labo can save VR.

Avatar image for pyro1245
#5 Posted by pyro1245 (5128 posts) -
@KBFloYd said:

haha.... enjoy your niche garbage.

once a VR set hits 30 million 50 million or 100million then you can celebrate.

otherwise enjoy you dead niche garabge that no one cares about.

hopefully labo can save VR.

Google already did it. At least they call it what it is.

https://vr.google.com/cardboard/get-cardboard/

Avatar image for KBFloYd
#6 Posted by KBFloYd (21884 posts) -

@pyro1245 said:
@KBFloYd said:

haha.... enjoy your niche garbage.

once a VR set hits 30 million 50 million or 100million then you can celebrate.

otherwise enjoy you dead niche garabge that no one cares about.

hopefully labo can save VR.

Google already did it. At least they call it what it is.

https://vr.google.com/cardboard/get-cardboard/

how many units did google sell?

Avatar image for npiet1
#7 Posted by npiet1 (2466 posts) -

@KBFloYd said:
@pyro1245 said:
@KBFloYd said:

haha.... enjoy your niche garbage.

once a VR set hits 30 million 50 million or 100million then you can celebrate.

otherwise enjoy you dead niche garabge that no one cares about.

hopefully labo can save VR.

Google already did it. At least they call it what it is.

https://vr.google.com/cardboard/get-cardboard/

how many units did google sell?

in 2016, I couldn't be bothered to do individual results.

  • 88.4M Google Cardboard Units

  • 2.3M Samsung Gear VR

  • 745k Playstation VR

  • 420k HTC Vive

  • 355k Oculus

  • 261k Google Daydream

PSVR as of this year have sold 4.2 million. Which isn't awful. PS4 sold a total of 94 million. So 1 in 20 people have PSVR that own a PlayStation. I don't really see google Cardboard as VR though.

Avatar image for KBFloYd
#8 Edited by KBFloYd (21884 posts) -

@npiet1 said:
@KBFloYd said:
@pyro1245 said:
@KBFloYd said:

haha.... enjoy your niche garbage.

once a VR set hits 30 million 50 million or 100million then you can celebrate.

otherwise enjoy you dead niche garabge that no one cares about.

hopefully labo can save VR.

Google already did it. At least they call it what it is.

https://vr.google.com/cardboard/get-cardboard/

how many units did google sell?

in 2016, I couldn't be bothered to do individual results.

  • 88.4M Google Cardboard Units

  • 2.3M Samsung Gear VR

  • 745k Playstation VR

  • 420k HTC Vive

  • 355k Oculus

  • 261k Google Daydream

PSVR as of this year have sold 4.2 million. Which isn't awful. PS4 sold a total of 94 million. So 1 in 20 people have PSVR that own a PlayStation. I don't really see google Cardboard as VR though.

88.4 million? thats impressive.

now that is successful. So samsung cardboard is the #1 VR then. hmmm good to know.

if nintendo can do even half that would be impressive.

Avatar image for warmblur
#9 Posted by warmblur (2758 posts) -

I always say this but I will never understand the hate for VR I guess its the easy thing to say now since it's in it's early years and not mainstream it's funny most of the people that shit on it have never even tried it. I have read so many threads online over the years of people that thought VR was a gimmick until they tried it and was blown away saying they where wrong it's a bandwagon effect to hate VR I say try it or STFU.

Avatar image for pelvist
#10 Edited by pelvist (7420 posts) -

I see Google cardboard as more of an upgrade to a vintage Stereoscope picture viewer. As for VR in general though; It hasnt replaced regular gaming as I still enjoy both. Regular gaming more at the moment but I like it and I would not want to be without my Vive ...at least not until I replace it with a Valve Index, which I plan to do.

Avatar image for zmanbarzel
#11 Posted by ZmanBarzel (1962 posts) -

@KBFloYd said:
@npiet1 said:
@KBFloYd said:
@pyro1245 said:
@KBFloYd said:

haha.... enjoy your niche garbage.

once a VR set hits 30 million 50 million or 100million then you can celebrate.

otherwise enjoy you dead niche garabge that no one cares about.

hopefully labo can save VR.

Google already did it. At least they call it what it is.

https://vr.google.com/cardboard/get-cardboard/

how many units did google sell?

in 2016, I couldn't be bothered to do individual results.

  • 88.4M Google Cardboard Units

  • 2.3M Samsung Gear VR

  • 745k Playstation VR

  • 420k HTC Vive

  • 355k Oculus

  • 261k Google Daydream

PSVR as of this year have sold 4.2 million. Which isn't awful. PS4 sold a total of 94 million. So 1 in 20 people have PSVR that own a PlayStation. I don't really see google Cardboard as VR though.

88.4 million? thats impressive.

now that is successful. So samsung cardboard is the #1 VR then. hmmm good to know.

if nintendo can do even half that would be impressive.

I think that's also very likely wrong. On March 1, 2017, Google announced Cardboard had shipped 10 million since its release in June 2014. So, approximately three years to move 10 million. Then proceeding to move 90 million more in 2/3rds the time?

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#12 Posted by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

How dare you forget Labo VR. (Also Oculus Quest and Vive Focus)

Avatar image for dzimm
#13 Posted by dzimm (5509 posts) -

@schu: You think six is an "insane amount"? Each one will be lucky to sell 10-million units.

Avatar image for dzimm
#14 Posted by dzimm (5509 posts) -
@warmblur said:

I will never understand the hate for VR

It's not so much hate for VR itself as it is annoyance at fanboys hyping it like it's "the next big thing" when it clearly isn't. It will always be a niche within a niche that caters to the "hardcore" crowd willing to spend the money on expensive toys. I personally think it would be awesome to use with X-Plane 11, but my chances of actually spending the money on a headset are very, very small.

Avatar image for SecretPolice
#15 Posted by SecretPolice (35358 posts) -

:P

Avatar image for npiet1
#16 Edited by npiet1 (2466 posts) -

@zmanbarzel said:
@KBFloYd said:
@npiet1 said:
@KBFloYd said:

how many units did google sell?

in 2016, I couldn't be bothered to do individual results.

  • 88.4M Google Cardboard Units

  • 2.3M Samsung Gear VR

  • 745k Playstation VR

  • 420k HTC Vive

  • 355k Oculus

  • 261k Google Daydream

PSVR as of this year have sold 4.2 million. Which isn't awful. PS4 sold a total of 94 million. So 1 in 20 people have PSVR that own a PlayStation. I don't really see google Cardboard as VR though.

88.4 million? thats impressive.

now that is successful. So samsung cardboard is the #1 VR then. hmmm good to know.

if nintendo can do even half that would be impressive.

I think that's also very likely wrong. On March 1, 2017, Google announced Cardboard had shipped 10 million since its release in June 2014. So, approximately three years to move 10 million. Then proceeding to move 90 million more in 2/3rds the time?

https://www.viarbox.com/single-post/2017/01/20/Virtual-Reality-HMDs-2016-Sales-Numbers

But yeah just looked at the wiki page to for google cardboard and your right. They included 3rd party cardboard VR

Avatar image for Coolyfett
#17 Posted by Coolyfett (6055 posts) -

Labo VR

@schu said:

I am sure I am forgetting some, but here are some of the most anticipated headsets:

Valve Index

Oculus Rift S

Vive Pro Eye

StarVR One

Acer Ojo

HP Reverb

Can we now stop the bullshit threads about VR being dead?

Avatar image for sleepnsurf
#18 Posted by sleepnsurf (3209 posts) -

Until it is cord free and higher resolution, it's dead to me.

Avatar image for jaydan
#19 Posted by jaydan (2387 posts) -
@dzimm said:
@warmblur said:

I will never understand the hate for VR

It's not so much hate for VR itself as it is annoyance at fanboys hyping it like it's "the next big thing" when it clearly isn't. It will always be a niche within a niche that caters to the "hardcore" crowd willing to spend the money on expensive toys. I personally think it would be awesome to use with X-Plane 11, but my chances of actually spending the money on a headset are very, very small.

I think the problem with VR and why it's not taken seriously by most people is because the purists are always hyping up the day it will finally be a revolution in gaming. The purists are constantly hyping up a big tidal wave and they've been doing this for years. Most of us have yet to see that tidal wave and it just brings into question to any VR purist, when will that day finally come? Five years from now? Ten years? When exactly will we finally see that day come? We as consumers are more highly invested in the NOW, and right NOW VR is nothing more than an expensive novelty with many caveats such as trouble with wires and cumbersome setup practices that dampen the likeness of full enjoyment.

There's no denying that there are some valid VR games out there on the market, such as Astro Bot among others, but the fewer quality game experiences swamped by a sea of novelties and tech demos just does not make VR compelling as it currently is with the price tag it has. It's just not worth the risk of shelling out so much money for an unstable platform purists are continually swearing by with a hopeful future.

I'm sure VR at some people down the line can and will become normalized technology in the industry, but that time is NOT now and gamer's like to be treated less like the guinea pigs and more just having a stable platform for having quality games.

It's also kinda laughable this thread lists so many different VR kits from all these different companies and yet the list is also missing others. The big red flag I'm seeing here is the market is already becoming over-saturated by all these companies jumping in the bandwagon. I understand that the competition is crucial for its growth and refinements, but right now there's simply too many companies participating and exclusivity of certain games and content locked to certain brands further alienate the desire to invest in one of these things.

I see VR can potentially have a brighter future, but the purists need to get with reality and understand why most consumers as of current are weary and not on board with these things.

Avatar image for jaydan
#20 Edited by jaydan (2387 posts) -
@son-goku7523 said:

This won't stop the haters and fanboys from proclaiming the death of VR. I swear we'll be in 2039 with people's sunglasses doubling as VR headsets and these same fools will still be declaring that VR is dead.

So 2039? Is 2039 the year we'll finally harness the potential of VR? LMAO see this is why most of you purists are so delusional on your VR concept.

You guys live in some Dreamland some odd years in the future always hopeful of this bright future for VR. That's the PROBLEM. You guys constantly hype bright futures and yet none of you can contain when that bright future will come. Five years? Ten years? Fifty years? Do you seriously think an average consumer gives a shit about about something that is refined ten years down the pipeline? That's great, and I really hope VR can have a bright future, but that's the reason why consumers don't care about it at this point in time. Consumers focus on the NOW and what's already stable in the market. VR is simply NOT stable in the market and its future remains very uncertain, so much that even you are not sure, but at least you're honest it can take until 2039. I'm sure at least some of us here could be dead by then.

This is the fatal flaw I see of any VR purist's condescending remarks towards everyone else that's simply in touch with reality. VR is just not a sensation or a norm at this point of time, for extremely obvious reasons; but hey, hopefully by 2039 we'll see its fullest potential.

Avatar image for subspecies
#21 Posted by Subspecies (660 posts) -

@jaydan: Dude you sound so pissed off.

Avatar image for jaydan
#22 Posted by jaydan (2387 posts) -
@subspecies said:

@jaydan: Dude you sound so pissed off.

It must be your inner conscience that's pissed off and projecting it onto me. Sorry I can't control your emotions, I'm just supplementing the conversation.

Avatar image for djoffer
#23 Posted by djoffer (1422 posts) -

@jaydan: lol so you are arguing that vr are dead/not relevant, and one of your arguments are because there is to MANY companies jumping on the bandwagon??

Avatar image for jaydan
#24 Edited by jaydan (2387 posts) -
@djoffer said:

@jaydan: lol so you are arguing that vr are dead/not relevant, and one of your arguments are because there is to MANY companies jumping on the bandwagon??

Did I ever say VR is dead? Please go back and read my posts thoroughly and tell me where I made such a statement. I actually stated my hopes it can have a bright future, but that time is NOT now for all the reasons I stated. You might not understand the drawbacks of a market that becomes oversaturated, and that's what I'm currently seeing with the plethora of companies jumping aboard this bandwagon. Just because you have a bunch of companies investing in this technology does NOT mean it's a good thing. Half of these companies will ultimately abandon VR or go out of business entirely because there's way too many right now competing in the market.

It's the very reason why you see three main console makers instead of ten. The market simply will not be able to sustain ten console makers in such a market.

It baffles my mind how delusional half of you VR purists are for not understanding why a huge sum of the gaming demographic are simply not buying into this VR concept. It's really not as complex as you guys like to make it seem. It does NOT mean gamer's will never buy into the VR concept, but as of right now there are no real substantial reasons why gamer's should for all the reasons I stated.

Avatar image for raining51
#25 Posted by Raining51 (1142 posts) -

If it makes money it's a thing... always....

So yes as long as VR makes money in any way shape or form it will continue to be relevant.

Healthy competition as far as I'm concerned.

Avatar image for jaydan
#26 Edited by jaydan (2387 posts) -

All it takes for VR is to have that one company to make it into a trendy thing. It's not always about these technological advances that's going to make them relevant to mass demographics. I think that's what most of these companies are completely missing. All these companies are toting on their technological advances and supplementing niche experiences yet none of them are being trendy with their business choices.

I'd laugh so hard if of all companies it ends up being Nintendo that catches this trend. Surprisingly, LABO VR is getting favorable reviews. All Nintendo needs to do is announce Pokemon Snap VR and suddenly Nintendo would be on top of the entire pack and no one would care about how much more advanced Oculus Rift would be.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#27 Posted by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

@jaydan said:
@djoffer said:

@jaydan: lol so you are arguing that vr are dead/not relevant, and one of your arguments are because there is to MANY companies jumping on the bandwagon??

Did I ever say VR is dead? Please go back and read my posts thoroughly and tell me where I made such a statement. I actually stated my hopes it can have a bright future, but that time is NOT now for all the reasons I stated. You might not understand the drawbacks of a market that becomes oversaturated, and that's what I'm currently seeing with the plethora of companies jumping aboard this bandwagon. Just because you have a bunch of companies investing in this technology does NOT mean it's a good thing. Half of these companies will ultimately abandon VR or go out of business entirely because there's way too many right now competing in the market.

It's the very reason why you see three main console makers instead of ten. The market simply will not be able to sustain ten console makers in such a market.

It baffles my mind how delusional half of you VR purists are for not understanding why a huge sum of the gaming demographic are simply not buying into this VR concept. It's really not as complex as you guys like to make it seem. It does NOT mean gamer's will never buy into the VR concept, but as of right now there are no real substantial reasons why gamer's should for all the reasons I stated.

May 1st. Half Life VR gets announced. Possibly a Portal game and a Left 4 Dead or Team Fortress game. If these games are as good as their past entries, these will be killer apps and VR will be a hell of a lot more accepted by gamers.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#28 Posted by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

@jaydan said:

All it takes for VR is to have that one company to make it into a trendy thing. It's not always about these technological advances that's going to make them relevant to mass demographics. I think that's what most of these companies are completely missing. All these companies are toting on their technological advances and supplementing niche experiences yet none of them are being trendy with their business choices.

I'd laugh so hard if of all companies it ends up being Nintendo that catches this trend. Surprisingly, LABO VR is getting favorable reviews. All Nintendo needs to do is announce Pokemon Snap VR and suddenly Nintendo would be on top of the entire pack and no one would care about how much more advanced Oculus Rift would be.

Nope. Oculus has the right mindset. They are chasing after the standalone headset crowd which will easily outsell PC and console headsets when that corner of the market gets going. They are also working on lots of new applications for VR outside of gaming so that it can be as appealing as smartphones eventually where everyone has one. That's the right idea for maximizing the amount of people to get into VR.

Avatar image for enzyme36
#29 Posted by enzyme36 (4255 posts) -

I only saw 1 VR game at Pax East this year. The 3 years prior VR sets took up half the floor space.

Not saying its going away, but it doesnt seem to have as big of a push to the gaming front as it did a few years back. Personally its too clunky for me. I am more interested in AR than VR.

Avatar image for goldenelementxl
#30 Posted by GoldenElementXL (3329 posts) -

I've got a Vive, but I'm gonna be playing this instead this weekend!

Avatar image for whatafailure
#31 Edited by WhatAFailure (406 posts) -
@KBFloYd said:

88.4 million? thats impressive.

now that is successful. So samsung cardboard is the #1 VR then. hmmm good to know.

if nintendo can do even half that would be impressive.

This is why we don't listen to you. You talk out of ass, frequently.

@enzyme36 said:

I only saw 1 VR game at Pax East this year. The 3 years prior VR sets took up half the floor space.

Not saying its going away, but it doesnt seem to have as big of a push to the gaming front as it did a few years back. Personally its too clunky for me. I am more interested in AR than VR.

Well that's incorrect. There were plenty of games at PAX (Oculus Quest/Rift S was the main one featured since they have new headsets coming soon). There's Youtubers and Twitch streamers who were there. Naomi Kyle (formally IGN) was there promoting Asgard's Wrath. Did you mistakenly go to the Walmart PAX down the road?

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#32 Edited by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

@enzyme36 said:

I only saw 1 VR game at Pax East this year. The 3 years prior VR sets took up half the floor space.

Not saying its going away, but it doesnt seem to have as big of a push to the gaming front as it did a few years back. Personally its too clunky for me. I am more interested in AR than VR.

Did you walk around PAX with a blindfold? There was loads of VR at PAX. I have no idea how you missed it because it was right in your face a lot of the time.

AR is just as clunky as VR and not nearly as developed, and even if it was, it wouldn't be nearly as suitable for gaming.

All the people that say "I'm more interested in AR than VR" are almost certainly going to 180 their opinion when they get their hands on AR and find out that it doesn't meet their expectations in comparison to VR.

Avatar image for enzyme36
#33 Posted by enzyme36 (4255 posts) -

@darthbuzzard said:
@enzyme36 said:

I only saw 1 VR game at Pax East this year. The 3 years prior VR sets took up half the floor space.

Not saying its going away, but it doesnt seem to have as big of a push to the gaming front as it did a few years back. Personally its too clunky for me. I am more interested in AR than VR.

Did you walk around PAX with a blindfold? There was loads of VR at PAX. I have no idea how you missed it because it was right in your face a lot of the time.

AR is just as clunky as VR and not nearly as developed, and even if it was, it wouldn't be nearly as suitable for gaming.

All the people that say "I'm more interested in AR than VR" are almost certainly going to 180 their opinion when they get their hands on AR and find out that it doesn't meet their expectations in comparison to VR.

The only VR game I saw was the light saber /rythm game on the show floor. Looked cool too. Passed 3 years its been about half and half VR.

I walked the whole floor many times and I didnt see it. Years past it was unavoidable.

Avatar image for subspecies
#34 Posted by Subspecies (660 posts) -

@jaydan said:
@subspecies said:

@jaydan: Dude you sound so pissed off.

It must be your inner conscience that's pissed off and projecting it onto me. Sorry I can't control your emotions, I'm just supplementing the conversation.

Um, okay. But, ah, I'm not the one filling up the thread with essays. *shrugs*

Avatar image for KBFloYd
#35 Edited by KBFloYd (21884 posts) -

i just tried some Labo VR.

VR is super cool. However its fun in small time frames. 30min maybe even 1 hour if your up to it.

ITs a cool thing to mess around in.

But it wont overtake normal gaming. normal gaming is just too plug and play and comfortable and social. VR is too nonsocial, hard to set up and a bit uncomfortable.

the games are also not deep enough.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#36 Edited by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

@enzyme36 said:
@darthbuzzard said:
@enzyme36 said:

I only saw 1 VR game at Pax East this year. The 3 years prior VR sets took up half the floor space.

Not saying its going away, but it doesnt seem to have as big of a push to the gaming front as it did a few years back. Personally its too clunky for me. I am more interested in AR than VR.

Did you walk around PAX with a blindfold? There was loads of VR at PAX. I have no idea how you missed it because it was right in your face a lot of the time.

AR is just as clunky as VR and not nearly as developed, and even if it was, it wouldn't be nearly as suitable for gaming.

All the people that say "I'm more interested in AR than VR" are almost certainly going to 180 their opinion when they get their hands on AR and find out that it doesn't meet their expectations in comparison to VR.

The only VR game I saw was the light saber /rythm game on the show floor. Looked cool too. Passed 3 years its been about half and half VR.

I walked the whole floor many times and I didnt see it. Years past it was unavoidable.

You definitely didn't walk the whole floor then. You might have thought you did, but you probably missed entire sections. There were huge lines that went back pretty far for some of the booths, and there were large crowd gatherings when they did the Asgard's Wrath event.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#37 Posted by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

@KBFloYd said:

i just tried some Labo VR.

VR is super cool. However its fun in small time frames. 30min maybe even 1 hour if your up to it.

ITs a cool thing to mess around in.

But it wont overtake normal gaming. normal gaming is just too plug and play and comfortable and social. VR is too nonsocial, hard to set up and a bit uncomfortable.

the games are also not deep enough.

You tried Labo VR. You can't move in 3D space. You don't have any hand presence except in limited scenarios like the art app. Those are all designed to be minigames.

With high-end VR, you can move in 3D space, it's much higher specced, you have hand presence, and there are plenty of full games.

Hard to setup is only true of some headsets. Oculus Quest takes 10 seconds to setup.

And VR is very social. Why do you think Facebook is involved?

Avatar image for KBFloYd
#38 Posted by KBFloYd (21884 posts) -

@darthbuzzard said:
@KBFloYd said:

i just tried some Labo VR.

VR is super cool. However its fun in small time frames. 30min maybe even 1 hour if your up to it.

ITs a cool thing to mess around in.

But it wont overtake normal gaming. normal gaming is just too plug and play and comfortable and social. VR is too nonsocial, hard to set up and a bit uncomfortable.

the games are also not deep enough.

You tried Labo VR. You can't move in 3D space. You don't have any hand presence except in limited scenarios like the art app. Those are all designed to be minigames.

With high-end VR, you can move in 3D space, it's much higher specced, you have hand presence, and there are plenty of full games.

Hard to setup is only true of some headsets. Oculus Quest takes 10 seconds to setup.

And VR is very social. Why do you think Facebook is involved?

sorry, having played vr i can tell you moving in a virtual space would be super cool and thats it. having your hand register in a virtual world also super cool. but thats it.

im sure even with 1000 headests you will feel in a game world. but in order for VR to take off and revolutionize gaming it has to be like real life. i dont think thats happening. ever

only 1 vr headest per home right? maybe online it can be social but in your own home its 1player isolated experience.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#39 Edited by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

@KBFloYd said:
@darthbuzzard said:
@KBFloYd said:

i just tried some Labo VR.

VR is super cool. However its fun in small time frames. 30min maybe even 1 hour if your up to it.

ITs a cool thing to mess around in.

But it wont overtake normal gaming. normal gaming is just too plug and play and comfortable and social. VR is too nonsocial, hard to set up and a bit uncomfortable.

the games are also not deep enough.

You tried Labo VR. You can't move in 3D space. You don't have any hand presence except in limited scenarios like the art app. Those are all designed to be minigames.

With high-end VR, you can move in 3D space, it's much higher specced, you have hand presence, and there are plenty of full games.

Hard to setup is only true of some headsets. Oculus Quest takes 10 seconds to setup.

And VR is very social. Why do you think Facebook is involved?

sorry, having played vr i can tell you moving in a virtual space would be super cool and thats it. having your hand register in a virtual world also super cool. but thats it.

im sure even with 1000 headests you will feel in a game world. but in order for VR to take off and revolutionize gaming it has to be like real life. i dont think thats happening. ever

only 1 vr headest per home right? maybe online it can be social but in your own home its 1player isolated experience.

This isn't about super cool. This is about making it natural. If you can't move in 6DoF, it's unnatural and restricting. Hand presence is what makes VR allow for so many different types of mechanics in the first place.

You say it has to be like real life to take off, and that's not even that difficult to achieve. Have you seen impressions of the Varjo VX-1 headset? One of the impressions said it looked realer than real life. Have you seen reactions to people having their own personal HRTF for audio? They literally cannot tell the difference between a real sound and a virtual sound. Have you seen the HaptX gloves? Impressions on that suggest it's extremely convincing for the sense of touch and same with the Teslasuit.

Hell, have you ever booted up Welcome to Lightfields by Google available on Steam? That shit looks as real as reality with the only thing holding it back being the specs of the headset.

These are all tractable problems.

By the way even if you only have one headset per home, you can still swap headsets for party games and play together with asymmetrical games.

Avatar image for KBFloYd
#40 Edited by KBFloYd (21884 posts) -

@darthbuzzard said:
@KBFloYd said:
@darthbuzzard said:
@KBFloYd said:

i just tried some Labo VR.

VR is super cool. However its fun in small time frames. 30min maybe even 1 hour if your up to it.

ITs a cool thing to mess around in.

But it wont overtake normal gaming. normal gaming is just too plug and play and comfortable and social. VR is too nonsocial, hard to set up and a bit uncomfortable.

the games are also not deep enough.

You tried Labo VR. You can't move in 3D space. You don't have any hand presence except in limited scenarios like the art app. Those are all designed to be minigames.

With high-end VR, you can move in 3D space, it's much higher specced, you have hand presence, and there are plenty of full games.

Hard to setup is only true of some headsets. Oculus Quest takes 10 seconds to setup.

And VR is very social. Why do you think Facebook is involved?

sorry, having played vr i can tell you moving in a virtual space would be super cool and thats it. having your hand register in a virtual world also super cool. but thats it.

im sure even with 1000 headests you will feel in a game world. but in order for VR to take off and revolutionize gaming it has to be like real life. i dont think thats happening. ever

only 1 vr headest per home right? maybe online it can be social but in your own home its 1player isolated experience.

This isn't about super cool. This is about making it natural. If you can't move in 6DoF, it's unnatural and restricting. Hand presence is what makes VR allow for so many different types of mechanics in the first place.

You say it has to be like real life to take off, and that's not even that difficult to achieve. Have you seen impressions of the Varjo VX-1 headset? One of the impressions said it looked realer than real life. Have you seen reactions to people having their own personal HRTF for audio? They literally cannot tell the difference between a real sound and a virtual sound. Have you seen the HaptX gloves? Impressions on that suggest it's extremely convincing for the sense of touch and same with the Teslasuit.

These are all tractable problems.

By the way even if you only have one headset per home, you can still swap headsets for party games and play together with asymmetrical games.

audio. sure. you can make audio sound like real life easily.

video it doesnt matter how sharp the image is like the varjo. you still have to create the environments on a PC. and even with a the best graphics games still look like games. when will games reach real life quality? thats been a gamers dream since the 80s. I dont think this will happen in our lifetime. maybe after you and i are both dead. but we wont know.

haptx gloves is a cool idea adding to the realism but you cant feel with them. you cant feel if something is soft or hard(lol..thats what she said) or any textures. so that will always be missing from VR.

these problems are insurmountable imo.

Avatar image for son-goku7523
#41 Edited by Son-Goku7523 (955 posts) -
@jaydan said:
@son-goku7523 said:

This won't stop the haters and fanboys from proclaiming the death of VR. I swear we'll be in 2039 with people's sunglasses doubling as VR headsets and these same fools will still be declaring that VR is dead.

So 2039? Is 2039 the year we'll finally harness the potential of VR? LMAO see this is why most of you purists are so delusional on your VR concept.

You guys live in some Dreamland some odd years in the future always hopeful of this bright future for VR. That's the PROBLEM. You guys constantly hype bright futures and yet none of you can contain when that bright future will come. Five years? Ten years? Fifty years? Do you seriously think an average consumer gives a shit about about something that is refined ten years down the pipeline? That's great, and I really hope VR can have a bright future, but that's the reason why consumers don't care about it at this point in time. Consumers focus on the NOW and what's already stable in the market. VR is simply NOT stable in the market and its future remains very uncertain, so much that even you are not sure, but at least you're honest it can take until 2039. I'm sure at least some of us here could be dead by then.

This is the fatal flaw I see of any VR purist's condescending remarks towards everyone else that's simply in touch with reality. VR is just not a sensation or a norm at this point of time, for extremely obvious reasons; but hey, hopefully by 2039 we'll see its fullest potential.

😂 Go take your meds. I just picked a random date as an example, your rant and meltdown essay over this is weird as hell. VR is already doing well already and the market for it is growing especially now that Nintendo is about to join the market.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#42 Edited by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

@KBFloYd said:
@darthbuzzard said:
@KBFloYd said:
@darthbuzzard said:

You tried Labo VR. You can't move in 3D space. You don't have any hand presence except in limited scenarios like the art app. Those are all designed to be minigames.

With high-end VR, you can move in 3D space, it's much higher specced, you have hand presence, and there are plenty of full games.

Hard to setup is only true of some headsets. Oculus Quest takes 10 seconds to setup.

And VR is very social. Why do you think Facebook is involved?

sorry, having played vr i can tell you moving in a virtual space would be super cool and thats it. having your hand register in a virtual world also super cool. but thats it.

im sure even with 1000 headests you will feel in a game world. but in order for VR to take off and revolutionize gaming it has to be like real life. i dont think thats happening. ever

only 1 vr headest per home right? maybe online it can be social but in your own home its 1player isolated experience.

This isn't about super cool. This is about making it natural. If you can't move in 6DoF, it's unnatural and restricting. Hand presence is what makes VR allow for so many different types of mechanics in the first place.

You say it has to be like real life to take off, and that's not even that difficult to achieve. Have you seen impressions of the Varjo VX-1 headset? One of the impressions said it looked realer than real life. Have you seen reactions to people having their own personal HRTF for audio? They literally cannot tell the difference between a real sound and a virtual sound. Have you seen the HaptX gloves? Impressions on that suggest it's extremely convincing for the sense of touch and same with the Teslasuit.

These are all tractable problems.

By the way even if you only have one headset per home, you can still swap headsets for party games and play together with asymmetrical games.

audio. sure. you can make audio sound like real life easily.

video it doesnt matter how sharp the image is like the varjo. you still have to create the environments on a PC. and even with a the best graphics games still look like games. when will games reach real life quality? thats been a gamers dream since the 80s. I dont think this will happen in our lifetime. maybe after you and i are both dead. but we wont know.

haptx gloves is a cool idea adding to the realism but you cant feel with them. you cant feel if something is soft or hard(lol..thats what she said) or any textures. so that will always be missing from VR.

these problems are insurmountable imo.

I just said that Welcome to Lightfields looks real. It doesn't look like a game. The graphics are equal to reality.

Loading Video...

Photorealism using fully raytraced games can totally get us to graphics indistinguishable from reality. This is the last piece of the puzzle needed to achieve photorealism. I'm not talking about some hybrid approach. I mean games that are raytraced, period. No rasterization at all. This isn't nearly that far off because in VR you only have to care about what the fovea sees, making rendering always less demanding in VR games.

And no, you are wrong about HaptX. You can feel resistance, which means you can feel shapes. You have to actually apply force to crush an apple. A rock will be impossible to crush unless the game allows it by design. They have working temperature prototypes as well, and you can feel the texture of objects already. There's videos of people feeling individual rain drops and spider legs crawling on their hands, and it feels convincing. The Teslasuit also works in a similar way in terms of texture, and I believe it has temperature built in.

Avatar image for schu
#43 Posted by schu (10054 posts) -

@enzyme36 said:

I only saw 1 VR game at Pax East this year. The 3 years prior VR sets took up half the floor space.

Not saying its going away, but it doesnt seem to have as big of a push to the gaming front as it did a few years back. Personally its too clunky for me. I am more interested in AR than VR.

I'm interested in all of it because of what can be done when it is combined. I'm more interested with VR w/ light AR elements like being able to bring real stuff into VR.

Avatar image for KBFloYd
#44 Edited by KBFloYd (21884 posts) -

@darthbuzzard said:
@KBFloYd said:

audio. sure. you can make audio sound like real life easily.

video it doesnt matter how sharp the image is like the varjo. you still have to create the environments on a PC. and even with a the best graphics games still look like games. when will games reach real life quality? thats been a gamers dream since the 80s. I dont think this will happen in our lifetime. maybe after you and i are both dead. but we wont know.

haptx gloves is a cool idea adding to the realism but you cant feel with them. you cant feel if something is soft or hard(lol..thats what she said) or any textures. so that will always be missing from VR.

these problems are insurmountable imo.

I just said that Welcome to Lightfields looks real. It doesn't look like a game. The graphics are equal to reality.

Loading Video...

Photorealism using fully raytraced games can totally get us to graphics indistinguishable from reality. This is the last piece of the puzzle needed to achieve photorealism. I'm not talking about some hybrid approach. I mean games that are raytraced, period. No rasterization at all. This isn't nearly that far off because in VR you only have to care about what the fovea sees, making rendering always less demanding in VR games.

And no, you are wrong about HaptX. You can feel resistance, which means you can feel shapes. You have to actually apply force to crush an apple. A rock will be impossible to crush unless the game allows it by design. They have working temperature prototypes as well, and you can feel the texture of objects already. There's videos of people feeling individual rain drops and spider legs crawling on their hands, and it feels convincing. The Teslasuit also works in a similar way in terms of texture, and I believe it has temperature built in.

that video is similar to google maps no? they take photos of the house and then you take a virtual tour. not the same as coming up with a whole game or experience from scratch.

I dont know if VR will ever get there. and will people buy it in masses when it does?

we'll see or maybe we won't if we are dead.

Avatar image for Gatygun
#45 Edited by Gatygun (1558 posts) -

It's good to see some people still believe in the VR dream.

Sadly the tech is to flawed to ever be meaningful. i could even see it being straight out banned at certain points. As these things are a health risk to your eye balls.

It's doing exactly what 3D was doing. Trucking on because there is nothing else really out there to move towards.

that video is similar to google maps no? they take photos of the house and then you take a virtual tour. not the same as coming up with a whole game or experience from scratch.

I dont know if VR will ever get there. and will people buy it in masses when it does?

we'll see or maybe we won't if we are dead.

You had that stuff already 20 years ago. They had a name for it which i forgot. I was making with this cheapo webcam full 360 pictures of area's which you could just walk around in like you where in a virtual world.

Who's going to put that helmet on and turn your head around endlessly in those pictures. Far faster on a ipad or mobile.

that's the problem with VR entirely its backwards.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#46 Edited by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

@KBFloYd said:
@darthbuzzard said:
@KBFloYd said:

audio. sure. you can make audio sound like real life easily.

video it doesnt matter how sharp the image is like the varjo. you still have to create the environments on a PC. and even with a the best graphics games still look like games. when will games reach real life quality? thats been a gamers dream since the 80s. I dont think this will happen in our lifetime. maybe after you and i are both dead. but we wont know.

haptx gloves is a cool idea adding to the realism but you cant feel with them. you cant feel if something is soft or hard(lol..thats what she said) or any textures. so that will always be missing from VR.

these problems are insurmountable imo.

I just said that Welcome to Lightfields looks real. It doesn't look like a game. The graphics are equal to reality.

Loading Video...

Photorealism using fully raytraced games can totally get us to graphics indistinguishable from reality. This is the last piece of the puzzle needed to achieve photorealism. I'm not talking about some hybrid approach. I mean games that are raytraced, period. No rasterization at all. This isn't nearly that far off because in VR you only have to care about what the fovea sees, making rendering always less demanding in VR games.

And no, you are wrong about HaptX. You can feel resistance, which means you can feel shapes. You have to actually apply force to crush an apple. A rock will be impossible to crush unless the game allows it by design. They have working temperature prototypes as well, and you can feel the texture of objects already. There's videos of people feeling individual rain drops and spider legs crawling on their hands, and it feels convincing. The Teslasuit also works in a similar way in terms of texture, and I believe it has temperature built in.

that video is similar to google maps no? they take photos of the house and then you take a virtual tour. not the same as coming up with a whole game or experience from scratch.

I dont know if VR will ever get there. and will people buy it in masses when it does?

we'll see or maybe we won't if we are dead.

The method can be used to synthesize artificial lightfields.

Loading Video...

As a sidenote, Google are currently working on Lightfield video which means 360 videos that you would be able to walk around. That's some HoloDeck Sci-Fi shit there.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#47 Edited by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

@Gatygun said:

It's good to see some people still believe in the VR dream.

Sadly the tech is to flawed to ever be meaningful. i could even see it being straight out banned at certain points. As these things are a health risk to your eye balls.

It's doing exactly what 3D was doing. Trucking on because there is nothing else really out there to move towards.

that video is similar to google maps no? they take photos of the house and then you take a virtual tour. not the same as coming up with a whole game or experience from scratch.

I dont know if VR will ever get there. and will people buy it in masses when it does?

we'll see or maybe we won't if we are dead.

You had that stuff already 20 years ago. They had a name for it which i forgot. I was making with this cheapo webcam full 360 pictures of area's which you could just walk around in like you where in a virtual world.

Who's going to put that helmet on and turn your head around endlessly in those pictures. Far faster on a ipad or mobile.

that's the problem with VR entirely its backwards.

Dude, you did not have this 20 years ago. You'd be lucky to find a VR headset 20 years ago that let you even move in 3D space. Are you really comparing a mobile device to a VR headset? That's like saying "Why bother going to Niagara Falls when you can watch a video of it on your phone?"

As time goes on this will be faster than accessing things on a phone because the interface will be responsive to all your inputs. Voice, hands, eventually by thought using BCIs.

The only thing that's backwards is your logic and knowledge of VR. There isn't even any known risk to your eyes.

Avatar image for jaydan
#48 Edited by jaydan (2387 posts) -

@subspecies said:
@jaydan said:
@subspecies said:

@jaydan: Dude you sound so pissed off.

It must be your inner conscience that's pissed off and projecting it onto me. Sorry I can't control your emotions, I'm just supplementing the conversation.

Um, okay. But, ah, I'm not the one filling up the thread with essays. *shrugs*

Writing "essays" does not equate to being "pissed off". I'm sorry but that's not your definition of writing an essay. That more or less speaks to me you really are projecting your own emotions onto a strand of posts that you don't agree with.

@son-goku7523 said:
@jaydan said:
@son-goku7523 said:

This won't stop the haters and fanboys from proclaiming the death of VR. I swear we'll be in 2039 with people's sunglasses doubling as VR headsets and these same fools will still be declaring that VR is dead.

So 2039? Is 2039 the year we'll finally harness the potential of VR? LMAO see this is why most of you purists are so delusional on your VR concept.

You guys live in some Dreamland some odd years in the future always hopeful of this bright future for VR. That's the PROBLEM. You guys constantly hype bright futures and yet none of you can contain when that bright future will come. Five years? Ten years? Fifty years? Do you seriously think an average consumer gives a shit about about something that is refined ten years down the pipeline? That's great, and I really hope VR can have a bright future, but that's the reason why consumers don't care about it at this point in time. Consumers focus on the NOW and what's already stable in the market. VR is simply NOT stable in the market and its future remains very uncertain, so much that even you are not sure, but at least you're honest it can take until 2039. I'm sure at least some of us here could be dead by then.

This is the fatal flaw I see of any VR purist's condescending remarks towards everyone else that's simply in touch with reality. VR is just not a sensation or a norm at this point of time, for extremely obvious reasons; but hey, hopefully by 2039 we'll see its fullest potential.

😂 Go take your meds. I just picked a random date as an example, your rant and meltdown essay over this is weird as hell. VR is already doing well already and the market for it is growing especially now that Nintendo is about to join the market.

I guess that's really just what it comes down to when anyone comes around to criticize VR and its purists. Why even bother making these types of threads then when you purists are really only looking for people to validate your own viewpoints and to shun any arguments you don't want to make by instead posting memes as a form of dismissal. When anyone tells you that VR is not as relevant of a thing and still niche in gaming, I guess these people are just mad and out-of-touch with society. Or is it the other way around?

I'm not even dismissing the potential of VR technology. I never even said it was dead - all I said was it's not relevant in the NOW to mass demographics, and so far there is loads of uncertainty when that day will come. I don't need to bicycle pedal all the points I already made in this thread but I stand by my case you VR purists really are that delusional and out-of-touch with mass demographics.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#49 Edited by DarthBuzzard (187 posts) -

@jaydan said:
@subspecies said:
@jaydan said:
@subspecies said:

@jaydan: Dude you sound so pissed off.

It must be your inner conscience that's pissed off and projecting it onto me. Sorry I can't control your emotions, I'm just supplementing the conversation.

Um, okay. But, ah, I'm not the one filling up the thread with essays. *shrugs*

Writing "essays" does not equate to being "pissed off". I'm sorry but that's not your definition of writing an essay. That more or less speaks to me you really are projecting your own emotions onto a strand of posts that you don't agree with.

@son-goku7523 said:
@jaydan said:
@son-goku7523 said:

This won't stop the haters and fanboys from proclaiming the death of VR. I swear we'll be in 2039 with people's sunglasses doubling as VR headsets and these same fools will still be declaring that VR is dead.

So 2039? Is 2039 the year we'll finally harness the potential of VR? LMAO see this is why most of you purists are so delusional on your VR concept.

You guys live in some Dreamland some odd years in the future always hopeful of this bright future for VR. That's the PROBLEM. You guys constantly hype bright futures and yet none of you can contain when that bright future will come. Five years? Ten years? Fifty years? Do you seriously think an average consumer gives a shit about about something that is refined ten years down the pipeline? That's great, and I really hope VR can have a bright future, but that's the reason why consumers don't care about it at this point in time. Consumers focus on the NOW and what's already stable in the market. VR is simply NOT stable in the market and its future remains very uncertain, so much that even you are not sure, but at least you're honest it can take until 2039. I'm sure at least some of us here could be dead by then.

This is the fatal flaw I see of any VR purist's condescending remarks towards everyone else that's simply in touch with reality. VR is just not a sensation or a norm at this point of time, for extremely obvious reasons; but hey, hopefully by 2039 we'll see its fullest potential.

😂 Go take your meds. I just picked a random date as an example, your rant and meltdown essay over this is weird as hell. VR is already doing well already and the market for it is growing especially now that Nintendo is about to join the market.

I guess that's really just what it comes down to when anyone comes around to criticize VR and its purists. Why even bother making these types of threads then when you purists are really only looking for people to validate your own viewpoints and to shun any arguments you don't want to make by instead posting memes as a form of dismissal. When anyone tells you that VR is not as relevant of a thing and still niche in gaming, I guess these people are just mad and out-of-touch with society. Or is it the other way around?

I'm not even dismissing the potential of VR technology. I never even said it was dead - all I said was it's not relevant in the NOW to mass demographics, and so far there is loads of uncertainty when that day will come. I don't need to bicycle pedal all the points I already made in this thread but I stand by my case you VR purists really are that delusional and out-of-touch with mass demographics.

Spend 20 minutes watching this and everything becomes much clearer in terms of timeframes.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for saltslasher
#50 Posted by SaltSlasher (1227 posts) -

Also Microsoft has been heavily investing in AR with their Hololens 2, which is better and cheaper than last one, but still not for consumers.

Still, in 10 more years, the Hololens 3 could become a standard in every home with developers building in-home applications.

I see it as the future, cause you could virtually shop from your own home. Who doesn't want to inspect things and open the packaging to see what they'll get.