So, a 3d device that was supposed to "revolutionize gaming" failed to even enter the market.
Not like we've seen this happening many times before, right?
EXACTLY! it hasnt even gotten to market yet and people are posting so called 'proof' that its failed.
It is easier for me to buy a GTX 1080 right now then it is for me to buy an Oculus Rift. The biggest fanboy of VR on these forums hasnt been able to even buy one yet.
Maybe..just maybe, we should wait until you can walk into a store and buy one before making a choice here on success or failure? crazy idea I know
No.. 3D was slated as a 22B dollar industry back in 2008...
And I can go out and buy a Rift today if I wanted... people are getting rid of theirs.. you can get a used one.. or one from people that bought multiples just so they could sell them.. and amazon still had 10 of them when I posted the link yesterday. The demand is manufactured.. quite literally.
"The April launch of the Vive and a new smartphone weren’t enough to bounce HTC back into the game as the Taiwanese company had a poor fiscal showing for the month of May, with year-over-year results down by 37.4 percent."
"The company saw a small boost of 17.4 percent in unaudited consolidated revenue from April to May, but it’s troubling that with the flagship HTC 10 available now, as well as one of the most well-received virtual reality headsets, HTC’s consolidated revenue still managed to go down by 58.5 percent in comparison to the same five-month time frame from last year."
It has been touted as the BEST VR headset .. and it by far is much better than the Rift, as it has motion sensors, a pass through camera, and actual controllers for it whereas the rift has... well.. none of that.
Just as I mentioned before, the Vive might be out of production before VR really even "kicks off" with content that is actually worth playing. Probably in.... 2 to 3 years. The real question is, with all of the missteps HTC has made, including the Vive and spending Millions on third party developers to develop for the vive -- will HTC still be around in 2 years?
Anyone who expects the Vive to have made HTC profitable in one month is clearly out of touch with reality, just like this thread.
HTC in general is a sinking ship. HTC was looking for that boost that people believed the Rift had, where they would sell out. Unfortunately that isn't the case. It's not the case for the Vive, it's not the case for the Gear, and the only reason the Rift sold out is because of how limited the release was.
Take for instance Hololens. They released a few weeks back that they'll be sending their second round of Hololens devices to developers that spent 3K dollars for the development kit. The vast majority of people that want a Hololens won't get one.. but it's not because the Hololens is mainstream or popular... they just didn't manufacture enough for all of the people that wanted to get one.
HTC was expecting a better turn out... the metrics for the development market expects HTC to be dominant over the Rift within a few years... but to be honest.. I'm not entirely sure HTC will even be around that long.
People can't really predict what VR will be.... they couldn't predict how well 3D TV's were, or Kinect popularity, and both of those were also predicted to be the future of gaming, and had wide support from many different companies.
I should also mention that Oculus (yes I know its not HTC) had explictly stated more than once that the profit motitve in VR is NOT. (repeat) NOT the hardware devices and that the hardware devices will be sold at a very small profit or no profit at all just like Xbox stradgey was.
The profit is planned in the applications. Now is HTC have the same plan? well from looking at the price point difference between the two and what is different with the HTC it appears that is exactly what they are doing.
Thus...to assume profit from sales of hardware when VR manufactures are saying they are planning to not make a profit is a bit silly. Let alone said non-profits of a innovation cycle product in its first quarter being enough to save a large mobile phone company is even more silly. What is even more silly then that is to call that 'more' 'proof'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I should also mention that Oculus (yes I know its not HTC) had explictly stated more than once that the profit motitve in VR is NOT. (repeat) NOT the hardware devices and that the hardware devices will be sold at a very small profit or no profit at all just like Xbox stradgey was.
The profit is planned in the applications. Now is HTC have the same plan? well from looking at the price point difference between the two and what is different with the HTC it appears that is exactly what they are doing.
Thus...to assume profit from sales of hardware when VR manufactures are saying they are planning to not make a profit is a bit silly. Let alone said non-profits of a innovation cycle product in its first quarter being enough to save a large mobile phone company is even more silly. What is even more silly then that is to call that 'more' 'proof'
Where are you getting your information from? Where did they say they aren't trying to make money from hardware? This isn't selling at a loss... HTC is a hardware manufacturer... when they sell their cell phones they aren't making a profit on their software lol. HTC isn't producing content for the Vive.. they are actually paying 3rd parties to do that to boost hardware sales. So I ask again, where are you getting your information from?
So, a 3d device that was supposed to "revolutionize gaming" failed to even enter the market.
Not like we've seen this happening many times before, right?
EXACTLY! it hasnt even gotten to market yet and people are posting so called 'proof' that its failed.
It is easier for me to buy a GTX 1080 right now then it is for me to buy an Oculus Rift. The biggest fanboy of VR on these forums hasnt been able to even buy one yet.
Maybe..just maybe, we should wait until you can walk into a store and buy one before making a choice here on success or failure? crazy idea I know
Maybe you should try using the internet to search for stuff before blabbing out stuff that isn't true.
So I guess we can start making judgements about success and failure because it's out there but only a few enthusiasts care. The industry, however, is trying to sell us the line that it's everywhere and the direction we should be heading. It's a half-baked technology that needs another decade to mature.
yes. thanks for that correction.
I was looking at Best Buy. your find is a valid contradiction to my statement. Thanks for not being snide about it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I remember people like this guy here saying 3d was here to stay and get used to the glasses. PC hardware...dude a 9XX series nvidia is about as cheap as you can get em...
VR is the WiiU of pc gaming.
I don't remember anyone saying "plasma screens" "LED" would flop. I do remember people saying projection TV would and it did. Terribly even.
Most gamers are casual. I know this hurts the hardcore bones in our bodies. But most are CASUAL gamers. Causal gamers playing casual games do not need VR for Bubblepetcrush Saga 3 the CCGMOBA.
Do you know how many times they've TRIED to get people to adopt VR? Since the freaking early 80's. Anyone else play TANK? I did. In the arcade. With that headset on. Wireframe but still VR by todays standard.
You act like it's new when it's old and it is a gimmick. It's all stemmed from the whole WII motion modification headsets that people made anyhow.
Some of you may be impressed with 80's tech being shinied up and reliant on my gpu instead it's own dedicated source. Some of you may even dig looking like a moron playing games.
Much like the WII ... VR will be SO SUCKY in a few years.
Go play some Wii bowling for a bit with that marvel of motion tech...no not interested? Yeah because the wii sucks.
VR sucks and it will suck forever. It'll suck because they'll rely on gimmicky game dev or methods...wait they do that now!
It'll suck because it's false VR, it's just bullshit depth perception tricks which magic viewers have done since the age of hella old.
But yeah be impressed with that dumb looking helmet thing.
You:LOL you get so angry it's funny to me!
Me:No anger. Just you projecting your parents fighting methods on to me. I type as I speak bluntly and not giving a fuck about your poor feels.
You:First let me start by saying you are wrong. Very very wrong. Why?
Me: I didn't ask.
You:Ok let me tell you. You know the military (most of them anyway) Have aircraft, and some pilots can fly these aircraft in total black out conditions. However, aircraft can cost in to the billions so instead of letting trainee pilots try to fly night vision in an at least multi-million dollar aircraft the military uses...guess what? Yeah VR.
Me: These are head mounted combat computers that can deduct the exact LL of a target via satalite/drone assistance across a wide spawn combat range. Not the same thing as a fucking view finder with moving pictures. It's a computer. You can take those OFF the craft and they operate. You ask too many questions for a non live audience. Congrats you are that guy.
You: And they have been for years. It won't take long for that technology to bleed over into the civilian market. IS this affordable by the average gamer at this time? No, no it is not however, as we advance (well some of us) it will get to where it is affordable.
It bled over YEARS ago with the virtual boy. It bled with arcade games in places like Vegas having VR. I raced VR cars long before I graduated highschool and that was a long fucking time ago. I've cruisin skated across entire vista's long before that on a VR game tied with a motion skateboard...for 50 cents a pop in 1998.
Thing is you are the koolaid drinker. You are the guy who forgot this technology has been rejected for years for various reasons. Mostly because it's jank as fuck and only VR if you count head tracking a depth perception. You flaunt the word around like a flag which means you are in fact the damned market.
I dunno I used both the rift and the vive and if I close one of my eyes it's like looking at a off centered picture. I couldn't even blur my eyes or it'd lose depth.
Reality doesn't lose depth on bluring eyes. It's using the most basic function of the eye. Once again the same concept tried with Virtual boy's long ago. Red screen only or not. It was VR it was billed as VR. It had stereo scopic gaming.
I just think it's young people so involved in this because they don't realize...it's the same bullshit just a different angle.
It's like a grand majority of you missed the 90's and the 90's VR acrade games/VR bs handhelds.
You have posted no proof, I backed up everything I said with facts. So you result to modifying my post and adding insults. well played this sounds exactly like someone that has no idea what they are talking about would do. You prove my point nicely which was: you are wrong, you are still wrong and no amount of wild conjecture or insults will change that.
Such an angry lil fella.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
So, a 3d device that was supposed to "revolutionize gaming" failed to even enter the market.
Not like we've seen this happening many times before, right?
EXACTLY! it hasnt even gotten to market yet and people are posting so called 'proof' that its failed.
It is easier for me to buy a GTX 1080 right now then it is for me to buy an Oculus Rift. The biggest fanboy of VR on these forums hasnt been able to even buy one yet.
Maybe..just maybe, we should wait until you can walk into a store and buy one before making a choice here on success or failure? crazy idea I know
Maybe you should try using the internet to search for stuff before blabbing out stuff that isn't true.
So I guess we can start making judgements about success and failure because it's out there but only a few enthusiasts care. The industry, however, is trying to sell us the line that it's everywhere and the direction we should be heading. It's a half-baked technology that needs another decade to mature.
Very true. As it stands, I just don't see VR being convenient or enticing enough for the pricepoint.
One (or more) of these elements will improve over the next decade, and that could very well propel VR into mainstream success. However, as was also mentioned, the VR industry is doing some spin to make folks think the general population is foaming at the mouth for this. They aren't. The general population has very little knowledge of (and, as an at least partial result, very little desire for) these headsets, quite frankly. I'd be willing to bet the extent of most folks' information on the VR industry comes, quite simply, from the "free VR Gear headset with purchase of Samsung S7" commercials we see on TV. And that's Samsung trying to drum up hype about their VR offering by literally giving it away.
Anyone with the ability to review my posts in this thread and look over @maskedweasel 's posting history should see that not only did he dodge my counterargument, this thread is just the latest in his series of attempts to troll fans of the technology, this one more transparent than usual.
HMD simulations have come a long way in ten years, and overall the signs are beyond encouraging.
Please state succinctly your counterargument...
As succinctly as possible:
1) The Vive isn't the clear victor in this VR headset race, as your original argument implies.
Are you seeing the Vive being "touted[] as the best VR headset on the market today"? Neither am I. Dollar for dollar, it's still far too early to declare a victor in this race, to me.
But since you apparently have "dozens" of sources, surely you wouldn't mind sharing 5 or 6 that clearly state Vive is hands-down the "best VR headset"?
If not, I'll have to assume you are trolling.
...here I am attacking your premise, but even if your premise were correct
2) It does not follow that VR is in trouble because HTC had a poor month. This is like saying movies are in trouble because Disney Dreamworks had meager earnings in May. The health and future of an industry usually does not depend on the health and future of a single company. If it does, that industry is probably in trouble.
One brief example: Nintendo used to make playing cards. They pivoted that business... late last century?
Playing cards: no longer Nintendo's flagship product, still alive and well today.
I hope I was able to clarify my point for you.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Anyone with the ability to review my posts in this thread and look over @maskedweasel 's posting history should see that not only did he dodge my counterargument, this thread is just the latest in his series of attempts to troll fans of the technology, this one more transparent than usual.
HMD simulations have come a long way in ten years, and overall the signs are beyond encouraging.
Please state succinctly your counterargument...
As succinctly as possible:
1) The Vive isn't the clear victor in this VR headset race, as your original argument implies.
Are you seeing the Vive being "touted[] as the best VR headset on the market today"? Neither am I. Dollar for dollar, it's still far too early to declare a victor in this race, to me.
But since you apparently have "dozens" of sources, surely you wouldn't mind sharing 5 or 6 that clearly state Vive is hands-down the "best VR headset"?
If not, I'll have to assume you are trolling.
...here I am attacking your premise, but even if your premise were correct
2) It does not follow that VR is in trouble because HTC had a poor month. This is like saying movies are in trouble because Disney Dreamworks had meager earnings in May. The health and future of an industry usually does not depend on the health and future of a single company. If it does, that industry is probably in trouble.
One brief example: Nintendo used to make playing cards. They got out of that business... early last century?
Playing cards: no longer made by Nintendo, still alive and well today.
"No product recommendation should be one-size-fits-all – that would assume we're all the same – but our "Best VR headset" this time goes to the HTC Vive."
"The HTC Vive VR headset is the most complete package for experiencing VR that you can buy today. "
In comparison to the Rift "...Unlike the Vive though, you aren't getting the "full" VR experience. Aside from no controllers, the Rift essentially limits you to a static position and expects that most of your VR experiences will be chair-bound."
"The Rift is the slicker, more complete product, and its software and hardware ecosystem are more smoothly connected. The Vive is currently the more impressive VR showcase"
I'm not going to do more work for you though.. there are plenty.. all you have to do is look for them...
HTC didn't have a poor month.. they've had a poor past couple years. They DID expect the Vive to pull them out of a hole despite what some others are suggesting here. A lot is riding on the success of the Vive, because their cell market is still declining, and they're late to the wearables game... early expectations were that the Vive was going to eventually be bigger than the Rift, but both of them are doing poorly. They're trying to infuse the Vive with content.. even going as far as trying to develop something themselves - but the question is.. will they last?
Something else that's rather interesting.. by 2025 they suspected that the VR headset market would hit 135 MILLION headset units sold. 122 million of those are suspected of being Mobile. If you consider that PSVR is suspected to hit 6 million units by next year.. that isn't leaving a lot of room for alternative headset sales -- or -- many of these purported predictions from VR experts PUSHING these systems really have no clue.
What we do know, is that numbers aren't being released.. they're being spun. It's not 1 million units sold.. its.. 1 million people tried them. It isn't "Rift can't keep up with demand" it's "Oh don't worry, you will get your Rift after we send all of these out to Best Buy." Meanwhile there are dozens of units sitting on Amazons website, being sold locally, and Oculus manufacturing their own demand simply because they chose to put these out to Best Buy before they fulfilled their preorders.
Yeah the whole 3D comparison makes a lot of sense to me as are the comparisons with earlier attempts with VR, back when the technology wasn't even close to ready.
In other news, I have no idea why people think smartphones will be a succes. Clearly the palmtop isn't catching on beyond it's tiny niche of insecure business men. People just aren't ready for it. And it looks silly. No one takes you seriously with a pocketsized computer in your hand. It doesn't matter if you can also call with it, people want comfort, not all the technology that you can already get on your desktop crammed into your phone.
Just look at Nokia. Their communicator smartphone model hardly sells everyone wants their comfertable tiny models that fit in every pocket.
Microsoft chairman Steve Ballmer was so right when he laughed at the notion that the Iphone could be a succes. And that Nokia chairman was so right when he said that for the foreseeable future smartphones will remain a niche. Apple and Andriod are just fads.
So you are saying that VR, for gaming purposes, is going to provide undeniable utility and convenience to its users?
If you are going to derive any sort of analogy here, you are sayng VR will be niche until Blizzard (undeniably the gaming equivalent of Apple) is able to market a game to the masses with VR as the main drawing point.
Which is probably the only scenario I can see for VR ever really taking off in the gaming world. But will Blizzard ever think that it is a worthwhile investment to spend massive amounts of resources developing for is the question.
...and what about the second part of my argument regarding "Proof Home VR Sets Are Struggling" being a non-sequitur to HTC's alleged corporate woes?
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Yeah the whole 3D comparison makes a lot of sense to me as are the comparisons with earlier attempts with VR, back when the technology wasn't even close to ready.
In other news, I have no idea why people think smartphones will be a succes. Clearly the palmtop isn't catching on beyond it's tiny niche of insecure business men. People just aren't ready for it. And it looks silly. No one takes you seriously with a pocketsized computer in your hand. It doesn't matter if you can also call with it, people want comfort, not all the technology that you can already get on your desktop crammed into your phone.
Just look at Nokia. Their communicator smartphone model hardly sells everyone wants their comfertable tiny models that fit in every pocket.
Microsoft chairman Steve Ballmer was so right when he laughed at the notion that the Iphone could be a succes. And that Nokia chairman was so right when he said that for the foreseeable future smartphones will remain a niche. Apple and Andriod are just fads.
So you are saying that VR, for gaming purposes, is going to provide undeniable utility and convenience to its users?
If you are going to derive any sort of analogy here, you are sayng VR will be niche until Blizzard (undeniably the gaming equivalent of Apple) is able to market a game to the masses with VR as the main drawing point.
Which is probably the only scenario I can see for VR ever really taking off in the gaming world. But will Blizzard ever think that it is a worthwhile investment to spend massive amounts of resources developing for is the question.
I do not understand that unbelievable obsession with VR needing to be 'for the mainstream' fuck that. the 'mainstream' is not needed to own a porche, its not needed to have a great stereo system and its not needed to own a GTX 980 and all those things do just fine without the fucking 'mainstream'
American Idol is 'mainstream' McDonalds is 'mainstream'
who wants that as a target of success seriously?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I do not understand that unbelievable obsession with VR needing to be 'for the mainstream' fuck that. the 'mainstream' is not needed to own a porche, its not needed to have a great stereo system and its not needed to own a GTX 980 and all those things do just fine without the fucking 'mainstream'
It doesn't need to be mainstream to be a success, I agree with that. In fact i think 5-10 years from now VR could prove to be a success.
But people are saying its the future of gaming, which it needs to be mainstream for that to happen. And I just don't see that happening.
I do not understand that unbelievable obsession with VR needing to be 'for the mainstream' fuck that. the 'mainstream' is not needed to own a porche, its not needed to have a great stereo system and its not needed to own a GTX 980 and all those things do just fine without the fucking 'mainstream'
It doesn't need to be mainstream to be a success, I agree with that. In fact i think 5-10 years from now VR could prove to be a success.
But people are saying its the future of gaming, which it needs to be mainstream for that to happen. And I just don't see that happening.
Let me break down your statement there.
1. 'It doesn't need to be mainstream to be a success'. (we agree) 2. 'In fact i think 5-10 years from now VR could prove to be a success'. (which does not require it to be mainstream for that to happen. I think we agree) 3. 'But people are saying its the future of gaming'. (People here are ACTUALLY not saying that as best I can tell. clearly I dont read every post but I havent made that statement and I havent seen that statement made here. I have seen it in articles and I agree that its possible but its not something I 1. give a damn about 2. put much thought into 3. really dont want to engage on a debate on). 4. The assumption here on these forums by critics appear to be that anything less than a mainstream adoption (which is something pro-VR people really arent even advocating) is by definition a failure. I think that is silly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I don't really consider this other than proof that HTC has had a soft start. It doesn't inherently reflect VR at this stage. What was the expectation? Most sources have been of the mindset of 'This is the beginning, but it's gonna take a bit of time for the genre to mature and that this will be an early adopter paradise.' If that is indeed the mindset, then the soft take off is as predicted.
Also, what was HTCs specific expectation? What was the Rift expectation? You can extrapolate the many to the one, but not the one to the many.
...and what about the second part of my argument regarding "Proof Home VR Sets Are Struggling" being a non-sequitur to HTC's alleged corporate woes?
The second part was inherent at the end of my post. VR as a whole isn't based on a single piece of hardware.. it isn't based on a single company. HTC having financial problems and VR in general not selling well despite being on the market for more than 8 months now isn't a sign that VR isn't struggling.
VR across the board very much so is struggling as I painted a very clear picture of what the other companies are doing.
I don't really consider this other than proof that HTC has had a soft start. It doesn't inherently reflect VR at this stage. What was the expectation? Most sources have been of the mindset of 'This is the beginning, but it's gonna take a bit of time for the genre to mature and that this will be an early adopter paradise.' If that is indeed the mindset, then the soft take off is as predicted.
Also, what was HTCs specific expectation? What was the Rift expectation? You can extrapolate the many to the one, but not the one to the many.
@mgilbrtsn it does reflect VR as a whole unfortunately. VR has had a slow start, sure... but lets look at this from a broader perspective...
Did you know that the Rifts DK1 unit started production around 2012? The DK2 released 2 years later. The CV1 released earlier this year.. nearly launching a new headset every 2 years. Alongside that, did you know that the Galaxy S6 and Gear VR launched in April 2015? That means VR has been out in the market for people to buy -- (many of which have the S6, S6edge or Note 5 all of which launched last year and can be used with Gear VR) for about a year in commercial retail, not including the Development Kits that were actually available to everyone unlike Microsofts Hololens.
But they don't intend on it to be a Gaming Powerhouse.
" The Rift as it stands is very much a niche device, and success to the extent that Zuckerberg envisions will obviously require it to catch on in areas well beyond just gaming. Oculus VR CEO Brendan Iribe acknowledged that factback in May, when he said that restricting the device to gaming could limit its user base to "only 10, 20, or 50 million" people, and Zuckerberg echoed Iribe's hopes of ultimately achieving a billion users connected through the device.
"Over a five year time frame, we have a number of services, which we think are well on their way to reaching one billion people."
In fact, HTC’s cofounder, Cher Wang, this week specifically said that the “more realistic” company is refocusing its efforts on VR and away from smartphones. “Yes, smartphones are important,” Wang told The Telegraph in an interview on Monday. “But to create a natural extension to other connected devices like wearables and virtual reality is more important.”"
HTC is banking that the Vive will save the company. Unfortunately sales across the board are down more than 50% from last year with the Vive not selling as well as hoped.
They took another hit when Oculus took away the option to play Oculus games on the Vive -- something Oculus said it wouldn't do.. but took back due to wanting to lock down their VR store and try and gain some capital due to their own struggling sales.
I still haven't gotten to try VR yet, but I just now stumbled across an intro video that you guys might enjoy. Frugal* is a very interesting and charismatic narrator.
* I'm virtually certain this youtube "froogle" is the same Frugal who ran the famous website devoted to Falcon 4/F4 Allied Force. If there are any simmers here who were involved with that.
I'm wondering if there are others like me that really want to get into VR, but are waiting for the tech to mature a bit more and come down in price. I love the thought of getting into VR and have heard great things about it. Just not yet for me.
I'm wondering if there are others like me that really want to get into VR, but are waiting for the tech to mature a bit more and come down in price. I love the thought of getting into VR and have heard great things about it. Just not yet for me.
That would be me. No wires, no seperate sensors and access to the full PC VR catalogue, for under 349. That might take a while though
/Cheers, Lahnmir
'the only way he could nail it any better is if he used a cross.'
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I'm wondering if there are others like me that really want to get into VR, but are waiting for the tech to mature a bit more and come down in price. I love the thought of getting into VR and have heard great things about it. Just not yet for me.
I can't wait for virtual reality.
But these headsets are not virtual reality, not to me. When your eyesight, or perhaps your whole head, is put inside virtual reality but the rest of your body is not, it creates too big a disconnect and results in extremely clunky and disorientating experiences.
This is why the current "VR" headsets only work for games where you can buy peripherals that give you a proper 1-to-1 mapping - car games, where I can use a steering wheel and pedals so that my real body maps to my virtual one correctly. Or space games or flight games, where a joystick and throttle can give me the same. For those games, "VR" headsets are amazing. For everythign else, it sucks.
So, I will only buy a headset once the price drops below £100 - because in my eyes, it's still a pure gimick that only works for a small subset of games, so I'm not going to waste money on it.
What I'm waiting for is full body VR - some sort of exoskeleton I can wear, that gets suspended above the ground and can map my movements accurately and also feedback from the game. If I pick up a gun in game, the servo's in my suit should lock/unlock to give me that sense of touch. I would need to move my arms to actually aim, and run in real life in order to run in game. Thats the real next revolution in gaming. And, we have the tech to do it now. Hell, when I was applying to uni back in 2004, I went to an open day at the University of Reading and got to demo a haptic glove that let me pick up a ball in virtual reality (well, they were using holographics as the display), throw it realistically and also play frisbee. Granted, the tech was crude, but it was also 15 years ago!
No idea if anyone is actually working on such a suit. I know there is a lot of work going on with haptic suits and gloves at the moment, but they seem focused on letting the user feel something virtual (one glove apparently lets you feel individual rain drops on your hand) and not using them as an input device.
Well, my brother walked in the door with a brand new Quest yesterday, so I'm still feeling rather bullish on the current state of affairs.
I read on a different forum something about Oculus taking another look at Go apps on the Quest, which means I may just get to play my beloved Vendetta Online on the kit without side loading. It would be nice to have fully integrated 6DoF, though.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Comments
Take for instance Hololens. They released a few weeks back that they'll be sending their second round of Hololens devices to developers that spent 3K dollars for the development kit. The vast majority of people that want a Hololens won't get one.. but it's not because the Hololens is mainstream or popular... they just didn't manufacture enough for all of the people that wanted to get one.
HTC was expecting a better turn out... the metrics for the development market expects HTC to be dominant over the Rift within a few years... but to be honest.. I'm not entirely sure HTC will even be around that long.
People can't really predict what VR will be.... they couldn't predict how well 3D TV's were, or Kinect popularity, and both of those were also predicted to be the future of gaming, and had wide support from many different companies.
The profit is planned in the applications. Now is HTC have the same plan? well from looking at the price point difference between the two and what is different with the HTC it appears that is exactly what they are doing.
Thus...to assume profit from sales of hardware when VR manufactures are saying they are planning to not make a profit is a bit silly. Let alone said non-profits of a innovation cycle product in its first quarter being enough to save a large mobile phone company is even more silly. What is even more silly then that is to call that 'more' 'proof'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I was looking at Best Buy. your find is a valid contradiction to my statement. Thanks for not being snide about it
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Such an angry lil fella.
If you want a new idea, go read an old book.
In order to be insulted, I must first value your opinion.
One (or more) of these elements will improve over the next decade, and that could very well propel VR into mainstream success. However, as was also mentioned, the VR industry is doing some spin to make folks think the general population is foaming at the mouth for this. They aren't. The general population has very little knowledge of (and, as an at least partial result, very little desire for) these headsets, quite frankly. I'd be willing to bet the extent of most folks' information on the VR industry comes, quite simply, from the "free VR Gear headset with purchase of Samsung S7" commercials we see on TV. And that's Samsung trying to drum up hype about their VR offering by literally giving it away.
1) The Vive isn't the clear victor in this VR headset race, as your original argument implies.
Here is The Verge's review of Rift:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/3/28/11284590/oculus-rift-vr-review
Here is the Verge's review of Vive:
http://www.theverge.com/2016/4/5/11358618/htc-vive-vr-review
Here is a side-by-side comparison from Ars Technica:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/04/the-ars-vr-headset-showdown-oculus-rift-vs-htc-vive/
Are you seeing the Vive being "touted[] as the best VR headset on the market today"? Neither am I. Dollar for dollar, it's still far too early to declare a victor in this race, to me.
But since you apparently have "dozens" of sources, surely you wouldn't mind sharing 5 or 6 that clearly state Vive is hands-down the "best VR headset"?
If not, I'll have to assume you are trolling.
...here I am attacking your premise, but even if your premise were correct
2) It does not follow that VR is in trouble because HTC had a poor month. This is like saying movies are in trouble because Disney Dreamworks had meager earnings in May. The health and future of an industry usually does not depend on the health and future of a single company. If it does, that industry is probably in trouble.
One brief example: Nintendo used to make playing cards. They pivoted that business... late last century?
Playing cards: no longer Nintendo's flagship product, still alive and well today.
I hope I was able to clarify my point for you.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
"No product recommendation should be one-size-fits-all – that would assume we're all the same – but our "Best VR headset" this time goes to the HTC Vive."
http://www.pcgamer.com/the-best-vr-headset/
"The HTC Vive VR headset is the most complete package for experiencing VR that you can buy today. "
In comparison to the Rift "...Unlike the Vive though, you aren't getting the "full" VR experience. Aside from no controllers, the Rift essentially limits you to a static position and expects that most of your VR experiences will be chair-bound."
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/best-vr-headsets,review-3550.html
Voted "Best VR Headset Overall"
http://www.cnet.com/news/oculus-rift-vs-htc-vive-which-vr-headset-should-you-buy/
"Who won?
For now, it's pretty clear that the HTC Vive is the better VR experience. "
http://kotaku.com/htc-vive-vs-oculus-rift-the-comparison-we-had-to-make-1771122831
"The Rift is the slicker, more complete product, and its software and hardware ecosystem are more smoothly connected. The Vive is currently the more impressive VR showcase"
I'm not going to do more work for you though.. there are plenty.. all you have to do is look for them...
HTC didn't have a poor month.. they've had a poor past couple years. They DID expect the Vive to pull them out of a hole despite what some others are suggesting here. A lot is riding on the success of the Vive, because their cell market is still declining, and they're late to the wearables game... early expectations were that the Vive was going to eventually be bigger than the Rift, but both of them are doing poorly. They're trying to infuse the Vive with content.. even going as far as trying to develop something themselves - but the question is.. will they last?
Something else that's rather interesting.. by 2025 they suspected that the VR headset market would hit 135 MILLION headset units sold. 122 million of those are suspected of being Mobile. If you consider that PSVR is suspected to hit 6 million units by next year.. that isn't leaving a lot of room for alternative headset sales -- or -- many of these purported predictions from VR experts PUSHING these systems really have no clue.
What we do know, is that numbers aren't being released.. they're being spun. It's not 1 million units sold.. its.. 1 million people tried them. It isn't "Rift can't keep up with demand" it's "Oh don't worry, you will get your Rift after we send all of these out to Best Buy." Meanwhile there are dozens of units sitting on Amazons website, being sold locally, and Oculus manufacturing their own demand simply because they chose to put these out to Best Buy before they fulfilled their preorders.
If you are going to derive any sort of analogy here, you are sayng VR will be niche until Blizzard (undeniably the gaming equivalent of Apple) is able to market a game to the masses with VR as the main drawing point.
Which is probably the only scenario I can see for VR ever really taking off in the gaming world. But will Blizzard ever think that it is a worthwhile investment to spend massive amounts of resources developing for is the question.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
American Idol is 'mainstream'
McDonalds is 'mainstream'
who wants that as a target of success seriously?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But people are saying its the future of gaming, which it needs to be mainstream for that to happen. And I just don't see that happening.
1. 'It doesn't need to be mainstream to be a success'. (we agree)
2. 'In fact i think 5-10 years from now VR could prove to be a success'. (which does not require it to be mainstream for that to happen. I think we agree)
3. 'But people are saying its the future of gaming'. (People here are ACTUALLY not saying that as best I can tell. clearly I dont read every post but I havent made that statement and I havent seen that statement made here. I have seen it in articles and I agree that its possible but its not something I 1. give a damn about 2. put much thought into 3. really dont want to engage on a debate on).
4. The assumption here on these forums by critics appear to be that anything less than a mainstream adoption (which is something pro-VR people really arent even advocating) is by definition a failure. I think that is silly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Also, what was HTCs specific expectation? What was the Rift expectation? You can extrapolate the many to the one, but not the one to the many.
I self identify as a monkey.
VR across the board very much so is struggling as I painted a very clear picture of what the other companies are doing.
@mgilbrtsn it does reflect VR as a whole unfortunately. VR has had a slow start, sure... but lets look at this from a broader perspective...
Did you know that the Rifts DK1 unit started production around 2012? The DK2 released 2 years later. The CV1 released earlier this year.. nearly launching a new headset every 2 years. Alongside that, did you know that the Galaxy S6 and Gear VR launched in April 2015? That means VR has been out in the market for people to buy -- (many of which have the S6, S6edge or Note 5 all of which launched last year and can be used with Gear VR) for about a year in commercial retail, not including the Development Kits that were actually available to everyone unlike Microsofts Hololens.
http://www.pcgamer.com/facebook-oculus-rift-will-need-to-sell-50-100-million-units-to-be-meaningful/
Here's where it's mentioned that they are looking to sell 50 to 100 million units for the Rift to become profitable. Despite stating specifically that they realize it's highly unlikely they will reach that profitability "within the next few years"
But they don't intend on it to be a Gaming Powerhouse.
" The Rift as it stands is very much a niche device, and success to the extent that Zuckerberg envisions will obviously require it to catch on in areas well beyond just gaming. Oculus VR CEO Brendan Iribe acknowledged that factback in May, when he said that restricting the device to gaming could limit its user base to "only 10, 20, or 50 million" people, and Zuckerberg echoed Iribe's hopes of ultimately achieving a billion users connected through the device.
"Over a five year time frame, we have a number of services, which we think are well on their way to reaching one billion people."
http://www.roadtovr.com/facebook-earnings-call-q3-2015-oculus-virtual-reality-shipments/
Above is where Facebook said they expect to sell in the "hundreds of thousands" range.. after tempering expectations.
HTC on the other hand is much more dire.
" the push into VR is arguably more about short-term survival, as its smartphone business continues to decline.
In fact, HTC’s cofounder, Cher Wang, this week specifically said that the “more realistic” company is refocusing its efforts on VR and away from smartphones. “Yes, smartphones are important,” Wang told The Telegraph in an interview on Monday. “But to create a natural extension to other connected devices like wearables and virtual reality is more important.”"
HTC is banking that the Vive will save the company. Unfortunately sales across the board are down more than 50% from last year with the Vive not selling as well as hoped.
They took another hit when Oculus took away the option to play Oculus games on the Vive -- something Oculus said it wouldn't do.. but took back due to wanting to lock down their VR store and try and gain some capital due to their own struggling sales.
* I'm virtually certain this youtube "froogle" is the same Frugal who ran the famous website devoted to Falcon 4/F4 Allied Force. If there are any simmers here who were involved with that.
I self identify as a monkey.
/Cheers,
Lahnmir
Kyleran on yours sincerely
'But there are many. You can play them entirely solo, and even offline. Also, you are wrong by default.'
Ikcin in response to yours sincerely debating whether or not single-player offline MMOs exist...
'This does not apply just to ED but SC or any other game. What they will get is Rebirth/X4, likely prettier but equally underwhelming and pointless.
It is incredibly difficult to design some meaningfull leg content that would fit a space ship game - simply because it is not a leg game.
It is just huge resource waste....'
Gdemami absolutely not being an armchair developer
I read on a different forum something about Oculus taking another look at Go apps on the Quest, which means I may just get to play my beloved Vendetta Online on the kit without side loading. It would be nice to have fully integrated 6DoF, though.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance