I agree that the closed garden, especially on PC which is really super strange, is hurting VR development. It's also a problem because software for Rift or Vive are not really coming fast or in any outstanding quality to make it so worthwhile.yeah they fucked it up trying to control the market. Closed gardens might be pretty but if you're on the outer wall and can't really afford to enter, then you pretty much don't give a damn what's going on in there. Occulus did their thing, Vive does theirs, and unless you own their hardware, its pretty difficult to get in.
OpenVR still has some potential, even though it remains largely ignored by the new VR offerings, the 2 year and older games like elite dangerous and assetto corsa have baked in OpenVR support. Low cost entry, low level of dedication involved, but not as promising a money maker as the hypothetical "VR service platform".
Lots of people refuse to spend past a certain point to adopt this new tech, but they need adopters. No one is meeting at the middle, so I'm thinking VR has stalled.
There are new good-looking games coming out all the time, there continues to be new hardware manufacturers entering the VR industry pretty frequently, and it's clear that developers are interested in making VR games.
While GAF largely revolves around mainstream products that live or die by their initial launch, VR has a long way to go before the mainstream is vital.
Great chart, am using that.
VR healthier than xbox....
Wow. Only 3% for switch? With vita and others, that makes a small 7% for handhelds...
About VR, I feel Sony should push it further by including PSVR in IGC and add a VR game each month for PSPlus users. Also I'm worried about all the small and crappy mini games like ghostbusters that are reminding me of the atari2600 era...
I agree that the closed garden, especially on PC which is really super strange, is hurting VR development. It's also a problem because software for Rift or Vive are not really coming fast or in any outstanding quality to make it so worthwhile.
That said I think price is the major obstacle overall, PC VR has the added difficulty of relative more difficulty to setup, and also much higher cost to start up too.
We're still at the starting point. So far I feel like PS VR has the best footing, and I think in the near future say next 1 or 2 years it will be able to maintain that, particularly with GT Sport and Ace Combat coming out.
Once the PS4 Pro and PS VR prices start dropping to like half their current price I can see the platform of VR as a whole taking off more, but it will still be relatively slow. The bulk of sales will still come from traditional games long into the future, and I don't expect VR to overtake traditional games for a very long time if at all.
All I know is I'm a little annoyed that Oculus cut the price of the Touch controllers in half and started packing in a great game, and I got nothing like an "ambassador program" reward for buying them early.
That survey was made few months ago, before Nintendo had their Jan announcement. I believe it is much more than 3% by now.
Demand is higher then what they anticipated (or could even produce) and they can't just snap their fingers and have a buttload more. They have said by April more PS4 Pros and PSVRs will be hitting the market as they have taken the steps to increase production.I'm still interested in getting a PSVR at some point, but it's sold out everywhere I go.
Until there are demo stations in stores for more people to try it out, and maybe a tad lower price, I don't think it's going to be huge.
So why *aren't* there more PSVR systems in the wild? Did they not build enough? Are they being held back to be released to coincide with some big E3 reveal?
Wow. Only 3% for switch? With vita and others, that makes a small 7% for handhelds...
If sony isnt going to support this device anymore, than its as worse as the virtual boy was. I mean its almost 2x expensive than the wii u is, yet its much much worse in terms of games that there on it. How can you say, its ok sony, i only paid 400 dollars for it...
Oh, is that all?
If sony isnt going to support this device anymore, than its as worse as the virtual boy was. I mean its almost 2x expensive than the wii u is, yet its much much worse in terms of games that there on it. How can you say, its ok sony, i only paid 400 dollars for it...
Yeah, the price is one problem, but I also think we need 4K and 100+ fps before it looks and feels "right". Immersion is the big selling factor with VR, so it needs to feel completely responsive.I just don't think the technology is affordable for individuals yet; but I'll be there day one for PSVR 2.0, or if the current headset gets a bit of a price drop.
I don't know man. After playing RE7 the technology definitely worth it. There's just no incentives to do so.I bougtht a vive and sold it a week later
I don't think its worth the money
VR will always be niche. You're asking people to put in a clunky headset for an exprience more like a Disneyland ride than most games. And most gamers are causal gamers, which VR is the very opposite of. This is coming from someone who had an Oculus and gave it away because after that initial rush it just wasn't interesting to me. I have no desire to play longer form games with it no matter that extra immersion. It's just a barrier to a casual gaming session.
New VR software comes out all the time.
New HMDs are in the works.
Gear VR just released a new revision with a proprietary controller.
VR is still on track.
It will be a bigger deal in a few years.
As always, VR is not just gaming. Like your PC there's many applications
And yes who would want to spend money to create a gaming rig and that is a waste of money to experience VR that is essentially a gaming focused form factor. Valve failed massively at that.
VR isnt going to be in headset form forever. Oculus said back in 2015 that they are hoping to make it into like a pair of shades in the long term.
And VR isnt just for gaming.
Valve has failed at everything lately so thats never going to change anytime soon.
Who was saying VR was going to be an instant success? Every company has stressed that it would be a slow rollout, and I haven't seen anyone say "no all the companies are wrong, vr will be an overnight success." Vr naysayers just want to be able to say see I told you it would failThere will always be one more excuse, one more reason why VR hasn't yet reached the espoused levels of market saturation within the completely unrealistic timeline.
VR evangelicals basically dug themselves a hole fighting off the VR naysayers by over-hyping and over-promising on just how quickly and thoroughly VR adoption would occur.
It wasn't too long ago you'd be shouted out of threads for saying this shit was still a decade from being truly relevant to mainstream audiences.
Doesn't matter. Asking people to put anything on and adjust themselves to enjoy the experience won't ever have broad acceptance. Look at 3D. Shutter glasses weren't a big deal in themselves, and polarized lenses in theaters was practically nothing. Hell, the 3DS doesn't need glasses at all, and how many people used that feature after the first year? Anything that's a step or two removed from immediacy of playing the game will be treated as a momentary gimmick by most people. I'm the kind of person who loves tech, but I got over the initial rush of VR pretty quickly. Even as the hardware and software improves, I honestly don't have any interest in returning to it. Once the wow is gone it's not worth the hassle for most people.VR isnt going to be in headset form forever. Oculus said back in 2015 that they are hoping to make it into like a pair of shades in the long term.
And VR isnt just for gaming.
You think that if VR was a pair of wireless glasses close to regular glasses it would be like 3d in movies and games before it? I highly doubt that, as VR and MR improve they will be our new smartphones. Everyone will have an MR device like everyone has a smartphoneDoesn't matter. Asking people to put anything on and adjust themselves to enjoy the experience won't ever have broad acceptance. Look at 3D. Shutter glasses weren't a big deal in themselves, and polarized lenses in theaters was practically nothing. Hell, the 3DS doesn't need glasses at all, and how many people used that feature after the first year? Anything that's a step or two removed from immediacy of playing the game will be treated as a momentary gimmick by most people. I'm the kind of person who loves tech, but I got over the initial rush of VR pretty quickly. Even as the hardware and software improves, I honestly don't have any interest in returning to it. Once the wow is gone it's not worth the hassle for most people.
Yup.
Its just another gimmick like Kinect etc.
RE7 wasn't successful because it was a gamepad game-- it was successful because it's a slow-paced horror game from a huge IP on a platform with more users than the PC platforms combined.VR is out for a while now. Still waiting for motion controls to catch on.
The VR game that got the most traction thus far is Resident Evil 7, a controller based game. That is the way to go simply because controllers are far more accessible than motion controls since you dont get tired.
Stick to motion controls and people get tired, and all the games will be shallow 1/2 hour experiences designed built around this limitation.
I'm still interested in getting a PSVR at some point, but it's sold out everywhere I go.
Until there are demo stations in stores for more people to try it out, and maybe a tad lower price, I don't think it's going to be huge.
So why *aren't* there more PSVR systems in the wild? Did they not build enough? Are they being held back to be released to coincide with some big E3 reveal?
I couldn't do this with an analog stick:
Hard to grow a market that requires you to spend $1,000 bare minimum to even enter it. VR will never see widespread growth until prices become reasonable and the technology vastly improves and looks less ridiculous on our faces. 5 years at least, if people still care about this stuff by then.
Yup.
Its just another gimmick like Kinect etc.
Nobody is dropping big money on a device to play the kind of games that would get blasted on the Jimquisition.
There will always be one more excuse, one more reason why VR hasn't yet reached the espoused levels of market saturation within the completely unrealistic timeline.
VR evangelicals basically dug themselves a hole fighting off the VR naysayers by over-hyping and over-promising on just how quickly and thoroughly VR adoption would occur.
It wasn't too long ago you'd be shouted out of threads for saying this shit was still a decade from being truly relevant to mainstream audiences.
No. The reviews from VR launches last year and the comments in this thread suggest nothing has really changed. I'm honestly super skeptical about VR for all but a few kinds of games.
No killer apps.
High cost.
As someone who has tried all variations of consumer VR, it has blown my mind, but those two reasons alone are reasons why I havent purchased it.
Until its a reasonable cost, , great software support, wireless, lightweight and easy to use, which may not happen for another 2-3 generations, I honestly dont see it "taking off".
Why? Google glasses fizzled out after the novelty wore off. VR and AR are two evasive for most people. Most people need a little distance from their tech, and need an instant ease of use without adjustment. I can see the tech being built into car windshields, but most aren't going to want to wear it close to their eyes. Just like most people don't use those little Bluetooth ear pieces even though it's better than shouting at a phone connected through their car's audio.You think that if VR was a pair of wireless glasses close to regular glasses it would be like 3d in movies and games before it? I highly doubt that, as VR and MR improve they will be our new smartphones. Everyone will have an MR device like everyone has a smartphone