What the rumours lead to believe is that there are a few hardware features built-in to make the need for a separate box obsolete, but the VR headset is still going to be sold separately.If Sony integrates VR into PS5 and makes it mandatory, wasting resources and driving up the price tag I´m jumping ship.
If Sony integrates VR into PS5 and makes it mandatory, wasting resources and driving up the price tag I´m jumping ship.
Dont like VR?
Not many people do, to be frank. It's a fun gimmick, but that's about it.
Dont like VR?
Nope. Not one bit. I´m extra hostile when rumors starts to fly around that Sony will make VR even more integral with the Playstation brand than it already is.
plain just not fun?
If Sony integrates VR into PS5 and makes it mandatory, wasting resources and driving up the price tag I´m jumping ship.
Incorrect. Most people do.Not many people do, to be frank. It's a fun gimmick, but that's about it.
You obviously will buy into it, as it will become core to daily life as time goes on. It is going to be the next smartphone alongside AR.This. It´s a boring gimmick that got worn out fast. I´m classically built gamer so gimmicks usually tends to lose my interest fast. VR, motion controls, kinect, hand waving etc, it´s just not for me. I will never buy into stuff like that.
According to rumours (which are just that at the moment, no definitive info) the functions of the PSVR breakout box will be integrated into PS5. But I doubt it'll change the price much - all the box does is turn the VR video signal back to a TV-compatible version and handle positional audio, neither of which is a very complicated task.If Sony integrates VR into PS5 and makes it mandatory, wasting resources and driving up the price tag I´m jumping ship.
This. It´s a boring gimmick that got worn out fast. I´m classically built gamer so gimmicks usually tends to lose my interest fast. VR, motion controls, kinect, hand waving etc, it´s just not for me. I will never buy into stuff like that.
Sony wouldn't be that stupid. There's no way they'd dump that much money into something that doesn't show nearly enough promise to justify it...If Sony integrates VR into PS5 and makes it mandatory, wasting resources and driving up the price tag I´m jumping ship.
Does the report take into account Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales or is it for just the first 9 months of 2018?
Would that tack on a couple hundred thousand more on PSVR sales?No way it does. Those are pre-Astro bundle BF numbers.
Would that tack on a couple hundred thousand more on PSVR sales?
It is going to be the next smartphone
These posts are beginning to sound like market researchFair enough. Any thoughts on what it would take to get you interested? How good would the tech have to be?
Ok. How many people like VR?
Well isn't that a surprise. And you might laugh at it now, but that's only because you don't understand what VR actually is, what it's capable of, and just lack overall vision.I don´t have a smartphone either, so I´m guessing no. Also big luls of VR becoming core to daily life.
There's nothing to suggest it's heading the way of 3D TVs because sales are pretty much where they were expected to be. This is like smartphones back in 2003, when they were thought of as a gimmick and a niche.A few million worldwide, from the looks of it. No, I have no idea, but if most people loved it, it would be much more popular. VR is fun, but let's be honest. Right now it's headed one way, and that's in the direction of 3D glasses for your tv.
A few million worldwide, from the looks of it. No, I have no idea, but if most people loved it, it would be much more popular. VR is fun, but let's be honest. Right now it's headed one way, and that's in the direction of 3D glasses for your tv.
Well isn't that a surprise. And you might laugh at it now, but that's only because you don't understand what VR actually is, what it's capable of, and just lack overall vision.
Clearly you think VR is just some gaming device and that's all it will be.
This. 3D TVs could only go one way: Viewable from all angles, without glasses, with higher resolution, and with vergence accommodation. Maybe light-field displays on top as the final form of the 3D TV. Even when you get to that point, it's still such a small change.Quite the opposite. 3D glasses had absolutely no way to go, it was a dead end. Same as Kinect. With VR, we havent even began.
Ah, sorry. I'll take your random words as gospel. I bow down to your wisdom.It will never get there. You'd need a huge technological leap that simply isn't attainable in the short term for it to be all that useful.
You'll need to fix performance issues, cost issues, content issues, comfort issues, privacy issues and so on. There are many reasons none of the VR headsets are selling even decently.
Quite the opposite. 3D glasses had absolutely no way to go, it was a dead end. Same as Kinect. With VR, we havent even began.
Mobile VR is in the process being replaced by standalone VR so it makes sense. But these numbers are bogus anyway.It beat samsung gear? Damn lol I figured Samsung would take the top spot with ease.
Except AR and VR are just going to be the same device as time goes on. So both succeed if only one succeeds at first.You might be right, but as it looks right now, VR has no future. It's a gimmick mostly used in theme parks to allow guests to try a racing game, a "walk the plank" experience or whatever. Even the most ardent VR-defenders I know (outside of neogaf) rarely uses theirs, since it's cumbersome and more or less useless.
I get the whole "wait for the technology!", but it's like hearing the old "Wait for Build!!" defence, I used to run back in the days with Windows Phone.
If we ever get to a point where it's affordable for anyone, easy to use, practical, actually has games, allows you to keep track of the real world in the same time and doesn't cause motion sickness, we can have a conversation of how VR has a future.
Personally I think AR has a much higher chance of gaining traction. One could argue, that AR is already a lot more succesful than VR with Pokemon Go and others, and it runs on something most people have.. a smartphone
I wonder where you got this definition from... The definition of gimmick is "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business."VR by definition can't be a gimmick as gimmicks are meant to be marketing ploys that don't add real value.
VR has been used for various practical use cases that don't fit any of those three. If we consider VR as a consumer product a gimmick, then every product in existence is a gimmick, and the whole definition loses it's meaning.I wonder where you got this definition from... The definition of gimmick is "a trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or business."
In VR's case, it's a device intended to attract both attention and business. So by definition it is indeed a gimmick...
Except AR and VR are just going to be the same device as time goes on. So both succeed if only one succeeds at first.
VR by definition can't be a gimmick as gimmicks are meant to be marketing ploys that don't add real value. VR is the opposite as it isn't a marketing ploy, and adds lots of real value even today, for both consumers and enterprise, inside gaming, and outside of gaming.
Ah, sorry. I'll take your random words as gospel. I bow down to your wisdom.
No. You are speculating without any research. This is like saying computers will always be the size of a room before PCs came into play.
- Performance issues are easily fixed with foveated rendering, as it would make VR much more performant than non-VR
- Cost issues are already on their way to being fixed, with $200 headsets currently available. The value proposition for VR only goes up and up each generation too. People will only be willing to spend more once they realize the potential, such as replacing all of their other devices.
- Comfort issues will be solved with waveguide displays to enable a much slimmer form factor, and eventually sunglasses.
- Privacy issues are the only caveat, but would not stop anything because it's just a part of the world we live in now.
And other issues on the hardware side are entirely fixable. Every single problem can be fixed, and Oculus are close to fixing most of them in the next 4 years.
That huge technological leap? It's being worked on, and is inevitable. Stop being pessimistic for no reason.
AR and VR fully combining is a much longer term eventuality. However, expect VR to have powerful mixed reality fairly soon. Infact, VR will be the best place for powerful AR/MR for the foreseeable future. By 2022, it should be standard to have your headset do a pretty realistic real-time scan of real life and merge it into VR as an overlay.Gimmick might be the wrong word (English is my second language), but you know what I mean.
I don't think we'll see AR and VR devices combined any time soon. I haven't seen any use cases for VR in enterprise yet. I have read that some are looking into it, but compared to AR it's probably negligible.
AR and VR fully combining is a much longer term eventuality. However, expect VR to have powerful mixed reality fairly soon. Infact, VR will be the best place for powerful AR/MR for the foreseeable future. By 2022, it should be standard to have your headset do a pretty realistic real-time scan of real life and merge it into VR as an overlay.
I can tell you know little about VR, so why speak as if you know it all? No, it's not frustum culling. It's like a biological version of frustum culling. Your eyes are only sharp at the center of your fovea. The vast majority of your vision is blurry and filled in by the brain. We can exploit this trait by replicating it in software. Only render high resolution pixels where your fovea is looking (using eye tracking) and degrade outwards. Especially using the technique Oculus are working on, this would result in 20x less pixels being rendered. That's so big it means you can increase the resolution from 1080x1200 90Hz per eye today to 6000x6000 120Hz per eye without really any change in GPU performance. Additionally, you can start to do the same for other aspects of rendering. Raytracing? Don't sample every ray as you normally would, just sample the normal amount around your fovea, and have very few ray samples outside.That comparison is silly, switching to transistors from previous technologies made the world we know possible, but can you think of a single technology that would make VR possible?
What do you mean by foveated rendering? Is it when you don't render anything outside of the frustum? Because that's already been done since like, ever. And it would be used in non VR games if it's such a performance saver as well. Both simply try to raster stuff, VR just asks for 90+ fps at a higher resolution.
The cost issues are a matter of the VR headset + the base system (either PC/Console/cellphone) + controllers. I don't think the VR numbers are setting the world on fire for any of the configurations, even the cheapest ones.
So, aside from the hardware issues, you have the content issues. I don't know, it just seems like too many things need to come right for it to be even a viable platform.
And the biggest question, if the development needs that long, why we're headsets released already? They are simply failing in the marketplace.
Because that's how you grow a market and get developers to learn how to make content in the first place? Things don't just magically move unless R&D and funding is going on.And the biggest question, if the development needs that long, why we're headsets released already? They are simply failing in the marketplace.
Fairly soon, 4 years: https://uploadvr.com/abrash-2018-predictions-oc5/How do you define "fairly soon"? And why do you think VR will be the 'best place' for powerful AR? One of the hurdles of VR is that it's cumbersome. Usually, when you're talking AR, you want to bring it with you.
I meant VR in the video game space...VR has been used for various practical use cases that don't fit any of those three. If we consider VR as a consumer product a gimmick, then every product in existence is a gimmick, and the whole definition loses it's meaning.
Again, this is pointless as we'd have to say almost every game, every console, every platform is a gimmick. VR has very much been a passion project more than than it has a way to get rich quick. PSVR only came about because Sony's R&D team and developers were excited about what it would offer. Oculus only started because Palmer Luckey loved VR. Vive was partially business sense from HTC but also passion from Valve.I meant VR in the video game space...
Well this is why we self regulate our terms as a community so people know what they're talking about. We can all accept that peripherals like VR are gimmicks... well everyone but the foaming mouthed fanboys anyways. Just like we don't think every game where you play the role of a character is a role playing game, or every game where characters fight is a fighting game... it's not that hard to be reasonable and understand what we all mean by these terms that could technically be stretched to the extreme...Again, this is pointless as we' d have to say almost every game, every console, every platform is a gimmick.
There is no self regulation. Almost everyone uses gimmick as a widely negative word. It also becomes an excuse. "I don't want Microsoft to invest in any more gimmicks after Kinect", "VR is a gimmick, not interested."Well this is why we self regulate our terms as a community so people know what they're talking about. We can all accept that peripherals like VR are gimmicks... well everyone but the foaming mouthed fanboys anyways. Just like we don't think every game where you play the role of a character is a role playing game, or every game where characters fight is a fighting game... it's not that hard to be reasonable and understand what we all mean by these terms that could technically be stretched to the extreme...