>People happily pay more for standard displays.
standard displays are more useful
can you imagine having to do word processing for work on a VR headset? i'd need a fucking bucket next to my PC
>can you imagine having to do word processing for work on a VR headset?
Only if the DPI is sufficient (I guess not now). Otherwise why not? It could be an alternative to multi-monitor setups too with virtual displays.
With the other hardware requirements being so high it's not like this ever was something for people who are a few hundred dollars away from insolvency.
I tried the DK1 some time ago and it felt promising, but the VR experience clearly needs lots of effort from games to work well. Think I'll just wait and see how VR-friendly games (and the next GPU generation) turn out before buying anything.
that is a terrible idea. you are far better off using either 3 $100 1080 screens, or doing something real like buying a 34-37" curved 1440
these things are only good for very niche uses, and desktop monitor replacement is not even close to being one of them
the PS3 couldn't sell for $600, and that was still when consoles were extremely popular and it was off the back of the 150 million selling PS2, not to mention it was a standalone system that just needed a bog standard TV as minimum (didn't even need to be HD), the quality of VR on the other hand is directly linked to the quality of your PC and to get a good experience it needs to be top-end
what chance does VR have?
also history has shown that if a new standard comes out and it doesn't immediately start selling the following happens
1) chicken and the egg scenarios where no content gets produced because it's not selling, and it doesn't sell cause no content
2) investors get spooked and pull their funding
envelop VR looks cool, don't know how effective CV1 rift and vive will be. Certainly not as effective as a higher resolution monitor with no lens distortion currently.
skip to 1:14
Sure they could of used cheaper parts but they really want to do it right and not make everyone buy a crappy product that makes them motion sick every 10mins.
People are going to buy it, and it's going to do well. This isn't a gimmick like desktop linux. pew pew
A proven platform with a massive market that the majority of developers already familiar with.
Compare this to Facebook which has no history at all in game development beyond the level of IAP browser shite.
the dumbest fucking thing about shit like that is they try to recreate a fake desk and your hands typing and shit. that is the very definition of a fucking gimmick.
and the worst part is if all you do is look at marketing videos and peoples reactions on youtube, you are just being a fucking tool with 100% no idea of the image quality, the field of view, the blurriness on the edges, and the reality that shit that looks neat on paper is instantly destroyed by the fact that in the real world it is just fucking dumb
I bought one and I definitely wouldn't have ordered it if it was $700.
$599 is reasonable because it's the same price as a flagship smartphone. I can withhold a year of upgrades for it.
Valve was working on it before Oculus even existed, and it uses a different, superior tracking method.
Most of the games support both systems, even some Oculus-funded one according to Palmer, the only truly exclusive games are the first-party Oculus Studios games.
Also Vive has the big advantage of coming with motion controllers and two lighthouses so it encourages more unique VR games right off the bat unlike the Rift which settled with being just a different kind of monitor.
>buys up shitty 120/144hz TN gayman display for $600 no problem
>oh no, two high-res, high-refresh displays /and advanced electronics cost same
Literally die, you retard. Just because they're smaller, it doesn't make the dual displays in the headset any less technologically advanced, in fact they're even better, since they have to deal with issues that monitors can get away with.
>But I highly doubt the vive will work with the oculus store.
Gee what a loss.
>you are far better off using either 3 $100 1080 screens
What if I want 3x non-TN 16:10 120hz screens?
These don't even exist
Not to mention the price if I also want them wall-sized
I can't wait for 2k+ VR HMDs and will use them to replace my monitors asap
They both use different methods of tracking so devs will have to implement both.
There are already waifu simulators for the rift so that's what I'm going with
Oculus Rift is going to be the next Kinect.
Everyone thought the same shit about Kinect, said the same shit about Kinect, and look what happened to that technology.
What makes sense in your imagination doesn't actually happen in reality, once you come to realize that this technology does not actually improve your workflow or enjoyment of anything, in fact, it hinders it in many ways.
VR has been a gimmick since forever. Everyone knew this was going to happen.
>some people a literary paying $600 for a pack of corn flakes to put on their head
I thought Kinect was amazing the first time I tried it too
I told people they only had to try it, then they'd know how good it really was!
Damn the novelty wore out fast when I actually took it home
Both systems are almost identical, they use the same resolution and framerate and output the same kind of position and rotation tracking information, I would be surprised if you needed different optimizations for each system.
VR has existed for decades, longer than most people here were alive. It's never been or will be a useless technology for the people who need it and at worst, the military, universities, Hollywood and other organizations will buy them up (if they aren't already) for technically important reasons.
Shit like 3D was never important to anyone, and it never started as a grassroots effort, it was just shoved down everyone's throats from day 1. VR didn't become popular until strong public interest and demand exploded from out of nowhere when the Rift was first introduced, this is something people genuinely want and companies are desperately scrambling to get their HMDs out now.
Seems like a fair price to me. It's a brand new piece of technology. I'd be willing to bet in three years the price will be cut in half and same with the price of computer hardware to run it.
Both are 110° but Oculus is slightly wider and Vive slightly taller, there are some conflicting reports about the FOV which I suspect is because of individual IPS adjustments for each user which changed FOV.
>They use VR ready logo only for 970+ cards because of the Multi Res Shading (based on the multi projection hardware in maxwell) that can achieve 20+% performance boost in VR in supported engines. Even 950 has this feature in the chip, but 780ti doesn't. This is just technological progress. New GPUs are not just more transistors, they are actually new architectures.
If I had to describe it with one word, revolutionary
The experience would be so unreal you won't notice it never existed.
Why invest in bulky hardware when you can play pretend. For that is what a true virtual reality experience is all about after all, the ultimate form of presence and immersion.
Your brain will be so immersed in imagination that you will truly believe there is a piece of plastic strapped to your forehead.
People are surprised at the price because Palmer promised almost half of that.
Sure the price of the HMD + the price of a computer powerful enough to run VR is prohibitively expensive for mainstream adoption but that's how it works with any new tech, the first tablet for example was $3000.
>Shit like 3D was never important to anyone, and it never started as a grassroots effort
>VR didn't become popular until strong public interest
hah, talk about begging the question
VR isn't popular, just because a small but vocal self selected group of silicon valley nerds with escapism fantasies championed a product, and then got money to shill it doesn't say shit about its actual rapport with the public
right now it's literally in the same phase as 3D television, it's been shoved down our throats for FOUR YEARS even though no commercial product has been released
no fucking unreleased entertainment product can have high-level sustained hype for four years without a lot of shilling at play
there's nothing grassroots about it
I'm laughing so hard right now, holy shit.
at this point it would be more realistic to get a girlfriend and actual life than to believe you're going to have a virtual one.
>People say games are too expensive, while in like 1997 killer instinct cost $80 on release....
you know, this works both fucking ways
people in the 90s happily paid $80 for killer instinct, a 2D game that would go for about $1 on the app store now, because that was the technological expectation
and yet, nobody bought 90s VR, even though it sucked compared to modern technology and was expensive, compared to other things at the time it had a massive WOW factor
millionaires didn't even want to buy one, and a lot of people on here grossly underestimate the quality of 90s VR without having ever tried it (it's part of the oculus shill narrative - rewrite history that the failure of old VR doesn't count because it was irredeemably shit)
old VR knew its technology wasn't amazing so it aimed not at realism but a "woah, you're inside the computer" experience, for what it was it was pretty good
and NOBODY wanted it aside from amusement parks because the novelty wears off after a few hours of use
new VR hasn't changed in that respect, better technology but gets old just as fast
One question- how is ANY of this VR?
1- Just a 2d film, where you can change viewing angle
2- Stereoscopic? 2 different views
3- You can move around and look and things - requires a 3D environment to be rendered
That porn VR thing is basically only (1) . You cannot change your viewing position, only your angle, which surely is not VR right? Its 2d - not even stereoscoping imaging.
How long until we can have (3) ?
VR stands for Virtual Reality
Virtual Reality stands for computer simulation that emulates reality
That means real video can never be VR by definition
But anyway, real videos that let you change your viewing angles will come once Lightfield cameras are mainstream.
>$600 isn't expensive.
yes it is
nobody is going to spend $600 on a product they don't know if they will like won't get sick using
not that many people have tried VR, only the people who were already interested in it and went out of their way to attend a tech convention or buy a developer's kit, these are VERY far from typical consumers
just about everybody has used a computer monitor, just about everybody's used a regular computer
it's a factor as well certainly but getting a powerful gaming computer works for VR games and non-VR games, you can also do productivity on a gaming computer, browse the internet and answer your emails
while a VR headset has virtually no use outside of VR content
a gaming computer costs a lot more, definitely, but the RISK of buying a $600 VR headset is waaaaaay too high
>while a VR headset has virtually no use outside of VR content
Well no shit, it's like saying a car has no uses outside of doing car stuff.
If $600 is too high for you then in all likelihood you don't have the minimum system requirements nor can you afford the VR titles. You aren't their target audience.
FEBRUARY 29TH GET HYPE
pic related; there's a difference between 360 video and an actual virtual environment. Many within the VR community have started to not call that medium virtual reality because it won't be strictly be able to be considered as such until hardware that does light field mapping gets cheaper.
yet people still call it VR because it's easier to say than "3D 360 video"
>Well no shit, it's like saying a car has no uses outside of doing car stuff.
that's a terrible analogy, it's more like buying a sports car has no speed advantage if you drive on public roads
>If $600 is too high for you then in all likelihood you don't have the minimum system requirements nor can you afford the VR titles. You aren't their target audience.
i can afford $600 dude, i just bought a gaming PC for a lot more than that, it's actually VR ready
but most people don't blindly spend money just because they have it, rich people didn't get to be rich by not being frugal
even though there were plenty of Sony fanboys that bought the PS3 at $600 it wasn't even CLOSE to enough to get it over the line and be a profitable console because most people rationally saw that the PS3 didn't have the content to make it worth the price (even though it had blu-ray)
and people KNEW that the PS3 was going to have at least 5 years of support, VR might not even make it to 2018
For VR it's not a matter of dying or not, it's a matter of how fast it will grow.
All industry professionals project a billionaire VR market, no one is expecting it to die.
But I still recommend people wait for gen 2 anyway.
>Your opinion is that vr won't make it?
no, my opinion is that at $600 it fails cost-benefit risk analysis as a consumer product
VR definitely has a chance to make it but its future could hardly be considered secure at these prices
There already is, and Google is working on a VR-oriented OS.
The problem with the current gen of VR is that the resolution is just not high enough for virtual desktops to be really useful since you can't read shit with the low res.
>All industry professionals project a billionaire VR market
>no one is expecting it to die.
What risk? The headset itself isn't the product. The games and experiences are.
I don't know man it really sounds like you're some assblasted poorfag mad because the rift isn't $2.99 like you hoped.
The retard thinks AR will be mainstream before VR.
If he had even minimal knowledge of this shit he would know AR is MUCH MUCH harder to do than VR, the technology is still much farther away.
As for 3D TV it has the huge disadvantage of just being a minor variant of already established tech and the technology sucks since you need to wear glasses that darken the picture, no one wants to buy one because they already have TVs.
Anyone who tried the current VR knows how amazing and how different it is from current monitors, the only thing stopping it from becoming mainstream RIGHT NOW is price.
>The headset itself isn't the product. The games and experiences are.
the headset is the product, and the games/experiences are the content
you have to pay $600 (on top of upgrading your PC if you haven't already) to get to that content
This wouldn't really be a problem with a "native" VR OS that grid-aligns text to the physical panel rather than rendering it on a surface and sampling it
But yeah, for virtual desktop it's too low atm
there were $600 pc hmds in the 90s and no one bought them because no one wants to spend that much on an hmd. palmer even said himself that at $600 the rift might as well not exist because no one will buy them.
no one bought them in the nineties because they were just terrible
now $600 is still too much for mainstream
but the hardware itself may as well be sold for $6000+
arch viz companies and the sort would still buy them en masse because the advantages over regular displays are just huge
>killer instinct cost $80 on release
Killer instinct was an arcade hit. People knew what they were purchasing before they got it.
With Occulus Rift however people don't know:
>don't know if it'll be dead in a year
>don't know if there will be enough games
>don't know how many available games justify a purchase
>don't know if it'll be replaced in 6 months
>don't know if it'll cause problems with long term use
Just with any business consistency is key. People need to know what they're buying. Occulus is in the best position to accidentally KILL VR forever if they get people to believe Rift and Vive are the same product. They're clearly not the same product, but will both be labeled as VR thus creating more inconsistency and uncertainty in peoples minds when they are looking to purchase their "new VR headset."
Something like COD or CS:GO wouldn't work for VR
Competitive VR shooters will all use teleportation to move around quickly because running with a joystick would make you motion sick
What's the likelihood that Rift games will support SLI?
And would dual GTX 970s be enough to compensate for my i5 3570k, which falls below the recommended Rift specs?
>They were also shit
for their time they were less shit. the rift will also look shit to people in 20 years.
>would be like $1000 now.
yeah but you could pick them up retail, for the rift you don't have that option. $1000 is closer to the actual price of the rift for most people.
People were dumb enough to buy 1.6GHz octocore PCs disguised as game consoles. VR is the only next logical step in my mind. I don't know if it's going to be Oculus, Samsung, Google, or what. VR isn't a meme and it isn't going away. Bring on the haptic feedback gloves already.
And get nothing but shitty speculation? Yeah ok
Yeah you mean that non-english news article with no source and said oculus was owned by Google? If you're taking its random speculation seriously you're an idiot, an oculus fanboy or both.
We have no idea how much the vive will cost. End.
>it will go away as long as you maintain a blindly dismissive negative attitude toward it and spam the word gimmick over and over
Are you? There's nothing confirmed on price yet for the Vive, there isn't even anything to go on yet. No one has even done a breakdown on what's being used in the Vive DK1. Best we have to go by is that they're using Nidec hard drive motors in the Lighthouse base stations.
>thats probably a mock up from some time ago
It's from this fucking month. Days before they announced price. Hell you can tell it's recent from the engineering sample of CV1 they used.
>I saw somewhere too its supposed to be 1300$
In rumormill there's prices from $500 to $2500. Doesn't mean shit.
The source is a trusted news source. Your opinion of that source is irrelevant. That you do not trust it is irrelevant. If you want to discredit Focus Taiwan, please provide your own source citing them as having a history of providing poor information.
Also, it's a brokerage report, meaning, they're estimating the price based on international stock exchange rates. It could vary, sure, but not by the amount you're claiming.
>for their time they were less shit
This makes zero practical difference, as VR must reach a certain standard before it is anything but a miserable, nauseating experience. It's only just recently gotten to that point
It's speculation from experts in foreign trade markets.
The point is, yes it could be less than 1,500. However, the only reason you're even having this reaction is because you think that's a lot of money. It's only a lot of money for a specific target demographic. HTC has already stated that their primary market for the Vive is industrial development, military, medical tech, and so forth, not gamers.
I can see it going as low as 1,000, just to make it more accessible, but that's it. Even the SonyVR is going to cost more than the Oculus.
>HTC has already stated that their primary market for the Vive is industrial development, military, medical tech, and so forth, not gamers.
Where in the fuck did they say that? This is why they've basically only shown gaming type demos? Why would Valve even partner with them? God you're fucking dumb.
>Even the SonyVR is going to cost more than the Oculus.
They've already denied the $800 price. Stop going off of rumors dumbshit.
>Where in the fuck did they say that? This is why they've basically only shown gaming type demos? Why would Valve even partner with them?
Not to mention it was announced at GDC, they've basically only made a presence at gaming conferences.
>more opinions without a source
Yeah, we're done here.
God /g/ is the most retarded fucking forum on here. How does any intelligent person expect the consumer release of a brand new tech to be "moderately" priced? Do you even fucking live on planet earth? Hype is maximum, cost is maximum, supply is minimum, and usefulness is also minimum.
I knew this shit when I was 9 years old and my mom was telling me how I shouldn't buy the first batch of any new tech. "it's always the most expensive and most buggy"
>>more opinions without a source
That's what the guy I'm replying to is doing? Where's HTC saying they aren't aiming for gaming?
Here's Sony denying it costing what came up on Canada's Amazon
>PS VR is going to cost more than Oculus
They've said they intend for it to be "console-priced".
Given that it involves less advanced tech than Rift and Vive and that they'll want to make it relatively accessible for the PS4's large installed base, I'd expect something in the $400 range.
Sales are less important outside of gaming
Barely anyone has a 3Dconnexion device for example but all major 3d modeling packages support it because of the large workflow improvement it provides
And it's not difficult to add support to your own software as well
>How does any intelligent person expect the consumer release of a brand new tech to be "moderately" priced?
when the company repeatedly made it clear it was their intention to release something priced similarly to the dev kits. people had no reason not to believe them, and it was only at the last minute where they changed their mind and decided to make a premium device.
Would this kind of VR have any application in university instruction?
Like for example creating a program that simulates an operation (realistic looking body, functions, problems etc).
No you've gotten everything wrong. You still haven't provided a source where HTC has said they aren't aiming for gaming yet everything they've done indicates they are especially considering how close they're tied with Valve. Oculus had done far more outside the gaming sphere than HTC has done with the Vive.
I didn't say they weren't aiming for gaming. I said they care more about other markets.
Also, you shouldn't use all inclusive qualifiers like "everything" when you make sweeping generalizations. It makes you look stupid and puts you in a box where you cannot possibly prove what you're stating.
people believed them because they were able to get out dev kits at that price even when they were produced in much smaller numbers and without facebook's backing. they could have made a slightly better dk2 and sold it for $400. that's what they were originally going to and what people were expecting.
>I said they care more about other markets.
So provide a source.
>Also, you shouldn't use all inclusive qualifiers like "everything" when you make sweeping generalizations
But you've been wrong about everything in this conversation.
>It makes you look stupid and puts you in a box where you cannot possibly prove what you're stating.
The irony. You know what looks stupid? Posting rumors and speculation that you can't prove as fact. All I've done here is point this out to you. I'm not making any claims, only asking for citations on your bullshit and calling you out on taking rumors and speculation as accurate or even fact.
I was right about the price speculation for the Vive, I was wrong about the price speculation for the Morpheus.
Lack of a source to prove that HTC is more interested in markets besides gaming is not proof that they are not interested in markets besides gaming. That would be called an "argument from ignorance", i.e. you cannot infer that lack of evidence is evidence of non-existence unless there is good reason to believe a thing is false.
Then provide us all with a source showing that Vive is primarily targeting gamers and not other markets?
Without proof of YOUR statement, we seem to be at a stalemate. And again, I was right about the price speculation of the Vive, you were wrong about that.
1. it's not VR, that's right
2. those 2 different views, which can render a 180° or 360° degree field of view and goggle distortions and you get cropped in to see everything in the correct, lifelike size.
3. 3d rendered porn environments are already possible but very limited for obvious reasons, you might wait 2-3 years for a mansion with more photorealistic looks and animations on pussibilities
the vr porn industry are creating detailed 3d photogrammetry photos of their models at this very second
>Lack of a source to prove that HTC is more interested in markets besides gaming is not proof that they are not interested in markets besides gaming.
Of course not, I never made the claim they did dumbass, only that it looks to be the opposite. You did and I'm asking for source.
See above dumbo. I didn't make a claim. I'm stating that what they've done shows otherwise. I'm not saying they are. It's pathetic how hard you're trying to squeeze out of this.
Where's your fucking source?
>I was right about the price speculation of the Vive, you were wrong about that.
What was I wrong about? I said in the very first post it was shitty speculation and that's exactly what it is.
they always intended to make the cv1 better than the dk2, but most people expected the difference to be similar to the difference between dk1 and dk2 so they could meet that $350 ballpark claim. so just slap a better screen in it, refine the casing a bit and sell it for $400, not two custom screens, custom optics and audiophile headphones and dac for double the price of the previous model.
> not even 2560x1440
> not even 120 Hz
> still 600 dollarydoos
so with all their shekelbook buxx, their specially-developed screen actually has LESS resolution than commodity 5.5"-6" smartphone screens?
Why are they targeting people with GTX 960 tier trash GPUs with a $600 display?
That is my post and that's a reason why it's a poor speculation if you're even going to consider "foreign brokerages" a good source in the first place which is a poor assumption in the first place.
>I never made a claim
>I only claimed that
A counter-claim is a claim, and you need to back up yours that "everything looks to be the opposite". You need to give us good reason to believe your statements as well.
It's basically Ready Player One.
> You need to give us good reason to believe your statements as well.
How about you do it first and post source for HTC saying the primary market isn't gamers? Going to bug you until you do.
Just like you thinking it's a good source. There really isn't a way to prove anything since there's hardly any info to go on in the first place. I'd say that in itself is a good enough reason to call it a poor speculation.
you're off by a factor of 2x, faggot.
rift is a 2160x1200 (2.6MP) OLED screen split between both eyes.
standard 1440p (3.7MP), still split between the eyes, would be ~1.4x as many pixels for additional ~20% sharper.
>please provide your own source citing them as having a history of providing poor information.
How about right in the same article?
>The Oculus Rift, which has investment from Google,
How in the fuck do you get this wrong?
>The Sony PlayStation VR is expected to be priced at US$1,125.
They already denied it and it was $1,125 canadian, not US.
sauce on this?
and what advantage does this really bring?
it would probably be a fuckload cheaper just to use a slightly larger, higher res screen with some pixels in the middle unused if need be
> $101,500 USD
R.I.P. Fully electric cars
I think the way phone screens refresh is one reason. With the DK2 the screens would refresh from left to right. With these new screens I assume they have a global refresh.
Also with custom screens they can match the optics better, less screen wasted.
Do you know why the price is so high in EU? That's right, it's because they are selling in EU, that means NO IMPORT TAX!!!! They are literally selling it in EU with taxes, that's why it is already in that high cost zone, there are NO IMPORT TAXES ON IT!!!
> be vr programmer
> do everything alone (soldering chips on a breadboard and programming software)
> see people comparing phone vr with occulus vr
> No one seems to know whats a digital acclerometer, magnetometer and gyroscope and how they work and how they are calibrated
The benefits of the Occulus over GearVR are MUCH better Performance and better Headtracking and better FOV. This 3 things are basically the main factors you need to get a good VR experience. GearVR may have more pixels, f.e. The Galaxy S6 or so will have a nice huge 4k screen, way better than occulus, but you dont need it if you cant do much with it.
>tfw a 390 is more capable of VR than a 970
>tfw 3.5 isn't just a meme when you go past 1080p
>Virtual Reality stands for computer simulation that emulates reality
That's not what it says it the wiki
>replicates an environment that simulates a physical presence in places in the real world or an imagined world
>in the real world
pls don't create a definition without public acknowledgment
>Lack of a source to prove that HTC is more interested in markets besides gaming is not proof that they are not interested in markets besides gaming.
Then where's the proof that HTC "has already stated that their primary market for the Vive is industrial development, military, medical tech, and so forth, not gamers."?
Where is it?