I am pedicting a bigger flop than 3d
so bad that only version 1 of these products will be released
>pricey + bulky = flop
It's gonna flop so hard. There's no way the people currently making FaceBook rich are going to buy this shit in the droves. They targeted the core gaming audience and then betrayed them by saying "yeah gaming isn't even on the radar for top priority." Fuck them and fuck VR. It's a gimmick (right now) and not worth the money.
Nobody thinks VR will succeed.
It just sounds nice to go down in history as the creator of VR, or to be able to write "I've been working in VR for 30 years" in a 10 year old industry on your resume.
We just don't have the technology or the resolutions required for a decent VR experience. Hell, even eye tracking technology is brand new, and the data it allows us to collect is absolutely required for VR game-play mechanics and for resource saving partial rendering techniques.
The safe bet would be to expect VR not just to flop, but to disappear completly until the tech is there.
That is assuming that display resolution and graphics processing haven't been held back significantly by the market place.
ios supports UI scaling
have you not heard the complaints?
4k is necissary, but still bad
people are hoping on 8k
Not that there is a graphics card that can run 60fps per eye at 4k
It's not going to flop.
3d tvs failed because nobody wanted that shit.
Alot of people want VR
VR is going to be very niche for a few years while the price is high. only a few people will use it.
Im sure occulus and htc have reasonable sales expectations well below what people may think is successful.
1080p tvs were first released in 1998. They barely sold for the first 10 years but that doesn't mean it was a failure.
>VR is going to be very niche for a few years while the price is high. only a few people will use it.
Does that include the GearVR? Because that one's not all that expensive for the millions of people with high-end Samsung phones.
I don't think it will necessarily flop, but it *will* remain an enthusiast niche, which is not what the project set out to achieve when it started. It was *not* about creating a custom designed high tech toy for rich nerds, it was about bringing decent VR to the masses using off-the-shelf parts
I think this is also why so many people feel betrayed by the hefty price. They generated free advertising for months and months only to realize they're not rich enough to afford it when it finally launched.
Does not change my point.
the price of new tech is always overinflated to the point of parody; because they can get away with it.
Honestly I think it won't failbut it won't succeed either. VR is being overhyped hard but what will kill it is the fact that theres too much fucking entertainment as it is.
When F2P's, mobile games, AAA, VR, and various other medias are competing for the consumer eye at the same time, you get a clusterfuck where no one stands out above the rest because the market is filled with niches instead of majority/minority shares.
You REALLY need more than that
If anyone ITT thinks his 970 or even single 980 will run high-end VR games is retarded. You will play indie games and emulated PS2/gamecube titles, that's it. No StarCitizen-types for you.
Good luck with that anyway
Doesn't mean anything. Every DK1 owner gets a CV1 for free, I can't imagine they have that many to spare
Well, it's not really a hard guess.
There will be at least 40 million owned PS4's by the time PSVR comes out. Every PS4 can run PSVR, people don't need to upgrade anything.
And there will probably be PSVR demos at every general/game store like you see GuitarHero demos.
It's the most affordable VR, especially if you already own a PS4, and has the most mainstream appeal when it comes to games. GranTurismo being a VR game is already enough, this game alone will sell more than any other 1st year VR game put together, which is not saying much since the biggest games are stuff like EVE Valkyrie, but still.
The PSVR only offers PS4 garbage. You somehow try to complain about what you can achieve with a 980 (which will be pretty much everything) and try to put a PS4 above. You must have some brain damage.
>The PSVR only offers PS4 garbage
Quite a lot of VR games are multiplat, just think about most AA games akin to EVE Valkyrie, at least half of them work across all headsets.
PC will get more experimental indies
PS4 will get more AA/AAA's like AC7 or GTS
The library will depend on each person's taste. If you're interested in emulating old games in VR, or playing the plethora of small horror games or all the trippy small VR experiences
and pornthen go with Rift/Vive. If you want more upcomming AA/AAA games and overall polished user-friendly experiences go with PSVR.
> (...) You must have some brain damage.
This point is unbelievably retarded. Beyond retarded. I don't even know where to begin.
In your mind, any PS4 game, even without VR, is impossible to run already, since the hardware is SO shit.
I'm sure you also think any current PSVR game is fake and all videos on youtube are paid actors reacting to a live PC-rendered demo.
After all, PS4 can't run shit at 60fps, much less 90 or 120. As we all know, frames per second are magically bound to each specific system, it's not like even the NES and even older systems could run at 60fps, no the tech didn't exist!
Sony installed a FPS limiter on the PS4, what you heard about optimization is fake. It's IMPOSSIBLE to make a game to run at 200fps. Even if it's just a cube of 6 polygons on a white background, PS4's magic limitation will render it at 40fps max
You're right man, what was I thinking?
>VR is really fucking cool even with screendoor effect
I must be one of the very few people here who's actually tried out a VR headset, because this is exactly what I thought. It was even the fucking htc vive, which has a lower resolution, and I hate "normal" 3d because the illusion doesn't work well on me and I get a headache. But even I thought the sense of scale was completely incredible. One of the demos was a hypothetical scene from a portal game, and viewing the huge lab environment in a VR headset was so much better than any experience I've ever had on a monitor. I really hope VR doesn't flop because I think it really can change games for the better, even as it is now with low resolution and all.
3d and vr were already there in the 80's (i actually own a 3d viewer of the 80's with about 200 3d photos)
they tried resurrectinng the meme
the next meme they'll try to resurrect is gaming guns...with rumbling feedback
>the next meme they'll try to resurrect is gaming guns...with rumbling feedback
I fucking hope so, I loved lightgun games. They did already have feedback though, with the chamber sliding each shot.
i didnt fall for 3d/vr memes but I'd buy a lightgun meme if it ever comes for pc
i am 1000% sure it would be cool as fuck if these guns had strong feedback like a fuckin hammer
7k people is the people who backed the kickstarter
the dk2 sold more than 80k units
> 13 million steam users are able to use it currently
this is a lie.
The amount of people who can use it is much much smaller. Recommended specs are 970 GTX
you're grasping at straws.
I ordered a Rift as an adult with a job - but it -is- a pretty big investment, especially if you don't already have the PC to run it.
However the foresight to put some money towards it in the preceding months does help.
>you're grasping at straws.
All I'm saying is it's an invalid point to make that the preorder is "successful" if there is absolutely no way to quantify that claim. Therefore it's meaningless
How's touch coming along? H2/2016, you say?
Can confirm SDE is gone, but the resolution isn't actually that much higher (it is but it's up from 1080p to 1440p) the reason is the physical division between the individual pixels has been shrunk.
I have the technological equivalent of the late 90s/2000, and they cost much less than the rift. They were so cheap, in fact, that a friend of mine asked me to order one for him and I did, lending him the money until he paid me. I was still in college...
You could play games compatible with the API and my friend watched porn on them every single night until one day he fell asleep with them on and they burned out after 8 hours of overheating.
Pretty much the same than an oculus, save the technological advances in all the fields involved, but no novel ideas whatsoever (perhaps motion controls being added into the mix).
That's how much of a greedy bastards they are. Time has passed and tech has gotten better, but also cheaper. How on earth can they justify this price tag when the technological equivalent 10 years ago was almost a tenth of the price? Specially considering all the innovation has been technological and brought in by other companies in other fields (mobile phone screens being the most prominent). The only innovation they introduced was using a single screen and lenses, plus a unified API. It's good innovation, but that doesn't justify any additional costs at all.
Like 3D, VR is a fad that comes and goes every decade or two, paired with the technological advancements of the time. It was always a gimmick and will always be a gimmick. And of course it will always have its niche market, so it won't "flop" per se.
It just won't be the massive revolution in media consumption you are led to believe every 10 years.
Most people in this board are either kids or shut-ins with the equivalent accumulated life experience of a 10 year old, so it is understandable that you wouldn't realize this, even after having seen it with your own eyes.
>3d and vr were already there in the 80's
In a way more primitive form. We're talking 45 degree fov at best, maybe 60 if you had $65,000 to drop on a Virtuality arcade machine, and less than 320*200 per eye at 15fps. For flat shaded polygons in 256 colors.
There is no comparison. Electric cars failed once before but have come back and succeeded because the technology improved and the price dropped. The same has happened for VR. Likewise with how Laserdisc failed before DVD succeeded.
but it is a success already.
I can fap to miku and play formula 1, rally games, euro truck sim 2, many spaceship simulators, virtual cinemas
I own a dk2, and I've already spent 100s of hours inside of it
>You REALLY need more than that
Are you dense? You REALLY don't need more than that for a long time, as there's no AAA titles in production as we know it.
> Every DK1 owner gets a CV1 for free
FUD. Every DK1 kickstart backer gets cv1 for free
You are fucking delusional if you start your bash with "rift/vive with 970 will only get indie titles" and end with "40million ps4's can run psvr". PS4 really has less power than my laptop, it'll have only below-indie-title-looking kiddy games available.
Thing is, you don't need latest looking graphics to trick your brain or to have good time in vr. You need good tracking and good controls. Move wands? Laughing out loud. Xbone controller? even more pathetic.
Different anon, but where have you been living? There's been a steady stream of VR products in all price ranges coming out since the 80s up until Oculus got to Kickstarter and essentially fucked up the niche market that was VR by attracting all kinds of attention and inadvertedly inflating prices.
VR has been "failing" for 30 years now. There have always been homebrews, video players and porn. Now it is trying to go mainstream, as it does every 15 years, some big companies will make big money from the hype and it will slowly turn back down into what it was, a niche enthusiast market, which is where Palmer came from, remember his posts in whatshisface VR forum about wanting to make a DIY cheap headset and being told to head over to Kickstarter. Well, we all know how that ended.
This kind of places is where all the action was before you mainstream kids came along:
(also this is where palmer first appeared with his prototypes)
An invalid statement is not necessaryily false. There's just not base for it to be true either.
Can we stop here now? I'm not actually arguing about whether the OR itself is a success or not. I was simply pointing out an invailid argument in that debate
>Different anon, but where have you been living? There's been a steady stream of VR products in all price ranges coming out since the 80s up until Oculus got to Kickstarter and essentially fucked up the niche market that was VR by attracting all kinds of attention and inadvertedly inflating prices.
Who do you think you're talking to? I owned most of those.
>VR has been "failing" for 30 years now.
In the same way every new technology fails between the time that the initial hype bubble bursts and when it finally is ready for market. This happens with literally everything.
You have your own little theory about VR trying every 15 years, despite the fact that there've been only two big attempts. The tech industry has it's own much better founded idea of how it works.
Google "hype cycle" or refer to the attached image.
>Are you dense? You REALLY don't need more than that for a long time
You don't need AAA, you just need demanding games. A 980 can't play StarCitizen VR at acceptable settings. A 980 can't play any game with the graphics of Witcher3 (again, if you don't lower everything to min-settings) or similar, modders can make any game VR-compatible as we've seen over and over again.
So yes, you are stuck with less demanding games.
It's not 100% equivalent, but if you can't run a game at 4k+ solid 60fps, you can't run that game in VR. It's a precise example but a good point of comparison for the layman.
PC VR games at this point don't care too much for optimization, since the market is only high-end PCs. You'll get plenty of unoptimized games that require raw power over good artistry
>as there's no AAA titles in production as we know it.
PS4 has GranTurismo, that's AAA. Also FF14 but AFAIK it'll be some weird mode, not the full game.
Tekken7 and AceCombat7 are only AA I think, but on the upper echelon of that bracket.
>Every DK1 kickstart backer gets cv1 for free
Miswrote that, it's what I meant.
>PS4 really has less power than my laptop, it'll have only below-indie-title-looking kiddy games available
Who's in denial now? Is GranTurismo below-indie-title-looking, or AC7?
>Thing is, you don't need latest looking graphics to trick your brain or to have good time in vr.
Well then, what was the point of what you said right above?
>And why do /v/ want VR to fail?
Some of them can't afford it. It's obvious they did want it before the price was announced but are now seeking to destroy Oculus for presuming to charge too much
It will be a niche product because the only ones who can have non-headache-inducing VR will be people with high end PCs.
Console VR will fail due to this, it will be a mess with frame interpolation and shit.
PSVR has a dedicated processing box. It -does- target 60fps, but the interpolation method they supposedly use is clever enough that it doesn't produce sickness or much percievable effect.
It's certainly more of a challenge thanks to the pretty significant reduction of performance available, but it's also only one SKU to target - so everything can be sure to work fine, as opposed to there being fluctuations with PC setups.
I don't intend on buying PSVR (I'll pester a mate into it so I can play AC VR) but from what I've seen of it firsthand it works reasonably well, if not a step behind the Rift (and likely Vive which I unfortunately haven't tried).
Among the general masses, it will be considered a failure
But there's a very, VERY big niche for this kind of stuff that will buy anything related to it. They'll dress up in full body costumes just so they can experience VR
pic related, infinite cash cow
>Niche technology aimed at high end consumers is going to flop because its Niche and aimed at high end consumers so will only bought bought by these
Why do retards keep spouting this?
The most expensive part of VR is having the PC required to ruin it, the price of the VR is mostly irrelevant, if you have a GTX980 and a i7 you aren't a poorfag who gives a shit that VR costs £500.
I'm assuming its just people who though VR would run on a 780 and the headset would be £100 or something and just buttmad they're priced out of a market they were always priced out of?
Whatever, all I care about is in 2016 we finally have the good VR I've been waiting for. You can get off my futuristic glowing hover lawn you little shit, and pull up your space pants
You are so bad at predicting market then.
The moment I saw that Love Live VR thing on youtube I know this isn't going to flop. There are literal millions who will buy that, even if it's a gimmick.
For some reason I don't find that video anymore but whatever.
But no one with a brain ever thought it would be a mainstream success at least for the next 2-3 years,.
We knew that 90 fps was needed to create the best experience, so running 2 screens at 90 fps and having a good looking game obviously means its going to need expensive hardware, which itself isn't mainstream.
if a device is for a very niche market, investors aren't going to risk their money and won't develop games for the device
if there are no games developed for a device, people won't be inclined to buy said device
if noone buys device, then it doesn't get a version 2.0 unless their investors put way too much faith in them
there are always those shitty 10 minute excitement vr games, but spending $599 for the sake of playing them is ridiculous
Anon. PSVR will only have selective games that are "AAA" VR. You realize that every AAA game ported to PSVR has to go through optimization because PSVR is too weak for high demanding games? PSVR is not going to be able to slap games like Star War battlefront vr like the PC can.
. PC VR has the power to brute force nearly all modern AAA games into VR. It's has continued to do this before CV1 high spec requirement ever came in.Might not get many original titles in VR, it doesn't need to because it's open development.
>PC VR has the power to brute force nearly all modern AAA games into VR
That's my whole point. That's why I say a 970 severely lacks the power to run any near-future demanding VR games.
Devs assume everyone who'll buy VR now will have killer specs, so optimization takes a backseat over experimentation with various VR interactions, or just straight out "porting" their game for VR-compatibility with no changes to the engine itself (like baking lights instead of using dynamic-everything, stepping down on post processing effects, etc)
A PC can theoretically run anything (well up to a certain point, but you get what I mean), so why bother optimizing? People who have invested 1000$+ in Starcitizen and will spend 650$ on Rift ought to at least have sli-980's
And that assumption from devs isn't wrong at all, that's the right target market
It's people who think "Oh my PC meets the minimum requirements, I'm good to go!" who are delusional if they think they'll play any demanding game. New, or converted by modders to VR.
>You realize that every AAA game ported to PSVR has to go through optimization
I know, and that's wonderful. It'll accelerate VR for the mainstream on all fronts. It forces devs to be smart with their engine and learn new techniques. It'll cut down on all the post-processing many hate, on behalf of smarter, less expensive, more focused art-direction related methods.
Games don't need dynamic clouds or chromatic aberration to be beautiful.
>A PC can theoretically run anything (well up to a certain point, but you get what I mean), so why bother optimizing
Because people can refund their games now. Arkham Knight was so shitty with this that they pulled the game from Steam after massive waves of refunds.
GTA V on the other hand, got nice sales and the game was well optimized, not saying it sold because of that alone, but it's a good business decision to make your game run well even on toasters.
Also you can turn chromatic aberration off, bloom, other post processing effects and shit and a PS4 would still struggle to get 60 FPS on games people would want to use VR for.
PC VR is going to be a high end luxury for this generation at least. If you can afford the minimum specs for running it, you can afford the headset. Normies will either settle for phone-based systems like VR Gear or buy one of those 'ready for vr' pre-builts.
Games dedicated to VR will take a while to catch on but it's not hard for regular games to add support, like Alien Isolation and Dying Light did. Even if it's just regular controls with headtracking, it's still immersive and preferable to a monitor.
Finally you can be sure that they'll set up demo booths for the headsets in major stores. So people can finally experienced it themselves and bury the whole "monitor strapped to your face" meme.
I agree with you, I was talking from the perspective of a VR dev. The market will be small and high-end users are the ones who will spend the most money for the first couple of years
Most VR projects are made by small teams, some have little experience being under pressure to make their game run really well. Just look at ALL Early Acess survival game scams. They all run like shit and still sell a lot, because the consumer base fights through them with raw power.
Starcitizen won't be well optimized at all on launch either
While on the PS4, your VR game MUST run well or it won't be sold at all. They already discourage solid 60fps (rendered at 120fps through reprojection, like Battlezone is) and are asking devs to aim for at least native 90fps
You might think this is shitty and that it's a huge limitation, but on the other hand it kickstarts the whole industry (since PSVR will sell far better than every other headset) to start focusing on optimization over everything else and not be lazy about it.
As a side-effect, any and all PSVR-compatible games will run wonderfully for people without VR too. Even if I didn't give a shit about PSVR, I'd buy pic related and play it at 1080p/solid60fps.
And if PSVR game are multiplat, they'll be the easiest to run on PC too. Say if AceCombat7 throught a miracle got a PC port, it would probably run better and require less expensive hardware than even 80% of indie horror corridor PC-only VR titles
I doubt companies will start making their games on consoles run at 60fps/1080p due to VR. I don't think it will be a mainstream hit, that huge of a success to make big publishers and devs change the way they do things, they want shiny graphics at the expense of performance.
Also the problem with a VR peripheral that will only work with upcoming games specifically made for it, is that it limits the thing too much. People already used the dev kits of the Rift to play Half-Life 2 and other older games with it. On PC people will want to use the Rift for games that are already out, like GTA V, War Thunder, Project Cars, and so on. The thing is just a peripheral, having to need all this special treatment in order to work just doesn't sound promising to me. People would want to play Killzone Shadowfall and Driveclub with the PS4 VR, I suppose.
I kinda hope it doesn't flop because videogames in vr would be cool.
But if you want to play a game with one of these headsets, your goggles need to be attached to your pc with a cable, which will kind of make it weird to use.
>Games dedicated to VR will take a while to catch on but it's not hard for regular games to add support, like Alien Isolation and Dying Light did. Even if it's just regular controls with headtracking, it's still immersive and preferable to a monitor.
There have already been many games that aren't specifically VR but support the DK2. As developers learn the dos and don'ts for VR support, they don't have much to lose from adding it.
my second paragraph was meant for how console VR will face problems, of unsupported old games and how they wouldn't run well for VR. The thing is that on PC you might not even need developers since communities get shit done, but will PS4 owners be able to use the PSVR with Killzone SF and Driceclub, for example? The way I see it, the more the peripheral is supported, the better, and there's not only the probelm of old games not getting support, but that they weren't made with the 60fps for VR in mind.
The assumption that old games will automatically work in VR is about as reasonable as thinking a DVD will be 1080p if run on a blu-ray player.
The only way you're going to play old stuff in VR is if somebody either remakes it with support or uses an injector program. Quality isn't going to be great in either case.
But new games not dedicated to VR, can still make use of it because titles before them have done a lot of the work already.
I don't think that comparison is good. People who aren't exactly devs are making VR work with older games, that aren't officially supported yet.
Sure it doesn't look amazing due to lacking the models and the way to make aiming and head tracking apart, but it's still something.
Now the problem with console VR, due to the lack of community made changes and maybe developer lacking interest and on top of that performance limitation problems will just make the PSVR way less attractive, because you'll have way less games to use it with, and I mean Killzone SF isn't even 3 years old, not having those games supported would be shitty.
Gen 1 is going to be a massive money loser. everyone involved knows this. they're fighting to be on the ground floor, to be the Apple of VR. and, VR in general WILL be BIGGER than ANYTHING, eventually. It is the next advancement in medium.
>VR in general WILL be BIGGER than ANYTHING, eventually. It is the next advancement in medium.
nope, it's too demanding tech wise and not every genre out there will benefit from it, even though FPS being still a popular genre helps
No, man, you don't understand. Asking which vidya genres translate best to VR is like asking what kind of stage play translates best into a movie. Sure, you can probably do that, but there's so much more you can do with the medium that you can't even talk about in the language of stage plays.
>to be the Apple of VR
Apple generally prefers to be second in line, though, which makes a lot of sense.
OR is giving the competition time to learn from their mistakes, so in the end, they will end up playing catch-up despite being the original innovator.
Apple avoids these problems
accelerating returns never slowed down anon. game devs got lazy for a generation, partly because of bad software underpinnings which are also being fixef now eg. Vulkan, but the raw power available continues to rise, as ever.
I don't see how VR will benefit games that are not first person perspective.
I don't think Vulkan or DX12 will suddenly make mid tier PCs be able to easily handle what the Rift asks for, which is 75fps/90fps and what resolution again?
VR won't fail, but it will be a niche product to enthusiasts. It will be like wheels and flight sticks, and people who have multi monitor setups, enthusiast stuff that the average joe won't care that much.
Well that's what I said. The only way old games will work is if something remakes it with support. Those versions of HL2 are mods of the original.
Console VR is going to be very limited, just like it was with Move, Kinect and other stuff like it. I don't think it's a good purchase.
Facebook buys oculous
>Facebook tells us everyone will use oculous
>Facebook says it will cost between $250-400
>Facebook says this price point is important to remaining accessible
>Facebook says their headsets have sold out
>Facebook says they are losing money on every purchase
>Facebook says they dont believe in exclusive content
>Facebook says oculous rift is the greatest thing to ever happen to gaming
>I don't see how VR will benefit games that are not first person perspective.
Well, it can, see Lucky's Tale, Edge of Nowhere or Herobound, but that's not the point. The point is that there will be NEW GENRES in VR. Things that wouldn't be all that compelling to do on a screen, but are with a headset.
>The point is that there will be NEW GENRES in VR
You sound like a marketer. Nobody could be this delusional.
VR doesn't achieve anything except increase immersion. There are no VR games that would be impossible to play without VR.
I didn't say "impossible to play", although making something as intuitive as hand controls for, say, Fantastic Contraption on a flat screen would probably be hard. I said that these things will be compelling in VR where they wouldn't be on a flat screen. People are obviously still figuring this stuff out and there's a lot of gleeful "we have no fucking idea what we're doing here" going around, but The Climb might be an example. Started out as one system in a game they were thinking about, but then they noticed that it was intrinsically fun in VR and turned it into a game.
It's gonna be on same gimick tier then wii motion once was. It's a good idea, but if no one can make games/programs that uses it to full extend, it fails.
Though i think VR has more potential to be more then short-lived gimick device.
I get what you're trying to say, but we already have walking simulators, which are pretty much perfect for VR.
The problem is (and people will find this out soon enough) that the games which benefit the most from VR will usually be games that aren't very fun.
They'll be "cinematic experiences" or "rollercoaster rides".
I don't know anon, just watched Lucky's Tale, and using the VR to move the camera doesn't sound too good. I just see the first person perspective VR as the real draw for video games. Moving the camera with your head is something that can be done already with the second analog stick.
The point is not just moving the camera, the point is getting an intuitive sense of the scale of the environments you're in because your brain is presented with a lot more of the cues it uses to construct a model of the world. Stuff like parallax from head motion, stereoscopy and (at least parts of) your peripheral vision.
The entire point of oculus rift was that it was way less pricey than the other vrs.
This was archieved by the developer ONLY caring about games.
I even asked myself when the kistartaer was being made "WTF why is this getting famous, its just VR headset it already exist since at least 90s"
Then I saw people talking about price.
If the stuff is still pricey to you, I am trying to imagine what do you think about previous HMD prices.
Its like someone selling a Ferrari LaFerrari (1.4 million to buy) for 100000 dollars and then you say "its too expensive" it sucks or nasa selling a spaceship for 1 million and than you say "its too expensive it sucks"
>Its like someone selling a Ferrari LaFerrari (1.4 million to buy) for 100000 dollars and then you say "its too expensive" it sucks or nasa selling a spaceship for 1 million and than you say "its too expensive it sucks
It doesn't matter if it's a "great deal". Those prices are still out of reach for normal people.
Normies didn't want to buy a PS3 at $599. What fucking chance does VR have?
VR might have its own little niche but it's not gonna take over video games or anything. It'll be like motion controls.
Honestly sometimes it feels like people hype up stuff like VR and hoverboards because it's "supposed" to be hyped. Like virtual reality is one of those stereotypical futuristic things. I'd rather have technology that's logically developed and pragmatic, not gimmicks that just pander to science fiction lovers.
3d was a tacked-on gimmick to revitalize TV sales, VR is cutting edge technology, backed by some of the brightest people in the industry.
That being said, it's not ready yet for the mass market, it will be though within 5 years when there's better hardware and developers had enough time to work with the technology. Also, VR porn, movies, virtual seats at sport events, etc
>That's the equivalent of just using your PS2
No it isn't. PS2 started getting fewer games coming out for it in favor of the PS3.
There's not going to be a slowdown of games that will work without VR.
>it means they exceeded expectations
Nah, that's a regular part of any recent product launch.
It creates an air of scarcity, generates media attention and suggests popularity.
Having your product being "sold out" - or in this case, having the preorder "exceed excpectations" is just regular business practice at this point.
As long as no concrete numbers are given, the statement remains meaningless.