Why did VR fail?

Not enough supported games and the majority that are, are basically tech demos.
Very high barrier of entry.
Liability in popular competitive games.

- Oculus Rift was supposed to be open source, allowing developers from all over the world to make games. Crowd funding money was collected, then it was sold to Facebook

- The expensive VR hardware requires a top of the line computer for performance. At the time of release, CPUs and processors were too inadequate.

- The games available at launch had graphics on par with a mobile game

>>381348973
>Why did VR fail
It hasn't even begun yet. It can't fail if it never started.

>>381348973
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality_sickness

>>381348973
Slapping LCD with shitty resolution directly on your face to induce vomiting and eyecancer isn't the VR people wished for.

>>381348973
Because it is and was obvious gimmicky bullshit. The experience is really novel, but the experience loses its novelty fast. VR as it is now isn't really "virtual reality." You're still entirely aware you're wearing a big ass mask with a shitty screen in it and most of the time can't seemlessly interact with things in the environment. It also costs a lot, makes a lot of people feel sick etc

>>381349528
>Never started
>Sony has been shilling it for coming on 2 years now

No one wants to put that shit on their face

>>381350110
It took close to 20 years for vidya to even take off.

>>381348973
Price of admission

Because it's glorified Kinect/WiiMotion.

File: XkjF2.gif (1017KB, 245x191px) Image search: [Google]

1017KB, 245x191px

>>381348973
Same reason why motion sensing tech failed.
>the middle class gets poorer and poorer
>housing is more and more expensive
>HEY GUYS LET'S MAKE GAMES THAT REQUIRE A HUGE ASS LIVING ROOM TO PLAY

>>381348973
Why do people seem to think it has failed?

>>381348973
Doesn't look fun, Expensive, and gimmicky

>>381348973
>Failed
>Every major company at E3 announced a game for it.

When can we expect animu-tier VR?

I feel like most of this board WANT VR to fail, to me it seems like the most promising technology ever for vidya.
I understand people have issues with pricing, motion sickness and other things, but it is getting better.
Why aren't you more hyped about the potential this has? Have you no fucking imagination?

>>381348973
Not practical

>>381352641
Shilling =/= profit. They WANT it to be big, but it's not even close to mainstream-enough nor affordable yet.

>>381354434
>affordable
define 'affordable'

>>381348973
Are you this mad at the future of gaming that you're going to repost this thread every day?

>>381353709
I want the current state of VR (cellphone on face, eye/brain problems, high costs, closed-source/Facebook intervention, low-quality games, etc.) to fail and give rise to actual pseudo-holographic technology instead.

Just like how Atari/etc. handling games failed and Nintendo/SEGA succeeded from their missteps.

>>381354582
Preferably below the price of two gaming consoles.

>>381348973
Why are you talking in the past tense when it's still here and it's ever growing?

VR is rising every year, it's not failing, it's just not THERE yet. It's going to finally take off when some technical and artistic issues are perfected.

>>381350110
It's only been out since October

File: Atari-2600-Wood-4Sw-Set.png (568KB, 1200x734px) Image search: [Google]

568KB, 1200x734px

>>381348973
>1983
Why did video games fail?

Real vr is going to cost 100 and you will only be able to play them at VRcades at the abandoned malls. All the kids will hang out there and be totally shway

File: cat2.jpg (28KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 600x400px

>>381348973
Because it was fucking EARLY ACCESS HARDWARE
Just think about how fucking stupid that is.
>We'lll improve it in the future, lower the costs and the games will come -eventually-, so buy it now!!!

I got a chance to play Job Simulator and I enjoyed it. Almost threw up in some SHMUP game that had you flying in every axis though.

I think it's a cool idea, just needs a lot of work to make it viable.

>>381348973
Because we don't have real VR yet, we have shitty headsets with shitty controls that few people even have the specs to run. VR won't be good until it becomes real VR

>>381354892
Holographic tech is a lot further away from being accessible, many promising prototypes in the works though.
Why can't we have both?

File: 5.gif (696KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

696KB, 640x480px

I'll give a shit about VR when I can plug my brain into it.

>>381348973
Barrier entry too high

No games

>>381355854
Thanks, this gif actually cured my headache.

>>381348973
Because until it reaches holo-deck levels of full sensory immersion it will always be less immersive than and generally inferior to traditional interfaces. Couple these failings with cost-of-entry that prices any quality units right out of their own market and it's quite unsurprising that VR hasn't really taken off.

If VR failed, why does this thread need to happen several times every day?

>>381350110
i agree that it shouldn't be on sale as a serious product at the moment, more of an experimental device rather
however making people aware of its development is not shilling

>>381348973
VR didn't fail because it's far from being completed, what we see today is an incomplete device, like an unfinished game
it has a lot of potential, it's the greedy businessman's fault that it has a bad reputation

File: 0cecd5ac5e9347098932e00362a0bbc3.jpg (46KB, 720x713px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 720x713px

It costs 800 dollars and there's no video games for it

>>381355854
source on image?

>>381348973
cause its not actually vr

>>381349528

if you never do anything in life you are a failure, so yes you can fail without starting

>>381348973
It was a gimmick 20 years ago, and its a gimmick today. VR is a dead end.

>>381355337
This
The tech simply isn't ready but multiple companies jumped the line trying to establish themselves as "the only VR in the market you should give a shit about."

>>381348973
Because wearing a pair of goggles isn't VR.
It was marketed as such before we even had the technology for it and as such failed miserably and is just a shitty gimmick.

>>381348973
not enough software
need a monstrous PC to get both eyes to display at a decent fps
screen quality in the headsets is about the same as that of a high end phone, too low resolution and pixel density to look good, yet the headset costs anywhere from $800-$1000

Combined these issues spell disaster for VR gaming

File: 44.gif (153KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 640x480px

>>381358461
http://dreamspace.nfshost.com/

Post soviet 90s cyberpunk about a guy who can plug himself into VR

File: 800px-Virtual-Boy-Set[1].png (501KB, 800x1017px) Image search: [Google]

501KB, 800x1017px

>>381348973
Cost, hardware requirements, no one wants to be the first and spend time and money to develop AAA game on it so everyone just pump out tech demos.
Most of those "games" trying some gimmick that is fun for first 5 minutes and never again instead of giving people what they really want which is adventure viewed with your own eyes.

>>381349528
Yeah, it started in 95 and it continues to flop every time someone tries it.
>pic related.