Virtual Reality Headsets

[Morrus]

I'm mildly curious about the range of VR options which are coming out this year. I don't know if it will take off (3D TV didn't, and Google Glass didn't) but if it doesn't it won't be for lack of trying. They announced the Oculus Rift release and price last week (sadly, it does not work with Mac OS so I will have to wait - though given the heft price tag, that's probably a good thing). A whole bunch of companies are all doing their own.

Anyone waiting for these things? Anyone planning on getting one?

 

[Jhaelen]

I'll wait until prices have dropped to about a quarter. From what I've read so far, Oculus Rift is the most technologically mature model. All of the competitors are still struggling with problems related to head-tracking, resolution, etc.

 

[Cergorach]

I have the Oculus Rift Dev2.0, awesome experience, if it didn't make me want to puke after 5 minutes. But that is my problem ;-)

The immersion is immense and that is with the older model, the new stuff is supposed to be amazing!

On the CES 2016 both models were available, according to folks both the Rift and the Vive have virtually the same experience when we're talking about the visuals. There are some differences in the extra's, the Vive has Roomtracking and an internal camera. But the Rift is already $599/€699 without controllers and it's being sold at cost, so the Vive with the camera and controllers will certainly be even more expensive. The Sony one for the PS4 is still an unknown entity, assuming they use the same hardware for a similar experience, they also seem to be adding an additional external device to boost graphics performance. That's going to cost a pretty penny unless Sony is going to subsidize that device... Either that or it's going to be a lesser experience compared to the Rift/Vive... Don't know about any issues with tracking that the Vive has and the Rift doesn't have...

It's quite expensive, especially if your not used to paying a lot for PC hardware. But keep in mind that this needs at least a GTX970, a €350 video card. And if you want a HOTAS + rudder setup for those flight/space/mech sims, that can easily set you back another €500. Playing on a keyboard is a pain at best, although a controller works fine.

Personally I'm waiting on comparitive reviews of the Rift and the Vive upon release (from multiple trusted sources), before I replace my Rift Dev2.0 with the higher quality production model. But my preference is the Oculus.

 

[delericho]

I can't see it catching on, for the same reason 3D TV didn't - people don't generally want to wear some clunky and uncomfortable headgear in order to watch TV. Add to that the need to have an expensive headset for each person, rather than a single screen for everyone, and you've got a losing proposition.

 

[Kramodlog]

I've tried it at a museum expo. Great stuff that gives a whole new visual experience.

I can't see it going mainstream for TV/film watching. One head set per person instead of one TV for everyone? Nope. Plus I like to be able to see people's face when I make sarcastic remarks. Google's cardboard is an interesting concept. It turn your phone into a VR head set. It could make short vids accessable to the general public and make it more mainstream. But I can't see it more mainstream than that.

I do see gamers using it. Gaming is more of a solo thing and this actually adds to the gaming experience.

 

[Morrus]

I can't see it catching on, for the same reason 3D TV didn't - people don't generally want to wear some clunky and uncomfortable headgear in order to watch TV. Add to that the need to have an expensive headset for each person, rather than a single screen for everyone, and you've got a losing proposition.

I don't think watching TV is the expected usage - it's more for gaming, simulation, and training.

 

[delericho]

I don't think watching TV is the expected usage - it's more for gaming, simulation, and training.

The problem with gaming uses is that you need the software to drive it. But companies aren't going to write that software unless and until there's a user base to leverage - software's just too expensive to take the risk without. So just as we don't see much software written for use on a 3D-TV, I doubt we'll see much for a VR headset.

That would change, of course, if the hardware cost dropped significantly. The problem being that for that to happen it needs to go mass-market, and that means the software needs to exist. It's a chicken-and-egg problem.

 

[Cergorach]

I don't think watching TV is the expected usage - it's more for gaming, simulation, and training.

Pretty much this^^

Watching movies with it would be a side benefit for folks that already own the thing for the above. And even then... Chances are that your TV has a higher resolution (1080p or 4k) then what your VR headset has (it'll be 1080x1200 per eye and each eye sees the same thing from a slightly different perspective). The amount of movies that'll take advantage of 3D is minimum and quite expensive to boot.

Something that everyone seems to ignore is the pron market, it's expected that it'll drive VR just as it drove VHS, DVD, the Internet, HD, Full HD, 4k, etc. I can see everyone reacting indignant: "Not me!", well... Also not me, it must me the other guy/gal...

 

[Cergorach]

The problem with gaming uses is that you need the software to drive it. But companies aren't going to write that software unless and until there's a user base to leverage - software's just too expensive to take the risk without. So just as we don't see much software written for use on a 3D-TV, I doubt we'll see much for a VR headset.

You actually wrong on that account. The difference between TV and VR is that TV has always been a 2D medium, VR is using games, where 90% of current games are using 3D. Making the change to 3D is relatively easy compared to making 3D movies. Hell already a lot of games are supporting it, for the PS4 implementation already a lot of dedicated VR games are announced to be in development. There's even a couple of software applications that'll make normal 3D games work with VR, not the best implementation of course, but expect a LOT more content to be available. It's also a better investment, most movies are 90 minutes, most games are a lot longer then that, especially the type of games that can take advantage of this.

 

[delericho]

You actually wrong on that account. The difference between TV and VR is that TV has always been a 2D medium, VR is using games, where 90% of current games are using 3D.

And yet few are made for 3D TVs.

Making the change to 3D is relatively easy compared to making 3D movies.

The difference is that 3D movies are made for the cinema market. The 3D blu-rays are just a happy byproduct of that process. And yet, despite being heavily subsidised in that way, they still haven't taken off.

Unless the games arcade makes a comeback, VR headsets won't have the same advantage.

Hell already a lot of games are supporting it, for the PS4 implementation already a lot of dedicated VR games are announced to be in development.

Yep. There will be lots of fancy demos. That doesn't mean it will translate into home users.