OMG! Finally! Sane and wise words from industry professional! The question is - will he remain alone or will others join soon or at least in foreseeable future? I say it is already Time to start de-railing this hype-train!

for sure... as most of us are "entusiast" in G3D: how many of us use VR set??? :banana: lol

Well, VR content is pretty weak. It is sad truth. But cheaper prices would still bring more people. And then there would be bigger reason for game studios to make VR games. (Not that Vive needs 80% price cut. Getting it at around 40% cheaper would be enough, as that's price of very good gaming monitor.) Yes, VR can be used as PC monitor and play regular game on it. But vertigo in such scenario is real issue.

VR systems are still too big, awkward and expensive. We should go with the spinal plug system, like in Matrix

I never saw vr being really successful to me it's more of a gimmick than 3d tvs.

Too expensive right now for everything needed. My vision of vr doesn't require me to be tethered to any system. The situation is infact a dilemna right now because vr through a device like a mobile phone+headset+controllers would be perfect, except, they're not powerful enough for the experiences I want to see. I would like to be able to go to an empty outdoor space (e.g. football pitch) and experience vr gaming that way without the current restrictions inherent in using a PC to do the job. Nintendo might try something with the Switch, which would be closer to where I see it heading as a complete package (with head mount). Ultimately, though, I think it will remain as a niche product, unsuitable for long-term usage/play.

To me VR is a failed gimmick back when Nintendo tried to do it with the Virtual boy back in 1995. However the technology has improved since then but still a niche market and not too many people are going to ride that train. When I tried my sister's VR headset for her phone it was neat and all but really not my cup of tea. I feel that VR is more of a casual thing than a hardcore thing but paying several hundred dollars for a casual device isn't worth it. To me there were only two ways that VR wowed me. 1. Allowed a dying cancer patient to go on a vacation on last time. 2. Using it in the medical field as a simulation tool for certain kinds of difficult surgeries. I could see Nintendo trying again with VR via the switch because I can see them making it work because the technology is there however they need to be careful and gear it towards as a casual device. Also in my mind if they want to make VR more successful they need to make a headset more user friendly by making one big enough for those who wear glasses such as myself can wear it without taking off their glasses or resort to wearing contact lenses just to use it. I'm glad that Gabe is being careful with VR because VR could fail and fail in a big way.

I'll be laughing hard on my seat when the hype train finally derails.

The content is horribly lacking, it's expensive, and inaccessible. But it is the future VR whether or not anyone likes it and whether or not it fails horribly in this era. I don't know what's up with all of you hoping it fails. Just because it sucks now doesn't mean it's not the way forward.

Gabe, instead of mumbling make some games for a change.

VR is like Xbox´s kinect or Wi´s Remote, they are amazing for a very few things and useless for everything else...

The "industry" is the sole culprit of this VR fiasco.... Sell the headsets for $200 (which should still leave a reasonable profit margin), promote them as the "perfect" 3D monitor with "support" for VR and in 2 years most gamers would have one. With that much bigger user base game studios would invest in better titles. Once we have a couple big hits in vr, headeset makers can release v2 (or v3) at "premium" prices to milk the enthusiasts and fanboys for huge profits...

VR Porn is great (when the studio gets the scale and angles right). Porn has always been a driving factor in technology and honestly once they are able to start filming and displaying Light Field Display captures you would be able to move your position (move closer, further, side to side) and have a perfect scale and 3d representation of the porn stars. That's really all that matters here. If you can have a cheap vr headset and watch porn you have a successful industry. Also, for you cuks out there who just like to watch other people have sex. Why would you want to sit and watch a monitor/tv/phone when you could put on "glasses" and they would be right there in front of you? How can that fail when its only getting better (resolution, ppi, fps, etc)?

for sure... as most of us are "entusiast" in G3D: how many of us use VR set??? :banana: lol

I've considered getting one. Then I think about it more and realize I'd rather spend that kind of money other things :P. I believe wearing glasses also means I'd have issues with VR but, I haven't really looked into that?

I personally own an OSVR. It was only $300, and with a LEAP Motion you can substitute the lack of hand controllers. Even though I spent less than half than the competition, so far I'd say this wasn't worth the investment. But, I don't think it'll be crappy forever. I do think VR has a huge potential but it's getting a rough start. I would largely blame this on Facebook - the Oculus could have (and should have) been the main VR headset, but Facebook made too many changes that turned people off and the main release took too long, which resulted in a bunch of competitors all trying to create their own industry standards. Now it's just a fragmented mess where nobody has the time to really polish any one specific platform. There is great progress being made though. Even within 1 year there have been major improvements. SteamVR is supposed to be stable enough to have a Linux release soon and there are so many more contributors than there used to be. It seems that everybody has slowly agreed that SteamVR and OpenVR is what should be focused on; I'm seeing a lot fewer alternatives being pursued, so this will hopefully let VR gain some traction. EDIT: I don't think VR should get any cheaper for the time being. Considering it's stability and functionality, it isn't ready for the mass market. If the average person could afford a VR set the idea of it would fail for good, because too many people would make complaints and return their products, leaving businesses to think that it has no future. Enthusiasts tend to be more patient, and rich people have the money to find something else to do if they don't like the results (without feeling the need to return anything).

I've considered getting one. Then I think about it more and realize I'd rather spend that kind of money other things :P. I believe wearing glasses also means I'd have issues with VR but, I haven't really looked into that?

I wear glasses - you take them off when you put on a VR headset. Many headsets allow the focal point to be adjusted.

I think Newell is correct. This push for VR is primarily the manufacturers imposing some product on a market that doesn't exist. The quality of VR is also not there yet. I compare this to when the TV manufacturers tried to push 3D TV. A lot went into advertising. Not many people really wanted it. Not many people bought it. 10-15 years later (after the push by the manufacturers), there are still less than a handful of people I know with a 3D TV set in their households. On top of the lack of a large market for VR, I personally don't want to wear some bulky helmet for hours on end in order to play games. Where my view differs from Newell's is I don't think people want a VR experience, cheap or not, by which they have to wear some bulky piece of equipment on their heads.

But it is the future VR whether or not anyone likes it and whether or not it fails horribly in this era.

Depends on what you mean by that statement. VR offers a different thing than traditional display gaming. It might eventually offer enough of it's own unique content to become an independent segment of the market - much the way iOS established "mobile" gaming as an independent segment of the market. But there is no reason to think that VR will _replace_ the existing gaming market. Plenty of players (I'm chief among them) have zero interest in VR. I actively do not want a head-bucket system or motion wands. The idea that the industry would try to force us down that path seems really obtuse.

VR would offer a great package to replace multiple monitor for racing sim setups. A 170 degree or higher horizontal FOV plus high refresh rate would be required for me to be interested in one of these units. It could be packaged maybe with a similar weight and profile to a racing helmet.

I see 2 main reason why VR failed: 1) Is not wireless and that is same non sense as 10 kilo VR helmet in the past, it has to be ergonomic 2) Non old games support, if would VR just works with old games i would be in, even with some glitches, but without.. With no hardcore VR only new games, im not interested.