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

We won't know unless there's a G3D poll. [hint hint] 🙂

I've only tried VR on the GearVR so limited content and quality but it was definitely a great experience. The issue is it's not comfortable after quite a short time, but I also hate wearing headphones. Also, it's not something i think anyone is interested in, certainly not anyone I know. Lots were into 3D and look how that went.

Its always great for the first few hours. Then IMO it doesn't matter if you have a Vive, Rift, GearVR, or even Google cardboard. They all let you experience what "the big deal" is for awhile, and then the novelty wears off.

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

Thanks; it's nice to know it's possible for me to use one even though my interest is fairly limited at the moment.

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.

I believe the bandwidth requirements are way too high for #1. Agreed on the second point. I don't think it's very likely old games will/would get support though.

I agree with Gabe and the comments I've read so far. I have a Vive and it's been a worthwhile expenditure for me, but then my interest is not VR games from traditional game genres. It's more arts, educational exploration, trippy freaky fun, and otherworldly experiences with or without builtin gameplay. There's always new stuff coming through. The price would be very prohibitive for many, and although the cost of the headset was OK with me, I'd would never have purchased a Vive had I not a high-end gaming PC to begin with. There are some things that negate from my VR experiences. 1) Lack of comfort. The headset is far too heavy and either pulls down on or into the face. 2) The tether is a health and safety hazard. I'm waiting on HTC's own wireless module. 3) The low FOV and even then much blurriness can be seen the farther away the eyes are focused from the mid-point. 4) I can see the pixels. It's like looking into a 1280x1024 res CRT monitor from a couple of feet away. 5) The halo effect from large bright areas and objects due to the Fresnel lenses. 6) The almost complete lack of mGPU support in VR software. I could be getting a constant 90 FPS with all software capable of rendering visually impressive scenes had it mGPU support. Lucky I don't get motion sickness, otherwise this headset would be busily gathering dust until a fix came along.

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.

I have to agree. If intel did not have HT in Pentium 4, it would not succeed with those i3s/i7s. Even if one or two generations of technology fail, there are still lessons learned and there will be software base from the past for next attempt.

3D is the worst comparison you could ever make. One of these technologies is the future of games. The other no one gives a **** about and is in reality just some small niche that may as well be replaced by VR. I really don't see how people cannot look ten or twenty years into the future. VR is the future people. It's pretty obvious at this point we just don't have the tech to impress people. Helmet or not if you can get a Skyrim or GTA experience with photorealistic graphics in VR for a decent price it would sell bonkers. We are ten years from that in my estimation. So in that timeframe I think is where it will take off.

You may be right that VR is future, but rest is just errors. VR is that niche as there is no content. Stereoscopic 3D can be successfully used on any 3D game and it enriches it. From Half-Life 1, over Lara Croft and Guardian of Light (isometric), to War Thunder, any can be played on 3D screen. There is no method allowing to do same for VR headsets. None of conversion softwares does take VR input and moves Viewport angle instead of Mouse Input. And while most games tolerate 3D monitor community, this free Viewport manipulation would be considered as hack by many. - - - - So note: "if you can get a Skyrim or GTA experience with photorealistic graphics in VR for a decent price it would sell bonkers." It would sell no more copies than there are headsets. That's pretty poor number in comparison to sales of games made for regular screen, which does not prevent people with 3D screens to play it in stereoscopic 3D. I love 3D, but there is no content to guarantee this price VR comes at now. And that in return decreases incentive to make that 3D content. All those who made those VR headsets are ones responsible for slow progress. At time VR become price and content viable, it will have 1920x2160 per eye, and AdaptiveSync will be there as standard.

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

I suspect if we had a poll here at G3D, the adoption rate of VR is still pretty weak, even in a place filled with gadget nerds running cutting edge PCs. While the idea of VR is awesome, I personally am not excited about wearing some junk on my head all the time. Give me a Star Trek holodeck.

VR/AR is a guaranteed market imo. For the short term some seem to be focusing on mobile. They are already working on full inside out tracking with tetherless mobile VR. This is not a 3dtv thing and in my opinion when someone makes that comparison their opinion on VR/AR is pretty much useless. Anyone who has gone and seen a 3d movie or 3d tv/game knows its not transformative. VR/AR changes the experience and what can be done completely. Playing Resident Evil 7 in PSVR is insane and that is the first real "AAA" game to have full on VR. The current state of VR compared to the "ceiling" it could hit is just nowhere near 3dtv's. The pinnacle of 3dtv's would be something not requiring glasses and works for multiple viewers/angles so the ceiling for 3dtv is close to what we have now and wouldn't be a big difference other than more convenience. The biggest things we need right now in VR are resolution increase and the ability to utilize light field captures. If/when they can film a basketball game or concert or what have you with light field displays tech. The difference between watching the game on tv (or in 3d cause its the equivalent to vr somehow...) and "being there" in VR would be enormous. Edit: Ohya and why was my post about porn ignored? The porn is so great, that right there is good enough to keep VR alive and improving.

While the idea of VR is awesome, I personally am not excited about wearing some junk on my head all the time. Give me a Star Trek holodeck.

What if the "junk" becomes somewhat similar to wearing a pair of sunglasses?

I vote for holodeck.

People care even less about VR than they do about 3D, and one of the reasons people didn't adopt VR was because wearing 3D Glasses put them off. If that is all it takes, then VR has no chance. It could never be similar to sunglasses as it has to block out everything other than on the screens in the headset. It's weird as on one hand i found VR to be a great experience, but on the other it did not make me want to invest any money in it, and i would rather keep my money improve the 2D experience.

Its so funny.. You can tell the people that have never used it from the people that own it. Its not a gimmick! Its really cool. Stop with the low resolution crap, you kids are spoiled! 4k this 4k that! Its in its infancy, just like video games were back in the 80's - 90's. You didn't start out with a PS4, you had Pong! Give me a break! Nothing but whiny, entitled, spoiled kids posting. Most of these kids can't afford VR so its automatically a gimmick.. Or they heard something bad about it, so it sucks. It does need a killer AAA game. But its no different than anything else. PS4,Xbone, Atari 2600. You need good games. VR will get there, but people have to give it a chance instead of whining about it. Just sayin..

Being really cool doesn't stop it from being a gimmick though, if anything that is usually the first sign of one. Everybody i showed it to thought it was really cool, but were put off at having to wear a headset, so how do they get past that barrier? I don't think a killer AAA game has anything to do with it, i can't see how that would make a single bit of difference. Unless you mean making COD/BF/Fifa /GTA all VR only games. Also, broke kids need to stop being spoiled kids???

I think the main issue with VR is you can't walk around. Some people get motion sickness if you use the controller to walk, hence the teleportation. Right now, unless they come up with a way to have real movement, your essentially stuck with wave shooters. I don't think its a gimmick, I think its just in its infancy. What they need to do is bring back a full space shooter like Xwing. I don't mean a tech demo or half baked, I mean a real Xwing game and you can use the Vive controller as the stick. It needs RTS games also. Valve had some really good tech demo games, but they need to expand on those and add much more depth. They need to cater to what works, what game types work best then make it happen. Some company need to come out with a game that is the gold standard for VR.

The main issue is that people are lazy and wouldn't want to walk around anyway, most gamers can't even be bothered to learn mouse/kb as it's not a control scheme you can use while vegging on the couch. How do you convince those people? I agree a space shooter would be such a perfect fit as the control scheme needs zero modification, and VR is a perfect for looking around the cockpit. Star Citizen is also proof that a game like that can have a large appeal, it can't just be specific genres if it doesn't eventually get dismissed. The ability to mimic large (2D or 3D) cinema size screens was something i thought might appeal to some.

Still today could care any more less for VR for the following reasons: Too expensive, heavy neck cramper, uncomfortable, no intuitive to mass audience, nauseating due to low refresh for many, no killer apps, no incentive to use it enough to justify the price. It simply is not refined to the point of usable for MOST people yet. VR hardware should be sold at COST like a console and funded by software licensing to get it off the ground. RAZOR and Blade analogy. When someone finally gets the VR or even AR tech out for dirt cheap and standardized like VHS vs BETA, MD vs CD, HD vs FHD, then it will finally be worth having like a gaming mouse or light up KB to enhance daily use. Until then, current VR tech will be going the way of the Pentium 4.

You guys just hit on some really good points. I don't know if I would call it laziness, so much as being a pain to drag it out , hook it up, fire up a game, move furniture out of the way. That's what I had to do anyhow. After working all day, the last thing I wanted to do, even tho I really liked it, was to drag that thing out. I just sold it last week being as I never used it. I did really like it tho. If there were a few killer games that made me want to put it on, I'd do it. its definitely a niche' product, but its early still. I have faith it will get cheaper and better in a few yrs. I think Valve is the company that will come out with the Gold standard game. If they did a portal game using the Vive, that would be sick!

Still today could care any more less for VR for the following reasons: Too expensive, heavy neck cramper, uncomfortable, no intuitive to mass audience, nauseating due to low refresh for many, no killer apps, no incentive to use it enough to justify the price. It simply is not refined to the point of usable for MOST people yet. VR hardware should be sold at COST like a console and funded by software licensing to get it off the ground. RAZOR and Blade analogy. When someone finally gets the VR or even AR tech out for dirt cheap and standardized like VHS vs BETA, MD vs CD, HD vs FHD, then it will finally be worth having like a gaming mouse or light up KB to enhance daily use. Until then, current VR tech will be going the way of the Pentium 4.

All tech starts somewhere and continues on a path. Most posts in here are trying to say its a failed gimmick that is going away. It's not though, it's a great piece of tech that is going to be expanded on and refined. To your point about going the way of the pentium 4. Everything is going the way of the pentium 4, technology gets better and we look at the old and laugh at its primitive nature. So VR/AR wont fail and isn't failing, its just working its way to a larger and larger market. If that even takes 20-30 years to be almost of the level of televisions in homes then that is an extremely short period of time.

I agree.

People aren't being negative just for the sake of it though, it doesn't have 20-30 years to be refined. It either takes on quick or it will be dropped just as quick, as that is the world we now live in. They have to find a way to make it appeal to everyone or it will go away. Saying "well i like it, and it's a great piece of tech" convinces no one.