This doesn't surprise me - Oculus has been losing attention ever since Facebook got involved. They gave a firm slap to the face to many of the original backers, they remained too proprietary, and they eventually intend to move away from gaming in order to focus on more social aspects (which is relatively boring and could have easily be done via much cheaper platforms such as Google Cardboard). The $400 price tag is very nice, but for me personally, my ship has sailed.

the occulus was uncomfortable to me. I have a smaller nose i could never reduce the gap completely, it was very distracting. the screen door effect was pretty bad as well, needs higher res... VR has potential but where it fails is in the human interface, its just not perfected yet.

the occulus was uncomfortable to me. I have a smaller nose i could never reduce the gap completely, it was very distracting. the screen door effect was pretty bad as well, needs higher res... VR has potential but where it fails is in the human interface, its just not perfected yet.

Out of curiosity, which model did you try? I have an OSVR 1.3, which has a 1080p display and as a result also has the screen door effect. I'm open to the idea of upgrading the display but currently 2K options are the only ones, and I don't feel confident that's enough of an increase in pixel density. I figure the experience would be much better with 4k. My unit was also a bit uncomfortable, but at least that lets you change the face pads (not sure if alternative HMDs do). I replaced mine with bicycle helmet pads - very comfortable, though it looks weird.

Like I posted elsewhere - not too surprising, they are still trying to sell this dead horse. Let it end soon.

Facebook was always the deal breaker for me where Occulus is concerned, I wouldn't even take one for free, F**k Disgracebook 🙂

So, after summer, Oculus Rift 2 will be here. Or it is going under. There are rarely other reasons for high discounts which are 'temporary'. Anyway. When we get wireless Vive 2 with adaptive sync, there may finally be few games to play. No reason to get VR for tech demos.

Only reason I'm remotely interested is pCARS VR. Still not gonna get it with such a low resolution.

Good to see prices are dropping, but i'll wait for the next gen, preferably wireless solutions, also that pixel density...it needs to be doubled at least, main reason why i returned my Vive. Other than that no complaints.

Good to see prices are dropping, but i'll wait for the next gen, preferably wireless solutions, also that pixel density...it needs to be doubled at least, main reason why i returned my Vive. Other than that no complaints.

Well, that answers my previous question anyway. I guess now I definitely will wait for 4K HMDs. Unfortunately, using 4K also means relatively low frame rates 90FPS is a lot better for nausea than 60FPS, but its hard to achieve framerates that high when you have AA on, which helps a lot for VR. I agree wireless would make for a big leap forward, but unfortunately they are bound to cause latency issues. Maybe utilizing something like 802.11ad could help with that. That wifi spec seems to perform poorly through walls, but I don't think most VR users are going to be walking between rooms anyway. EDIT: If VR were more polished, I would look into making a VR-capable backpack, kind of like what MSI did. But, the technology is still a bit too young for the time being.

I still use my CV1 everyday, I bought some wrist weights which I wear with the oculus touch, really helped to build my arms up, I mostly play games like Ripcoil and Robo Recall, I find using the wrist weights along with the touch makes it feel more like i'm holding a real gun and as much as I dislike Facebook I think the Oculus is a great device for early adopters, it's a massive improvement over the development kits but yeah as soon as the CV2 comes out i'll be upgrading, the main thing I want to see is a wireless version and obviously a higher resolution but they really need to focus on the wireless over everything else. And as far as people hoping VR is going to die out, I think that's just a stupid negative response.

And this is how using this device every day presbyopia starts earlier than expected. Not for me.

And this is how using this device every day presbyopia starts earlier than expected. Not for me.

I never heard of this and considering VR is so new I can't imagine there would be that many longterm studies on the effects of VR and presbyopia, but I do remember reading a study a few years ago when sterescopic 3D was taking off and they claimed that it helped to improved vision and there was one guy who suffered from stereoblindness who actually cured himself by using a sterescopic device, time will tell I guess but I don't use it 24/7 so i'm not too worried, I use it a few hours a day and my eye sight hasn't changed.

And this is how using this device every day presbyopia starts earlier than expected. Not for me.

Literally unsourced speculation. The cause is not known but thought to be linked to ageing.

Literally unsourced speculation. The cause is not known but thought to be linked to ageing.

It is (linked to age), but i also read that forcing your eyes too often a day to focus on a close object or (for us) a displays, helps vision lowering. For me the problem would be to be so immersed that i would use it a day more than reasonable. I leave it to others though i will surely follow the technology improvements.

This was just what i was wating for, i have really been enjoying the DK2 and some of those VR games over the last month, so i can take them to my local CEX and trade in for cash, and put that towards the price of this, which should mean i get this for about £250, sorted. Last week the headset alone would have cost you £599, this week, £399 with the touch controllers with are £99 to but alone, 2 sensors, a Xbox game pad, and six games......

I still use my CV1 everyday, I bought some wrist weights which I wear with the oculus touch, really helped to build my arms up, I mostly play games like Ripcoil and Robo Recall, I find using the wrist weights along with the touch makes it feel more like i'm holding a real gun and as much as I dislike Facebook I think the Oculus is a great device for early adopters, it's a massive improvement over the development kits but yeah as soon as the CV2 comes out i'll be upgrading, the main thing I want to see is a wireless version and obviously a higher resolution but they really need to focus on the wireless over everything else. And as far as people hoping VR is going to die out, I think that's just a stupid negative response.

After trying stuff like Titans 2.0, VR body and some of the educational stuff, i think VR is going to impact teaching in a big way over the next few years.

"Forcing" your eyes is a bit of an exaggeration, at least in my case, maybe it depends on the individuals sight, but when i played games, even for longer sessions (3-6 hours) i wouldn't feel my eyes tired at all, even when i first put the headeset on it felt natural. What did make me a bit light headed was when i messed with the settings and i started pulling sliders all over the place , but as the warnings said, more doesn't mean better in that case. A game i tried was WoW, that really messed me up after i fiddled with the settings(that damn HUD), but after i reset it to default it was fine(just fine) it still felt forced. Games specifically made for VR on the other hand, feel like you're there even with the low PPI. Really immersive, can't wait for the better displays to surface.

And as far as people hoping VR is going to die out, I think that's just a stupid negative response.

I wouldn't say I'm a "hater", but much like Kinect and the Wii, I think VR is a big distraction for the gaming industry. There are a bunch of obvious limitations for this technology, it's applications in gaming seem pretty limited, and it's taking attention and resources that could be used to make better game experiences. I don't think it's got a long term future, because it's a very limited product. So if it's not going to break wide the way touchscreen gaming did with the iPhone/iPad, I'd rather see it die ASAP so the resources can get back to supporting new and better ideas. Also, I get off on watching people's dreams get crushed because I'm a jerk. 🙂

I wouldn't say I'm a "hater", but much like Kinect and the Wii, I think VR is a big distraction for the gaming industry. There are a bunch of obvious limitations for this technology, it's applications in gaming seem pretty limited, and it's taking attention and resources that could be used to make better game experiences.

Kinect and Wii are a bit different - they have a very finite amount of gaming options. In VR, there is nothing stopping developers from making a game VR-compatible. In fact there are several games out there that never intended to have VR support but now do, or VR-compatible games that are sequel to games that never had VR. You're still able to use gamepads, y'know. Not all VR games require hand controllers. In other words, VR is capable of playing all existing games in addition to new ones that can't be played without a HMD and/or hand controllers. So no, VR is not by any means a distraction to the gaming industry, but rather is an optional enhancement. Also, what are the technological limitations? Right now the only thing VR really needs is more powerful GPUs and 4K displays. Existing models are a pretty solid proof-of-concept that show a lot of promise. Making them wireless will definitely help, but isn't a necessity.

I'd rather see it die ASAP so the resources can get back to supporting new and better ideas.

Do you not realize the hypocrisy in your statement? You want new and better IDEAS, yet you just shot down basically everything that strays from your comfort zone, whether that be keyboard+mouse, gamepads, or flat-screen displays with an ever-increasing refresh rate or resolution. So what else is there? Y'know what really hurts an industry? Stagnant innovation.

Lol perfect timing for me personally - I was looking to get a OSVR HDK2 this or next month, this obviously changes the choice to a Rift 🤓 😀 I can't wait to finally play all my Race sims in VR, or atleast Assetto and Pcars (and soon pCars 2). Honestly I don't care for the controllers that much although I will be trying a bunch of stuff out, but for me it's just to replace my TV with something better in my Sim-race-setup :banana: It's possibly the only thing that really works amazingly well with VR glasses (Race sims) - and beyond that I personally feel it's all hype (mostly). All in all great timing for this haha! Rift here I come! XD

Kinect and Wii are a bit different - they have a very finite amount of gaming options. In VR, there is nothing stopping developers from making a game VR-compatible. In fact there are several games out there that never intended to have VR support but now do, or VR-compatible games that are sequel to games that never had VR. You're still able to use gamepads, y'know. Not all VR games require hand controllers. In other words, VR is capable of playing all existing games in addition to new ones that can't be played without a HMD and/or hand controllers.

They can program anything they want obviously, but that doesn't mean it's satisfying to play. When I say "limited", I mean there are experiences that don't work in VR as well as they do on a traditional monitor. There's a reason most all the FPS games in VR are stand-in-place shooting galleries - having a first person camera move in VR while the user is sitting still makes some percentage of the player-base nauseous. It doesn't happen for everyone obviously, but if you're a developer, there's very little reason to potentially alienate a percentage of your audience by making them physically sick. Thus, competitive FPS games are unlikely to become a successful genre in VR. Think about fighting games - what's the value in VR there? How about smaller causal and downloadable games? How many people are going to put on a headset to play a twin stick shooter, or a match three puzzle game? Sure, VR modes could be added, but that doesn't mean it's going to be an optimal way to play those games. There's no reason popular iOS games couldn't translate to the PS4. Clash of Clans is huge on iOS, yet it's never come to consoles - why not? Similarly, League of Legends could come to consoles, but it hasn't. Just because something can be done, doesn't mean there will be a market there to support it. VR makes the most sense for cockpit games like racers and flight sims. First person games where you're using a teleport mechanic to move around the virtual space seem to work as well. These are the type of games that really play to the strengths of VR. Those are the show pieces that can sell the technology to new users. The problem is none of them are as popular as traditional games on 2D displays.

So no, VR is not by any means a distraction to the gaming industry, but rather is an optional enhancement.

If it's not going to develop enough momentum to become self-sustaining on the budget side, then it's a distraction because it's not sustainable over the long haul. The sales of VR have been bad enough that Oculus is in fire sale mode, and Vive has seen some hefty price cuts a couple of times. Software development for these platforms is largely being funded by investors and the revenue coming back on those investments has been very guarded, which means it's likely small. If VR was going to blow up and sell millions of millions of units, we would have seen a bigger ramp in the trend lines. If the investors who are backing this stuff don't have some solid evidence that the trend lines can ramp up in a big way, they'll move on - just like we saw with the Wii, the Kinect, 3D TVs, etc. In the game of chicken-and-egg, there has to be serious consumer interest to keep the cycle moving forward, and there's just not enough interest. Maybe if this were stand alone technology that were much cheaper and didn't have some uncomfortable side effects, the situation would be different.

Also, what are the technological limitations? Right now the only thing VR really needs is more powerful GPUs and 4K displays. Existing models are a pretty solid proof-of-concept that show a lot of promise. Making them wireless will definitely help, but isn't a necessity.

Two major limitations: 1. Headsets are bulky, and they can't slim them down to a pair of wrap around sunglasses. They have to have the bulky, expensive glass in the headsets to account for a spectrum of vision. Palmer talked about this when the price of Oculus was first announced. He was defending the price by saying the glass in the headset is more expensive and precise than the glass in an SLR camera lense. They might make the headsets more comfortable, but they're still going to be bulky. 2. VR will always need to be tied to an expensive GPU. It will always be an adder on top of the PC or a console. As graphics continue to advance, so will any development in VR gaming, which means ten years from now you'll still need a GTX 2080 or a PlayStation 6 to play that latest VR showpiece. The idea that VR can incubate on the back of these machines, and then break away into a stand-alone platform at some point has no logical development path.

Do you not realize the hypocrisy in your statement? You want new and better IDEAS, yet you just shot down basically everything that strays from your comfort zone, whether that be keyboard+mouse, gamepads, or flat-screen displays with an ever-increasing refresh rate or resolution. So what else is there? Y'know what really hurts an industry? Stagnant innovation.

There are different types of new ideas. New hardware ideas are not the same thing as new game mechanics. I get the idea that new approaches to hardware can drive innovation. I give VR an A for effort in this regard. But we're now a year into retail hardware sales. If it had something revolutionary to offer in terms of new game mechanics, we should have seen it by now.