Official VR Headset discussion

[bill dennison]

the price has always been between 300-400
And yes I would spend that

The games will cost as any other pc games. Dont understand why anyone would think otherwise...

think I remember was to be under 350 max, but I never thought it would be under 500+ then or now

[Mangler]

Will be interesting to see how the hmd wars turns out, things could get ugly if every headset will have exclusive titles.

[logical]

I don't see any future for VR unless standard PC games can also be played in VR. It's not going to work just to have stand alone VR games.

But... I'm willing to pay pretty much whatever the cost (within reason), provided the experience is good.

I could have sworn I posted this about in this thread but I guess not. I dont see Oculus getting super popular or anything more than a niche just because the barrier of entry to use one properly is too high. 300-400 bucks for the OcRift kit itself self and then another probably at least 500-600 dollar computer system at the very least to get it running. Then you actually need to buy the games that are actually supported by it. Thats 1k just to get into the door.

Back when the Original Wii came out it sold in droves because it had a gimmick(waggle motion sticks) like Oculus Does(VR) but the difference here is that grandma and grandpa can go into best buy and walk out with a box that had everything they needed to play for 300. All they had to do was go home and plug it in. Most people are going to see the price you are going to need to use the thing and just skip over it.

The novelty of it will wear off quick as well. Putting something on your head will get old fast. Its something that is very cool when you experience it for the first time but if you had to put it on every time you wanted to play a game it becomes annoying even with the added experience it provides.

Ive used morpheus, oculus and samsung gear and I still dont want to purchase any of them.

The interesting thing is what Mangler alluded to is the exclusivity of games on systems that will come with this inevitably. No Mans Sky seems to have been a victim of this already so we'll see how it goes.

[Omega53]

Will be interesting to see how the hmd wars turns out, things could get ugly if every headset will have exclusive titles.

Just like every new technology, everyone will be pushing their standards to start and eventually 1 (sometimes 2) will win out. Early adopters usually get burned as I'll list some examples below.

Gfx cards: Glide vs DirectX vs OpenGL - DirectX eventually won out
Sounds cards: EAX vs directX vs a3d - Windows won by forcing software sound
HD movies: BluRay vs HDDVD - BluRay won
Cells/Tablets/Streaming boxes : Android vs IOS vs Windows - Windows basically lost
Connectivity: USB vs Thunderbolt vs Firewire- USB 99% of the time

I could keep going on forever. The point is eventually 1 company will win out and everyone will have to follow suit. For those on the losing side, their equipment will eventually become a paperweight

[Nagorak]

You will need games designed for VR. You'll puke if it isn't. I suppose you can expect AAA game to support it.

They need to be designed with VR in mind, I'll grant you that. But, I don't believe they should need to be designed from the ground up to only work in VR. There are plenty of demos and articles about people's experiences playing normal 3D games with a VR headset. The issue is that there's no way that VR is going to be big enough, especially not at first, to support games that are made only for VR. And as amazing as the technology may be, if there's nothing worth playing, then what is the point?

Sounds cards: EAX vs directX vs a3d - Windows won by forcing software sound

More like we all lost on that one.

[monkeydust]

I bought a Google Cardboard earlier in the week for my iPhone 6. It is really fun to play with for a while but when your done with the handful of demos (certainly wouldn't call them games) available, there's not much of a point to pick it up again.

I know it's really not an apples to apples comparison, but there has to be a much more compelling reason to buy one of these expensive units than to play a handful of cool tech demos.

[OzzieBloke]

I bought a Google Cardboard earlier in the week for my iPhone 6. It is really fun to play with for a while but when your done with the handful of demos (certainly wouldn't call them games) available, there's not much of a point to pick it up again.

I know it's really not an apples to apples comparison, but there has to be a much more compelling reason to buy one of these expensive units than to play a handful of cool tech demos.

Indeed. There needs to be a HEAP of support from the software side of things.

I'm still hanging out to play Alien on the Rift though.

[monkeydust]

Does anybody know if the Oculus will have support spatial gaming like the HTC Vive does with its 15'x15' gaming area due to its Lighthouse system? I know this is something that won't be available on release but I'd hate to spend that kind of money on a device that will not be upgraded to have the same kind of capability as the HTC Vive which makes it more compelling than the competitors.

[badboy]

I could have sworn I posted this about in this thread but I guess not. I dont see Oculus getting super popular or anything more than a niche just because the barrier of entry to use one properly is too high. 300-400 bucks for the OcRift kit itself self and then another probably at least 500-600 dollar computer system at the very least to get it running. Then you actually need to buy the games that are actually supported by it. Thats 1k just to get into the door.

Back when the Original Wii came out it sold in droves because it had a gimmick(waggle motion sticks) like Oculus Does(VR) but the difference here is that grandma and grandpa can go into best buy and walk out with a box that had everything they needed to play for 300. All they had to do was go home and plug it in. Most people are going to see the price you are going to need to use the thing and just skip over it.

The novelty of it will wear off quick as well. Putting something on your head will get old fast. Its something that is very cool when you experience it for the first time but if you had to put it on every time you wanted to play a game it becomes annoying even with the added experience it provides.

Ive used morpheus, oculus and samsung gear and I still dont want to purchase any of them.

The interesting thing is what Mangler alluded to is the exclusivity of games on systems that will come with this inevitably. No Mans Sky seems to have been a victim of this already so we'll see how it goes.

It wont be super popular overnight. No one believes that. Even oculus said it will take 10 years or something for VR to catch on.
But you need to start somewhere and VR/AR is the future.
Saying this is a gimmick is the same as the old folks said internet or TV was a gimmick

[logical]

It is a gimmick and this is the 2nd go around for VR.

[Cream]

I could have sworn I posted this about in this thread but I guess not. I dont see Oculus getting super popular or anything more than a niche just because the barrier of entry to use one properly is too high. 300-400 bucks for the OcRift kit itself self and then another probably at least 500-600 dollar computer system at the very least to get it running. Then you actually need to buy the games that are actually supported by it. Thats 1k just to get into the door.

Why? Do you not own a P.C.?

$300-$400 for the OcRift. It not what you would call aimed at the casual P.C. user. It's for hard core gamers. Going off the price of graphics cards, we will pay just about anything to get out latest fix. Personally thought it was a bargain at that price range. IF the experience is convincing.

[logical]

I obviously own a PC and a fairly high end one at that. But the point is high end gaming PCs are niche and not many people have them. OcRifts cost of entry is too high if you dont have a mid to high end PC sitting around. At the very least if you have a capable PC sitting around youre going to have to pick up a 970(still a 300 dollar card) to get this thing off the ground.

People are expecting this to be the second coming of gaming when it will not even get close to that. It has to be widely popular and successful to be positioned where they want it. Sure they will sell thousands of them but I dont see them breaking into the millions of units sold. Hopefully they release sales numbers their first year so we can see where it landed in terms of mainstream.

[badboy]

It is a gimmick and this is the 2nd go around for VR.

and this is the first attempt at TV 1929:



fricking gimmick!

[OzzieBloke]

I obviously own a PC and a fairly high end one at that. But the point is high end gaming PCs are niche and not many people have them. OcRifts cost of entry is too high if you dont have a mid to high end PC sitting around. At the very least if you have a capable PC sitting around youre going to have to pick up a 970(still a 300 dollar card) to get this thing off the ground.

People are expecting this to be the second coming of gaming when it will not even get close to that. It has to be widely popular and successful to be positioned where they want it. Sure they will sell thousands of them but I dont see them breaking into the millions of units sold. Hopefully they release sales numbers their first year so we can see where it landed in terms of mainstream.

I agree somewhat with this... but it won't take long for a PC powerful enough to run OcRift appropriately to come down in price to make it more accessible. If OcRift can get the hardcore people first (several thousand units), that will give them time to let PC hardware to come down in price to where the rest of folks may decide to join in.

But there's also choices, with Vive, etc, so we just have to watch and see how it all plays out.

[Nagorak]

I think the Virtuix Omni has already had several thousand pre-orders and there isn't even a finished product, nor a finished headset to use it with. There's a lot of interest in VR.

Making the distinction that the headsets won't sell millions of copies is ridiculous. It's obviously true, but hardly important for VR to start to get established.

In the end it still all comes back to games. Mainstream titles need to offer support for VR headsets or it's probably not going to catch on. The market for full VR games is going to be too small to support true AAA titles. Games will need to be designed to work with VR but also run on a normal monitor/television. This is why I favor the Vive, because they are partnered with Valve, which suggests they'll at least have access to a few solid games. Being able to play L4D in VR, I'd say would be well worth the price alone.

In any case, we'll see soon enough. Maybe the whole thing ends up being a bust, but I am cautiously optimistic.

[noko]

2016 will be a very interesting year but 2017 will have some significant hardware capable of running VR at a rather low cost. I am thinking of Zen APU's with dedicated HBM2 ram, bandwidth more capable then todays fastest GPU memory speed Furry X2 plus fastest CPU setup 5960x with fastest quad channel memory installed. Probably 2017 will be the first year where APU's are considered gaming solutions.

The other advantage of a super fast APU is how fast the CPU/GPU can communicate to each other, which for VR can only help. Maybe a long time to wait but the stew is heating up.

[OzzieBloke]

Maybe a long time to wait but the stew is heating up.

And we all know stew and spaghetti sauce always tastes better the following day

[Kain]

How do VR headsets work for people who wear glasses?

[OzzieBloke]

How do VR headsets work for people who wear glasses?

Slightly reduced field of view, apparently, for the few videos I've watching.

Personally, I've gotten back into wearing contacts to overcome this problems. Contact lens tech has come a long way, hell of a lot more comfortable than when I first tried them 15 years ago. I just use daily disposables on the weekend, and will pop them in when I want to VR.

[SirBaron]

I've always been confused and also too lazy to look this up.

I have perfect short range vision, and only wear glasses for far distance i.e. Driving etc, or if I want to be able to focus on objects more than 10meters without losing detail .

Seeing as the screen will be like 10cm from my eyes will I even need to wear glasses?

Surely not as 3D doesn't automatically make me go blind when I play with 3D vision.

[Nagorak]

I think you're right about that. Regardless of the illusion of distant vision that VR is providing, the screen itself is very close to our eyes. Since what our eyes are actually focusing on is right up close, those of us who are nearsighted shouldn't have a problem. In fact, being nearsighted may actually be an advantage in terms of eye fatigue. The people who you'd expect to have difficulty are those who are farsighted.

[OzzieBloke]

I think you're right about that. Regardless of the illusion of distant vision that VR is providing, the screen itself is very close to our eyes. Since what our eyes are actually focusing on is right up close, those of us who are nearsighted shouldn't have a problem. In fact, being nearsighted may actually be an advantage in terms of eye fatigue. The people who you'd expect to have difficulty are those who are farsighted.

Pretty sure you're wrong there. The optics are designed to put the focal point about half a meter to a meter ahead of you, despite the screen being only 10cm from your eyes. Unless you have adjustable optics on the device (which so far OC doesn't), short-sighted people are worse off in VR than long-sighted people.

[YellowBeard]

If you need glasses to see distant stuff you still need them with the Rift. They said that one of the lenses would help alleviate that, but I didn't notice it. I still have to wear a pair of glasses while using the Rift and it's cumbersome. Especially needing to have frames that will fit in the thing. Probably the major reason I don't use it as much as I could. Hopefully it'll be something they address by the time the consumer version comes out. (Not meaning that having a set of lens in there being a fix all, but making the thing more comfortable to wear while wearing glasses.)

[Nagorak]

Pretty sure you're wrong there. The optics are designed to put the focal point about half a meter to a meter ahead of you, despite the screen being only 10cm from your eyes. Unless you have adjustable optics on the device (which so far OC doesn't), short-sighted people are worse off in VR than long-sighted people.

I guess I don't understand how the device works then. Does it have some sort of lenses built into it? If so, then that makes sense that it could still have a focal point out front of you. Come to think of it, it's probably hard to actually focus on something that close at all, so it would make sense if there is some sort of lens added in to help.

Either way, it makes little difference to me as once I started wearing contacts I never went back.

Seriously, anyone who wears glasses and hasn't tried contacts, I strongly recommend giving it a shot. In my experience, it's not actually as hard as you may think. I had trouble putting them in for maybe the first month or so, and after that it was no problem. I never have noticed them once they are in. I know some people have trouble with them irritating their eyes, but you can't know that will be you until you try, or whether you'll be like me and not even feel them.

[OzzieBloke]

I guess I don't understand how the device works then. Does it have some sort of lenses built into it? If so, then that makes sense that it could still have a focal point out front of you. Come to think of it, it's probably hard to actually focus on something that close at all, so it would make sense if there is some sort of lens added in to help.

Either way, it makes little difference to me as once I started wearing contacts I never went back.

Seriously, anyone who wears glasses and hasn't tried contacts, I strongly recommend giving it a shot. In my experience, it's not actually as hard as you may think. I had trouble putting them in for maybe the first month or so, and after that it was no problem. I never have noticed them once they are in. I know some people have trouble with them irritating their eyes, but you can't know that will be you until you try, or whether you'll be like me and not even feel them.

I second the contacts. Tried them 15 years ago, and they sucked. But the ones I tried a month ago are fantastic, took me perhaps three or four goes to get used to getting them in and out, are super-light and comfortable, and work just as well as my glasses do.

[SirBaron]

Pretty sure you're wrong there. The optics are designed to put the focal point about half a meter to a meter ahead of you, despite the screen being only 10cm from your eyes. Unless you have adjustable optics on the device (which so far OC doesn't), short-sighted people are worse off in VR than long-sighted people.

Well I should be ok then my eyes are not that bad that I can't see 1 meter infront of me .

Also last time I tried to get contacts got told I can't because my eyes don't get enough oxygen or some crap.

[badboy]

Well I should be ok then my eyes are not that bad that I can't see 1 meter infront of me .

Also last time I tried to get contacts got told I can't because my eyes don't get enough oxygen or some crap.

You should be able to wear the new kinds of contacts that get much more oxygen to your eyes. Likes these http://coopervision.com/contact-lens...inity-contacts

[YellowBeard]

I guess I don't understand how the device works then. Does it have some sort of lenses built into it? If so, then that makes sense that it could still have a focal point out front of you. Come to think of it, it's probably hard to actually focus on something that close at all, so it would make sense if there is some sort of lens added in to help.

Either way, it makes little difference to me as once I started wearing contacts I never went back.

Seriously, anyone who wears glasses and hasn't tried contacts, I strongly recommend giving it a shot. In my experience, it's not actually as hard as you may think. I had trouble putting them in for maybe the first month or so, and after that it was no problem. I never have noticed them once they are in. I know some people have trouble with them irritating their eyes, but you can't know that will be you until you try, or whether you'll be like me and not even feel them.

I second the contacts. Tried them 15 years ago, and they sucked. But the ones I tried a month ago are fantastic, took me perhaps three or four goes to get used to getting them in and out, are super-light and comfortable, and work just as well as my glasses do.

I really should try again. Tried them about 10+ years back and I just couldn't get with the "touching the eyeball" thing. Might have to give them another go once my insurance wants to pay out again. I'd feel weird not having frames though. Been wearing them for way too many years.

[Exposed]

Pretty sure you're wrong there. The optics are designed to put the focal point about half a meter to a meter ahead of you, despite the screen being only 10cm from your eyes. Unless you have adjustable optics on the device (which so far OC doesn't), short-sighted people are worse off in VR than long-sighted people.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong here also. The focal point is an illusion, the light being emitted and image picked up by your eye is still just a few centimeters away (actual focus), not a few feet away (apparent focus). The difference is called decoupling and each person is sensitive to how much degree of decoupling they can handle. This should not affect near sighted people at all.

Occulus rift and other VR is no different than the old style 3D viewers, which didn't affect near sighted people at all. Did you think near sighted people saw only fuzzy images when viewing "Thriller" in this? I'm nearsighted (-1.75, not sure if that's good or bad) and never had a problem with viewmasters growing up, though I haven't personally tried the occulus rift yet.

[OzzieBloke]

I'm pretty sure you're wrong here also. The focal point is an illusion, the light being emitted and image picked up by your eye is still just a few centimeters away (actual focus), not a few feet away (apparent focus). The difference is called decoupling and each person is sensitive to how much degree of decoupling they can handle. This should not affect near sighted people at all.

Occulus rift and other VR is no different than the old style 3D viewers, which didn't affect near sighted people at all. Did you think near sighted people saw only fuzzy images when viewing "Thriller" in this? I'm nearsighted (-1.75, not sure if that's good or bad) and never had a problem with viewmasters growing up, though I haven't personally tried the occulus rift yet.

I don't think you quite grasp what the effect of the optics are when it comes to system: The apparent focal distance is the only one that matters because that's the one the optics emulate; the actual focal distance is meaningless when optics change it.

-1.75 is probably within your ability to adapt somewhat to a focal distance only half a meter away from you, which the old Viewmasters had their apparent focal distance at. I'm a -4.0. Anything beyond 15cm from my eyes is blurred. My friend Dave is even worse at -7.5. Images in a Viewmaster for me are blurry without my glasses. It'd be the same with the Rift.

[jolle]

I know the DK2 came with 2 pairs of lenses, A for normal and B for near sighted.
So presumably the consumer version will have options to tackle that stuff aswell.

[DarkFoss]

I'm curious if anyone that have used any of the vr devices experienced any of the balance issues touched on by this article?

http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/will-the-new-vr-gear-trip-up-older-gamers/

[logical]

I'm curious if anyone that have used any of the vr devices experienced any of the balance issues touched on by this article?
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/...-older-gamers/

Ive used PS VR, OR, and Samsung Gear and havent experienced any of that stuff. I think it just varies from person to person.

[OzzieBloke]

Ive used PS VR, OR, and Samsung Gear and havent experienced any of that stuff. I think it just varies from person to person.

I did a really rough test using my tablet (which has horrible 1/2 second lag when I move around) and I got dizzy and nauseous really quickly because what I saw was not correlating with what a felt.

As long as latency is low enough on the visuals, it shouldn't be a problem.

[Kain]

Do you guys think VR could "lessen the need" for good gaming monitors if it takes off well and more games support it? If VR is a success, any point in getting fancy 21:9 monitors for gaming?

[BababooeyHTJ]

Do you guys think VR could "lessen the need" for good gaming monitors if it takes off well and more games support it? If VR is a success, any point in getting fancy 21:9 monitors for gaming?

I don't think that vr is going to take the place of monitors.

I had a 3d vision display. I know that we're going to have to rely on developer support. That's going to be touch and go. Quality is also going to vary.

No way is it going to be the go to for the competitive crowd.

There are also quite a few types of games that may not be ideal for vr imo

[noko]

Do you guys think VR could "lessen the need" for good gaming monitors if it takes off well and more games support it? If VR is a success, any point in getting fancy 21:9 monitors for gaming?

I think that depends on the person, games available as well as controls that work well with being blinded by the visor on your head.

I do believe for this to really take off there is going to have to be some very serious investment on behalf of the makers of VR equipment. As an example Microsoft lost literally billions of dollars on the Xbox and Xbox 360 before it turned around for them to get into the console business.

VR I do not expect to take off overnight - it will be years before either it dies or starts to really take off. How serious are the players, how deep their pockets and how good is the experience all comes into play. As a note, anything new you will have naysayers to no end - that too has to be overcome before a general negative consensus takes hold.

So for gaming monitors - I say yes a very good need for them yet, as for 21:9 monitor .

[OzzieBloke]

Yep, monitors will not be so easily replaced. Especially with the problems with needing to see hands for typing and so-forth, even with tech present that puts your hands in the virtual world.

[Cream]

Looks amazing
[yt]NH5nUqttW6M[/yt]

Sub £400 and I'll be getting one immediately.

[noko]

For VR that has to be the most optimized type situation for DK2; Race car and flight simulators. For the race car the VR headset is similar to a helmet. Looks impressive indeed.