Edited 1 year, 8 months ago

Poll: Bold Prediction: VR-Goggles Going Mass Market Within the Next Two Years (70 votes)

Yes - Sony & Microsoft will push for VR-Goggles and succeed on the market 10%
Yes - Sony & Microsoft will push for VR-Goggles and fail on the market 1%
No - Sony & Microsoft will not push for VR-Goggles, but Oculus Rift will succeed in creating a niche market 56%
No - Sony & Microsoft will not push for VR-Goggles, and Oculus Rift will fail in the market 33%

In my estimate - John Carmack's push for VR-Goggles is but a prelude to the whole gaming industry following his lead.

Gaming is in dire need of a quantum leap akin to the transition form 2D sprites to 3D polygonal graphics. I think it's inevitably where the industry will and must go, because it has nowhere else left to go. The Wii-style motion control fad has all but faded.

The upcoming generation of hardware being mostly an evolutionary increase in fidelity, rather than a gamechanger, it will take something new and exciting to reignite the magic and wonderment, that's always been inherent to gaming, but currently is on the verge of being suffocated by cynicism and fatigue.

VR-Goggles are the answer. See this bold prediction come true at E3 2014/15. Or maybe even sooner. We still know nothing of what Microsoft has in store for its new Xbox.

Your thoughts?

#1 Edited by dungbootle (2428 posts) -

Yes because I want it to be true!

#2 Edited by TruthTellah (9470 posts) -

Despite how cool that might be, it simply isn't going to happen. Probably not even within this decade.

It's still far too unrefined and unsupported to gain mass market appeal within only two years. The Oculus Rift will probably have its niche fans, and it will probably propel the quality of VR efforts in the future. But you will not see VR-style goggles go mass market in the next two years. There is no way whatsoever. Ten years? Maybe. But you're more likely to see something like Google glass, a small mobile supplementary display, take off in the next five years than VR-style goggles. That's going to take a lot more refinement and time.

Online
#3 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

Despite how cool that might be, it simply isn't going to happen. Probably not even within this decade.

It's still far too unrefined and unsupported to gain mass market appeal within only two years. The Oculus Rift will probably have its niche fans, and it will probably propel the quality of VR efforts in the future. But you will not see VR-style goggles go mass market in the next two years. There is no way whatsoever. Ten years? Maybe. But you're more likely to see something like Google glass, a small mobile supplementary display, take off in the next five years than VR-style goggles. That's going to take a lot more refinement and time.

Didn't Carmack say in some interviews, that most relevant technologies are ready for it, and that it's but for the lack of trying, that we aren't there yet? And that tiny HD-screens are rapidly becoming affordable, and hence affordable and comfortable VR-Goggles soon are in the realm of feasibility?

Precision. Affordability. Comfort. And tiny HD screens. These are the requirements a serious shot at creating a market for VR-goggles must meet. From where I'm sitting, it looks like that's just around the corner.

All it takes is for Oculus Rift to impress the right people, and the mass market push will be attempted soon thereafter.

#4 Posted by TruthTellah (9470 posts) -

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

Despite how cool that might be, it simply isn't going to happen. Probably not even within this decade.

It's still far too unrefined and unsupported to gain mass market appeal within only two years. The Oculus Rift will probably have its niche fans, and it will probably propel the quality of VR efforts in the future. But you will not see VR-style goggles go mass market in the next two years. There is no way whatsoever. Ten years? Maybe. But you're more likely to see something like Google glass, a small mobile supplementary display, take off in the next five years than VR-style goggles. That's going to take a lot more refinement and time.

Didn't Carmack say in some interviews, that most relevant technologies are ready for it, and that it's but for the lack of trying, that we aren't there yet? And that tiny HD-screens are rapidly becoming affordable, and hence affordable and comfortable VR-Goggles soon are in the realm of feasibility?

Precision. Affordability. Comfort. And tiny HD screens. These are the requirements a serious shot at creating a market for VR-goggles must meet. From where I'm sitting, it looks like that's just around the corner.

All it takes is for Oculus Rift to impress the right people, and the mass market push will be attempted soon thereafter.

That still takes years. Carmack is right that the pieces are there to be assembled, but it's still far from a mass market-level affair. When Carmack says that, he's referring to companies being able to start serious research and development on it right now, but any actual serious attempts would be years away. All of this takes more time. It isn't just a matter of having the pieces of tech lying around. We're talking about businesses hoping to sell a product. It simply isn't happening that quickly. I'd suggest you check out what Valve has to say on Oculus Rift and VR-goggles in general, as they give a good impression of why this is something that should be niche for a few years but could have a chance past this decade.

It's cool to think about, but there's a lot more that goes into it. Just gotta give it time.

Online
#5 Posted by MikkaQ (10344 posts) -

Technology itself cannot determine what does or does not become popular in the mass market. The technology for televisions was available long before there was any demand for it.

#6 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

Despite how cool that might be, it simply isn't going to happen. Probably not even within this decade.

It's still far too unrefined and unsupported to gain mass market appeal within only two years. The Oculus Rift will probably have its niche fans, and it will probably propel the quality of VR efforts in the future. But you will not see VR-style goggles go mass market in the next two years. There is no way whatsoever. Ten years? Maybe. But you're more likely to see something like Google glass, a small mobile supplementary display, take off in the next five years than VR-style goggles. That's going to take a lot more refinement and time.

Didn't Carmack say in some interviews, that most relevant technologies are ready for it, and that it's but for the lack of trying, that we aren't there yet? And that tiny HD-screens are rapidly becoming affordable, and hence affordable and comfortable VR-Goggles soon are in the realm of feasibility?

Precision. Affordability. Comfort. And tiny HD screens. These are the requirements a serious shot at creating a market for VR-goggles must meet. From where I'm sitting, it looks like that's just around the corner.

All it takes is for Oculus Rift to impress the right people, and the mass market push will be attempted soon thereafter.

That still takes years. Carmack is right that the pieces are there to be assembled, but it's still far from a mass market-level affair. When Carmack says that, he's referring to companies being able to start serious research and development on it right now, but any actual serious attempts would be years away. All of this takes more time. It isn't just a matter of having the pieces of tech lying around. We're talking about businesses hoping to sell a product. It simply isn't happening that quickly. I'd suggest you check out what Valve has to say on Oculus Rift and VR-goggles in general, as they give a good impression of why this is something that should be niche for a few years but could have a chance past this decade.

It's cool to think about, but there's a lot more that goes into it. Just gotta give it time.

I sincerely doubt it would take Microsoft all too long to get their VR-goggles mass market push ready, once the groundwork is done.

We all know Microsoft has been looking at all sorts of things for their next generation console, and VR-goggles have certainly been amongst the directions it has done recon on. Regardless of what the outcome of their preliminary research has been, if Oculus Rift serves as a proof of concept (and it likely will), then I'd absolutely not be surprised, if we see a push for VR-goggles technology one or two years into the next generation of consoles, because frankly - the industry is in dire need of a gamechanger to reassert the relevance of the core gaming market as a growing mass market business.

In all likelyhood, both Microsoft and Sony are at least one year into serious R&D into this matter - eversince Carmack came forth at E3 2012, if not long before that. Sony already has lots of experience with head-mounted displays, and it keeps iterating upon the concept constantly - with products such as the HMZ-T1 3D Personal Viewer - the step to full-blown VR-goggles is not that far off either.

#7 Posted by Clonedzero (4196 posts) -

nah, shit looks gimmicky as hell. i dont wanna wear a helmet while playing a game. i dont think they'll be all that successful

#8 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@clonedzero said:

nah, shit looks gimmicky as hell. i dont wanna wear a helmet while playing a game. i dont think they'll be all that successful

Eventually, head-mounted displays will cease to be bulky, and won't be much different from your average Oakley's or what have you. Google Glass are not quite VR-goggles, but I think it doesn't take much more *bulk* to get into VR-Goggles territory with current/near-future technology.

#9 Posted by Subjugation (4740 posts) -

It's getting all Michael Pachter up in here.

#10 Posted by TruthTellah (9470 posts) -

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

Despite how cool that might be, it simply isn't going to happen. Probably not even within this decade.

It's still far too unrefined and unsupported to gain mass market appeal within only two years. The Oculus Rift will probably have its niche fans, and it will probably propel the quality of VR efforts in the future. But you will not see VR-style goggles go mass market in the next two years. There is no way whatsoever. Ten years? Maybe. But you're more likely to see something like Google glass, a small mobile supplementary display, take off in the next five years than VR-style goggles. That's going to take a lot more refinement and time.

Didn't Carmack say in some interviews, that most relevant technologies are ready for it, and that it's but for the lack of trying, that we aren't there yet? And that tiny HD-screens are rapidly becoming affordable, and hence affordable and comfortable VR-Goggles soon are in the realm of feasibility?

Precision. Affordability. Comfort. And tiny HD screens. These are the requirements a serious shot at creating a market for VR-goggles must meet. From where I'm sitting, it looks like that's just around the corner.

All it takes is for Oculus Rift to impress the right people, and the mass market push will be attempted soon thereafter.

That still takes years. Carmack is right that the pieces are there to be assembled, but it's still far from a mass market-level affair. When Carmack says that, he's referring to companies being able to start serious research and development on it right now, but any actual serious attempts would be years away. All of this takes more time. It isn't just a matter of having the pieces of tech lying around. We're talking about businesses hoping to sell a product. It simply isn't happening that quickly. I'd suggest you check out what Valve has to say on Oculus Rift and VR-goggles in general, as they give a good impression of why this is something that should be niche for a few years but could have a chance past this decade.

It's cool to think about, but there's a lot more that goes into it. Just gotta give it time.

I sincerely doubt it would take Microsoft all too long to get their VR-goggles mass market push ready, once the groundwork is done.

We all know Microsoft has been looking at all sorts of things for their next generation console, and VR-goggles have certainly been amongst the directions it has done recon on. Regardless of what the outcome of their preliminary research has been, if Oculus Rift serves as a proof of concept (and it likely will), then I'd absolutely not be surprised, if we see a push for VR-goggles technology one or two years into the next generation of consoles, because frankly - the industry is in dire need of a gamechanger to reassert the relevance of the core gaming market as a growing mass market business.

In all likelyhood, both Microsoft and Sony are at least one year into serious R&D into this matter - eversince Carmack came forth at E3 2012, if not long before that. Sony already has lots of experience with head-mounted displays, and it keeps iterating upon the concept constantly - with products such as the HMZ-T1 3D Personal Viewer - the step to full-blown VR-goggles is not that far off either.

Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is likely or makes business sense. In this case, while it is at least possible that Microsoft or Sony could decide to try to make some VR push, it's still very, very unlikely. Especially not with the consoles they're releasing. VR-goggles will remain best-served in a PC environment, and I can't imagine many developers for it would purposefully limit themselves to a PS4 or the next Microsoft console. And for Sony or Microsoft to invest that much into trying to foster mass appeal would most-likely be financial suicide. Talk about an expensive peripheral.

Besides the inherent issues with simply designing a truly revolutionary VR headset, there is also the cost of production, the cost of sale, and the simple realities of the marketplace. People need to be eased into it, and two years isn't an easing into it no matter how successful the Oculus Rift turns out to be. If the OR does exceptionally and gets a lot of buzz, there's a chance more companies will make a push on it, maybe even Sony, but mass appeal is many years away no matter how impressive the tech may be.

Online
#11 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

@seppli said:

@truthtellah said:

Despite how cool that might be, it simply isn't going to happen. Probably not even within this decade.

It's still far too unrefined and unsupported to gain mass market appeal within only two years. The Oculus Rift will probably have its niche fans, and it will probably propel the quality of VR efforts in the future. But you will not see VR-style goggles go mass market in the next two years. There is no way whatsoever. Ten years? Maybe. But you're more likely to see something like Google glass, a small mobile supplementary display, take off in the next five years than VR-style goggles. That's going to take a lot more refinement and time.

Didn't Carmack say in some interviews, that most relevant technologies are ready for it, and that it's but for the lack of trying, that we aren't there yet? And that tiny HD-screens are rapidly becoming affordable, and hence affordable and comfortable VR-Goggles soon are in the realm of feasibility?

Precision. Affordability. Comfort. And tiny HD screens. These are the requirements a serious shot at creating a market for VR-goggles must meet. From where I'm sitting, it looks like that's just around the corner.

All it takes is for Oculus Rift to impress the right people, and the mass market push will be attempted soon thereafter.

That still takes years. Carmack is right that the pieces are there to be assembled, but it's still far from a mass market-level affair. When Carmack says that, he's referring to companies being able to start serious research and development on it right now, but any actual serious attempts would be years away. All of this takes more time. It isn't just a matter of having the pieces of tech lying around. We're talking about businesses hoping to sell a product. It simply isn't happening that quickly. I'd suggest you check out what Valve has to say on Oculus Rift and VR-goggles in general, as they give a good impression of why this is something that should be niche for a few years but could have a chance past this decade.

It's cool to think about, but there's a lot more that goes into it. Just gotta give it time.

I sincerely doubt it would take Microsoft all too long to get their VR-goggles mass market push ready, once the groundwork is done.

We all know Microsoft has been looking at all sorts of things for their next generation console, and VR-goggles have certainly been amongst the directions it has done recon on. Regardless of what the outcome of their preliminary research has been, if Oculus Rift serves as a proof of concept (and it likely will), then I'd absolutely not be surprised, if we see a push for VR-goggles technology one or two years into the next generation of consoles, because frankly - the industry is in dire need of a gamechanger to reassert the relevance of the core gaming market as a growing mass market business.

In all likelyhood, both Microsoft and Sony are at least one year into serious R&D into this matter - eversince Carmack came forth at E3 2012, if not long before that. Sony already has lots of experience with head-mounted displays, and it keeps iterating upon the concept constantly - with products such as the HMZ-T1 3D Personal Viewer - the step to full-blown VR-goggles is not that far off either.

Just because something is possible doesn't mean it is likely or makes business sense. In this case, while it is at least possible that Microsoft or Sony could decide to try to make some VR push, it's still very, very unlikely. Especially not with the consoles they're releasing. VR-goggles will remain best-served in a PC environment, and I can't imagine many developers for it would purposefully limit themselves to a PS4 or the next Microsoft console. And for Sony or Microsoft to invest that much into trying to foster mass appeal would most-likely be financial suicide. Talk about an expensive peripheral.

Besides the inherent issues with simply designing a truly revolutionary VR headset, there is also the cost of production, the cost of sale, and the simple realities of the marketplace. People need to be eased into it, and two years isn't an easing into it no matter how successful the Oculus Rift turns out to be. If the OR does exceptionally and gets a lot of buzz, there's a chance more companies will make a push on it, maybe even Sony, but mass appeal is many years away no matter how impressive the tech may be.

Sure, the two year timeframe is a mighty optimistic estimate. However, I believe VR-goggles are going to be the upcoming generation's equivalent to Kinect/Move. A 200$ peripheral poised to be a gamechanger. Depending on how well these new consoles fare at launch, we might see such a thing occur sooner rather than later.

Your *it's still 10 years off* estimate however is way too conservative, especially because the core gaming industry is seeking for a saviour from obscurity. A sleek inexpensive VR-goggle experience could well be it. There will be a push for it, likely not as soon as two years from now, but certainly a lot sooner than in a decade.

Let's say it'll be at least a commonly known rumour by E3 2015, and will get a proper announcement in 2016.

*and then came Microsoft's Xbox reveal event, and all it was were friggin' VR-goggles and a box - mind blown*

#12 Edited by TruthTellah (9470 posts) -

@seppli: I think it's actually a bit optimistic to say 10 years for mass appeal, but reasonable niche interest will certainly be here for a while. I don't think there'll be a big push in videogames for quite some time though. There's still a lot that needs to get worked out on making functional games, not just little experiences.

And, heh, if Microsoft came out with that as the big selling point of the next Microsoft console, they're done. They would have officially jumped the shark. Fortunately, there's little reason to believe they're doing that. It'd be interesting, but this kind of thing is happening over time, not sometime soon. And I highly doubt it will be Microsoft or Sony that lead the way.

Online
#13 Posted by Itwastuesday (982 posts) -

Prediction: VR goggles give enthusiasts neck problems, bad eyes. Don't put screens on your eyes, folks.

#14 Posted by Gaff (1880 posts) -

After motion controls I thought we were done with gimmicks for now?

I don't see VR Goggles taking off. Hell, I don't even see Google Glass taking off, as unobtrusive the form factor may seem.

If anything, the trend for consoles seems to moving to making things simpler: Sony moving back to a more standard processor, Microsoft going for the media box in the living room role, etc. Bringing in a new peripheral is not part of Keeping It Simple. And Sony, after the PS3 loss and other divisions not doing so well, and Microsoft, losses in other divisions too, have the money to sink into R&D now for something two or three years from now.

And you may or may not have noticed: the economy is still in a weak state, consumer confidence is still low. There simply isn't a market for new high-end consumer electronics (one could even argue if launching a new console in Q3 2013 is a smart choice, then again... it's been seven years already!).

#15 Posted by Nivash (241 posts) -

I fail to see the mass market appeal. Despite what you claim, VR goggles aren't actually revolutionary: they are simply a pair of HD glasses mounted on a surround sound headset. Sure they help with immersion, but they can't really do anything not already done on a standard HDTV or PC with surround speakers or headset. You will still need to play the games with some kind of controller. You can move control of the camera from the controller to head movements, but that's it unless you go for full-immersion motion tracking in which case you better get a good team of lawyers to deal with the lawsuits when people wreck their apartments swinging about blindly.

I've heard of only one VR experience in recent years that actually was somewhat revolutionary in its approach; I can't for the life of me find the name of it (my Google-Fu was not enough) but it worked like this: it consisted of gear that completely blocked your vision and hearing from outside the game and then played out in complete darkness in an underwater setting where the player would be limited to navigate completely by sound. And this still required specialized gear since complete sensory deprivation is not ease to achieve.

In any case, I can see this appealing to either hardcore gamers or - curiously - to children and other people who want to be able to continue playing away from the TV, using the Wii U or the PS4/Vita combo, for instance, although in those cases a wireless headset is also a must. But I consider both these groups rather niche. I just don't the see the average, "casual" if you will, gamer pay hundreds of bucks for some added immersion at the cost of literally shutting the outside world out.

#16 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@truthtellah:

According to the last hands-on I read on the Oculus Rift, it's quite far along, and with the 300$ asking price far from being unreasonably expensive. It doesn't take 10 years to get from here, to a fully awesome VR experience.

@gaff:

You need to spend money, to make money. Sony does bet big on PS4. Why would they stop? You stop trying, you die.

#17 Edited by tourgen (4542 posts) -

Looking into a full field of view display with near-0 input to on-screen feedback lag will make people believers. It's the future. I don't think Microsoft has their shit together to capitalize on it quickly. Maybe Sony does. But it's certainly about to explode up in your PCs. PC master race all pregnant with sweet VR babies while the dirty console peasants look on thru their 16:9 windows.

#18 Edited by DarthOrange (3892 posts) -

After the giant shit sandwich Sony ate with the Move and with 3D I doubt Kaz will want to jump on another gimmick. Microsoft probably won't either as their focus is on Kinect. I predict this will flop but I could be wrong.

#19 Edited by Snail (8661 posts) -

The video-game market in and of itself is already sort of niche, so talking about "mass" and "niche" markets on this medium is sort of an abstract endeavor, since the lines between "mass" and "niche" are kind of blurry unless you define them clearly.

If by a VR "mass market" you mean 12 year olds playing Call of Duty with Oculus Rifts, then that doesn't sound too far-fetched a perspective for two years from now.

#20 Posted by Gaff (1880 posts) -

@seppli: Sony already bet big with the PS3: a custom Cell processor which theoretically was incredibly powerful but terrible to code for, a launch price of $599 (and at that price still selling at a loss), but still Sony Computer Entertainment was one of the only profitable Sony divisions (makes you wonder how much of a loss the rest had).

In short, to spend money, you need to have money.

#21 Edited by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

I'm positive the Oculus Rift will have it's place among a few enthusiasts but I don't see this technology being mainstream any time soon. It will improve however and I'm sure farther down the line it will be a lot more competitive and compelling to use.

#22 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@gaff said:

@seppli: Sony already bet big with the PS3: a custom Cell processor which theoretically was incredibly powerful but terrible to code for, a launch price of $599 (and at that price still selling at a loss), but still Sony Computer Entertainment was one of the only profitable Sony divisions (makes you wonder how much of a loss the rest had).

In short, to spend money, you need to have money.

That's what lending is for. The PS4 and the services going alongside it are Sony's major play for a future. Inexpensive VR-goggles could become a major selling point in that battle for survival and growth. It's both novel, as well as an established *Dream Come True* scenario.

The core gaming market has become rather stagnant as of late, and rife with cynicism and fatigue. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, whomever else competes in this market - everyone is on the search for a catalyst for rejuvenating the magic and wonderment that always was on the forefront of the fascination with gaming - and is absolutely needed for further growth.

What else but VR-goggles can it be? And at this point, where there's few technological and economic barriers left between now and the realization of that dream - why wouldn't the gaming industry push for it? The time has come for VR to spread its wings and finally take off and fly.

#23 Posted by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

If Microsoft used this thing as there trump card at E3 I would fall in love with them again, but I really don't see it happening. I for one don't really care about the 1:1 head tracking that much, I am just happy about the display taking up all of my vision and in 3D as well. Could see old men watching football on the couch with these things on in the future, where they get the perspective of being in the crowd or get to choose from various helemet cams of their favourite players. Or some guy wearing a go pro following Tiger Woods around the golf course, I think this has a place in the future of sports broadcasting.

#24 Posted by Branthog (5596 posts) -

I still don't see why I'd want these "VR goggles".

I don't like the idea of having a screen that close to my eyes. That seems bad for your eyesight, if nothing else. I don't like the idea of having to constantly wear something on my head. My glasses suck enough. Headphones suck more. This would suck the most, even though they're supposed to be light. I don't like that they're fairly low resolution, right now. I don't like how they would be incongruent with what would be happening elsewhere on the screen. That is, I can turn my head, but how am I aiming at things? Is aiming where the reticle on my screen is or can I keep firing north or north at 11' o'clock while turning my head down and to my right to look at something I'm passing by? Then, there's still the weirdness of having a normal set of controls (WASD+M or other) and being stationary while otherwise giving input to my brain that I'm moving around a world.

I think these are a small and new idea that have a long time to go and a lot of iterations and other components that need to be combined before this is actually all that compelling.

#25 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11381 posts) -

Nah, I don't see it happening. Just another fad.

Of course, I thought the same thing about touch screen phones back in the day, so take whatever I say with a grain of salt.

I should say, I'm still using a flip phone that does not have a touch screen. Being a dinosaur is fun. Roar.

#26 Edited by TruthTellah (9470 posts) -

@seppli said:

@truthtellah:

According to the last hands-on I read on the Oculus Rift, it's quite far along, and with the 300$ asking price far from being unreasonably expensive. It doesn't take 10 years to get from here, to a fully awesome VR experience.

Oculus Rift has been a decent time in development, and improving that tech to the extent of being both high quality -and- affordable is going to take even more time. And it certainly isn't going to be tied to a console, as consoles still center around games. And while the Oculus Rift is coming along as a simple tool for experimenting, it is far from being useful for any kind of real games. That's why Sony and Microsoft aren't going to jump into it any time soon, particularly not being tied to a console. It's a PC technology that will remain as such for a good number of years.

So, hopefully, the Oculus Rift will do well and inspire more attempts in the future, but we're a good ways off from anyone seriously attempting a push for mainstream interest in VR-goggles.

Online
#27 Posted by Ares42 (2795 posts) -

@seppli said:

@clonedzero said:

nah, shit looks gimmicky as hell. i dont wanna wear a helmet while playing a game. i dont think they'll be all that successful

Eventually, head-mounted displays will cease to be bulky, and won't be much different from your average Oakley's or what have you. Google Glass are not quite VR-goggles, but I think it doesn't take much more *bulk* to get into VR-Goggles territory with current/near-future technology.

People didn't want to wear glasses for 3D. And much like 3D I think VR has the same problem of application. The technology might be there, but if noone does anything interesting with it it doesn't matter. While VR is a great tool to "experience a world" I've yet to hear anyone explaining how it fundamentally changes the experience. It's just videogames+ and 3D pretty much proved that people aren't interested in spending a lot of money on a gadget like that.

#28 Edited by Seppli (10250 posts) -

@ares42 said:

@seppli said:

@clonedzero said:

nah, shit looks gimmicky as hell. i dont wanna wear a helmet while playing a game. i dont think they'll be all that successful

Eventually, head-mounted displays will cease to be bulky, and won't be much different from your average Oakley's or what have you. Google Glass are not quite VR-goggles, but I think it doesn't take much more *bulk* to get into VR-Goggles territory with current/near-future technology.

People didn't want to wear glasses for 3D. And much like 3D I think VR has the same problem of application. The technology might be there, but if noone does anything interesting with it it doesn't matter. While VR is a great tool to "experience a world" I've yet to hear anyone explaining how it fundamentally changes the experience. It's just videogames+ and 3D pretty much proved that people aren't interested in spending a lot of money on a gadget like that.

It essentially puts *your head in the game* - so your natural reflexes, like looking over your shoulder when you hear something behind you, will translate organically into perspective shifts within the game. It also unlocks your perspective from your movement, so you can go one direction, while looking in another - like freelook works in simulators, or just how you are used to using your head in real life. It's a coolie hat for your head, rather than your flightstick.

It's most suited for first person experiences of course, but I'm sure there's a lot of other cool shit such a thing would enable designers to come up with aside the obvious uses.

Ever been in an old-timey 90s VR simulator? It's quite an impressive experience, despite how ancient the simulation is. Unlike the flashy, but shallow 3D, it actually adds a new dimension to the interactivity with games.

#29 Posted by Ares42 (2795 posts) -

@seppli: It's nothing you can't already do in games. It just feels more real. If you're trying to say that Track IR gameplay will be the appeal, then I think we all know how successful that will be. If you watch the recent interview tested did they are basically saying that the gameplay experience they are most satisfied with so far is when the head tracking is marginalized and you're still pretty much playing as you would normally.

#30 Posted by Gaff (1880 posts) -

@seppli:

That's what lending is for.

And no one is going to lend money to Sony if no one is convinced they'll be able to pay it back. Might I remind you that Sony as a whole posted a loss of 520 billion JPY 5.51 billion USD / 4.3 billion EUR around this time last year?

The core gaming market has become rather stagnant as of late, and rife with cynicism and fatigue. Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, whomever else competes in this market - everyone is on the search for a catalyst for rejuvenating the magic and wonderment that always was on the forefront of the fascination with gaming - and is absolutely needed for further growth.

This has been the longest console cycle since the 32-bit era (8 years vs 6 years). Everyone (analysts, journalists, developers) agrees that the upcoming console launches are going to shake things up. There's your catalyst. I'll ignore the sentimental appeal to what was left of my cold, cold adult heart.

What else but VR-goggles can it be? And at this point, where there's few technological and economic barriers left between now and the realization of that dream - why wouldn't the gaming industry push for it?

Wishful thinking much?

And yes, I remember seeing those "old timey" VR machines in the local arcade in my mid-teens. They were expensive, gimmicky (one could say they were the final death throes of a dying arcade industry, desperate to inject novelty into a doomed business model)... Wow, deja vu. Ever thought why VR technology hasn't been in the public eye much since then?

#31 Edited by Patman99 (1620 posts) -

It's getting to be too much extra garbage to play games. Besides, I don't think Sony would push for something that might decrease their TV sales.

#32 Edited by TheManWithNoPlan (5980 posts) -

I really hope it's successful on a mass scale. I can't say I'm confident it will be, but I know I'll get one when there's at least a few games that support it. The dev kits recently shipped out, so we'll see what they do with it.

#33 Posted by McGhee (6075 posts) -

"Sitting too close to the TV will damage your eyes" is a myth. You may start feeling eye strain, but you aren't going to damage your eye sight.