Post VR Stream survey - would you recommend it?

I guess I'm more positive now than before the stream, but I still wouldn't recommend it to anyone. Too expensive compared to the games available to it right now.

I guess that I would need to try it, but man, I wasn't impressed. Using your head as the right stick (camera) seems really gimmicky to me. but if that's what someone wants to do, more power too them.

No, but that's not to say the stream didn't pique my curiosity. Its such a solitary device that there's few ways to convince a group and the games are still more about exploring the tech without capitalising on it in anything beyond baby steps. Still, its encouraging.

No. VR exclusive games are clearly not there yet and VR-support for standard games is too scarce.

Are these really very early goings? Oculus Rift has been in development and available to developers for years now. You'd think someone would have made at least one killer app for it.

I don't see VR in this state catching on at all. Besides the significant expense, you can't download a demo, or buy into early access, or watch a stream or online video without already owning a VR headset. Unless someone releases something truly groundbreaking for VR in the near future that everyone who owns one goes totally nuts for, it's just going to be another 3D-esque fad that does a few neat things, makes a little money then quietly goes away.

It looked interesting, but not $600 + a graphics card upgrade worth of interesting. Games like Project Cars and Elite actually looked like they'd play much worse in VR (PC's hilarious camera bugs aside) and most of the other games on offer either seemed too expensive for what was shown - that spiderman in the trees game - or looked like the VR didn't add anything like the "not-Dark Souls" game with the fixed Resident Evil style camera.

There was nothing shown that "wowed" me. It got me interested in trying Airmech because that game looks fun, but that's about it.

So I've voted "no".

I'm interested to see what state Vive and PSVR will launch in.

The AAA games don't seem to work that great yet and the show off games are... well... show off games. Not really worth the for me probably 700+ euro's + a new videocard in my opinion.

I liked the whole robot avatar thing in Airmech, but that's about it. Of course there's once again the whole thing about not knowing how it really feels without wearing a helmet yourself, but ignoring that, none of the games seemed worth the pile of money needed.

But man, I still watched a stream of it from 5pm 'till 2am before falling asleep...wouldn't happen with any other group of people presenting it.

Major publisher who would have the resources to provide a killer app are waiting if the user base will eventually be large enough to make an investment. But without a killer app, there probably won't be a large user base, so it's a vicious circle that HTC/Valve, Oculus and Sony somehow have to break through.

But even then I am not certain that there is something like a killer app that would become a system seller. I mean, which game would make a 600$ investment look worthy? (not considering updating your hardware)

Nope, VR games look worse than I thought they would. Maybe in a few years these headsets will be worth getting but right now everything looks like a bad tech demo

I wouldn't recommend it to others right now, but I'm getting one for myself this summer. Games aren't really the only attraction for me when it comes to VR. Stuff like nature shows and other VR experiences are as much a factor (though there's not much of that either atm, but it's coming)

It depends on what Sony has on offer, its the only viable option for me, and its games focused.

Nope. Even if I found one or two things interesting I wouldn't recommend it to someone on that premise. I would have to feel enough reasons to buy one myself first before I would even consider recommending it to someone else.

I have a dk 1,i bought it used so no new one for me ???? And i was sold on the concept back then. But none of the games so far have done anything for me And they seem so movement adverse. I couldnt recommend my gamer friends pick it up yet. I might end up devoting a room to this shit and if i do ill probably get one of those 360 treadmills. If there is a vr world i want to be able to walk through it. But only if its supported, which i am unsure will happen going foward.

I think VR will eventually become "The Next Big Thing", but for now it's more or less a fun gimmick I can't see anyone spending more than a few hours with. Next generation? Maybe. This generation will probably be dominated by tech demos and weird experiments as devs try to figure the thing out.

Haven't seen the entire stream myself yet, only about the first hour, but considering how much hype there has been about VR I guess I'm a little surprised about such a tepid response.

I know I'm going to wait a long time before I buy anything VR related myself since I'm not yet ready to spend that amount of money on completely new technology. I'm taking a wait and see approach to this whole VR thing.

Yesterday's stream, what I saw of it anyway, made me want to put some money down...

... on a TrackIR.

I'm surprised so few people seem excited. I've never strapped a dev kit or demo unit to my head, but I'm PUMPED. I'd have waited had I not built a new PC last summer with a GTX 980, but my machine is ready to go. Let's do this!

It'll almost certainly be months if not years before the truly transformative experiences finally arrive, but I see the potential, and it's there for a lot more than just videogames. I'm excited! It's a hefty price tag, so a wait-and-see attitude is absolutely reasonable, but I want to believe. So I will. Right now I have the money. I probably won't in six months. So I'll get it now.

I'm waiting for haptic glove technology. That real Johnny Mnemonic or Lawnmower Man stuff. Using a controller or a motion wand to control a game just isn't compelling in VR unless it's a driving or a flying game. I mean, if someone gave me an Oculus Rift, it would probably be neat, but I'm not the intended audience for this. People with lots of disposable income and who are early adopters of new technology are, much like people who dropped $2400 on a DVD player when they first hit the market.

I'm more hyped than ever. I've got Lucky's Tale, Chronos, Elite Dangerous, Adrift, and a bunch of apps already installed and ready to go on my PC that I built specifically to meet VR specs.

Where's my shipping notification Mr. Luckey? Where is it!?

It needs a game that only makes sense in VR for it to really take off. Devs replacing the camera stick with free head movement is a shallow gimmick and will not entice people to try it out for more than 15 minutes. One would think that with 3 years (!) of VR development the initial software lineup would be a little more engaging right off the bat, but here we are.

I personally think that the mainstream market wants nothing to do with big bulky peripherals and will not fall for the VR hype in the least. I could be wrong, but this seems like it will be a very niche thing (much like track IR, which is significantly less bulky and never took off properly).

I've had hands on experience with the Oculus DK2, and because of that I am excited for the potential.

However, I do not believe that the potential has been properly tapped yet. Granted, I only saw the last few hours of the stream, so maybe I missed some winners in the middle somewhere. Firma (the lunar lander game with the ball and the backwards elbow that Dan played) seemed pretty neat. But that aside, it will be a bit before anyone is willing to put a full game's resources into this.

I must resist the urge to find-and-replace... must... resist... ah, whatever:

I don't see 3D accelerator cards in this state catching on at all. Besides the significant expense, you can't download a demo, or buy into early access, or watch a stream or online video without already owning a 3D accelerator card. Unless someone releases something truly groundbreaking for 3D accelerator cards in the near future that everyone who owns one goes totally nuts for, it's just going to be another VR-esque fad that does a few neat things, makes a little money then quietly goes away.

Of course this is voting done in a bubble, but considering an overwhelming majority of people wouldn't recommend this as a purchase to others, I wonder what the sales are going to look like past the early adopters phase? Most people seemed to have come away from the stream yesterday a little deflated on the whole idea. I'm not saying this is the end of Oculus or VR as we know it, but with that price, and this initially underwhelming first showing, I think it's going to take a lot of effort for any of this to gain traction. Is it possible that after a year of taking a loss on the tech Facebook would consider pulling the plug? I imagine that won't happen so easily as they paid a pretty penny for it to begin with, but how long would they be willing to lose profit (if theoretically sales don't meet expectations) until they'd shelf the project?

@humanity: There's two things I consider for it.

1) As time has gone on and the Vive and PS VR have both come along, I actually look at the Rift as being one of the least interesting headsets. It's been around forever now, we've been hearing about it for years and years and years. And yet it still looks like its pretty much where it was back with the dev kits. Compare it with the Vive, which we've known about for a while, but there hasn't been dev kits getting into many peoples hands, other than devs and it's going big right out of the gate with it's hardware, while the Rift failed to launch with it's controllers. And again, comparing it to the PSVR, the one we probably knew the least about, it's launching with it's controllers and with fewer games that look at least a little bit more developed than some of the stuff we saw on screen yesterday. And it's cheaper and its hardware entry point is an off the shelf product that you don't need a chart to do comparisons with.

2) This is just the gaming applications so far. I think FB might be more interested in things outside of games when it comes to VR, so even if it's a flop in the game space, I think they'll stick with it a while longer.

This analogy doesn't make any sense at all unless you're referring to pre-internet days of early PC gaming, but then, why would you? People can see what type of experience a new GPU is going to provide because they can watch full resolution video at 60 FPS of current games running on the same or similar hardware they already have at home and make a decision whether that experience is worth the cost of the new GPU or not.

A more fitting and contemporary analogy would be the Nintendo 3DS, something that needs to be experienced in person.

I went from little interest in VR leaning toward "I'll watch GB play with it and maybe try one if I see it in person" to zero interest and probably won't watch any quick looks for it for a while. The sections I saw either looked super boring or Dan kept bouncing around making it hard to tell what was happening and for the first time my eyes actually felt tired because of it.

I don't see a killer app coming out for this VR. They're going to need to improve on motion controls, eye tracking, spacial awareness, walking, screens, and price before anything that will actually be a true compelling VR experience is made. That'll take a long time.

Post stream, VR seems even less exciting and more like 3D/curved TVs than before.

And the 3DS had disappointing launch sales and subsequently dropped from $249 to $169. A quarter of the price of an Oculus. I stand by my initial statement.

Just want to say that this is not the leading brand. They just released their gear first. Don't base your opinions on VR played with a gamepad. It is so much less than what true VR actually is.

I really hope they do a Vive stream as well. Way more fun seeing the players mess around in game rather than trigger animations by pressing X or B..

From what I watched I would say no I wouldn't recommend it, but that's not because of the hardware but rather the software.

Echoing what others have said there's no killer game/app, sure there's a bunch of 'that's pretty cools' but nothing that makes you say "oh shit, I've never seen anything like that before I need this." You could argue that it's about the experience of using the VR but if that's all VR is at the moment then its a gimmicky toy. The games/apps need to do something that can only be done in VR and so far I'm not seeing much more than a bunch of novelty ideas that lack longevity.

Far too many 'let's put this first person game in VR and call it a day' games floating around.

There is a lot that's like hey that's cool however I think in the 12 hours that stream went on for we basically saw all there was to offer and you could take a decent amount of those games out. So then all that money for what's left I'm not sure it's worth it.

It's funny to me how people are taking the experience on video as what it is. Like, it's clear the tech works. JEFF REACHED FOR THE POPCORN! It's true the games and experiences are weak, so it stands to reason they are that much weaker on video. I'm excited for the future of this tech. I'm excited for the revision of these headsets that are cheaper.

I'm scared of PSVR because it's so much weaker than that PC, so I can't imagine how it's going to run. The frame rate has to be there and I don't think it will be

I want VR to succeed, but everything seems to point to the contrary. High price point, niche market, and no game yet that really sells it. It's like the Kinect all over again (and that's coming from someone who owns a Kinect). There has got to be more substance to fall back on once the novelty wears off or this is doomed. The GB crew mentioned during yesterday's stream that the average consumer will basically get everything they want from VR in a mall demo situation, and that's likely spot-on. I just don't see people beyond the early adopters shelling out the dough for their own VR. Again, I hope that they do because I generally think people should support innovation/emerging technologies, but history suggests that they don't. When an industry depends on the public basically investing in the potential of something, I don't have high hopes. The lesson to be learned from Kinect is that most people expect the fully-realized product to be plopped at their feet with a "killer app" before they'll spring for a "neat" thing, and that was when only $100 was on the line, not $600. I'd love to be wrong, but I'm just not seeing a bright future for VR.

@notnert427: well said, however the Kinect was not a commercial flop for Microsoft only a critical one. They made money off the first Kinect and lots of people enjoyed it, which is why they shoved it into the Xbox one.

I do not however feel it's that relevant to VR, Kinect can only be displayed by mirroring your actions to the tv, not as interesting and capable as one to one head-tracking and displaying it as though your there in 3D space. We likely wouldn't have VR without Kinect though since it uses similar infrared cameras to track the controllers and headset. I don't think oculus plans to make a ton of money off of this version of the headset, that's evident by the fact that they didn't make that many, if you order one today you have to wait until July to get it. This is the groundwork.

It's the "right now" aspect of the poll answers that makes me hesitate. I want to say "If you have the cash to blow that won't beat up your budget by all means hop on now and you'll probably have a cool experience". Where I run into problems is when I look at situations where it turns into serious trade off decisions like "Should you buy a VR rig now or should you save the cash for normal games to play on your existing PC or console with the understanding this is most of your gaming budget this year?" and when it's phrased that way I get really hesitant.

I want one badly and there seem to be enough games and apps that would appeal to me personally but at this moment I can't responsibly fit it in my budget quite yet. If anything I'll work on building a VR capable new PC first.

It's games like all of these List of roomscale games that I am infinitely more excited for the Vive with hand controllers over the Oculus with an Xbox controller. I don't think what has been shown on the Giantbomb livestream, for the most part, is indicative of what shines in VR games.

Seeing these games played from a 3rd person of what the player is experiencing is absolutely mental to see. For instance this game called paintey where you can see the player manipulate a camera so you can spectate them as they play. It looks so natural.

No way. The only compelling game they played was airmech as although I wasn't expecting strong software lineup at launch I didn't expect to be not be blown away by the hardware. The guys didn't seem too immersed all the time and Drew couldn't get into driving because of the resolution. I rather get a new video card instead and wait for versions 2 or 3 of these headsets when they have higher resolution and eye tracking.

@bernard_bernoulli: Haptic gloves is a-ok, but 1st adopters go bareskin. http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Technology#Computers:_Haptic_Adaptive_Interface

It's a launch. It looks rad and all, but it is expensive certainly not where it needs to be in terms of software. Obviously the potential for the Rift (especially with the Touch controllers), the Vive, and even the PSVR is much higher than what is going to shown and available early on.

Unless you have the money in your couch, I wouldn't bother yet. VR has a ton of unrealized potential, but I don't make enough to buy in yet, regardless of the amount of content available.

I like to point out that the first VHS player cost over $1000. It took some time for costs to go down and become ubiquitous to households.

This is the problem with Oculus, which has had the benefit of early development, that they are releasing a half finished product (regardless of what Luckey, Fanboys, or developers say) to try and catch up to the Vive. They are poisoning the well of VR right from the start by not including the touch controllers. I have faith that in one week, once the Vive streams hit, this negativity will hopefully be forgotten and people will see the true benefit of room space and motion control in a VR world...that is presence and that equals the immersion VR was meant to have

Oculus might have just shot itself in the very foot they were trying to plant in front of its competition.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: VR is this generation's Kinect - a cool idea but the one where tech isn't there yet and developers have no idea how to make a good game using it.

Quoting/saving for 3 years from now. Whether you are right or wrong. I would put money down on wrong. Lots of money.

@lawgamer: If the move coming with ps VR is any indication it's going to take a combination of improved versions of all these failed peripherals in one package to make a truly unique and compelling experience.

I was mentioning the Kinect more anecdotally, as I find it to be fascinating from both owning one and as a business case study because I nerd out on that stuff. There are some obvious differences between it and VR from a technical and experiential standpoint, but they do exist in a similar space market-wise and may well follow the same trajectory. Oculus will need to overcome the rift (sorry, couldn't help myself) that Kinect never did between being a cool piece of tech that makes people say "neato" and becoming a product people actually buy, and the only way that happens (IMO) is if we get a game that really capitalizes on it and blows people away. The Kinect was actually a solid piece of hardware that became really polished and useful for a while there, but no one cared because no piece of software ever came out for it to make people say, "I need to have this". VR could easily fail for similar reasons, especially at an even higher price point.

I'm trying not to judge VR on just Oculus or just Oculus as it is right now, but this simply isn't making the kind of splash it needs to, and that's not a good sign for VR on the whole. There's this gulf that needs to be bridged between launch buyers and adoption by the average tech consumer to make it sustainable long-term that I just don't see happening. I think people like the idea of interactive gaming more than we like actual interactive gaming. It's tough to make it "stick". I fear by the time VR starts hitting its stride in terms of substance (if it even does), the hype will be long gone and interest will have waned. Right now, it's prohibitively expensive for most, and the games are mostly glorified tech demos that people are expected to buy on top of the price of the unit. It remains to be seen how the Vive and PS VR will debut, but the former's $799 price point is staggering, while it's fair to question if the $399/$499 PS VR will stack up to the higher-priced competition. That these products are launching at such different prices tells me that they're all trying to guess at what the market is for this, which is maybe a red flag in and of itself.

I liken these early days of VR to the early days of 3D. There are going to be a LOT of stumbles along the way in this process of figuring out what feels good and comfortable; and how to make games that work well, both mechanically and in their presentation.

Perhaps some day several years from now we'll be able to look back on these early experiences the same way we look at early N64 & PS1 games.

I really do think VR with a head-mounted display will always be niche and more for enthusiasts, rather than the mass market.