Nothing to do with the delays around shipping (these things happen), but instead because of the in depth coverage of both devices provided by the GB team.

The tech looks great and the novelty will be excellent I'm sure, but right now clearly the games aren't there.

I will be purchasing a VR system at some point (the Vive did seem like great fun) when there are some games that are received well and deliver full experiences.

Jeff had a moment of real talk during the Vive stream where he basically said it wasn't worth it, at least right now, and that you should rather visit that one crazy guy who bought everything and re-arranged his living room to accomodate it. :)

If big VR gaming centers opened up, almost like the laser tag arena type places, it'd be cool to go there, having everything set up for you to just jump in instead of everyone buying this stuff at home. If the goggles become lighter and more comfortable maybe they can replace monitors in homes for conventional games and for everyday computer use in general, but I don't know.

I been waiting for VR since the early 90's and I agree the games look meh for it but I'm willing to take the chance with it plus the big one for me is Vorpx support for old games. I know it ain't perfect but to experience my old fav games in VR has always been a dream of mine.

Good job on having the self restraint to know that for you, it's worth waiting.

If you look at VR as a platform launch, then I would assume the games available 12 months from now will be more noteworthy or exciting than what is currently available. I think Giant Bomb's coverage of the Rift and the Vive (I haven't seen all of the Vive stream yet, but maybe about 3 hours of it) has been excellent at showing what these devices are. Functional, pretty cool, with a mixed bag of games, lacking a "killer app". So unless somebody is absolutely DYING!! for one, that makes sense.

I can't get either headset now anyways, but when I do I'm sure the good games will be there by then.

I preordered the Oculus and will not cancel it. What you say obviously makes sense but to me life is short and I know I may go at any day, so if I can experience VR sooner than later why the heck not. Kind of my philosophy in life honestly, not putting off new experiences.

Totally agree that the stuff right now makes it hard to justify the expense. I've got a DK2 (somewhat work related, somewhat "eh, I need to get in on this for fun including personal projects") so have access to the Oculus stuff (DK2 is unofficially officially supported for this year with the retail runtime system so it's low res and not quite like using the CV1 but the same stuff will generally run with it) and it's great to show off that this stuff really does work (even with the DK2's limitations, those real-time rendered movie shorts are great stuff). Games have enormous potential on these platforms. But some games and VR activities (which may step into "walking simulator" discussions of what is a game) are also going to need you to have motion-tracked hands, so the CV1 isn't really the full thing you need for VR. And the Vive is expensive to pay for including that extra high-fidelity, low latency motion tracking stuff for more than just the headset. And, as you say, the actual finished games right now: that's not hundreds of hours of content from which to pick and choose.

At some point someone has to look at VR wrapping classic games. At which point I'd say the content shortage goes away and also people will start looking at VR for games the same way it has been sold for years for cinema: "throw away your 120 inch screen and projector: do the same thing but with these dorky glasses!"

We've already seen Dota2 will get a 2D view of the game with a 3D map and character portraits. I think the 2D screen is junk: why is that not 3D? Why not render it with polygons per eye (my Intel integrated graphics can render Dota2, don't tell me you haven't got the perf to do it with decent PC GPUs) and make it so you're looking out over a portal to the game? 3D monitors are kinda cool (I've been poking them for a long time at this point - nVidia have almost 20 years of experience making game work in stereoscopic) but you can't move your head without breaking the effect (a limitation of no head tracking for 3D screens). As they're making the Dota2 client, they can 100% make it so you can move your head and the game reacts (perfectly - better than the situation I describe below or retrofitting head-tracking into a classic game). Look down for map, look at wall for something that looks a lot like the classic view, only in 3D. Dota2 currently has a 3D Vision profile but it's not good so they have work fixing the stereoscopic rendering but that's work that they clearly should be doing rather than giving you an immersive 3D system in which you watch a 2D projection of the game in.

The only issue with wrapping classic games (again, 3D Vision profiles: nVidia already did the work fixing a load of the stereoscopic issues with a load of games, the community fixed a load more of them) is that you're going to have to accept the engine limitations when moving your head. Backface-culling and frustrum-culling is something engines often do before sending the polygons to the GPU so when you look at a scene in 3D then only the polys pointing towards you and within the bounds of the screen are there to be rendered. So when you move too much or look at stuff outside the limits of the screen there may simply not be polygons there. Playing classic (ie non-VR polygonal) games in stereoscopic 3D in VR will involve a virtual screen boundary to note the edge of the screen the game thinks it is rendering to (this'll also be the plane onto which the UI is drawn) and the game being drawn behind that (with some elements drawn as coming out of the screen, depending on how you set the game's "zero depth" - we already have tools for this in the 3D Vision stuff). But if you move your head too much you might see "behind" the polygons and so see bits that aren't being drawn. That'll be cool but weird.

That's also why playing classic games on a virtual "hologram table" in VR will be weird: if you're taking a forward-looking scene and mapping those polys to a table then the game only thinks you can see the polys facing one end of the table. But you'll be able to walk round the table (and view the UI layer from the back). This will be really cool as a party trick, probably really not useful for playing most games.

You know that is very sensible. Its is a lot of money for a promising, yet still very thread bare technology. I have no doubts that over time, and a very short amount of time that the games will be better and they prices will reach what they market will sustain. The industry doesn't need all gamers to jump into this now. What they need is to see the desire of gamers while the price of components drops enough to bring it to more gamers.

Yeah, I was the exact same way. GB coverage only made me glad that I didn't invest (waste) any money in the VR and I honestly will wait for PS VR as well.