The Vive gets a $200 price drop

[Misanthrope]

How is that the problem with my argument if that was my argument? 

 

40 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

And the problem in turn is that the price is basically restricting this to tech enthusiasts. The larger audience has been waiting for a better price line and it wouldn't make sense to say "Ok we've done it: better resolution and not just 399 starting price....but now you need to replace your 200 bucks 1060 with a 700 bucks 1080ti"

 

If anything the gen 2 headsets need to wait until 1060 levels of performance are even more affordable so people can pair a 300-400 headset with a 500 rig and do at least as good as today's offerings. Basically keeping all that's needed for VR for under 1k.

 

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

"until 1060 levels of performance are even more affordable.......with a 500 rig and do at least as good as today's offerings"

 

This will not be until a few years from now and like I said, devs will be making use of the new hardware so you will still need top of the line hardware. This is still going to be restricted to tech enthusiasts no matter what. 

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, mynameisjuan said:

 

This will not be until a few years from now and like I said, devs will be making use of the new hardware so you will still need top of the line hardware. This is still going to be restricted to tech enthusiasts no matter what. 

On that I agree: but a lot of people invested heavily on VR becoming the new thing and this, well this just isn't going to happen fast enough: by then VR will be mostly abandoned by anybody but a few companies still willing to push it as a novelty.

 

I have no doubts it will keep resurfacing and people will keep hoping it will become the next big thing this time around, much like 3D has been periodically popping up as the next big thing for like 70 years now and never catches on.

[goodtofufriday]

Im just watching the used market for these schauble right now. Theyve all gotta remove 200$ from their asking price. Whos gonna buy a used one at 650 when a new one is 600

[mynameisjuan]

1 minute ago, Misanthrope said:

On that I agree: but a lot of people invested heavily on VR becoming the new thing and this, well this just isn't going to happen fast enough: by then VR will be mostly abandoned by anybody but a few companies still willing to push it as a novelty.

 

I have no doubts it will keep resurfacing and people will keep hoping it will become the next big thing this time around, much like 3D has been periodically popping up as the next big thing for like 70 years now and never catches on.

I still love VR and really want it to make it to the main stream too. I love my Vive and everyone who uses it does too. 

 

If devs start taking developing for low end hardware as well as high end then VR would have the chance to make it to the mass market. I was just saying that headsets are not the main problem which a lot of people blame. 

[MyName13]

Nope, still too expensive, once it falls to 200$ it might be what we were hoping it would have been when it came out, not to mention you need a pricey PC.VR is marketed like smartphones, only enthusiasts can afford VR, there won't be any future for VR if an average consumer can't afford it, how many people actually buy PCs that have at least GTX 1070 and at least a fast quad core?Not that many.Are we ready for VR?VR not.

[Sakkura]

32 minutes ago, MyName13 said:

Nope, still too expensive, once it falls to 200$ it might be what we were hoping it would have been when it came out, not to mention you need a pricey PC.VR is marketed like smartphones, only enthusiasts can afford VR, there won't be any future for VR if an average consumer can't afford it, how many people actually buy PCs that have at least GTX 1070 and at least a fast quad core?Not that many.Are we ready for VR?VR not.

VR doesn't have to be for the average consumer. PC gaming isn't for the average consumer either, and it's still doing fine.

 

Right now you can run VR with a GTX 1050 Ti and Core i3. Not exactly enthusiast hardware.

[MyName13]

Just now, Sakkura said:

VR doesn't have to be for the average consumer. PC gaming isn't for the average consumer either

Wat?Look at consoles, look at VR, what's the difference?Who will waste resources on a small market except indie developers (although it will be too expensive even for them since you need people who work with VR and equipment).

[GoldForest]

1 hour ago, MyName13 said:

Wat?Look at consoles, look at VR, what's the difference?Who will waste resources on a small market except indie developers (although it will be too expensive even for them since you need people who work with VR and equipment).

Doom vr? Fallout 4 vr? Ubisoft has that eagle game. There are aaa devs working on vr titles.

[Mihle]

Oculus Rift is still cheaper right now

[Sakkura]

2 hours ago, MyName13 said:

Wat?Look at consoles, look at VR, what's the difference?Who will waste resources on a small market except indie developers (although it will be too expensive even for them since you need people who work with VR and equipment).

PC gaming has well over a hundred million users, that's more than enough for a self-sustaining market. VR can live on a similar semi-niche market just fine if need be. It doesn't have to be something everyone owns, like smartphones are.

[ChineseChef]

While the price drop is great, I still think VR as it is is just a gimmick.  Consoles took off due to local multiplayer and ease of use.  PC gaming is about options for the user (hardware/game types).  VR isolates the player, requires large amounts of space, isn't something you can play while sitting after a long day, while listening/watching other people in your house (think kids).  Until they can solve the space requirements (not even sure how you would), and the isolation issues, price isn't even really the problem.  It could be $100 all in for max performance, and it would be nothing more than a fancy Wii in most peoples home that they use when someone comes over to show off, or on rare occasions.

 

Until you can play (game of choice) for 4-12 hours in a row, and be competitive, its nothing more than a tech demo.  It will be just another piece of fancy gear that rich people get for their simulator setups.  Nifty controllers so you can click on things in game aren't going to cut it.  It is going to need full tactile response and complete use of your hands.  You need to be able to run and jump and not be confined to the space of a small rug.

 

I pray we get the stuff of dreams, and I completely understand that we have to crawl before we can run.  But this is going to be an uphill battle for a long while.  Once it hits the tipping point though, VR/AR/whatever it is, will become the biggest thing in media consumption out there.

[MyName13]

2 hours ago, Sakkura said:

PC gaming has well over a hundred million users, that's more than enough for a self-sustaining market. VR can live on a similar semi-niche market just fine if need be. It doesn't have to be something everyone owns, like smartphones are.

Yeah, every PC gamer will totally spend 300+$ on a vr device, how many of them have a graphics card that costs more than 200$?VR is still for enthusiasts, people who can buy VR certainly won't have anything less than GTX 1070,  i didn't say it needs to be massively owned like smartphones, I said that it needs to get popular on consoles, VR will be a thing only if at least 40% of PC and console gamers have VR devices, it won't be a big market for sure without massive price drops and zero fragmentation.

 

[MyName13]

Remove

[GetMoosed]

Its still an expensive piece, however I can stand by the fact that it far exceeds the rifts technology. Interesting to set up but a fun toy. Nothing more than that yet though. I personally think it would be worth the purchase if there was another generation.

[Sakkura]

4 hours ago, ChineseChef said:

While the price drop is great, I still think VR as it is is just a gimmick.  Consoles took off due to local multiplayer and ease of use.  PC gaming is about options for the user (hardware/game types).  VR isolates the player, requires large amounts of space, isn't something you can play while sitting after a long day, while listening/watching other people in your house (think kids).  Until they can solve the space requirements (not even sure how you would), and the isolation issues, price isn't even really the problem.  It could be $100 all in for max performance, and it would be nothing more than a fancy Wii in most peoples home that they use when someone comes over to show off, or on rare occasions.

 

Until you can play (game of choice) for 4-12 hours in a row, and be competitive, its nothing more than a tech demo.  It will be just another piece of fancy gear that rich people get for their simulator setups.  Nifty controllers so you can click on things in game aren't going to cut it.  It is going to need full tactile response and complete use of your hands.  You need to be able to run and jump and not be confined to the space of a small rug.

 

I pray we get the stuff of dreams, and I completely understand that we have to crawl before we can run.  But this is going to be an uphill battle for a long while.  Once it hits the tipping point though, VR/AR/whatever it is, will become the biggest thing in media consumption out there.

VR does not isolate the player. It is far more social than regular gaming, as when you're playing a multiplayer game with other people, you feel like you're really there with them.

 

VR does not require large amounts of space. You can do VR at a desk.

 

You can play VR sitting down after a long day. Okay, you can't watch your kids - but you can't really watch your kids while playing PUBG either.

 

So basically most of the issues you postulate simply do not exist.

1 hour ago, MyName13 said:

Yeah, every PC gamer will totally spend 300+$ on a vr device, how many of them have a graphics card that costs more than 200$?VR is still for enthusiasts, people who can buy VR certainly won't have anything less than GTX 1070,  i didn't say it needs to be massively owned like smartphones, I said that it needs to get popular on consoles, VR will be a thing only if at least 40% of PC and console gamers have VR devices, it won't be a big market for sure without massive price drops and zero fragmentation.

 

Not saying they will or won't. I'm just saying that your claim that VR needs to go mainstream is demonstrably wrong. PC gaming thrives with a hundred million people rather than the billions that going truly mainstream would entail. The same applies for VR.

 

VR does not need to get popular on consoles (though it will help a lot, of course). It just needs a big enough addressable market, somewhere in the (low) tens of millions.

[Thaldor]

You are quite correct, the main problem with VR is the price, but that price won't be coming down to the "average consumer" level anytime soon without tuning the quality down (like PSVR) or by company just wanting their stuff out fast (Oculus Rift). PSVR is very good example of making VR cheaper: the screen is crap (1080p and that's for both eyes), tracking is bad (turn a bit more or fast enough and the tracking is gone haywire, same level of tracking than the Oculus with only 2 cameras), controllers are medicore at the best (PS move works as good as normally, the gun controller made for PSVR is totally crap mixing it's tracking all the time if not used like the Nintendo zapper) but what can you get for ~400$. Oculus, well Oculus is Oculus... Tells a lot when the founder of Oculus, Palmer Luckey, decided to throw 2k$/month (20k$/month if they continue developing their stand alone drivers) for a project that is solely made to turn every Oculus game playable with Vive (ReVive if nobody has ever heard).

 

Then to the reason why pricecs won't come down very soon. The biggest problems in VR at the moment are the screen resolution and wires from which none is cheaply improved. For example, there's Varjo headset incoming which basicly turns Vives and Oculuses 1.7 megapixel resolution to 70 megapixels and what I have heard, no way near consumer prices (less than 10k$). For wireless, we are far away from working. TPCAST promised a lot, but it's kind of junk at least if you (or your neighbours) have WiFi devices and the price: ~250$. Intel is coming with its DisplayLink, but apparently it's way too early to give any dates or prices.

 

What better rumours I have heard the Vive2 will be probably even after this discount cheaper than the Vive because basicly it's the same thing made cheaper (less and cheaper plastic, lighthouses with only one stabilizing motor and tracking technology a bit tuned down). There apparently won't be any resolution changes and the knuckle controllers are coming as peripherals so those who want them need to buy them. After Vive2 people with Vive might not want to break their lighthouses and probably not their headsets because HTC probably will start replacing every lighthouse with Vive2 lighthouses. There's change that the business package (with better warranty, replacement nose supports and so on) will continue shipping with Vive1 headset, just because it's more robust, but lighthouses will be Vive2. This is what I have dug up and reasoned better grounded than the bigger resolution and all around better Vive2 rumours (some have even go to the lenghts as quoting some HTC spokeperson stating that if HTC was to bring a Vive with better resolution, they would change the screens of the older Vives with active warranty to the new ones without a charge).

 

On the PC hardware site. To run Vive absolute minimum is around GTX 970 and quite often recommended minimum is only around 980 and 980Ti. GTX 1070 is the recommended but really only few games around really need that much horsepower (mainly only Arizona Sunshine). 1080 and 1080Ti are in some cases recommended but usually only by users who want to turn up the supersampling. While the rendering needs a lot of performance for thw 2x2K screens it's not that much as some want to market, hell, I tried my Vive and Rift with my old GTX 770 and while it wasn't as pleasant as with GTX 1070, most of the games I tried were playable (mainly GORN, Robo Recall, Altspace and ST: Bridge Crew, Elite Dangerous and Job Simulator for a good test) (oh, and there's two extremely good examples of VR multiplayers that are extremely far from isolating players).

[trag1c]

Bought mine for 1100 $CAD like 4 months ago now theyre like $300 cheaper....fuck I need to stop being an early adopter of new technologies.

[Al_net]

Now with the release of Xbox one X (Project Scorpio), the new Xbox will support 4k gaming... Its currently unknown if the Xbox will support VR gaming.  So in all of this if you are looking into buying a VR headset... be prepared to have a pc to use it on.

[ChineseChef]

16 hours ago, Sakkura said:

VR does not isolate the player. It is far more social than regular gaming, as when you're playing a multiplayer game with other people, you feel like you're really there with them.

 

VR does not require large amounts of space. You can do VR at a desk.

 

You can play VR sitting down after a long day. Okay, you can't watch your kids - but you can't really watch your kids while playing PUBG either.

 

So basically most of the issues you postulate simply do not exist.

Not saying they will or won't. I'm just saying that your claim that VR needs to go mainstream is demonstrably wrong. PC gaming thrives with a hundred million people rather than the billions that going truly mainstream would entail. The same applies for VR.

 

VR does not need to get popular on consoles (though it will help a lot, of course). It just needs a big enough addressable market, somewhere in the (low) tens of millions.

Um, I think you misunderstand what isolate and social mean.  How is wearing a headset that literally blocks your vision, combined with headphones that block the outside world not considered isolating?  How is playing with someone in virtual space more social than interacting with people in the same room as you?  How does local multiplayer gaming work when we all need headsets?  Will LAN parties become a bunch of people standing/sitting with headsets, not looking at each other?  Are we all going to become those kids that sit next to each other not actually talking, but just texting each other?

 

So you are telling me I can't play PUBG while I watch my kid play on the floor in the same room as me?  It takes half a glance to look over and see that my kid is ok, but if I have a headset on I have to completely remove it and then put it back on.  Which would be impractical to do every other minute.  But I can easily glance to my side every other minute.  Yes people get distracted and focused on gaming, but its super easy to react when all I'm wearing is headphones.

 

I think VR will be nothing more than fancy flight/racing/space sim gear until they can solve some rather major hurdles.  All the "cutting edge" and "must have" games so far have been nothing more than tech demos.  And the tech is "meh" to big with.  Yes, it is way way way better than anything we have had so far.  But it is quite disappointing compared to what we could have with existing tech right now.  And I don't see sufficiently compelling VR experiences being created for a long time.  All the good stuff in VR is mostly just sims, which have been waiting for seated VR headsets for a long time now.

And these work great for that, but you mentioned PUBG.  How do I play PUBG in VR for 4-8 hours comfortably, and still be competitive with the other players?  Do I have to physically run and jump and duck?  Am I seated while my character runs, does that make me sick?  What about other games, can I play LOL?  How about WOW?  What about COD?  Would all of these games even be fun in VR?

 

VR is not going away and I'm not trying to shit on the thing you like, but I don't see a lot of money going into it after another year or two from game companies.  It will become a business and arcade attraction.  There will still be games and such, but until the tech is super easy to use and works for most people, I can't see it being more than a gimmick.

[Sakkura]

On 22/8/2017 at 5:47 PM, ChineseChef said:

Um, I think you misunderstand what isolate and social mean.  How is wearing a headset that literally blocks your vision, combined with headphones that block the outside world not considered isolating?  How is playing with someone in virtual space more social than interacting with people in the same room as you?  How does local multiplayer gaming work when we all need headsets?  Will LAN parties become a bunch of people standing/sitting with headsets, not looking at each other?  Are we all going to become those kids that sit next to each other not actually talking, but just texting each other?

 

So you are telling me I can't play PUBG while I watch my kid play on the floor in the same room as me?  It takes half a glance to look over and see that my kid is ok, but if I have a headset on I have to completely remove it and then put it back on.  Which would be impractical to do every other minute.  But I can easily glance to my side every other minute.  Yes people get distracted and focused on gaming, but its super easy to react when all I'm wearing is headphones.

 

I think VR will be nothing more than fancy flight/racing/space sim gear until they can solve some rather major hurdles.  All the "cutting edge" and "must have" games so far have been nothing more than tech demos.  And the tech is "meh" to big with.  Yes, it is way way way better than anything we have had so far.  But it is quite disappointing compared to what we could have with existing tech right now.  And I don't see sufficiently compelling VR experiences being created for a long time.  All the good stuff in VR is mostly just sims, which have been waiting for seated VR headsets for a long time now.

And these work great for that, but you mentioned PUBG.  How do I play PUBG in VR for 4-8 hours comfortably, and still be competitive with the other players?  Do I have to physically run and jump and duck?  Am I seated while my character runs, does that make me sick?  What about other games, can I play LOL?  How about WOW?  What about COD?  Would all of these games even be fun in VR?

 

VR is not going away and I'm not trying to shit on the thing you like, but I don't see a lot of money going into it after another year or two from game companies.  It will become a business and arcade attraction.  There will still be games and such, but until the tech is super easy to use and works for most people, I can't see it being more than a gimmick.

Meeting other people in VR is a social activity. It's like using phones and computers to communicate on social media or play online games, except you get a much better interaction with VR.

 

It's not more social than interacting with people in the same room, but that's not what it's replacing. You're going to be playing VR games instead of monitor games, for example, and you can't say Echo Arena is less social than PUBG.

 

LAN parties are pretty rare these days, most multiplayer gaming is done over the internet with each person sitting alone in front of a screen. In any case, when you're playing at a LAN party your face is aimed at the screen, so you're not being social with the people around you. Again VR comes out ahead in terms of how much more social the experience is.

 

You can't really play PUBG and watch your kid at the same time, at least not well. Same applies for VR. Sure you can look away from the monitor to check on someone, but you can do the same with a VR headset (either lift it, or use the front-facing camera on the Vive). You don't have to completely remove it.

 

Your major hurdles are imaginary. VR is already much more than fancy sim gear - the most popular VR games right now are not sims, they're adventure games like Lone Echo and Rick & Morty, shooters like Arizona Sunshine, Superhot VR, Onward, and Robo Recall, or VR-unique things like The Climb. None of those games are just tech demos.

[Jito463]

Personally, I'm just going to wait for Holodecks to become a thing.  Everyone knows the government has them, they just won't give them to us.  

 

 

 

 

 

_^/s