Windows 10 VR from $299

[Doobeedoo]

8 hours ago, Sakkura said:

If everyone thinks like that it won't get to that better level.

Yes it will. Cause for now it's nothing special and it's costly.

[Thony]

16 hours ago, NumLock21 said:

In other news, the VR headset will have a sticker on it that says Certified for Windows 10.

No, it will say "Windows 10 ready"

[AlTech]

1 minute ago, Thony said:

No, it will say "Windows 10 ready"

So long as you have 4 or 8GB RAM and an i3 or better with some form of DX9 or newer GPU, it will probably be fine.........

[dizmo]

Interesting. Pretty consumer oriented, I wonder what their main use will be. I could see Dell and Lenovo going basic, bundling them with PC packages.

The real one to watch I think will be Asus (of course only after their second or third iteration, per norm) or perhaps Acer. 

 

23 hours ago, ZimFreak said:

I'm leery because I'm not a huge fan of mobile VR. Too many people try the Gear VR or god forbid Google Cardboard and are hugely unimpressed. They think "Oh, that's VR? Ok..." And then they never try a Vive or Rift because they assume they're all the same.

 

Bad VR will kill VR.

Not necessarily. I mean to a select few, sure, but I'd argue that a majority of people trying the Gear VR to get an accurate representation of what VR is like wouldn't pay the premium that it requires. I still think price is the main issue.
I know quite a few people that think Gear VR is fine, and wouldn't spend the 5x+ cost delta it'd take to get into a Vive.

There's also the lack of content. 

23 hours ago, christianled59 said:

100% agree. I have so many friends who had the same experience. Once I convinced them to try my Vive, they're blown away.

But are those friends likely to blow the money a Vive requires?

22 hours ago, Sakkura said:

Not a big advantage so long as it's still tethered. As I said, all it means is you don't have to plop down a camera or two.

 

It's a MUCH bigger advantage with an untethered device. Then it means you can go anywhere. Only constrained by where there's actually physically access (and WiFi range if it's using a separate PC for rendering).

I know a few people that can't have a Vive because of space constraints. I think having a unit where you simply sit and don't walk around or need cameras is a huge advantage. 

 

No one's mastered untethered VR yet, and I doubt we'll see that for a while. 

16 hours ago, Sakkura said:

If everyone thinks like that it won't get to that better level.

They'll still research it. All you need is a military or medical breakthrough involving VR and it'll be much better off.

One of my friends bought a Vive. He's selling it and waiting for a future model because the content simply isn't there to justify the price. 

[porina]

Random thought: are we thinking of VR too much from a gaming performance perspective? If you put that to one side, then the PC hardware requirements could drop significantly. Actual requirements will of course still depend on the use case.

[dalekphalm]

4 minutes ago, porina said:

Random thought: are we thinking of VR too much from a gaming performance perspective? If you put that to one side, then the PC hardware requirements could drop significantly. Actual requirements will of course still depend on the use case.

Indeed it depends, because even in "Non-gaming" scenarios, if you're watching something in Real Time, then it has to render that.

 

Sure, rendering a shitty "movie theatre" that isn't particularly high quality, with a pre-rendered movie playing, isn't going to take a lot of horse power.

 

But walking around Antarctica in a real-time "life-like" render, would be more demanding.

[Sakkura]

38 minutes ago, dizmo said:

I know a few people that can't have a Vive because of space constraints. I think having a unit where you simply sit and don't walk around or need cameras is a huge advantage. 

 

No one's mastered untethered VR yet, and I doubt we'll see that for a while. 

 

They'll still research it. All you need is a military or medical breakthrough involving VR and it'll be much better off.

One of my friends bought a Vive. He's selling it and waiting for a future model because the content simply isn't there to justify the price. 

Well, you can still use a Vive with just a computer on a desk. It's just designed to enable more (and the Rift is arguably better for that configuration). Not requiring cameras/etc. is more of an advantage if you do want to move around, because you're not tied to where you placed them (or forced to move them around).

 

VR research has been going on (slowly) all along. It's just that this is its chance to really break through. If it fails in the consumer market now, sure it'll still be around for the military and so on, but much more expensive and niche, with little chance of reaching consumer adoption.

[christianled59]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

 

But are those friends likely to blow the money a Vive requires?

 

Of the dozens of people I've shown, 2 have. A bunch of them are saving for VR, and every single one of them who has tried it, wants one. 

 

My recommendation is to wait for the next Vive, but it's so fun, and worth getting if you can afford it.

[dizmo]

Just now, christianled59 said:

Of the dozens of people I've shown, 2 have. A bunch of them are saving for VR, and every single one of them who has tried it, wants one. 

 

My recommendation is to wait for the next Vive, but it's so fun, and worth getting if you can afford it.

Eh, I disagree. I wouldn't spend the money on one with the huge lack of content available, I mean sure it's a cool experience but until there's more to do it's a waste IMO.

The price is also a bit high. I wouldn't spend more than $500 CDN on something that has to be tethered like that.

Now, have something completely wireless with a lightish weight, might be worth more.

 

Want and will actually buy are two entirely different things

 

[christianled59]

Just now, dizmo said:

Eh, I disagree. I wouldn't spend the money on one with the huge lack of content available, I mean sure it's a cool experience but until there's more to do it's a waste IMO.

The price is also a bit high. I wouldn't spend more than $500 CDN on something that has to be tethered like that.

Now, have something completely wireless with a lightish weight, might be worth more.

 

Want and will actually buy are two entirely different things

 

I agree. Like I said, I recommend people to wait for the next Vive. To me, $800 isn't all that much for what it is. Considering I drop like $700 for a phone every year or two. 

 

I'm betting in a year or two, the content will be there as well as the comfort. But right now, my favorite thing is multiplayer. It's just so great. I can play Rec Room for hours on end because it feels like hanging with someone in real life. My buddy and I sometimes hang out in vr when we're too lazy to meet up irl. 

[Blake]

It will do well, it puts VR porn into the hands of the masses (who don't have a Samsung phone already).

 

exciting times, it is going to be like VHS and beta-max all over again.

[AdmiralIronside]

A couple articles I found interesting... I'm kinda stoked on the Microsoft VR platform as it relates to the mass adoption of VR. It looks like they aim to be a direct competitor with PSVR, witch Is great because ATM there isn't any competition for it in the same price range (although I prefer the OSVR it DOESN'T have a CV). I also can't really get behind the PSVR, because my experience with it sucked majorly, - Honestly I prefer the Gear VR because I can tell myself "at least I got it for free," and it has more devs behind it and the customer base to support them, which is no small potatoes.

 

Also, some of the features of MS Hololens were very exiting to me and I've been waiting for gen 2 - with MS Hololens as proof of concept.

 

http://www.polygon.com/features/2016/10/27/13433658/microsoft-headsets-aim-to-democratize-mixed-reality

 

 http://www.pcworld.com/article/3136156/virtual-reality/microsofts-300-windows-vr-headsets-6-thing-we-know-and-1-big-question.html

[Sakkura]

4 hours ago, AdmiralIronside said:

http://www.polygon.com/features/2016/10/27/13433658/microsoft-headsets-aim-to-democratize-mixed-reality

Oh the misinformation. Yeah it totally requires a $1500 PC. Not like Oculus just lowered the requirements with ASW, so the Rift can now run off a $500 prebuilt...

[AdmiralIronside]

 

On 10/31/2016 at 9:18 PM, Sakkura said:

Oh the misinformation. Yeah it totally requires a $1500 PC. Not like Oculus just lowered the requirements with ASW, so the Rift can now run off a $500 prebuilt...

Yeah, for lulz I ran a couple of vr headsets on a couple set ups and it seems most headsets run "fine" down to an i3-560 westmere chip with a r9 270. with osvr having the best fps (possibly due to slightly lower ppi on a "developer headset").