Support NeoGAF

[ScatheZombie]

My point exactly.

Ok, now I'm trying to figure out at what income level $400 is cheap but $800 is too expensive ... for "the most revolutionary tech product ever made".

 

[epmode]

I can't wait for the crow-eating thread in a few years. People comparing VR to 3D televisions or half-assed motion controls have no vision whatsoever.

 

[Game4life]

I wonder if you understand what "niche" means. Protip: it doesn't indicate a product's reach, but its mass appeal or lack or thereof.

Second protip: using "protip" doesn't make your post sound more realistic.

Thirdly, the buzzwords you used could be (and have been) applied to a ton of fizzled/niche experiences, second life for instance.

In order for a product not to be niche, it needs to be affordable. At the moment Oculus isn't, because it requires equipment that goes well beyond the simple headset, that already isn't cheap on its own.

But hey, you're free to count yourself in the congregation of the faithful. I enjoy VR, but that doesn't mean I believe it'll suddenly conquer the world.

What? No one is saying it will sell gangbusters early on. People are just saying VR will be the future. Of course it needs to be affordable. Who said no? The first computer I am sure was very expensive to own. Prices will come down eventually and the platform's potential is far too great for it to go away.

 

[Cipherr]

What? No one is saying it will sell gangbusters early on. People are just saying VR will be the future.

The stop saying it. Because every damn body knows that. Theres not a sane person walking that doesnt realize that once VR becomes practical, fleshed out and affordable that its going to be a big deal.

The point of contention in these threads is ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS WHEN that point will be reached. NOT IF.

You are not some sage for being able to realize that people will like fully developed cheap and affordable Virtual Reality when it arrives. Stop patting yourself on the back so hard for foreseeing that, its bad for your joints.

 

[Queen of Hunting]

I can't wait for the crow-eating thread in a few years. People comparing VR to 3D televisions or half-assed motion controls have no vision whatsoever.

this industry underestimates how many people acutally want extra peripherals on their body to enjoy their entertainment, 3d glasses never worked twice. they made 3d tv's to try and counter that which flopped again. myself and many others just want to pick a normal controller/ mouse and keyboard and fuck shit up, not have some bullshit motion/touch involed or experience it like im really in room (that shit will do nothing for me to be quite frank)

 

[epmode]

Theres not a sane person walking that doesnt realize that once VR becomes practical, fleshed out and affordable that its going to be a big deal.

Most GAF threads prove otherwise.

edit: Oh, you said "sane". I agree.

 

[Zia]

because it will flop like motion controls

Exactly. Because remember when the smartest people in the games industry (Abrash, Newell, Carmack) were proselytizing motion controls, or when Facebook paid billions of dollars for the one motion controls company?

 

[Riddy]

words

 

[Pie and Beans]

The stop saying it. Because every damn body knows that. Theres not a sane person walking that doesnt realize that once VR becomes practical, fleshed out and affordable that its going to be a big deal.

The point of contention in these threads is ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS WHEN that point will be reached. NOT IF.

You are not some sage for being able to realize that people will like fully developed cheap and affordable Virtual Reality when it arrives. Stop patting yourself on the back so hard for foreseeing that, its bad for your joints.

The 'affordable VR entry point' is this year/next. Its $300 1440p headsets that plug into PCs, games consoles, smartphones.

The reason why theres fervour over CV1 release is because we are on the cusp and my balls are getting sore from resting on that cusp. CV1 won't have any price problems, it can only have "cant fucking produce enough" problems and the scalping that brings. Its already happening with DK stuff and Gear VR.

 

[Seanspeed]

The actual headset they used was about $800.

And it was probably big, clunky, uncomfortable, poor resolution, not nearly fast enough and couldn't be powered by off the shelf home hardware am I right?

Palmer built the Oculus Rift precisely because he had didn't feel even commercial ial level VR was good enough.

 

[Ziffles]

this industry underestimates how many people acutally want extra peripherals on their body to enjoy their entertainment, 3d glasses never worked twice. they made 3d tv's to try and counter that which flopped again. myself and many others just want to pick a normal controller/ mouse and keyboard and fuck shit up, not have some bullshit motion/touch involed or experience it like im really in room (that shit will do nothing for me to be quite frank)

"The industry" aren't the only ones trying to push VR. They're only just hopping aboard now.

Modern consumer VR pretty much came from the ground up and word of mouth through internet channels. 3D displays/glasses on the other hand were a push from the top that no one really wanted that much and it shows.

 

[Hip Hop]

I just hope there is a standard out there, not that it becomes some proprietary BS like "Only Oculus supported" if there are VR competitors out there.

 

[Seanspeed]

this industry underestimates how many people acutally want extra peripherals on their body to enjoy their entertainment, 3d glasses never worked twice. they made 3d tv's to try and counter that which flopped again. myself and many others just want to pick a normal controller/ mouse and keyboard and fuck shit up, not have some bullshit motion/touch involed or experience it like im really in room (that shit will do nothing for me to be quite frank)

Give it a shot before you say it won't do anything for you. Its really hard to understand how impactful it is til you try it.

 

[Solid Samus]

because it will flop like motion controls

asinine

 

[Sectorseven]

Curious to see how they market it. Can't say I'm anxious to put my face in a kiosk unit that 10,000 people have used.

 

[Queen of Hunting]

"The industry" aren't the only ones trying to push VR. They're only just hopping aboard now.

Modern consumer VR pretty much came from the ground up and word of mouth through internet channels. 3D displays/glasses on the other hand were a push from the top that no one really wanted that much and it shows.

can you imagine playing gta in virtual reality ? people moan now how much the media links x killing to gta or other games, lets see how that comes down when virutal reality comes along ?

this could change things for the worse if certain games pick up it

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

So is it actually coming out this year?

 

[ScatheZombie]

There's not a sane person walking that doesn't realize that once VR becomes practical, fleshed out and affordable that its going to be a big deal.

The point of contention in these threads is ABSOLUTELY ALWAYS WHEN that point will be reached. NOT IF.

This is true. My argument has never been that the tech isn't amazing or doesn't have unlimited potential or isn't the future of technology. It's that Oculus Rift is not the "practical, fleshed out and affordable" stepping stone into that eventual renaissance. It is, at best, just one step of a very, very long, multi-decade journey that's already been going on for many, many years.

And it's super frustrating to argue this point with people (not you), whose defense is either that I "don't know what I'm talking about", that I "can't see it's potential", or that I "don't understand how it works" (ironically, as a game developer who has worked with VR).

 

[JaggedSac]

I'll grab one when they launch it.

 

[evil solrac v3.0]

Smartphones and tablets are relatively cheap. VR isn't. Smartphones and tablets don't require you to wear a cumbersome headset that makes you blind to all else. Smartphones and tablets are used in every moment of your life, and that's very unlikely to apply to VR as well.

So I'm sorry, but the comparison really doesn't even get close to fit.



You forgot the very simple fact that a VR headset does absolutely nothing, zero, nada, by itself.

but you don't need a AAA looking game to be wowed by VR.

can you imagine playing gta in virtual reality ? people moan now how much the media links x killing to gta or other games, lets see how that comes down when virutal reality comes along ?

this could change things for the worse if certain games pick up it

media always harps on what they don't understand.

 

[floatingcoffins]

What sort of sales are people expecting with this?

 

[Queen of Hunting]

but you don't need a AAA looking game to be wowed by VR.



media always harps on what they don't understand.

not really look how people on here reacted with first person gta on ps4/one.

virtual reality shooting games just sounds like a really fucked up idea

 

[Ziffles]

can you imagine playing gta in virtual reality ? people moan now how much the media links x killing to gta or other games, lets see how that comes down when virutal reality comes along ?

this could change things for the worse if certain games pick up it

All the more reason it will be the biggest tech story of 2015.

What are you arguing here, exactly? It sounds like you're just jumping from point to point.

 

[EmptySpace]

In a way, he was right.

But that's a separate topic for another thread.

tvs will die sooner than consoles.

crazy, i know.

i don't trust rubin whenever he spouts his "knowledge of the industry".

at the same time, vr will be big.

put a 360-degree camera beside jennifer lawrence at oscar night and stream that shit to morpheus and vr will take off.

virtual tourism will make it big.

 

[Queen of Hunting]

All the more reason it will be the biggest tech story of 2015.

What are you arguing here, exactly? It sounds like you're just jumping from point to point.

they are all valid points ? especially the last point ?

 

[Linkup]

We still get posters walking out of the 80s to tell us why VR sucks. Please go back(not to the 80s lol) and do some actual research, it's getting embarrassing. Go ahead and type in DK1 and start watching videos and reading impressions. Now type in DK2 and do the same. Next type in Oculus Connect, John Carmack, Palmer Luckey, and Michael Abrash and watch some speeches. Finally read impressions of the Crescent Bay prototype at CES 2015 along with it's specs.

Now I dare you to come back into this thread in five hours or however long and tell me VR is anything like it was even just three years ago let alone ten or that VR is similar to 3D TV. It's on a completely different level now and the potential isn't just massive and widespread, but it's already happening on Dev kits with all their quirky, buggy, outdatedness of experiencing current VR software.

Did my best to help those who aren't getting what VR is NOW all about. If your afraid of the isolating aspect then maybe come back another time?

Also yay 2015 launch incoming. I will add that Oculus(Iribe?) said 2015 launch also and that the optics, screen, headphones, and form factor are basically final.

 

[Wagram]

Jason was also the president of THQ.

 

[Ziffles]

they are all valid points ? especially the last point ?

But we were talking about 3d glasses ten minutes ago?

Anyway, I'm sure the media reaction will be the same as it is with any scary new technology. I'm not a mod, but I think if you want to argue about the morality of VR games then I'd say that's a subject for another thread.

 

[ScatheZombie]

And it was probably big, clunky, uncomfortable, poor resolution, not nearly fast enough and couldn't be powered by off the shelf home hardware am I right?

Palmer built the Oculus Rift precisely because he had didn't feel even commercial ial level VR was good enough.

Not really big, but bigger than Oculus yes.
No more clunky than Rift.
Definitely uncomfortable, but I found the DK1 Rift uncomfortable too.
1280x1024
Fast enough for what?
And no, the software was expensive as fuck (tens of thousands per license) but it was proprietary. But that's also going to be true for a lot of the commercial applications (medical, teaching, research, etc.) so that's really neither here nor there.

 

[Goldenroad]

I don't know man. Phil Spencer seems to believe the XBOX One is going to be a bigger deal...and for some reason Miyamoto seems to think people are going to care about a new Star Fox. I'll wait to hear what Andrew House thinks.

 

[Ri'Orius]

2. isolation aspect? so you don't play single player games I guess.

I play plenty of single player games. Back in college I played them in my dorm lounge. These days I play them in my living room with my dog in my lap. Over the holidays I played them with my 8-year-old nephew looking over my shoulder asking questions all the time.

I also tend to play them with a phone or laptop handy in case of downtime (eg load times) or if I want to look something up real quick.

When we get around to augmented reality I'm totally on board, but virtual reality (as I'm envisioning it) seems cumbersome if it'll prevent me from easily interacting with actual reality while I'm VRing it up. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, of course.

 

[ButchCat]

Says the guy working for Oculus.

 

[THEAnderson21]

When does he steer Oculus into bankruptcy?

 

[NossEntertainment]

An actual hoverboard http://hendohover.com/

 

[Bsigg12]

I wonder when their press conference that shows off the hardware and launch titles will be? I'm really interested to see what they have lined up from both first party and third party native support.

It's gonna be an exciting year in games!

When does he steer Oculus into bankruptcy?

THQ was already falling apart by the time they brought him in.

 

[Kritz]

not really look how people on here reacted with first person gta on ps4/one.

virtual reality shooting games just sounds like a really fucked up idea

if the worst problem VR has is that it's too real, I think the technology will do pretty well.

 

[wmlk]

Which is and will remain an extremely limited niche for years to come.

VR is cool. It could even be game-changing for some. Big, it is not.

Saving this one.

Technology in general will drive VR. The video game industry isn't some closed bubble.

 

[To Far Away Times]

I can't wait for the crow-eating thread in a few years. People comparing VR to 3D televisions or half-assed motion controls have no vision whatsoever.

But it is like 3D televisions. 3D didn't fail because it wasn't nice, it failed because of the glasses, and the "social experience" of watching TV. The effort of using it, (i.e. not wearing an eye covering helmet) needs to be almost zero for this to take off.

 

[Solid Samus]

this industry underestimates how many people acutally want extra peripherals on their body to enjoy their entertainment, 3d glasses never worked twice. they made 3d tv's to try and counter that which flopped again. myself and many others just want to pick a normal controller/ mouse and keyboard and fuck shit up, not have some bullshit motion/touch involed or experience it like im really in room (that shit will do nothing for me to be quite frank)

You underestimate the application and utility (and therefore relevancy) of VR and marginalize it as an entertainment peripheral in the same breath. You're making judgements about a technology you don't seem to entirely understand.

3DTV was rejected because it offers little value to many people relative to the experience of engaging in 3D enabled content on a standard panel, and does little to offer its own style of unique content. It's just faked depth (easily percieved as such due to the low framerate and static nature of most 3D content) viewed through a panel from a distance.

VR is nothing like 3D. It is a less expensive investment that opens up far more possibilities. It is not a static, unmoving 'window' into another world, it is as though you are present in another world, with an appropriate level of depth and a sense of place to your surroundings.

VR requires a high framerate/refresh rate and very quick and precise motion tracking, but you are enveloped in another reality. You're not viewing a 2D image of another reality, you're not viewing a dim diorama-esque static 3D representation through a small and unmoving window into another reality, you're there. Because of the high framerate/refresh rate, your eyes don't immediately peg what you're seeing as a refreshing screen. Because of the headset and curved lenses, you're entirely surrounded by an image with quality, comfortable depth. Because you're not viewing the depth through a 'window', it is capable of displaying a true-to-life range of depth, from right up close to your face to miles off into the distance. And because of the motion tracking, your perspective in the virtual reality changes with your head movements. All of these things combined contribute to a sense of 'presence' - you don't feel like you're looking at a video on a nifty panel with simulated depth, you feel like you're there. You're a part of the world in a very real and visceral sense - it's not just 'wow this image looks awesome with some depth', your brain, your subconscious actually feels like you're there because the world responds to your movement and envelops your key senses entirely. Presence. 3D televisions versus Virtual Reality is like watching a 3D video of a landmark or a museum as opposed to actually being there. The concepts aren't anywhere near the same and you should read up on VR to get a good picture of how totally different these technologies are in concept, practice, and potential application. VR is in another league, another galaxy

Comparisons to 3DTV or any other consumer tech involving wearables are erroneous at best and just plain ignorant at worst. VR offers up a host of applications that no other medium for entertainment, education, or functionality can, while improving and offering fresh perspectives on existing mediums like film or games. Here's a few examples I've reposted time and time again

-educational purposes; being able to allow people to view, manipulate, and experience computer generated instances of real life objects, creatures, phenomena, directly without having to produce it physically. this alone -mark my words- will be the technology's biggest driver, with enormous potential in the classroom, for military purposes, engineering, machine control simulation, construction and design, etc.

-medical purposes abound, including training, practice, and therapy

-exploring building plans (such as homes or hotels), real life landmarks, prospective travel locations, theme park attractions, etc. or even fictional landscapes described in other media

-media consumption, enabling new takes on traditional forms of media by placing the viewer inside as a passive participant, putting them that much closer to depicted scenes and situations and strengthening their impact and intention, or as an active participant, like in the oft-repeated 'movie theater' example (analogous to a Netflix party) which for example would place you and a group of (online) friends in front of a simulated screen, free to interact in a manner that allows for human touches in ways voice communication don't allow for. also porno

-telecommunications in general, enabling people to convene and interact with one another in a virtual environment that allows for the concepts I've outlined above to be utilized and discussed together - a video conference among businessmen around the world becomes a virtual conference room in which concepts and data can be represented freely, without limitation, and with interactivity, for example

I outlined in a previous post a myriad of potential applications for the technology whose usefulness or novelty can outweigh the implications of tethering oneself to a piece of technology... something I've got a feeling many of you posting right now, and around the world, are actively engaged in doing anyway...

i'm imagining a future in which a school science lab has twenty headsets on deck and can lead a class on a field trip every week without leaving the building, a field trip to the Taj Mahal, a field trip to a room with animal cadavers or volatile chemical compounds/ultramagnified molecular structures ready to be dissected or experimented with, a field trip out to fucking Olympus Mons and far beyond. Medical courses and training in which everything from bacteria to the human anatomy can be explored in-depth with interactivity as required. Flight and military simulations that approximate these situations far more closely and intuitively. Business/creative meetings wherein a man can demonstrate to another around the world concepts/designs/data that the other man can interact with and inspect from every angle, seemingly with their own two eyes, and even manipulate in collaboration. Viewing, exploring, and experiencing a 3D design of a potential home, or hotel, or travel destination, or amusement park ride, or god damn Helms Deep, who knows, without having to leave your home. Shopping for clothes, furniture, and devices in the same vein. I don't think this is the sort of thing that will replace television at all but I sure as heck believe it has its place in modern society as an alternate form of consuming and experiencing all sorts of forms of media that can allow for so much more than what we can do now with traditional means.

There's a lot more to this tech than you think there is and I hope you're willing to look into it more and better understand what it is and what it's capable of before you determine whether or not this technology is capable of success

But it is like 3D televisions. 3D didn't fail because it wasn't nice, it failed because of the glasses, and the "social experience" of watching TV. The effort of using it, (i.e. not wearing an eye covering helmet) needs to be almost zero for this to take off.

That's a vast oversimplification, how do people not see that? 3DTV didn't just fail because people don't like wearing glasses. As though the price and actual value that the tech provided are non-factors... it's like I said, 3D TV is just faked depth on a panel that doesn't move. It doesn't offer up unique experiences of its own and only serves to marginally improve or up the novelty of already existing mediums, and most people who have tried TV weren't wooed by it enough to pay the added price AND deal with added inconveniences. VR, as I've pointed out, offers up experiences that are unobtainable anywhere else, and can allow significant innovation upon existing types of experiences. It is far more likely people will be willing to put something on their heads when the tradeoff isn't a few feet of faked depth while watching a movie, but the feeling of presence in many different kinds of virtual environments.

 

[Betta Lines]

if the worst problem VR has is that it's too real, I think the technology will do pretty well.

Unless it gets banned.

 

[Queen of Hunting]

You underestimate the application and utility (and therefore relevancy) of VR and marginalize it as an entertainment peripheral in the same breath. You're making judgements about a technology you don't seem to entirely understand.

3DTV was rejected because it offers little value to many people relative to the experience of engaging in 3D enabled content on a standard panel, and does little to offer its own style of unique content. It's just faked depth (easily percieved as such due to the low framerate and static nature of most 3D content) viewed through a panel from a distance.

VR is nothing like 3D. It is a less expensive investment that opens up far more possibilities. It is not a static, unmoving 'window' into another world, it is as though you are present in another world, with an appropriate level of depth and a sense of place to your surroundings.



Comparisons are erroneous at best and just plain ignorant at worst. VR offers up a host of applications that no other medium for entertainment, education, or functionality can, while improving and offering fresh perspectives on existing mediums like film or games. Here's a few examples I've reposted time and time again





There's a lot more to this tech than you think there is and I hope you're willing to look into it more and better understand what it is and what it's capable of before you determine whether or not this technology is capable of success

im concerned about how its going to take the industry forward in a way that is for the worse, i dont think virtual reality is a good idea for games like shooters where yourself in a virtual world is going to be shooting other human beings.

some people cannot handle playing gta in first person and hitting a human with a baseball bat or other weapons.

i already said some games it could work really well with but others i can see it being a really bad idea.

yes the tech is great but i dont want it being attached to games it isnt suited too. we had that with motion controls and it killied some big games due to that.

 

[wmlk]

But it is like 3D televisions. 3D didn't fail because it wasn't nice, it failed because of the glasses, and the "social experience" of watching TV. The effort of using it, (i.e. not wearing an eye covering helmet) needs to be almost zero for this to take off.

3D failed because it wasn't nice and it was a hassle.

VR is a hassle that has massive payoffs.

I can't watch a damn NBA game courtside in 3D. I can with VR...while sitting beside a group of friends at the same time.

 

[Kritz]

Unless it gets banned.

Not that bannings are the most sensible things ever, but surely the thing to ban would be the naughty software, not the hardware?

(between me and you, I've never been too fond of how much violence is in games anyway )

 

[Foggy]

im concerned about how its going to take the industry forward in a way that is for the worse, i dont think virtual reality is a good idea for games like shooters where yourself in a virtual world is going to be shooting other human beings.

some people cannot handle playing gta in first person and hitting a human with a baseball bat or other weapons.

i already said some games it could work really well with but others i can see it being a really bad idea.

yes the tech is great but i dont want it being attached to games it isnt suited too. we had that with motion controls and it killied some big games due to that.

It's going to take creative minds to push the new approach to the medium. Genres that weren't prominent before can be infused with more life(driving, flying, adventure, etc). Very few current games succeed when they're just plugged into a virtual reality environment and that fact alone should actually be exciting to people. It's going to force a new gaming language to sprout up and I definitely have faith in developers to push the limits and find what works best in vr.

Edit: Hell, even horror games can be given new life. As much as I loved the presence in a game like Slender: The Arrival, the delivery of the scares were just too intense for me. The means of scaring the player needs to be more pronounced when the majority of your players are sitting in a dark room staring at a screen, but actually feeling like you're there makes those moments too loud; too intense. The most effective moments for me in the game involved me just walking around the house at the beginning of the game. Looking down a dark hallway, knowing that this is a game that is going to scare me. That subtle means of fear, that creeping dread, you just can't replicate that to the degree that you can when you're in vr. To put it simply, currently jump-scare horror is king but vr can bring a rise to atmospheric horror. And that is an amazing, awesome thing.

 

[Ferrio]

Good, I wanna play Elite already.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

One of the first internships I was offered was working for a "game" company that exclusively made training simulations for the US Military. One of their biggest products was VR ... in 2005. VR tech isn't new and many of the applications that Oculus (and others) have been espousing that will "revolutionize" everything are already being done, in fact, have been for over 10 years.

Oculus is just one company working on 3 decade old tech that hasn't broken into the mass market in 30 years. And, unfortunately, they really aren't doing anything differently than their predecessors that would suggest they will have more success.

And technology has not advanced one single bit since...2005.

 

[Servbot24]

It will indeed be the biggest story, and not only for gaming.

Naysayers can already go hide in a corner.

Hopefully it releases soon but ready. No need to rush it out.

I'm ok with a fall 2015 release.

There will probably be some bullshit gamer drama story that gets more headlines, but I can picture Oculus being the biggest legitimate event in gaming this year.

 

[Raticus79]

Everybody is playing catch up to Oculus in the consumer vr realm. Its not even close, they have so much infrastructure set up.

With the open sourced DK1, it reminds me of a story I heard in management class talking about Toyota opening up their plants to competitors. "Sure, come check out our operations, we'll be further ahead of you by the time you catch up to that".

 

[Foggy]

With the open sourced DK1, it reminds me of a story I heard in management class talking about Toyota opening up their plants to competitors. "Sure, come check out our operations, we'll be further ahead of you by the time you catch up to that".

I'd honestly be surprised if Morpheus or the Microsoft vr product arrives before the end of 2016.

 

[Solid Samus]

One of the first internships I was offered was working for a "game" company that exclusively made training simulations for the US Military. One of their biggest products was VR ... in 2005. VR tech isn't new and many of the applications that Oculus (and others) have been espousing that will "revolutionize" everything are already being done, in fact, have been for over 10 years.

Oculus is just one company working on 3 decade old tech that hasn't broken into the mass market in 30 years. And, unfortunately, they really aren't doing anything differently than their predecessors that would suggest they will have more success.

I'm just going to point out that you really must not know anything about the current state of VR, or the heavy interest many massive companies across several technological sectors have displayed, going as far as to directly fund Oculus or their own platforms, sometimes even losing major players, big names to these burgeoning VR companies. Technological advancements made in the last few years, especially pertaining to mobile products, has enabled renewed interest in VR because it's actually feasible now. It's actually possible to enable a sense of presence through fast enough motion tracking, high enough refresh rates, higher-resolution screens, etc. and then provide it at a consumer-friendly price point for use with devices like PCs or smartphones that are already totally ubiquitous. Oculus isn't the only company with their minds on VR right now, not even close, and there are some huge names and a lot of money going into the tech right now. That you think they're not doing anything differently than their predecessors or that there's nothing indicating this venture will see more success than past attempts only demonstrates that you're ignorant on the topic of modern VR in general, and haven't heard a single bit of the massive and important news pertaining to Oculus and VR ventures in general since Oculus became a thing. Saying "they aren't really doing anything differently" is the exact same thing as saying "I don't know what they're doing at all". Because the things that they've been doing differently since day one are the reason we're even having a VR conversation at all, much less Google or Samsung or Facebook or everyone else throwing their hats into the ring. I really suggest you look more into Oculus, it's collaborators/competitors, and the state of the technology right now before dismissing it so readily, because your dismissal is incredibly off base.