Support NeoGAF

[Aurongel]

VR will be huge eventually but the next 3 years will have niche audiences buying the increasingly cheap hardware until they work out the kinks, make it wireless, etc.

This will be the grim realization that will rock the gaming side when they announce the $599 price. The rage and lack of understanding will be delicious.

 

[KHarvey16]

I get where you're coming from but certain genres are going to be difficult (if not impossible) to adapt to VR without it amounting to nothing more than a flashier presentation. It would mean just leaving genres behind, which I doubt will happen.

Leaving them behind in VR. They would still exist of course, just as they do now.

 

[nextgeneration]

Over the long term, I think VR will ultimately see success, as the tech matures and improves exponentially. But in its early/infancy stages, I'm not expecting much of a splash.

 

[The Elite]

Slack is 21st century IRC for those wondering what the hell it is. The biggest difference from my short time using it is that all messages are stored server-side. You'll always be able to refer to the message history for every channel listed on your Slack. Message input also supports Markdown, formatting for text that's far simpler to use than HTML and can be freely edited. The client automatically embeds videos, images, links and files via drag and drop or just by interpreting URL.

It combines the real time UX of a chat room with the persistence of a forum. A NeoNeoGAF might be built on Slack.

I didn't see the point of a new IRC until you mentioned dragging and dropping vids and images. That sounds convenient.

 

[Neo C.]

Sometimes I wish the Nintendo of the past (80s, 90s, 00s) could help VR with its magic again. Not really good devices were sold by millions just because they got the absolute killer game for it.

I think he's right but I hope for a killer app that could make the audience grab the device despite all the barriers.

 

[Auctopus]

This will be the grim realization that will rock the gaming side when they announce the $599 price. The rage and lack of understanding will be delicious.

No need to be an ass about it.

Sony have touted it as their hottest product that everyone can enjoy so it's no surprise that a huge section of their audience will be disappointed that they cannot afford it.

 

[Kinitari]

Hipchat does a lot of stuff better than it, especially if you're using other Atlassian products too. But it definitely doesn't have the same rep

Hipchat was alright when I used it, but it's mobile app was balls, and it wasn't as flexible when it came to managing multiple teams

 

[Sky Interloper]

Pretty spot on list.

I personally think that VR has a limited use case compared to AR, but both implementations still have years to develop. For VR, I think the time that has passed since Occulus first announced their headset and its release only hurt the initial hype and plenty of its awareness in the general media. After all, I don't remember a true must-own title announced that has mass appeal, and that's not even considering the price barrier problem that this kind of device carries within. I don't believe it will become a dud, but it may not reach critical mass.

In the case of the Apple Watch, I think it was a stillborn product. Clearly it was a decision made from investor pressure of getting into a new market after the successful trifecta of the iPod, iPhone and the iPad, but its main problem is that we still haven't had been presented a good reason for the general populace to buy a wearable beyond the capabilities of a fitness band. What do people gain from having a device that is tethered to an iPhone and gives them notifications and a link to Siri, to say some examples? This is the biggest problem of the entire market segment.

And finally, the case of Uber is really interesting. Considering the moves they have done recently, I believe their raison d'etre will move beyond a transport service into a full logistics ecosystem. And if that's the case, they need as much data as posible to become an attractive platform for anyone interested in those use cases.

 

[KHarvey16]

VR will be huge eventually but the next 3 years will have niche audiences buying the increasingly cheap hardware until they work out the kinks, make it wireless, etc.

This will be the grim realization that will rock the gaming side when they announce the $599 price. The rage and lack of understanding will be delicious.

No way it's close to $599. They said in the ballpark of the latest dev units, which were $350.

 

[Mister Zimbu]

VR will definitely not be a mainstream success anytime soon (though I recall everyone saying the same thing before the Wii's release too).

With that said, I hope the niche is big enough that the manufacturers all stick around and keep iterating and improving, because it really makes things an objectively better experience - by multiple orders of magnitude - in that niche.

Once you play a racing sim or Elite using a rift, there's no going back. Unfortunately those will never catch on mainstream either because they would need $200+ peripherals in addition to the Rift.

 

[RurouniZel]

Leaving them behind in VR. They would still exist of course, just as they do now.

Which is the opposite way to drive adoption methinks.

 

[Kinitari]

VR will definitely not be a mainstream success anytime soon (though I recall everyone saying the same thing before the Wii's release too).

With that said, I hope the niche is big enough that the manufacturers all stick around and keep iterating and improving, because it really makes things an objectively better experience - by multiple orders of magnitude - in that niche.

Once you play a racing sim or Elite using a rift, there's no going back. Unfortunately those will never catch on mainstream either because they would need $200+ peripherals in addition to the Rift.

I already bought elite, I have a rig with a 980gtx ti, and my body is ready. I've only tried VR once.

 

[Marty Chinn]

No way it's close to $599. They said in the ballpark of the latest dev units, which were $350.

Palmer Lucky also warned of high VR cost recently which seems to contradict that.

 

[billeh]

Palmer Lucky also warned of high VR cost recently which seems to contradict that.

I thought that was directed more at the 'overall' cost of the experience versus just the headset. A rig capable of displaying to the Rift can be quite expensive.

 

[Messypandas]

I know enough about VR to know it will be nothing more than a fad but you keep on keeping on thinking that I don't know enough just because I don't think it is the second coming of christ.

1) Wires
2) Input
3) Market segmentation with no unified API
4) Room to use it in
5) Cost

None of these have been solved since the last time they tried VR.

People won't adapt TV's because of:

1) Cost
2) Really heavy and needs 2 people to carry it up your stairs
3) Need to make some space in your living room and point all the furniture at it
4) Need to climb up on the roof and install an aerial
5) None of the above matters if the technology is impressive

 

[RurouniZel]

People won't adapt TV's because of:

1) Cost
2) Really heavy and needs 2 people to carry it up your stairs
3) Need to make some space in your living room and point all the furniture at it
4) Need to climb up on the roof and install an aerial
5) None of the above matters if the technology is impressive

Difficult initial setup =/= Difficult ongoing usage

 

[entremet]

People won't adapt TV's because of:

1) Cost
2) Really heavy and needs 2 people to carry it up your stairs
3) Need to make some space in your living room and point all the furniture at it
4) Need to climb up on the roof and install an aerial
5) None of the above matters if the technology is impressive

One huge caveat. TV is inherently more pro social. It became the new fireplace.

Waiting to use a VR headset doesn't sound fun.

 

[KHarvey16]

Which is the opposite way to drive adoption methinks.

Nah. Enough translates well already that I don't see that being an issue. FPSs are right in its wheelhouse and other popular genres can be designed to fit if done during development.

Palmer Lucky also warned of high VR cost recently which seems to contradict that.

High relative to what most people think of when they buy a PC. They said total cost for a PC to run it and the oculus is $1500.

 

[Messypandas]

One huge caveat. TV is inherently more pro social. It became the new fireplace.

Oh yeah undoubtedly. And isolation is one of the biggest drawbacks I see. But i also see 360 immersion in any medium (gaming, films, etc) as hugely revolutionary, and not really comparable to 3d Tv's. I think it will probably become the standard in the gaming sphere, but casual watching with friends is a more awkward fit.

 

[Anth0ny]

VR ain't going anywhere this year just due to price + crazy minimum specs that just aren't mainstream yet.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

VR is going to be huge, mostly for non gaming use. My kid has a View Master (basically a more expensive plastic google cardboard) and he plays with it every day. Travelling the solar system and just looking around space blows his mind. He's looked at every perspective from every planet and moon in the solar system at this point, and it's still interesting to him.

VR is already a dud, they already tried once in the 90's.

Technology has advanced a bit since then, as have the habits and expectations of users.

 

[Marty Chinn]

I thought that was directed more at the 'overall' cost of the experience versus just the headset. A rig capable of displaying to the Rift can be quite expensive.

High relative to what most people think of when they buy a PC. They said total cost for a PC to run it and the oculus is $1500.

These quotes from him:

@PalmerLuckey Extreme means like selling at-cost to ensure maximum market growth are not enough to align cost and desired price.

@PalmerLuckey Multiple custom VR panels, high end optics, and an endless list of specialized hardware and manufacturing techniques add up.

@PalmerLuckey The cost of development hardware that was sold at a loss using many off-the-shelf components is not a good comparison.

seem to directly relate to the cost of the headset being higher than people expect. Most people who are going to hop on board are likely people who have following the device and know what the dev kits cost and what the price point they've been aiming for. So these recent quotes to me seem to imply that they're going to be higher than anticipated when they reveal the price this week. So while it may not be $600, I think it's going to be much higher than $350 and the price point they were telling people they were trying to hit.

People won't adapt TV's because of:

1) Cost
2) Really heavy and needs 2 people to carry it up your stairs
3) Need to make some space in your living room and point all the furniture at it
4) Need to climb up on the roof and install an aerial
5) None of the above matters if the technology is impressive

This is a terrible comparison because the other list of issues all relate to actually using it where as none of those things matter once you're using the TV.

 

[Guevara]

I... agree with all of those, actually.

 

[KHarvey16]

These quotes from him:

@PalmerLuckey Extreme means like selling at-cost to ensure maximum market growth are not enough to align cost and desired price.

@PalmerLuckey Multiple custom VR panels, high end optics, and an endless list of specialized hardware and manufacturing techniques add up.

@PalmerLuckey The cost of development hardware that was sold at a loss using many off-the-shelf components is not a good comparison.

seem to directly relate to the cost of the headset being higher than people expect. Most people who are going to hop on board are likely people who have following the device and know what the dev kits cost and what the price point they've been aiming for. So these recent quotes to me seem to imply that they're going to be higher than anticipated when they reveal the price this week. So while it may not be $600, I think it's going to be much higher than $350 and the price point they were telling people they were trying to hit.

He literally said in the ballpark of the dev units. It will be higher, but not $250 higher. A $1500 all in cost doesn't allow for that. These comments are from October, so they aren't out of date. I'm expecting $399-$449.

 

[thezerofire]

Hipchat was alright when I used it, but it's mobile app was balls, and it wasn't as flexible when it came to managing multiple teams

I think their new version is supposed to be better at both, it was pretty impressive at their conference this year.

That said we use Slack so I don't have any firsthand experience with it

 

[Super Wario]

Just like I have been saying all this time. VR will bomb, hard.

 

[Furyous]

I have to draw the line at cryptocurrency hating. I hope it's adopted as my 1 million+ doge could give me fade into eternity money. Cryptocurrency has the potential to be huge but it needs more support.

It's too early to pan VR as we don't know what software enhances the experience. Let developers develop content and then talk shit not before it's released.

The Apple Watch is a success by smartwatch standards. I don't own one because it lacks GPS and battery life concerns but plenty of people do own them. Go look up estimated sales and get back to us.

 

[Dabanton]

VR price will be crucial and from the general caginess from all concerned you know it's going to be pricey. I think the sooner they talk prices, people can get over the initial shock and start saving if they need to.

Hopefully with CES this week we'll maybe see one or two of the manufacturers peep their heads above the parapet and give us some new info.

 

[KHarvey16]

VR price will be crucial and from the general caginess from all concerned you know it's going to be pricey. I think the sooner they talk prices, people can get over the initial shock and start saving if they need to.

Hopefully with CES this week we'll maybe see one or two of the manufacturers peep their heads above the parapet and give us some new info.

Oculus preorders are Wednesday.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

Just like I have been saying all this time. VR will bomb, hard.

lol, VR is the easiest sell of all time. Nearly everyone who puts on a headset will have a reaction to it, it's undeniable. The appeal is plain to see.

 

[Kadayi]

I think the big space for VR is in probably vicarious tourism more than games per se, everything thing from VR porn to base jumping, swimming with sharks etc. Being able to put you as the viewer into the visual 3D experience alone is where the bulk of the opportunity lies.

If there's something to invest it it's probably headset cameras that can record just above a persons eyes and be translated into 3D by VR.

 

[Gaogaogao]

that raccoon video was the last time I heard of kevin rose

overall bummer predictions

 

[entremet]

that raccoon video was the last time I heard of kevin rose

overall bummer predictions

He's currently a CEO at a watch website.

He moved to NYC too, so he probably won't deal with raccoons much, unless he's up in Inwood.

 

[Kinitari]

lol, VR is the easiest sell of all time. Nearly everyone who puts on a headset will have a reaction to it, it's undeniable. The appeal is plain to see.

The difficultly is just finding an easy way to get VR to consumers at a reasonable price. It'll come, but I don't think in this year - short of the cardboard/view-finder-with-smartphone solutions we have. And while those are really cool - they don't really facilitate VR as a strong platform. However, thinking about it, I think they will be a decent 'gateway drug' - when VR eventually finds a more comfortable consumer-ready medium (ie, something that isn't cost/technically prohibitive, and with a shitload of content).

I'll do my part by inviting people over and blowing their minds with cool shit. I wonder if weed helps.

 

[Wolfgunblood Garopa]

The difficultly is just finding an easy way to get VR to consumers at a reasonable price. It'll come, but I don't think in this year - short of the cardboard/view-finder-with-smartphone solutions we have. And while those are really cool - they don't really facilitate VR as a strong platform. However, thinking about it, I think they will be a decent 'gateway drug' - when VR eventually finds a more comfortable consumer-ready medium (ie, something that isn't cost/technically prohibitive, and with a shitload of content).

I'll do my part by inviting people over and blowing their minds with cool shit. I wonder if weed helps.

More and more people will be introduced via the cheap smartphone stuff, and it will be enough for this year. The enthusiast market will eat up stock of the Rift/Vive/PSVR this year anyways.

Of course weed helps, heh. At the very least, nearly everyone who gets buzzed from whatever is going to own a VR headset, spanning every demographic.

 

[Sapiens]

I think people are being to quick to dismiss VR before it's even out. I have a feeling it will be a big deal in a lot of ways. People just kind of want to be right about a future failure and VR is a big thing right now.

 

[dLMN8R]

What's so funny about it? You guys, and the guy you tweeted, approach it from a technological standpoint whereas his predictions is probably based on a business standpoint. Basically the tech's growth will be driven by its business use and there are more apparent business uses for AR than there are VR in his mind

I think AR has more practical, real world applications than VR and that fact alone is a pretty damn good reason to think that AR tech will advance faster and be in front of more eyes before VR. The only thing AR has to overcome is that pesky Google Glass stigma.

Re-read Kevin's prediction here.

He's massively hedging for his own benefit. He says that Virtual Reality will be a "dud" but he doesn't qualify the statement at all. Both him and people in this thread seem to be pretending that VR needs to suddenly have massive adoption in 2016 in order for it to be deemed a success, when in reality there can be many different levels of genuine success reached over time. VR could be successful at hundreds of thousands or low-millions of units. VR could be massively successful without reaching hugely mainstream adoption.

Just like today's gaming consoles. Even the most successful gaming console ever, the Playstation 2 at 150 million, is still a drop in the bucket compared to today's smartphones. But no one pretends like gaming consoles aren't independent successes worthy of existence.

He then says, without any clarification, that AR will be successful before VR is, but he also says that could be "years out".


So basically:

1) VR could be a genuine success in 2016 on a number of measures, but Kevin could still say his prediction was right because it wasn't successful **enough** by <insert vague arbitrary metric here>

2) VR will be more successful than AR for years because quite literally the technology for VR is here right now, in 2016, while the technology for AR is not. But Kevin will never admit that his prediction is wrong because he managed to word his prediction in such a way that it's impossible for him to be wrong.

3) Once AR is technologically possible in acceptable form years out, no one will care about Kevin anymore anyway.



Personally, I've been sick of Kevin Rose since he ruined Digg and launched the most egocentric epitome-of-Silicon-Valley-Bubble Oink years ago and has contributed nothing of value since the original version of Digg.

So not only are his predictions vague enough to be impossible to be wrong, or obvious enough that anyone could guess them, but I'm also curious why anyone gives weight to his opinions anymore in the first place.

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

Give me an Apple Watch I can put a data sim in.

 

[The Dutch Slayer]

KR is pretty smart guy.
But VR is not going to bomb its going to succeed beyond expectations.

 

[entremet]

Re-read Kevin's prediction here.

He's massively hedging for his own benefit. He says that Virtual Reality will be a "dud" but he doesn't qualify the statement at all. Both him and people in this thread seem to be pretending that VR needs to suddenly have massive adoption in 2016 in order for it to be deemed a success, when in reality there can be many different levels of genuine success reached over time. VR could be successful at hundreds of thousands or low-millions of units. VR could be massively successful without reaching hugely mainstream adoption.

Just like today's gaming consoles. Even the most successful gaming console ever, the Playstation 2 at 150 million, is still a drop in the bucket compared to today's smartphones. But no one pretends like gaming consoles aren't independent successes worthy of existence.

He then says, without any clarification, that AR will be successful before VR is, but he also says that could be "years out".


So basically:

1) VR could be a genuine success in 2016 on a number of measures, but Kevin could still say his prediction was right because it wasn't successful **enough** by <insert vague arbitrary metric here>

2) VR will be more successful than AR for years because quite literally the technology for VR is here right now, in 2016, while the technology for AR is not. But Kevin will never admit that his prediction is wrong because he managed to word his prediction in such a way that it's impossible for him to be wrong.

3) Once AR is technologically possible in acceptable form years out, no one will care about Kevin anymore anyway.



Personally, I've been sick of Kevin Rose since he ruined Digg and launched the most egocentric epitome-of-Silicon-Valley-Bubble Oink years ago and has contributed nothing of value since the original version of Digg.

So not only are his predictions vague enough to be impossible to be wrong, or obvious enough that anyone could guess them, but I'm also curious why anyone gives weight to his opinions anymore in the first place.

Par for the course for serial entrepreneurs like Rose, though. Some or one hit. Many failures.

 

[deltatheta]

Why would you avoid investing in VR if you expect it to follow the Wii trajectory? The Wii was very successful for several years and it made tons of money.

Honestly it had a longer half life than many of the considered-successful Silicon Valley startups that Kevin Rose invests in and has developed in the past.

 

[VariantX]

VR has way too many practical applications in plenty of professional fields to not succeed on some level. I don't think its going to set the consumer world on fire at first though until its cheap.

 

[John Kowalski]

imo VR tech will be picked up later in the decade by other industries

like... debugging AI or something

 

[Dabanton]

Oculus preorders are Wednesday.

Just saw that thread. So we now have at least one manufacturer prepared to say how much their product will be.

 

[Mushroomer25]

Seems like a bunch of very safe bets. I agree that VR isn't going to be mainstream in 2016, but saying it's a 'dud' is probably overselling it. The tech is there - price will be the core issue from here out.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

Looking forward to the VR flop compilation this time next year.

 

[MattKeil]

Just saw that thread. So we now have at least one manufacturer prepared to say how much their product will be.

Odd they didn't just say how much it was when they announced preorders would be opening.

 

[wildfire]

VR is already a dud, they already tried once in the 90's.

They already tried and failed with VR

This is some brilliant sarcasm.

Anyway VR doesn't have to be a dud. The tech actually works and I expect it to cost no more than personal computers did in the 80s relative to today's market.

The problem is that the software isn't there even though it could be.

There is no:

Major OS like Windows to structure it.
No productivity software that makes MS Project/ Autocad and photoshop into stoneage joke.
No tourism/exploration related experiences that deserves an entry fee except for NFL's plan to give you a sideline or even on the field experience.

It's pretty amazing how little has been revealed about cutting edge software.

 

[InaudibleWhispa]

I don't think anybody involved in VR expects it to have any major mainstream success so soon. Oculus and Zuckerberg talk about a 10 year road; this is going to be a slow and gradual process. Practically every smartphone is a potential VR device. If Gear VR is $99 today (with a Samsung phone, obviously that restriction won't stick forever), what will $99 get you in 2025? What will free with your phone get you in 2025? An UHD smartphone that does everything better than today's expensive VR headsets are doing and more for super cheap, if not free.

 

[Dabanton]

Odd they didn't just say how much it was when they announced preorders would be opening.

I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they'll do it when pre orders open but...

I actually just re read that thread and they said pre orders would be opening no explicit promise to say how much the thing would cost. I hope they don't pull that kind of shit.

Maybe they'll reveal the price in the AMA with Palmer Luckey on Wednesday.