If you go all the way its actually 742 euros with shipping.
Wow 
I guess no Oculus for me then
1 Like
Not to mention the costs for a pc that can properly use the oculus ā¦ but man 750ā¬ is far more than I anticipated -_-
I will rate on the tests and opinions between DK2 and Consumer Version.
The DK2 was its money worth it, if there is a noticeable difference especially at the resolution and a less noticable pixelgrid, I might go for the CV even if at the higher price then. Elite Dangerous and Space Engine was really amazing already with DK2.
yeah. IMO it needs to be <100 euros for it to get to any sort of critical mass
I donāt think this kind of technology can be achieved for less than 100ā¬ (or $, whatever) yet.
Look at it this way: computer screens with equivalent resolution cost at least the same amount. Here it is miniaturized and designed specifically for close watching. Plus the dual screens are mounted into a specific helmet with earphones, this also adds up.
Later, in 2 years maybe, the price will surely drop to 500-400 $/ā¬. But 100ā¬? Nope, not anytime soon and not for the same quality.
VR is never going to achieve true mass market penetration. It may do well in the enthusiast market, but, much like isolation chambers, itās too disorienting for the average consumer.
VR headsets are just special computer monitors. $600 is more than Iām willing to spend on a computer monitor, but itās well within the budget for enthusiasts. Thereās a market for this. Itās just always going to be somewhat of a niche market.
2 Likes
My feeling is that itās more likely that VR will enter the mainstream through cheap cradle devices such as Google Cardboard and Samsung Galaxy Gear. I think day to day usage is a long way off but I can see a lot of people having a VR viewer for their phone if some decent experiences are developed. The optics of the viewers and screens and power of phones is improving at a rapid pace.
I can quite imagine a comfortable plastic VR cradle compatible with a wide range of Android phones being released in the 20-30 dollar price bracket. Iām hoping that Google will release their own version of Cardboard in plastic with bluetooth connectivity.
You can read my take on VR, based on hands-on experience here:
1 Like
I read a recent article about the Oculus Rift and the authorās observation was that the Rift works and itās expensive. In contrast, he asserted, Google Cardboard and the other devices are more novelty than anything else. The authorās real concern was that people would play with Cardboard and they would figure that VR was still a toy, not suited to more than a few minutes of use - which is all Cardboard is good for.
As Kichae suggests, the Rift will probably occupy a niche. I wonder about the non-gaming/commercial uses of it, however. Every time I hear about the next transportation revolution such as electric cars or fuel cells cars I think of virtual reality. Stop transporting bodies around and just transport the electrons/photons. Why drive to work when you can virtually go to work? Or to school? Why fly to a convention when you can go virtually? How about teams that are separated internationally but who would like to engage in serious design meetings?
Teams like I-Novae Studios.
I think that VRās real benefit may have nothing to do with gaming.
The societal impacts of that are a great subject to explore for near-SF.
I think there would be still many people physically moving in the (admittedly close) foreseeable future, for two main reasons: (cyber)security, and social impact.
Those two are the reasons Iām not (yet) working from home, even though I theoretically already could. Working on critical internal software, they prefer having me there, instead of a (potentially compromised) home computer through a (potentially unsafe) distant connection. And even though we are using text chat and voice calls (though not, interestingly enough, visual calls), sometimes itās just more efficient to see the person(s) face-to-face. Not to mention those times at the coffee machine and at lunch.
So I donāt see Occulus replacing physical presence outright, though it could for niche cases, the way voice/text/visual calls do.
I donāt see it replacing much of tourism either, as when moving to a place, there is more than sound and image to experience. Local food, for starter.
However, I do try to imagine the possibilities it opens for UI, for example what a 3D immersive computer desktop or IDE could do with itā¦
But as far as Battlescape is concerned, even though it is the perfect videogame for it, itāll stay niche for at least one VR generation.
1 Like
Yeah thatās our (current) expectation as well which is why we arenāt investing in it for Battlescape just yet. We might patch in support after the game ships if it looks like enough of our users have a Rift (or one of the other headsets).
It will cheapen, the $600 pricetag is an early adopterās fee. A few years down the line i can see consumer gear going for 300-400 and thats more than reasonable.
It most certainly isnt too disoriented for the average consumer, i dont know where youāve gotten that impression. There are people who get motion sickness but how much of a gamer you are isnt the defining factor in motion sickness, and those people who get it still arent in the majority.
Everyone gets simulation sickness if the exposure is long enough and he is not yet acclimated. (See my previous post for my basis for that claim.)
+1 on by experiences with my DK2 and the majority of friends testing it.
I suffered heavily from motion sickness prior to joining the navy, but the biggest impact for me in gaming is frame rate. As long as the frames donāt fall below a certain threshold, I donāt have any issues with it.
Personal experience? I had the opportunity to try a devkit. Wargrim basically perfectly summed up my experience: Unless youāre playing a game where your avatar is sitting still, it feels like youāre pretty much constantly falling backwards. And I donāt suffer from motion sickness.
That doesnt mean the majority of the consumer market will suffer from similar sim sickness(not the same as motion sickness, as you pointed out), in my experience itās a small group and even then it was much worse with the earlier devkits than dk2, vive, and the new cv1 for the few that have tried it.
A few thoughts on vr and Battlescape:
If āexperimentalā VR is ever going to be implemented I would argue to go with steamVR since it supports both the rift and the vive and would probably be beneficial when publishing the game on steam.
Since the launch of Battlescape is somewhere in 2017/2018, VR is going to be more widespread, especially in the future 2018/2019.
Lots of people only bought ED to use it for VR gaming (killer app).
Early adopters are always hungry for content and are willing to fork over lots of cash. If integrating experimental steamVR is only a matter of hours/days it could be very profitable to do it if that means 100 people buy dev access. (even if only 100 vr enthusiasts of hundredthousands of early adopters buy dev access for āexperimentalā VR support, that could be 27k $ for 2 days of work)
Performance: Right now there is probably no graphics card that can support Battlescape on VR resolution with 90fps, but that can quickly change when high end pascal cards are available.
3 Likes
Even now Iām able to get 140fps+ in orbit, and at least 70fps+ on the surface with extreme settings. In ED, I crank down my graphics settings to get smooth VR, and Iād probably do the same here. I know that VR has to render twice, but I think itāll be okay even on current generation graphics since thereās been mention that there are still plenty of optimizations to do.
1 Like