Why did VR fail?

it's because nobody wanted to trust Facebook to the future of an entertainment media (rightly so) and Steam fucking sucks at everything its tried to do since 2007. Just a reminder.
People will say it's because nogames, but above is WHY there's nogames. Why the fuck would anyone of any mindset trust their codebase to a Facebook sdk? ask yourself that.

Other urls found in this thread:

pcgamer.com/was-vr-a-failure-in-2016/
cnet.com/news/3-big-reasons-vr-failed-to-revolutionize-pc-gaming/
roadtovr.com/huge-oculus-rift-touch-sale-brings-price-400/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>why did VR fail?
Because Sup Forumstards are seeing a new TORtanic behind every corner while reality is somewhere else.

- overly expensive
- games are shit
- nausea, vomit, migraine inducer
- still no porn, seriously, ONLY reason anyone cares about this shit is the porn, why the fuck are you even doing anything else you dumb retards, just focus all your research on VR porn and ignore everything else

>Steam fucking sucks at everything its tried to do since 2007.
That's what happens when you dont actually make anyone work on anything unless they want to.

They could have released a hot turd for HL3 and made at least a billion dollars in revenue but nobody felt like making it

>inb4 Valve makes enough from Steam already
It was basically free money

PSVR sold over a million months ago

a million is such a tiny fucking figure my guy
that's like me saying my lemonade stand made $12 in profit

>why did VR fail?

Because no one wants to strap a box to their face and look like a retard to play video games, let alone get up and move around to actually play the game.

All you need:
>a screen on a desk/entertainment center
>a console/PC
>a regular controller

Everything else is just a gimmick that will fail, full stop.

What do you mean there is no VR porn? It's literally a category on pornhub, there are plenty of vr porn games too. Even ones that work with those weird USB onaholes. VR porn is literally the only thing VR has going for it right now.

It's old tech being rebranded as new, the Wii had already created everything used in modern VR with it's motion plus hardware.

Also all the games are shit.

It's the perfect example of 'we're gonna make a thing you didn't ask for, put an absurd price tag on it, and market the fuck out of it'. There was no want. There is no inovation. It's just a forced meme of a product.

>motion controls was the big fad last gen
>consoles don't support that shit anymore this gen save for a few cheap niche games
>VR costs a shit lot more than motion controls ever did
It's a big investment with very little reason to believe that more games will support VR in the near future.

>nobody wanted to trust Facebook to the future of an entertainment media
I would've bought the Oculus at the Amazon deal, but I'll never buy Facebook products.

It hasn't failed though

accurate reconstruction of Sup Forums in 1785:
>why did the car fail exday (painting of man stroking his chin, while looking as though in deep thought- attached)

What VR experiences actually cause nausea, vomiting, or migraines?

t. poorfag retard that doesn't know how lighthouse works and hasn't tried VR

got it
tried it
refunded it
seriously has anyone looked at the resolution?
it´s absolutely garbage
i wanted it to play elite dangerous but that shit looks so bad that ships in the distance look like black sludges

t. poorfag who couldn't supersample

Never but the first iteration of something.

the only time i get nausea is if they move your whole screen without you, your brain tricks you into believe gravity and shit

>stepping over objects ingame
>trying to lean on counters that aren't there
>falling from a tall building giving me vertigo and making me flinch when i goTHROUGH the ground

it is a bit blurry if you don't have the lenses corrected

I bought the Oculus bundle for $400
It's pretty neat but it needs to be even cheaper.
$400 + the cost of games + having to rearrange your room isn't worth it to be able to play shooter #51356

not even supersampling helps
i mean sure i ran at like 5-10 fps but that´s besides the point
i am talking purely about image quality and even in supersampling it´s dogshit
after all you can only do so much with the limited amount of pixels i do hope you are aware of that

It's different for everyone. Some people are just predisposed to not being able to handle VR, while others can play everything with no problem, and everyone else exists somewhere in the middle. Stuff with lots of fast motion and movement independent of your own head movement has been known to be the biggest factor, but there are ways around that. It's why most VR games have teleporting as a movement method, as opposed to normal movement with an analog stick.

None unless you get those symptoms from 2D vidya anyway.

Wearing a screen strapped to your face for more than an hour at a time is definitely uncomfortable though. Until they can figure out a way to make it more comfortable to wear for extended periods it's never going to take off.

Facebook has nothing to do with it. It's the obscene cost, on top of requiring a higher end PC to run. This is compounded by a huge mining craze that has spiked the prices of GPUs.

for games that move without you moving, it is best to sit down as your body will try to balance on the land it sees, which isn't there and/or is tilted or some shit

or the game freezes and your stuck looking at one screenshot of a game for like 10 seconds

I've actually played plenty of VR games like RE7 and Farpoint with full movement and smooth turning, standing up. I could handle it fine, but like I said, it's different for everyone.

Oculus has been flying off the shelves because of the summer sales. Best Buy can't even keep them in stock due to demand.

You're implying that VR devices regularly sell at least a million units.
Rift and Vive only sold a couple 100,000 each.

>No games
>"Games" are demos
>Requires very expensive non-consumer friendly backend computer + expensive hardware

Maybe once they release a decent standalone device for sub $200.

The few games i had tried that move me around made me feel a bit off balance but other then that they pass fairly quickly, i have only played vive games that have motion control so idk how it works with regular games

Expensive. There's no other reason behind it. $299 would've been a good price, not almost 3x that.

>Gaben releases hand life 3 as a VR exclusive.
>VR becomes mainstream
Done

But it's worth it for porn.

>hand life

>i mean sure i ran at like 5-10 fps
lol
>even in supersampling it´s dogshit
wrong
>you can only do so much with the limited amount of pixels
this would be the case on a flat monitor, but on a VR headset your POV is constantly moving allowing multiple the amount of visual data to be displayed via minute changes in pixel color, but you wouldn't know this considering you couldn't even run the game without supersampling

Lel fuck
I'm on my phone at work

>mfw he didn't buy the facebook rift for literally nothing or $399

I can look at porn for free

>Expensive
>Makes people sick
>Even if it doesn't make you sick, it's uncomfortable as fuck
>Apart from grope simulators, there's nothing it can do that a controller and TV can't do better
>People are now leery after motion controls and 3D delivered nothing but stupid gimmicks, shovelware, and good games ruined by tacked on components

You can't experience VR porn poorfag

>literally nothing
>for zuckerberg's room surveillance
at least lighthouse doesn't track by filming your fucking room lmao

>>even in supersampling it´s dogshit
>wrong
>>you can only do so much with the limited amount of pixels
>this would be the case on a flat monitor, but on a VR headset your POV is constantly moving allowing multiple the amount of visual data to be displayed via minute changes in pixel color, but you wouldn't know this considering you couldn't even run the game without supersampling
this is completely irrelevant
an object the size of a pixel will be an object the size of a pixel no matter the supersampling and the visual data you are seemingly talking about doesn´t have anything to do with what i am talking about

you haven't tried VR
go to a microsoft store or bestbuy and demo one user

They could at least market it as an alternative to monitors for pc gaming. Still use the same controls but have a more immersive experience, possibly some crossover camera control with the headset idk.

The tech still has a long way to go before its actually anywhere close to "VR" anyway.

>full stop

>completely irrelevant
your not listening
an object the size of a pixel will constantly move between different pixels on your screen due to head movement, with minute changes in pixel colors that allows your visual cortex to process it at a higher level of detail than you could on a flat monitor with a static camera

probably because it a 800 investment minumum

consider you need a 500-1000 dollar pc + the vive or the occulus (which run for 500-800 bucks each)

or a PS4 (300-400) plus the VR kit (another 500 bucks)

so it's expensive

and you are not understanding that if the only visual date you get is a black smudge that moves
because there are not enough pixels to represent it
no matter the movement it will never look like a spaceship
i mean seriously why am i discussing this?
i have played it in vr and i know what it looks like
both with a proper framerate and with supersampling

>This is compounded by a huge mining craze that has spiked the prices of GPUs.
>tfw crypto currencies are responsible for boosting development of GPUs giving us prettier gaems

Its an abstract kind of feel.

With the summer sale going on, now is the best time to jump on the bandwagon.

>standalone device for sub $200
That isn't going to happen.

And you can't experience a woman.

you haven't played with supersampling if you don't understand me

try it

that black sluge will have highlights and accents with supersampling due to movement at 90 fps

so
wait
you are actually telling me
that a pixel that changes colours when it moves at 90fps it looks like something other than a pixel at 90fps?
and i told you already i have played it with supersampling

They literally said they're doing it.

I don't know why but this exchange made me kek hard as fuck

Something about picturing the cover of hand life 3

Do you actually think 5-10 fps gives you any idea how something looks?

Prove it.

The Rift is $400.

And even some 6Cam have VR streams

Rift, Racing wheel, or both?

This only applies to those with a weak mind and body

do you actually think i can pull out a 1080ti out of my ass to "try it"?
seriously
no i do not think that but it also doesn´t make any technical sense
as i said what you are trying to make me believe is
a pixel that changes its colour if it runs at 90 fps
it will look like something other than a pixel
and sorry this is not something i can even imagine to be possible
but sure maybe in two or three generations i´ll get a better gpu i´ll try it again but it will not change that your proposal is not logically possible

>complaining it's expensive
>$400
Sure is poorfag in here

So you really haven't tried it, then.

Affordable VR (and by affordable, I mean not costing 3000 dollars just for the headset) is still in early adopter/enthusiast phase. It will be a year or two before the must have game for VR comes out.

So no, it didn't fail, it's not even off the ground yet.

Not everyone can afford it
Gimmicky

if having tried implies utilizing the absolute maximum of computational power to gain the maximum supersampling?
for magic to happen
no i haven´t as i said

VR died because it's expensive for a technology with nogaems. Not for the lack of trying to make games, but it's just infinitely more difficult to make a good vr game than a traditional game.

Did it fail?

I know Sup Forums likes to meme on about things being a failure, but there have probably been at least a million VR headsets sold so far, and steam has over a thousand VR-compatible software.

So where's the failure? It didn't cater to your tastes specifically?

even if you're one of those people who gets nauseous from manual control games and needs that baby teleport shit, you can get used to it. then even if the game/vr porn wrests manual camera control from you, you don't get sick anymore

it's like riding a bike, or some shit. just suffer some difficulty for a while and eventually it stops being a problem. but that's not a good selling point. not a lot of people are willing to experience actual physical stress or sweat to gain full access to a genre of games

It's backed by nerds. Nerds don't know how to market things.

They should have dropped the motion controls and just stuck with the HMDs. I guarantee that is what is pushing most people over the edge into "not worth the hassle" territory.

>Rift and Vive only sold a couple 100,000 each.
According to Superdata, over 400k Vives and 250k Rifts were sold in 2016. And that was half their lifetimes ago.

It's too expensive. You need a powerful machine to drive it and the HMD costs a lot too. It's not really a failure though, unless you want to include any technology that started out prohibitively expensive for the average consumer.

counting in inflation, the first commercial cd player was like two thousand bucks

i think by those standards vr's not that terrible

This
Here

There's been huge downsizing in the departments that specialize in VR. It may have sold a million, but you need to consider the costs, the promotional material, and a host of other factors into something being successful.

Sony's done layoffs, so has Facebook. Facebook also has spoken openly about sluggish sales and has pulled headsets off shelves during peak holiday seasons because they weren't selling.

Stop acting so smug when you're just fucking wrong.

>do you actually think i can pull out a 1080ti out of my ass to "try it"?
No but you can look at one of the many review websites who DID try it.

SteamVR performance tests say that the 1080ti is nearly 50% better at VR tasks than the 1080.

However, in current VR games, the 1080 and the 1080ti perform identically. You, as a user with the headset on, will not be able to tell the difference between which card is which. You literally need to use software that analyzes the GPUs' workloads in order to see the difference between the two.

It's just a question of how long before the ti has a noticeable advantage. Will the 1080ti last 6 months over the 1080? Will it last 3 years over it? Is that worth the $250 price hike to you?

the refresh rate and lack of input lag on my psvr compared to my decade old tv makes me like twice as good at shitty anime cheesecake minigame compilations and lets me stuff my face in momiji's tits

that said it was not worth the money

>waited forever for the price to drop
>It and the touch controls are for sale for 400 dollars for the next four weeks
>next paycheck is 2 weeks away
>newegg and amazon already sold out

None of that is indicative of a failure. Companies do layoffs all the time and products underperform expectations all the time. Underperformance does not mean it's a failure unless it's bad enough that the product outright dies.

>No but you can look at one of the many review websites who DID try it.
show me a single one that addresses my issue
none i have found do
and i wholeheartedly don´t care about what reviewers i don´t trust say about a product
you are avoiding to address my point how about you explain to me how it works?

The sale started on July 10th and was said (by news sites, Oculus themselves don't say when it ends on their site) to last "3 weeks". If that's correct and literally means 3 weeks to the day, then you have until August before it's over.

Also, Best Buy does price matching for Amazon.

Well PC powered ones aside, I got the 2016 Gear VR for $45, for that price it's worth it for the sheer novelty.

The root problem isn't that there aren't any games, but that the peripherals are overpriced. If people aren't buying the hardware due to the fact that they're the same price as a console (if not more expensive), what idiot is going to spend their time and resources developing software for it?

When there's a more cost-effective headset on the market, you'll see more VR games.

Yes it did.
pcgamer.com/was-vr-a-failure-in-2016/
They say it failed to take the momentum, for me it failed.

And it was less seen at the E3
cnet.com/news/3-big-reasons-vr-failed-to-revolutionize-pc-gaming/

This says 6 roadtovr.com/huge-oculus-rift-touch-sale-brings-price-400/

>still no porn

I use VR exclusively for sim racing and it's awesome. That said I like to pretend I am wearing a helmet when it's on.

...

>Article titled "Was VR a failure?"
In my journalism courses, we learned that the answer to articles titled with question is almost always "no". If the answer was "yes", they wouldn't have to ask a question and would be making a statement. Plus if you actually read that interview, the people are hopeful, they just have doubts.

>VR failed to revolutionize PC gaming
"Failed to revolutionize" is not synonymous with "failed".

>5-10fps
ffs go try it at a store or something

yes it does when combined with positional tracking

you didn't play with supersampling considering you couldn't run the game unsupersampled.

Cost for me more than nogames

>If the answer was "yes", they wouldn't have to ask a question and would be making a statement.
Than your courses were rubish. At my media and pr school, we learned "Avoid question in Headlines or Opener, the customer could say the opposite position to what you want".
And yes they try to minimize it, but in the text they adress various problems and say it failed to take the momentum. Thats the synonim that it failed. If i make a PR campagne and product comes out, hype dies and i cant take the momentum and the producers cant make money on VR games, than it failed. Their hoping is just a pathetic "but after the next dune there will it be"

>"Failed to revolutionize" is not synonymous with "failed".
Sure it is, just sugar coated. What else did they wanted? VR is over 20 years old. They only did cheaper and slightly better googles. If that was what they wanted to accomplish, than thery didnt failed, ok. But that would be like a low goal, so low that it can walk under a closed door.

Any huge differences over HTC and Occ?
If I were to buy one in the near future, what would be the better pick?

While the Rift+Touch is still on sale for 460 bucks, it is undoubtedly the better deal (The third tracker for an extra 60 bucks is something you cannot skip out on, if you do not have it, you do not have good tracking.)

Once the Rift goes back up to 600 bucks, I'd recommend the Vive over the Rift due to the Valve Knuckles coming out in the future.

The differences between the two headsets are pretty minimal, as long as you get the third tracker for the Rift

Alright ill look into it, thanks m8

Vive has better tracking, Oculus has better comfort. In fact, Vive just released a headstrap and are about to release controllers that completely rip off the Oculus' because of this. Oculus can only get around the tracking issue if you spend another $160 on extra sensors. I've seen a few posts in these threads say they got away with just the two it comes with without having any issues, and I've also seen posts that say that it was shit without a 3rd or 4th sensor.