Nintendo Switch

[Lorfarius]

27 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

Apple have said they think AR will be bigger than VR. After VR failed to launch and Pokemon Go made all the money, I think most people in the industry think that.

 

I think if something fails to launch, assuming it'll still be pushed in five years seems a bit foolish, we all remember how well the improved Kinect 2.0 was received.

 

VR failed to launch? What do you mean? I thought they were all doing pretty well saleswise? The porn industry is also doing incredibly well too which means its onto a winner.

[Camel]

11 minutes ago, Jon said:

I just don't think it'll ever be mainstream, or not for a very long time, because people in general just won't want to enclose themselves in a headset. I can imagine it's seen as too nerdy for the masses.

 

It might be anecdotal, and maybe not even related, but most people I've spoken to who got a 3D TV soon gave up on it after the novelty wore off because they couldn't be bothered with the glasses.

 

I just think it's too much of a faff and I can't see how they'll get around some of the inherent problems.

 

Yes, it excludes others too much to really hit mainsteam, I think.  Nobody is going to want to sit in a living room with someone being ignored as they are shut off in a clunky headset.

[RubberJohnny]

14 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

VR failed to launch? What do you mean? I thought they were all doing pretty well saleswise?

 

Oculus and Vive are less than a million combined six months after launch, that's pretty bad - even Playstation Move managed 15 million over a couple of years and that's widely considered a non-entity. PSVR might do more, but I'm struggling to see how it'll turn it around when the future software support is about as good as the Ouya.

[Lorfarius]

11 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

Oculus and Vive are less than a million combined six months after launch, that's pretty bad - even Playstation Move managed 15 million over a couple of years and that's widely considered a non-entity. PSVR might do more, but I'm struggling to see how it'll turn it around when the future software support is about as good as the Ouya.

 

I think that's more to do with the crazy prices before you even approach the headsets. The PC you need costs a small fortune as well but both V and OR are tackling it with future models. As costs come down (OR has already announced that standalone thingy) the market will change. On launch for both just how many people could afford upwards of £1500 for a luxury toy?

[Stanley]

43 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

Apple does.

What Nintendoesn't.

[Stanley]

17 minutes ago, Camel said:

 

Yes, it excludes others too much to really hit mainsteam, I think.  Nobody is going to want to sit in a living room with someone being ignored as they are shut off in a clunky headset.

Once it becomes big on mobile you could use it anywhere for all manner of applications. 

[Mr Cochese]

VR is like when microscooters were going to replace all other forms of transport circa 2000, and in no way made you look ridiculous.

[Stanley]

8 minutes ago, Mr Cochese said:

VR is like when microscooters were going to replace all other forms of transport circa 2000, and in no way made you look ridiculous.

People said the same thing about mobile phones.

[RubberJohnny]

15 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

I think that's more to do with the crazy prices before you even approach the headsets. The PC you need costs a small fortune as well but both V and OR are tackling it with future models. As costs come down (OR has already announced that standalone thingy) the market will change. On launch for both just how many people could afford upwards of £1500 for a luxury toy?

 

I wasn't asking for an explanation of why it's done poorly, I know. I was pointing out the figures in response to your claim that it had done well (which you seem to have dropped completely).

 

I think gamers are pretty impatient about waiting for hardware to improve, look at the hate for Wii and Kinect lasting even beyond their improved second editions. Can VR get cheap enough and start showing some killer apps before it runs into a negative narrative circlejerk over shovelware? I'm doubtful.

[Lorfarius]

10 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

I wasn't asking for an explanation of why it's done poorly, I know. I was pointing out the figures in response to your claim that it had done well (which you seem to have dropped completely).

 

I think gamers are pretty impatient about waiting for hardware to improve, look at the hate for Wii and Kinect lasting even beyond their improved second editions. Can VR get cheap enough and start showing some killer apps before it runs into a negative narrative circlejerk over shovelware? I'm doubtful.

 

I dunno. How is Google cardboard and the apps for it going?

[RubberJohnny]

I don't know, I don't think it's relevant really. The devs who would make games for PSVR aren't the same devs who'd make games for smartphones, you know? What point are you making?

[K]

I think it's probably too early to say whether VR has been a success or not, but I would have expected that with Valve and Samsung on one side and John Carmack and Facebook on the other, we would have seen some more compelling VR games. Maybe expecting Valve and Carmack to make something really revolutionary on VR is like expecting the Rolling Stones and U2 to make a top-notch grime album, and that the real innovation will come from smaller developers, but even so it's surprising that Valve at least haven't chucked their entire creative force at a system-justifying VR game rather than spending their time facilitating gambling for the under-10s.

[Lorfarius]

14 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

I don't know, I don't think it's relevant really. The devs who would make games for PSVR aren't the same devs who'd make games for smartphones, you know? What point are you making?

 

Because its the cheapest entry point to VR with the likes of Google cardboard. Everyone has a phone so everyone could have access to it and a very cheap way to build a markey share/interest with normal folks.

[Bojangle]

I think VR evangelists might be worse than Nintendo's own!

[RubberJohnny]

20 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

Because its the cheapest entry point to VR with the likes of Google cardboard. Everyone has a phone so everyone could have access to it and a very cheap way to build a markey share/interest with normal folks.

 

Looking online, Google Cardboard "shipped" 5 million over 19 months, that's marginally better than Oculus and Vive, but still significantly worse than most consoles and accessories like PS Move, and probably much worse in terms of penetration than OC/VV because the mobile industry features hundreds of millions more users in total than consoles.

 

I feel you're flailing around a bit here, trying to change the subject constantly to eke out some scenario where it's a success; we've gone from "VR is doing gangbusters" to "VR flopped but Google Cardboard though" to "Google Cardboard is also a flop, but...."

[strider]

I love what I've played of Sony VR, but I'm confident I'm going to be able to resist buying one this week.

As good as it is, it's worth remembering that from a game point of view it's just a peripheral and if 30 years of gaming has shown me anything it's that peripherals get caught in a massive vicious circle. Gamers won't buy into it until the games are there, and developers won't develop for it until the audience is there. I see Sony VR having exactly the same issue and Occulus and the other one, too.

 

Many consider Kinect a failure, but that had one of the best attachment rates for any peripheral ever (excluding standard joypads etc). Look at it now though, dead.

Resident Evil VII is going to help, but if the big hitters don't start commiting with anything then it's going to die on it ass. I don't want it to, as it's proving to be an insane amount of fun, but at least I'll have something to write about in about 15 years.

[Lorfarius]

16 minutes ago, RubberJohnny said:

 

Looking online, Google Cardboard "shipped" 5 million over 19 months, that's marginally better than Oculus and Vive, but still significantly worse than most consoles and accessories like PS Move, and probably in terms of penetration because the mobile industry features hundreds of millions more users in total than consoles.

 

I feel you're flailing around a bit here, trying to change the subject constantly to eke out some scenario where it's a success; we've gone from "VR is doing gangbusters" to "VR flopped but Google Cardboard though" to "Google Cardboard is also a flop, but...."

 

Yes I'm spinning off at a tangent  I sort of half agree with you. I think the stuff is in place problem is they aren't doing the leg work.. the software isn't there. I'm bored of my OR and after spending almost 2K on a PC for it I'm highly disappointed with what I've got. It's in danger of becoming a bit like the Wii, they all need to invest heavily in decent software that shows off what it can do but it all feels very early days. I might even end up flogging mine and I was so excited around launch.

[Stanley]

10 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

It's in danger of becoming a bit like the Wii, they all need to invest heavily in decent software that shows off what it can do but it all feels very early days. I might even end up flogging mine and I was so excited around launch.

What, one of the best selling consoles of all time with games to match? 

[Lorfarius]

13 minutes ago, Stanley said:

What, one of the best selling consoles of all time with games to match? 

 

I mean in software terms. No one really did much with it beyond Nintendo, third parties all disappeared.

[Bojangle]

25 minutes ago, Lorfarius said:

 

Yes I'm spinning off at a tangent  I sort of half agree with you. I think the stuff is in place problem is they aren't doing the leg work.. the software isn't there. I'm bored of my OR and after spending almost 2K on a PC for it I'm highly disappointed with what I've got. It's in danger of becoming a bit like the Wii, they all need to invest heavily in decent software that shows off what it can do but it all feels very early days. I might even end up flogging mine and I was so excited around launch.

WHY ISN'T THE MASS MARKET ACCEPTING THIS TECH?!?!

[KriessG]

I don't remember the biggest tech companies in the world ploughing billions into 3D TV's and waggle controls. I really can't see how people are comparing these things if they think about it longer than 5 seconds.

 

If anything, VR now is like the very first black and white TV's. Give it some years and the advances that come with that (Better hardware and cheaper entry points), and the increase in media and uses for it (Not just gaming), I just can't see how so many people here think it's just going to disappear if the Oculus Rift & Vive's aren't the best selling 'toys' this Christmas.

[Lorfarius]

11 minutes ago, Bojangle said:

WHY ISN'T THE MASS MARKET ACCEPTING THIS TECH?!?!

 

Because there isn't the software for it. I bought my PC setup in June 2015 because I thought it was due by the end of the year then they pushed it to  this year. PCs in general have done the usual in that time though, the price for that high end (for the time) spec I have is now much lower and the entry requirements aren't as high.

[Bojangle]

You've done this in another thread (the whole "BUT IT HAS SO MANY USES!") and you're not wrong, but we're talking about it on a gaming forum. Of course we're going to focus on VR for gaming! It could well change how schools teach in 10 years time, but that doesn't automatically mean it's going to have loads of amazing games being made for it if people aren't buying the headsets for gaming.

[Camel]

Indeed.  If VR ends up a success, it won't be as a gaming device for the living room. 

[Mr Cochese]

Possibly a mass market consumer VR device will see some success as a way to trick other kids into blindfolding themself on the playground so they can be wedgied.

[Lorfarius]

10 minutes ago, Bojangle said:

You've done this in another thread (the whole "BUT IT HAS SO MANY USES!") and you're not wrong, but we're talking about it on a gaming forum. Of course we're going to focus on VR for gaming! It could well change how schools teach in 10 years time, but that doesn't automatically mean it's going to have loads of amazing games being made for it if people aren't buying the headsets for gaming.

 

But the point is they need to be investing more in studio's to develop software for it in the early stages because a lot of 3rd parties will be reluctant to invest as is.

[RubberJohnny]

19 minutes ago, KriessG said:

I don't remember the biggest tech companies in the world ploughing billions into 3D TV's and waggle controls. I really can't see how people are comparing these things if they think about it longer than 5 seconds.

 

Maybe not billions, but those fields definitely cost hundreds of millions in acquisitions, development and marketing.

 

There have been plenty of tech products that got huge investments, massive IPOs or acquisitions, very lofty rhetoric about how they'd change everything and amounted to fuck-all, 3D Printers being the obvious comparison because it was only a few years ago and there have been a bunch of post-mortems describing the hype cycle, poor takeup, bankruptcies, etc in hindsight - a lot of it is very familiar to VR.

[KriessG]

9 minutes ago, Bojangle said:

You've done this in another thread (the whole "BUT IT HAS SO MANY USES!") and you're not wrong, but we're talking about it on a gaming forum. Of course we're going to focus on VR for gaming! It could well change how schools teach in 10 years time, but that doesn't automatically mean it's going to have loads of amazing games being made for it if people aren't buying the headsets for gaming.

 

Sure there is nothing wrong with focusing on gaming discussion here, but some here as literally saying VR won't take off at all. I'm just trying to point out I don't think that is the case, and giving reasons why. And anyway, if there is a far bigger abundance of affordable VR tech in the future, then there will be games made.

[Don Wiskerando]

18 minutes ago, KriessG said:

I don't remember the biggest tech companies in the world ploughing billions into 3D TV's and waggle controls. I really can't see how people are comparing these things if they think about it longer than 5 seconds.

 

If anything, VR now is like the very first black and white TV's. Give it some years and the advances that come with that (Better hardware and cheaper entry points), and the increase in media and uses for it (Not just gaming), I just can't see how so many people here think it's just going to disappear if the Oculus Rift & Vive's aren't the best selling 'toys' this Christmas.

For me, I just buy into the idea of shutting myself away from the wife and kids for an extended period of time while I play games or watch a movie.  They may be able to see what I can see on the tv but they can do that now without me spending several hundred pounds.  

 

Also, when not in a VR environment, I can hear the constructive criticism that my wife provides during Iron Banner matches such as 'You are really shit at this.'

[Don Wiskerando]

17 minutes ago, KriessG said:

 

Sure there is nothing wrong with focusing on gaming discussion here, but some here as literally saying VR won't take off at all. I'm just trying to point out I don't think that is the case, and giving reasons why. And anyway, if there is a far bigger abundance of affordable VR tech in the future, then there will be games made.

I don't think VR will die, by the way.  I just think it's uses for gaming will be confined to singletons and shut-ins.

 

I think that commercial applications outside of gaming are where the future for the technology lies.