Oculus Founder Palmer Luckey Believes Virtual Boy "Hurt" the VR Industry, But It's Not All Bad

It didn't 'hurt' the VR industry because there wasn't a VR industry...

The Virtual Boy was the pinnacle of video games. Not sure what this guy is talking about.

But seriously, no, VR is not going to be the wave of the future. If only 1% of PCs can handle it, and the mainstream public mostly uses their smart phones as their internet device, hard to believe that VR is going to do big bucks.

Should have made it cost $1000. They people who want it were going to buy it regardless of price.

With VR and 3D movies becoming things in my lifetime I gotta say... The future's kinda underwhelming.

Just like the Virtual Boy, the Oculus is being supremely hyped ahead of its launch.

After this statement, it would be quite the egg in the face if the same kind of flop happened to Mr. Luckey...

What malarkey. It was a weird experiment with 3D in the 90's that failed. VR wasn't even a thing then, and I NEVER hear anyone point to the VB as evidence that VR isn't a good gimmick.

VR is the next 3D.

The Oculus Rift will be forgotten in short order.

It is destined to bomb. Hard. And it will drive industry to a crisis.

It's already sold out, because there were not that many of them or they are going Sony approach with "it's sold out" to make the scalpers come.

Or it could be because basement dwellers/animu weebos hoping there will be that VR waifu released outside of Japan.

Wow, a lot of damage control so no one remembers that their super affordable VR experience costs $600 plus the high-end PC, oh, wait.

I don't think VR will take off greatly, and I really hope this will be the case. Whilst the tech is very impressive and even innovative, its price point at $600, and the fact that only a small 1% of PCs can handle the power of the Oculus, will not make it a mainstream gaming platform like consoles or PC. Other consoles have been able to do well because they're accessible to anyone that has a TV in their house, and that's it. The set-up for this seems to be a bit more complicated for the audience that casually plays games (which does make up a part of the industry, obviously).
Other than that, whenever I see videos of people playing with VR in a typical setting (i.e: sitting room, games room, whatever), I actually cringe. It just looks so abnormal and weird and at times goofy. Sure I'd be having a blast playing with the thing if I had the opportunity, but I would much rather the traditional set-up of a controller in my hands, sitting comfortably in my couch, and the action on the screen, which can be just as immersive as having my entire eyes practically glued to a screen.

This is blatant lie. Virtual Boy couldn't hurt the market when it wasn't released in Europe and USA ever.
At the same time as Virtual Boy, there was atleast 6 "high-end" 3D sets mainly for PC, and one or two that also was for Amiga.

Virtual Boyt didn't hurt anything.

As contender for a wide audience using a brand like NIntendo they highly visible flop with the virtual name didn't help the growth of VR and ther were plenty of attempts at trying virtual reality devices in the 90s. They were awful as technology just wasn't there and It was so far below where my imagination took it I was pretty disappointed. There wasn't much success back then and every failure pushed it into commercial submission for 20+ years.

Anyway, the rollout for this current wave of virtual reality is going to be very solid as the big competitors are going for quality and patience having seen the bitter lessons that the film and video industry learned from the fast and sloppy rollout of modern 3D media.

Only the enthusiasts and those with tons of expendable cash will get to experience it fully for the next year or two, but it's not going to be a passing fad. It has benefits in entertainment and industry particularly when it's not entirely separating the user from reality as with the hololens and HTC/Valve's version that now has a camera for temporary visibility of the world around you when needed.

I can't see how this VR thing is not going to flop.

Argh, I'm tired of all the press this guy is getting. Really. It's actually making me want to try VR LESS AND LESS... :/

Trying to blame Virtual Boy for damaging VR lol. Only seasoned Nintendo gamers know about the Virtual Boy. Damn you Nintendo gamers for avoiding Occulus Rift!

But seriously...As cool as OR VR is, it is tethered and expensive, with only a bunch of garage hacks supporting it. Sony will provide a better reason for purchase.

Occulus Rift have done a Sega Saturn.

The Virtual Boy wasn't well-known, it couldn't have made a dent in the VR demand. I only heard of it couple of years ago, no one I know in real life knows about it, and Nintendo's only reference to it in the past twenty years was a small bit in a music video by NoA in the quirky Tomodachi Life Direct, which was less than 2 seconds long, and it was just an effort to try to be weird. It wasn't even released in Europe. I doubt it was even advertised well.

Tried the Occulus, was underwhelmed. Don't know about the Virtual Boy, they kind of have a point about it not really being VR but I've never heard about people using it as an example against VR? Most people have never even heard of it from my experience.

VR will be very nitch... Just like 3D movies, neat, but most people opt for 2D..

I am unsure how this VR thing is going to go. It does seem a bit rushed. The cost is just too high for it to be accepted by a wide audience. And it has the risk of falling into the catch 22 that the Wii U did. No one will want to develop for it because there aren't many sales. And no one will want to buy it because there is little to play on it. I also assume developing a VR game would cost more than developing a normal game. I don't think I have heard of any big studios developing games around it. And I wonder if the games will retain their $60 price point. I would expect them to cost more too, but then again, right now its PC/Steam so maybe they will cost less? Not sure how that market works.

All signs point to Oculus/Facebook being prepared to weather the flop the first generation will be. But I suppose that is still to be seen. They could easily pull a PS3 and turn it around with a well timed price drop. Or maybe they could pull an iPhone and release a 2nd generation product with some kind of subsidy in a year.

Sony releasing the PSVR this year could help. Even if it is vastly inferior to the Rift/Vive, if it is enough for 10% of PS4 owners to buy, it could succeed. It might even create demand for the Rift/Vive if people want the superior experience. Or it could turn people off of VR completely if it's not done properly.

TL DR; The technology is just not consumer ready. The high cost barrier to entry is a big deal and will mean that both hardware and software providers will need to weather losses to make this more than a passing fad. I don't think they are willing to though.

Tried Oculus at Gamescom and didn't think it was anything more than a gimmick....which is exactly what everybody always criticizes Nintendo for doing. I really don't get that. While, yes, the VB was black and red and had no tracking, I still think the current VR technology is not the way we always envisioned it. I still felt like I'm awkwardly moving around and have a TV attached to my eyes.

He might be right about the VB killing VR kind of for a while. I remember a VR crazy between 1990 and 1995. After The VB came I didn't hear about it for more than 15 years.

VR is not good enough because it makes you wear a stupid helmet. Period. That's what so brilliant about the 3DS, it's glasses-free, and that's how the VR should be too eventually.

Holodecks - Star Trek got it right. That's where the future is.

Even Occulus Rift isn't 'real' VR- it's just a different type of monitor with the right stick camera function controlled by your neck. To be real VR you have to have a reaction of all 5 senses- or at very least some sort of real feeling of touch. Were only getting that when we reach Holodeck technology or the tech to stick a microchip up your left nostril that fries your brain.

It's an expensive, impressive toy, but it's still a toy.

@Moon Exactly what my first thought was. VR at the time was gigantic tech demos you could try out in casinos or at high-end malls.

To all the naysayers, the fact that few PCs today can handle VR is hardly a detriment to the technology. Seriously, you people need to look up Moore's law, and also consider that there is a gigantic world of computing outside of games. VR is going to have an impact on medicine, engineering, manufacturing, and of course, gaming. I can't help but feel that most of the commenters on this article have never tried modern VR; be that Oculus, Vive, Gear, or StarVR.

Glad VR is getting back into the mainstrean ... I need another Lawnmower Man sequel

It'll pass, anyway. Just like motion controls and 3D. There were some pretty good reasons those bandwagons died off; VR just takes the inconveniences of both and escalates them.

@Haz Ofcourse VR has a great deal of potential outside of videogames.

But as a consumer/entertainemnt product which is exactly what Occulus(and most other upcoming VR) is being sold as, personally I think its hopeless in its current state. $600, needs powerful hardware, complex to set up, requires you to wear a helmet, non-intuitve controls(anybody who isn't familiar with a controller layout isn't going to be able to play effectively which destroys the chance of say Grandma or Grandad playing too unlike the Wii). No real "killer app" that's easy to play explains the appeal.

I Think PSVR kind of takes the cake in my opinion, requires a whole extra VR processing box to be plugged in, requires the PS Camera peripheral(sold separately), PS Move controllers(sold separately, failed peripheral) then put your VR headset on plug in and play?. A frankenstein's creation of various gimmicks and add-ons to give you the VR experience.

If there's one thing VR can learn from the Virtual Boy's design(I mean the concept that it's just a VR device where you look into it and play) and the way the Wii was so desirable, a simple affordable device with as few seperate parts as technologically possible. The current VR could be nice as an entertainment device...when it's affordable and technology advances enough that it can all be contained within one light headset . What they have now is just too unreasonable unless you're an absolute tech enthusiast, actively invested in developing VR technology or some e-celeb who'd make more than $600 from a youtube video just wearing the helmet.

True by modern standards, but back in the '90 a big red device for see 3D gaming in red and black was as close as technology could hope to get to VR XD

And as many others said anyway not even these new devices like Oculus are true VR, and to be honest to me they only look like super awesome mega updates of the Virtual Boy concept ^_^;;;
And why that should hurt anyway? The VB was an awesome concept that hugely failed cause of many technical limitations; since those limitations are absent from the new devices, all they can take from a comparison with the VB are the positive stuffs.

Tried both Morpheus and Oculus back in 2014 and I wasn't impressed, but I can see potential in the tech as it gets better. I'm pretty sure it should be pretty decent now so I'm mildly excited.

Kinda funny seeing Nintendo fans here bash VR when Nintendo has released far crappier tech in recent years, but what do you expect from a Nintendo fan site?

I still want these games on the 3DS

Yes because he could have done so much better if he tried VR iin 1995 with expensive proprietary hardware, right?

The current problem with all these VR systems is the same thing. There is no real "killer app" for them.

All the games which have been demonstrated are just basic tech demos nothing else.

Yes the VB didn't have any true VR games but it didn't need them.

How the heck did a device back then hurt an industry that is in its infancy just now ? O.o

@Dr_Lugae PlayStation VR doesn't require the move controllers though. They're pitching it like they enhance the experience(why wouldn't they) but they're not required. And there's no point trying to capture the Wii's audience, they don't care about video games and most never will. For a majority of Wii owners video games are just a little distraction when they drunk with theirs friends and/or family and have nothing to do. And not having a killer app is hardly a death sentence. While I would agree that having a game that really shows off the tech would be best, but the PS4 still doesn't have a killer app by most people's standards and it's well on its way to the 50 million mark. And I'm not really seeing how the PSVR requires the black box is a black mark against the system. And as for the price, new tech is always expensive and it's always enthusiasts who are the first adopters. But that price inevitably drops and more and more people begin to purchase whatever the tech is. HD TVs are a perfect illustration of this. It would be nice if Oculus was cheaper, but it's hardly surprising and once again hardly a death sentence. Using a controller is hardly rocket science as well, most people aren't looking at the thing when playing games. Saying that not being able to see the controller is some major black mark against the tech is kind of reaching. And as an extension, you can use the move controllers or whatever Oculus and Valve are making, but they aren't required. So the controls will be as intuitive as they've always been.

I can understand VR not being for everyone, but the reasons you have are reaching pretty hard.

@AVahne And then when Nintendo releases a headset most of those same users will be singing praises from the rooftops of how innovative Nintendo is.

He's wrong. The Virtual Boy was more exciting at the time of its launch than Oculus is now. In 20 years they'll be saying Oculus wasn't really VR because it didn't simulate scent, haptic feedback, or telepathic control. Then in another 20 years they'll be saying suspension in a pool of ferrous silicon liquid is required for "real" VR.

Hah! Of course the Virtual Boy isn't a virtual reality device... And for that matter, Oculus Rift and the other visual gaming headsets coming out aren't either! They're just significantly more advanced versions of what Gumpei Yokoi was trying to accomplish with the Virtual Boy. Luckey, Facebook, and others are not accomplishing any kind of revolutionary jump in technology here, these devices are merely evolutions of previous visual headsets such as the Philips Scuba.

True virtual reality experiences won't be possible until we can temporarily disconnect from our physical consciousness to enter an electronic consciousness, without losing our brain functioning or experiencing adverse side effects for shorter sessions. That is a LONG ways off, since that would require specialized cybernetic attachments to initiate the jump sequence.

@Dr_Lugae
This is also only the first commercial iteration of Oculus (and of any major player in the VR industry). Oculus (and it's parent, Facebook) know that the market for a $600 device is limited. But the market is there, and what's important for them right now is to start getting more feedback from enthusiast users, while also getting more support for VR in the software and games industry. Five years from now, many more PCs and mobile devices will support VR, the price-to-entry will be much lower, and those jumping on the VR train for the first time will have a greater variety of software and games available to them.

@BakaKnight Those limitations were self-imposed by Hiroshi Yamauchi for economic reasons: Gumpei Yokoi wanted the Virtual Boy to be full color, and it was certainly possible, but that would be like having a GBA in 1995. Definitely expensive.

In my opinion, Nintendo should have just made the Virtual Boy into a sort of GBA-like device, with those controller grips intact, selling for $200 or so, and the visor would have just been an optional add on, selling for about $100. It would have been risky, but it probably couldn't have turned out any worse than it did anyways.

i think virtual reality's viability and, ultimate success (when it's affordable), will come from outside of gaming. That's not to say it can't come from entertainment with movies and simulations, but, there is an obvious use for this in the other fields, like robotics. The future may be pretty bleak, when a man in an secured room away from danger can control a giant robot capable of murdering hundreds of people at will. Thanks a lot oculus, may as well start your terminator project.

roflol. hurt the VR industry? as someone said before, what VR industry? Virtual Boy was a weird anomaly and nothing more.

and today? lol. who talks about the Virtual Boy like it's even a thing anymore? Most gamers (and practically every non-gamer) don't even know what a Virtual Boy is, let alone have it change their opinion on Oculus and Playstion VR.

But I think this is going to be another Kinect. Awesome at first, and then completely underwhelming when you realize most games are little more than tech demos or super gimicky. Now, next gen? I think it stands a better chance and might become something big with PS5 and XB2.

@Haz Of course we haven't tried it... It's either too expensive for what it is, or it doesn't live up to what we believe true VR entails. It's merely an evolution of older visual headsets like the Philips Scuba, it's nothing revolutionary or even new.

Oculus Rift, in particular, was originally about $200 for the developer model. It has now been pidgeon holed into a distinctly upper middle class and wealthy subset of buyers, after Luckey sold his soul to Facebook. It's not following the expectations of many of those who backed it- they didn't intend to become pawns of a venture capital operation. It's no wonder Luckey has been met with so much public ire.

@Blastcorp64 Sshhhh, don't give military robotics programs any ideas about super cool mega death robots going pew pew everywhere...

Perhaps Palmer Luckey should just jump back into his time machine and see if he could have done a better job than Gunpei Yokoi.

Nintendo have a different strategy than Oculus.

Nintendo have a cultural policy of "Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology". They did well considering the primitive technology used with Virtual Boy, and that it was released before it was fully developed..

On the other hand the Oculus Rift is using expensive cutting edge technology which has still not been commercially released and has no track record of success.

And Oculus Rift is 20 years later Virtual Boy.

Palmer, try getting Oculus Rift to run on a Win 95 using a PC from that era.

Wow, so much salt in the comments. I think VR is here to stay imo. It's not going to completely overtake the way we play games anytime soon, but I think it's going to be a seperate category of games. Sure, the Oculus is expensive, but the first generation of things are always expensive.

Pretty sure a $600 price tag will hurt VR more than the VB did.

@Discostew It's the PS3 pricing all over again

The Wii sold with motion control.
With one flagship game.
Motion bombed with so many 'core' titles.
Which is why Nintendo fans don't get the hype.
It isn't the niche games, the play it once and done 'sports' games, the 'it was a good idea at the time' games. It's EVERYTHING.
Shooters. Sports. Action. Adventure. Puzzles. Horror.
And here's the thing Nintendo gamers don't consider: it isn't just gaming. It's news, movies, social networking, even music.
You say it flops, but literally EVERYONE said the same thing about the Wii.
The biggest difference is the price: VR isn't a cheap cash grab.
The Wii was a smash hit, until it fizzled out and the Wii U has smeared Nintendo's reputation.
Honestly, if Nintendo couldn't kill gaming with the idiotic decisions they've made these last 10 years, VR isn't going to be that bad.

Sounds like this guy wants to pin the blame on someone when his niche, over priced product isn't selling.

@SaKo

I don't know... VR seems more like what happened with motion controls really if you ask me. Really, VR has been around for a while or at least the concept and it never really got that big until now. Kind of like how motion controls were around forever and well... motion control is mostly dead and what isn't dead, is dying.

I've got nothing against the tech itself, as I think it will do wonders for pilot and surgery simulator training for the real thing. I'm sure it would be good for other things too. But it's not going to become anything big in the gaming industry. Plus I think VR could actually make the gaming industry look worse to the mainstream audience. I remember when the media used to say that gaming was the hobby of basement dwellers who lived with their parents, it's obviously gotten a better image since then, but I think VR could put it right back there. A person playing with OR or PSVR look like they are isolated themselves from the outside world (without actually being in an awesome VR tube/arcade set). Plus everyone knows that the visual novel genre (more so the p0rn equivalent) is going to use this to full effect, making it look more like an otaku peripheral....

Again nothing against the tech, OR is probably going to be a beast, but how many people are going to want to put on that headset to play games all the time. I wonder if VR does become the next big thing (and therefore becomes much cheaper to buy), would it kill off couch co-op/multiplayer? That's my favorite thing about gaming, nothing beats sitting next to your friends and/or girlfriend/wife and playing games together.

@TsukiDeity Interesting thoughts. Though I am only slightly interested in it right now, I am not sure I can dismiss VR technology altogether as a gaming device. It's hard to say what will happen. I think some of the problems you mention could be solved, but It seems like the technology still has a long ways to go and it is still way too expensive. It definitely has a lot of potential uses outside gaming (like the Kinect), though.

You can't hurt something that doesn't exist yet. Besides that, the VB wasn't really a VR device anyways.

No need to be put out of shape by it; it's not controversial that the name Virtual Boy is synonymous with dud, deserved or not, so it's only natural for the Oculus to try to distance itself and its potential market from it. The modern attempts at VR need all the positive spin they can get, if they want to have any hope of carving out a niche for themselves.

Yes, because Virtual Boy "hurt" the VR Gaming Side,
i would not called VB a VR. more of a console with a headset.
and yes while VB did bomb, can the Oculus do better?
well have to wait and see.

Palmer Luckey you were only 3-year old when the Virtual Boy came out so stop hating. Us true retro gamer knows what it's like to own and actually play the device and we know that had technology is more affordable back then and Nintendo fully embrace VR, the Virtual Boy would had been a success and we probably won't even need the darn Oculus Ripoff.

@fiendcodes You nailed it.

At the time the Virtual Boy was released, the only actual VR were these big booth sized devices with very rudimentary experiences that required you put on a big helmet and pay a few bucks for a very short experience at malls and casinos.

This Palmer Luckey guy is just doing what a lot of hack game journalists do: getting attention by taking a pot shot at Nintendo. - In this case at a 20 year old experiment that barely anyone outside of the hardcore retro game community remembers.

It's the equivalent of someone from the late 90s blaming the largely forgotten 1982 Vectrex for harming 3D polygonal gaming in the N64, PS1, Saturn era.

Yeah right. And the Oculus is better, right?

$700 price (in Switzerland) and then you need a $3'000 PC to even play it on its best settings.
Oculus will fail. And they'd deserve it.

Yeah, he's not wrong.

This is only the first model of the Oculus Rift. The current price will make it hard for most people to justify buying one. However, as technology improves, the price should decrease and the capabilities should increase. It's too early to write off VR after only seeing the first Oculus Rift.

VR isn't for me. I'd much rather use the money on Nintendo's next console

I believe VR hurts itself and Nintendo noticed that first hand.

VR is a gimmick and certainly doesn't have any mainstream, mass-market long-term application. The minute you have to wear a helmet to use it, you've lost and it belongs in an arcade with all the other huge clumsy peripherals that are a blast for ten minutes.

Unless the emerging tech is playable/usable straight out of the box without wearing anything, it will not succeed.

Keep working on this, developing this, apply in the commercial sector, until it has developed to a adequate level for domestic use.

Oculus and Playstation VR? ,,,,,,,,,,, No, Just, no.

@ChromXsome @DESS-M-8 @freaksloan @Dave24 @acegibbo @Freeon-Leon Oculus p*sses all over any consumer VR device that has existed in the past. Just because you don't get it, that doesn't translate into it being bad. You're just very ignorant as to what VR in 2016 is all about, but here, let me at least give you some examples:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLgzzAlT_CcFfyTE2R8dnHKns8-9IUzzO2

If you actually bother to watch through that list of videos (they're only a few minutes long each), paying particular attention to what the people who've actually used these VR devices are saying, then you might have more of a clue as to what you are talking about.

Also, check out my own post regarding VR, which has links to a couple of great press articles on the Valve/HTC Vive and a few other bits and bobs:

http://www.inceptional.com/2016/01/07/so-why-am-i-so-excited-about-virtual-reality/

And, lastly, why not listen to and maybe even learn something from someone who actually knows what they hell they are talking about:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-2dQoeqVVo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knQSRTApNcs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJzgllp2zyc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gaqQdyfAz8

VR is ultimately going to be a huge part of the future of videogames, and entertainment in general, and only people who don't really know what they are talking about would be claiming otherwise at this point--and that is a fact.

For most people, VR is a curiosity. They just want the basic experience. Many phones being made now are able to be turned into VR devices, so all someone would need to do is buy the controller and a headset to put their phone in. Smartphones...aka personal hand computers, are the future of VR.

@Kirk if you really think it will sell 70 mln units in 2017, you're out of your mind. That's their expectations of how many vr units will be out there.

And if you really think it is healthy to use for more than an hour and that this can be "fixed", then dream on. It will be useless for 80% of the population, because they won't be able to use it for more than 30 minutes tops. And shelling out 600 bucks for something you can't use that often is not a sign of best seller. There won't be 70 mln people going for it.

VR as it is in its current state will be more useful as a research, educational or therapy tool then as an entertainment device.

That doesn't mean OR won't be successful but it isn't going to change the video game industry anytime soon.

@Dave24 Well, I certainly never claimed it will sell 70 million units in 2017, but it will sell enough units to be easily considered a resounding success, which is all it needs to secure its future. It's already off to a great start with the Gear VR selling out pretty quickly and Oculus pre-orders selling out in a matter of minutes, such that they've already pushed into the next batch of pre-order shipments a couple of times over.

I have no idea how looking at the screen affects people's eyes over time, but I spend about 10 hours a day in front of my PC anyway, and I'm sure a little bit of gaming in VR every couple of days or whatever isn't going to make much of a difference to most gamers at this point. And, the tech will advance over time anyway, such that it may not even be normal screens that we'll be looking at in future versions of VR: https://avegant.com/technology

This price will also come down pretty quickly in time, obviously.

But, I guess you have to have a little bit of a clue about the stuff you are talking about to understand that.

@electrolite77 No, you'll find I'm telling you something that is in fact a fact. But I guess you'll only be able to realise that it's a fact in a year to twos time, maybe a little longer, when you look back and clearly see it as such.

Just imagine that time isn't quite as linear as you think and then maybe your brain will allow you to accept that it's possible for something to be true regardless of whether you're at that exact moment in time to witness it happening directly in the moment. Like if I were a time traveller and I came back and told you matter of fact that VR was successful, because in the future it was. It would be matter of fact true, even if it hadn't yet happened according to your relative time on the time line. I'm just time travelling based on having some knowledge of the thing I'm talking about and using the likes of logic, analysis, and reasoning, rather than with a physical time machine.

It's a bit like psychohistory being used in actual practice, if you will: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=psychohistory&oq=psychohi&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l5.3982j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

So, again, I'm telling you that VR is going to be a success, and ultimately it will become one of the most important and compelling gaming and entertainment experiences yet created by man--although it might take a while to get to a mass market level of penetration--and I'm also telling you that is a fact.

Unless someone here has the power to change the current path toward the future at a scale large enough that it would stop the inevitable success of VR at some point down the line...

This guy realllllly needs to be taken off PR. It's one dumb, alienating comment after another. The pricing comment, the PSVR comment, the damage control. Just stop.

@Kirk I was working in Norway and France for 5 years in the field of being instructor on military quality simiulators, which works on your middle ear as hard as oculus rift. And being gamer doesn't make your endurance better for that. I have done load of survies and tought thousands of people on that, from young gaming kind to basically guys who live on water - most of them couldn't take it for more than 30 minutes without being all sweaty or just vomiting and even manual said that it is recomennded to use it for 10-20 minutes with hour long breaks. Because of head tracking and how people react to it, I believe it will try to simulate movement, just like those simulators, although not as advanced (it needed 7 clustered pcs to run so there won't be framerate loss, because it could end up bad), so the effect will probably be the same.
When you sit in front of TV or monitor, you don't have the movement simulated and you don't use middle ear as much, because you see your surroundings and you have "waypoint" for your middle ear outside of monitor, while the only waypoing you have on oculus or any other VR is the picture that is generated on the screen way too close to your eyes. Middle ear can get screwy with that. And it won't be healthy and easy on the eyes.
Analysists say it will sell 70 mln units, and by going with that I say it will bomb. Although it will bomb anyway, probably.

@Kirk I usually support innovative hardware when I see potential in it. VR, in its current state, is not going to be a success.

But maybe in 20 years, who knows.

I dont think we'll ever see it being sold casually alongside handheld/console/PC, but it'll have a very slowly growing niche market. It looks and feels more like something that'll survive in arcades.

A really good chunk of folks experience health problems and everyone knows deep down that putting two blazing screens directly in front of your eyeballs wont do you any favors (That EyeGlass superstore on your street corner may be seeing dollar signs though $_$). That's the biggest hurdle, the next is expecting a large group of people to beef up their PCs with ridiculous specs just to play FPS #213986897 in VR.

@mikegamer

Took the words right outta my mouth. I can't judge the VB, never had one. But I doubt it hurt the industry. I'm not all that interested in VR anyway. Neat idea and I can understand why it would be super expensive, but the occulus rift likely wont do very well either. I get hit with a headache and feel sick just watching someone use it on youtube.

@Dave24

Yikes! That's not good.

I share the view that VR will break mainstream but firmly believe it will be via PlaystationVR, possibly after an initial flop, followed by a price cut once the tech cost reduces. That's of course, unless the price is lower than expected (most reckon around the cost of the PS4).

Rift and Vive just demand too much horsepower at the moment but once components come down, you'll likely see a flood of ready built PCs (perhaps competively powered/priced Steam boxes in a couple of years).

@Dave24 The funny thing about what you just said is that even though you say you've had experience with VR, and I absolutely believe you, you still don't seem to realise that an Oculus surpasses almost all the VR tech that existed in the average military outfit or wherever prior to this new wave of VR. Even the best VR solutions before this new wave were generally pretty crap, and not because of anything other than the fact the tech and software simply wasn't capable of much better until now. And even with those lucky military outfits or companies that were use state of the art VR systems that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tech, they were probably still running sh*tty software creating by programmer types rather than actual talented designers who could get the best out of the tech. So, unless you've used the most recent versions of the Oculus or Vive, and tried some of the most recent games/experiences running on them, then you're talking about VR tech that is outdated and doesn't come close to creating the kind of quality experience that even the first-gen Oculus and Vive are now providing. And it's only going to get better from here on out.

And it won't bomb.

@Freeon-Leon You are so far off base it's not even funny. Gen 1 VR will be a commercial success and will be bought by a decent number of people. Maybe not hundreds of millions, possibly not as much as tens of million (but maybe), but certainly enough that it will ensure it continues forward into future generations of the hardware. And that's all VR needs to eventually become a huge success--a little bit of time. Not twenty years. More like a few years. Or maybe five to ten at a push. And when I say a huge success I'm just talking about current console level of sales in the not too distant future, like ten to a few tens of millions units for whatever main headset. Going further into the future, it's likely VR will surpass even the best console sales numbers to date--by quite a long way.

I wish we had figures on how many units of Gear VR have sold to date and how many Oculus headsets have already been pre-ordered (at $600 a pieces no less, and more for most people who have to buy a new PC too).

I wish this was satire, because I find it hard to believe that anyone sane could possibly be attempting to preemptively blame Nintendo for the possible failure of VR headsets.

If VR fails, it won't be in any part due to Nintendo's Virtual Boy.
It will be because it's an overhyped gimmick.

people have been craving VR for 20 years, it just wasn't until now that it has been feasible, thought at 1500 bucks. Plus, the head set with cost 400 by Christmas time, depending on demand. Anyway, VR is here stay.

@PlywoodStick
VR has been showcased at pretty much every tech conference for the last 2 years. You don't need to own one to check it out.

As for the rest of your comment, don't you think that's a bit dramatic? This costs much more than the developer version because it has much better hardware than the original developer units. Getting a high-resolution OLED with the proper refresh rate (at least 90hz to prevent motion-sickness) isn't cheap. Then add in all of the sensors which weren't available in the initial iterations.

You can't honestly suggest that VR is restricted to upper middle-class consumers without simultaneously saying the same thing for any new technology, including game consoles. A new game console might cost $400, but that's without games, extra controllers, etc.

Let's not use insults.
~Santa

@DESS-M-8 There's no point in even attempting a convo with that kid. I see him make these grandiose assertions all the freakin' time. Your opinions are always wrong. Why? Because they're YOUR opinions, not his, which we all know are actually facts, because they're his.
I'm replying to you because I don't think I can calmly respond directly to him. I suppose it doesn't matter though, since we're all uninformed dumba##es. But hey, you know what they say about opinions..... heh

@DESS-M-8 @Kirk stop fighting you to,

@Kirk here my complete response and dissection of your stupidity:

"Kirk said:
@DESS-M-8 It's laughable that you seem to confuse whatever I choose to say in our argument with what is a separate and objective reality."
Things you say about things that haven't happened are subjective opinion and the furthest possibly thing from an objective reality - fact

Whether I play silly word games with you or throw childish insults about is completely irrelevant to the point. That's just how I roll.
"You sound pathetic and the reading age of an 8 year old.

"And the point is that VR will be a success and it will ultimately be a new category in interactive entertainment going forward--easily as much as consoles are right now. That's not even debatable at this point; you just think is. The exact hows and when are up for debate--that I grant anyone--but not the eventual outcome of VR ultimately being a successful new product category. Again, you just think it is."
The ultimate outcome of VR over the next 20 years is not up for discussion, the application of particular VR technology in a domestic market in 2016 is. It will fail. My subjective opinion, but based more on market and technology analysis rather than the

VR is not just an interface with how you control a game. That's like saying a smartphone is just an interface with how you control a game, or a handheld console is just an interface with how you control a game. VR is not just a peripheral controller. VR is an entire platform in and of itself--just like homes consoles, smartphones and tablets, and handhelds--that just happens to have a control method built directly into it (just like smartphones, tablets, and handhelds).
Oculus IS a peripheral. Fact.
The way it mechanically interfaces with a game uses same tech as move. Fact.
It does more than move on a technical level. I never disputed, the point I made is supports by: fact.

Again, it's honestly like you don't have the slightest clue what virtual reality is. Virtual Reality is the whole experience. The headset it just part of VR, and in almost all cases of modern VR, the headset is just one part of multiple parts that make up the VR experience. The interactive, immersive, and virtual experience is what defines VR, and it's achieved via a combination of the headset, controller(s), and software. At a bare minimum, the headset and software.
VR is everything I said it was, the fact the "experience" it gives you, is you interpretation of that "simulation"

"The similarity in mechanical operation at a motion control level with Move is almost completely moot"
You counter argues this point yourself; let's move on.
.
"The motion controller for VR is like Move"
See

", and in Sony's case it actually is Move"
Sorry, couldn't resist.

"but the headset is an entirely independant unit from the controller, even though it too has input capability."
Oxymoron anyone???? It nothing to do with it, but everything! Dude, you should write fragrance commercials.

" Move is "Move". Vive motion controller is "Move". Oculus Touch is "Move". The Balance Board is "Move". The PSVR headset, Vive headset, and Oculus Headset are virtual reality headset devices in and of themselves, not peripheral controllers for some other actual main device. And just because they tether to PCs--currently only--that doesn't change this fact"
Whatever THIS is, is your own mess to sort out.

"If you think Move is a flop then you're just living up to the short term, short sighted, and small minded thinking I'm talking about. We can talk about whether Move is/was a failure a few years after PSMove comes out. Until then any comment that it's a failure is coming from someone who simply doesn't know what they are talking about, because the product is still on the market, still selling, about to see a major new use implementation, as well as many more games that support it too. Unlike Wii U, Move isn't close to it's retirement day."
Where did Wii u come from after you immediately invalidated your own endorsement of move? Wii u never gave virtual physical interface, it merely carried on what was pioneered with Wii remote over a decade ago. (Copied poorly by Move)

"And, for the record, PS Move has already sold over 15 million units (even before it gets a whole new surge of life with PSVR), which is more than the Wii U has to date (and probably more than it ever will): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_Move#Reception_and_sales"
This is peanuts against the tech it copied. Wii mote.
How many games released today use Move????
How many in the last 3 years of PS3 advocated Move?????? Fail.

"No, my whole point is that you are wrong because you are wrong."
Subjective, not objective.

"You just don't know you're so very wrong--yet.
And that's not my opinion"
Yes it is
.
"PS. I am a grown man with a child's mind--but not in the way you mean--and I'm entirely proud of it."
I highly suspect it's the former.

@Undead_terror @kirk @MC808 @dax1978dave
"Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children??!!"

@Undead_terror Lol

But it's funny.

@DESS-M-8 The funniest part is that you actually believe those were genuine counters to my points.

LOL

I guess we'll see who's right in time. . . .

PS: http://www.inceptional.com/2016/01/15/heres-a-few-cool-vr-videos-i-recently-watched/ (That's from my blog by the way.)

@Kirk what is truly funny is your complete failure to understand the concept of a counter argument and every single point made is 100% valid including all your counter arguments against yourself.

You typing anything is truly a waste of your own time, let alone anybody unfortunate enough to read them.

Funnier still is the fact that run a blog and think anybody would be interested in reading it when you can't even hold a simple conversation together. I'd rather read the small print off a shampoo bottle than a blog by you. It will clearly be as mis-informed, illogical and pointless as everything you've written on here so far. I can't believe you've referred to psychohistory as a legitimate support to your drivel at one point. I suppose you also believe the science of a "lightsaber" and they too are possible.

It is amazing that you continue to write and think it is quality material of professional journalistic quality that people will actually want to read when it is quite clearly the non-sensical ravings lower than that frequently in fanboy level scrawl.

Can you please either discuss the actual subject matter or shut up. In everything you've said so far you have not actually said anything more than:

" VR will be a success because I say it will, so there"

This is literally your entire argument summed up in one sentence.

@DESS-M-8 There is no valid counter argument being made by you. You just think there is—which isn't really surprising.

I could tear apart and show how pathetic all the "counter" points you make are, one by one, but I don't really care because they honestly are total garbage. I'm getting bored of pointing out how much of an ignorant moron you are; and I can tell you're taking it real personal in your little heart (can't blame you). Whereas I really don't care what you think about a single thing outside of the main point, which is:

VR will be a success and it won't just be some niche short-lived fad, or whatever, and you are 100% ignorant, short sighted, small minded, and wrong in asserting otherwise. You're just too dumb to realist that at this point in time.

Let's see if I'm right. . . .

PS: You really should check out my blog and some of my recent and rather sweet VR related posts (although, both you and I know you already did): http://www.inceptional.com/

@Kirk there is no counter argument because there is no counter argument to be made?????? I would leave to see you "tear apart" my argument. Maybe you'd actually put forward some thought instead of ranting and moanig about nothing. I also have no doubt it would be hilarious to read.

You are an idiot beyond all comprehension, you still have not really said anything.
I have checked your blog and the YouTube videos you have made. They are further evidence, to me, that support the argument that you are complete retard who doesn't actually know what he's talking about. You have made no "mind blowing" or "sweet" ideas at any point in anything you've typed online; ever. It mainly consists of the ramblings of a child, ranting about what he would love to see and that the entire industry should be centred on "exciting" you, and you alone.

The best bit was when you claimed you used to work for Rare; then when you left Rare they stole all your ideas and gave you no credit.

I've not taken anything you've said personally, you've not said anything personal. I've never disputed VR being a success. I think VR maybe a success I maybe 20-30 years from now. This generation of VR will not be a success; which is the actual topic under discussion before you disappeared on ever tangent you could grab. Nothing ignorant has been stated by me (plenty by you), a complete lack of knowledge has not been evidenced by me (an abundance by you) and the only thing that remains a fact is that your beyond a shadow of doubt a complete idiot with absolutely no reason to be so conceited (fully evidenced on your YouTube channel). The fact you constantly mention your blog like it is a tome of genius and deep insight into the industry is hilarious, it is utter garbage and devoid of any sense and thought. It also reads like you should probably re-enter education. As soon as possible.

I requested that if you wanted to continue a discussion on the topic, to at least broach the subject of discussion. You have completely failed to do this again, so bye bye LawnMoron Man.

If you grow a brain at any point and have anything sensible to say in the future I may see you again, but I doubt that.

I also suspect this won't be the last post in this thread from you as you will now no doubt reply to this with some more illogical, arrogant, misinformed, childish and utterly purile raving nonsense.

VR is still in its infancy and not ready for domestic market release if they expect success.
This is not down to anything attempted by the Virtual Boy or any other hardware in the 90's. It is down to the fact people won't wear helmets to play games over using a TV, plain and simple. In that respect, as many advances as oculus has made over devices 20 years ago, the main problem has not been addressed: the peripheral itself.

Using oculus long term will have inherent health risks that are impossible to address using the hardware as it is. (If you are someone who argues this at this point, leave well alone as you do not have a full understanding on what is happening to you physically as you use an enclosed visual device such as this) It is disorientating, clearly damaging to eyes if used for prolonged times (which will happen no matter how many warnings are displayed). This leaves it as a niche peripheral not intended for extended use, at which point the price of entry is too high for something that is not a core element to gaming.

The experience of oculus is astounding. Same as afterburner was in arcades twenty years ago. The experience delivered is a short term blast to the senses as is recommended everyone tries it. Using that technology as a new platform for the 100's hours of gaming at home people undertake in the spare time is not the place for devices such as this.
It will ruin you.
I'm not saying oculus is rubbish, I'm saying it is damaging is used long term. If it is released for home consoles, that is how it will be used. It will ruin you.

@DESS-M-8 You're getting desperate now. It's coming through in your writing. lol

And, no. The topic under discussion is not just this generation of VR; it's VR in total.

Actually read something properly for once—like your very first comment, where you outright claim VR will not be a success (not in the short term, not in this generation, but outright. It's a fad, gimmick, and won't be a success as long as it uses a headset*. That's how you statement reads.), and my first response, where I claim it will (ultimately)—you moron.

And stop changing your tune.

*"VR is a gimmick and certainly doesn't have any mainstream, mass-market long-term application. The minute you have to wear a helmet to use it, you've lost and it belongs in an arcade with all the other huge clumsy peripherals that are a blast for ten minutes. Unless the emerging tech is playable/usable straight out of the box without wearing anything, it will not succeed." - You, aka, moron.

"VR is ultimately going to be a huge part of the future of videogames, and entertainment in general, and only people who don't really know what they are talking about would be claiming otherwise at this point--and that is a fact." Me, aka, the smart one.

@Kirk calm down LawnMoron Man, you're embarrassing yourself. I Would love to see which part of what I have written is desperate.

Neither have I changed my tune. My point has remained the same throughout and my opinion of VR remains unchanged.

You have yet again failed to put forward any thoughts on the subject and now getting beyond boring.

Which ideas specifically did Rareware, your previous employer, steal from you again??????

Joking aside:

Why will oculus be a huge success? Genuinely asking you your thoughts on this, why will it be a huge success?

@DESS-M-8 See my last comment above. I'm done with you, and from now on will only keep repeating the same point. Because I have quoted your very first post where you made a clear statement that VR is a fad, gimmick, will not succeed if it has a headset, blah blah. I have quote my very first post where I made the exact opposite assertion, simply saying it will ultimately be a success in the future. And you have shown in the last-ish post that you are now changing your tune—because you know fine will you are f'n wrong.

YOU are the ignorant moron here.

@Kirk speaking of morons not being able to read properly. Read what you just wrote.

"VR is a gimmick" further qualified by describing the hardware employing the VR experience as a helmet. I stand by this as it is my opinion and most often proven as true. Much in the same vein as the Wii remote.

The hardware offers an experience, which in its current state, is a gimmick.

VR, ultimately, could be a success if the hardware evolves from having to wear a visual closed off helmet. It is this as pax that has not evolved in the last thirty years. How this could be achieved, I've no idea; neither have the industry specialist as they still fall back to the helmet design every time.

VR will hit a stride in mainstream deployment until optic technology advances to a point where the helmet is not required. THIS is a long way away and could even be after our lifetime.

VR in the sense we are talking about is a gimmick as the only source available is the helmet design; this ultimately will not be adopted in mass market. You believe it will, therefore what we are discussing is the ultimate success of oculus. Claiming you are discussing technology that has not even been invented yet is just childish/idiotic; label yourself.

Virtual Boy has not damaged the perception of VR as a whole because while the experience delivered by virtual boy was flawed, the inherent problem with the devices failure has not been addressed by oculus; the goggle/helmet.

The krux of my argument is solely that point. You've not addressed that at all, maybe because you have no words to argue that point and feel falling back on "I think it's brilliant, some other people think it's brilliant therefore everyone must think it's amazing and it will be" which in another way also states you have nothing to say.

I am not the only one with this viewpoint, there a strong voice in all the forums singing the same tune as this. It's just me still typing because I find you floundering around on a keyboard mildly entertaining. Which is infinitely more than I can say for you trying to describe how an amiibo works on YouTube.

@DESS-M-8

"VR is a gimmick and certainly doesn't have any mainstream, mass-market long-term application. The minute you have to wear a helmet to use it, you've lost and it belongs in an arcade with all the other huge clumsy peripherals that are a blast for ten minutes. Unless the emerging tech is playable/usable straight out of the box without wearing anything, it will not succeed." - You, aka, moron.

"VR is ultimately going to be a huge part of the future of videogames, and entertainment in general, and only people who don't really know what they are talking about would be claiming otherwise at this point--and that is a fact." Me, aka, the smart one.

@Kirk all the ignorance and idiocy is solely at your feet my friend, so is the position of being "f'n wrong"

Can you please type something that displays some form of viewpoint, supported by a glimpse of knowledge and reason on the subject in hand?

If this escapes you, then please refrain from continuing to hurt yourself in this way. It's slowly become less entertaining and more pitiful.

@Kirk

"You aka moron"
That is your opinion of an opinion made with supporting reasoning.

"Me aka the smart one"
Your opinion of your own opinion where you claiming a guess is the same as a fact????? Please just stop.

I have tried a couple of times to engage you intellectually on this subject which you're either ignoring because you can't qualify your own reason, or you are too stupid to read and write correctly.

VR will be a success in the future!!!!! Right. OK. Why?

My statement is claiming VR, whilst constrained to deployment in a helmet will not be a success. This is qualified in numerous posts over the last few days.

If you are arguing counter to that, you are stating devices such as oculus (not lawnmower man non-existent future VR technologies), just oculus equivalent devices will be a success.
If you believe this, please explain why. I'm interested.

@DESS-M-8

You said:

"VR is a gimmick and certainly doesn't have any mainstream, mass-market long-term application. The minute you have to wear a helmet to use it, you've lost and it belongs in an arcade with all the other huge clumsy peripherals that are a blast for ten minutes. Unless the emerging tech is playable/usable straight out of the box without wearing anything, it will not succeed."

I said (in response to multiple people's comments asserting that VR will fail, it is a gimmick, it's a niche product, and other stuff like that):

"VR is ultimately going to be a huge part of the future of videogames, and entertainment in general, and only people who don't really know what they are talking about would be claiming otherwise at this point--and that is a fact."

Let me be VERY clear: VR with a headset WILL be a success (I guess you would call it a "commercial" success), and in the near future too. So I'm outright saying the likes of Oculus, Vive, and PSVR will be commercially successful. And VR in the upcoming generation or two will be successful enough that VR's long term future and ultimate mass-market mainstream success is also assured. VR penetration will, at some point, surpass that of even current-gen consoles in user base. Anyone who thinks and asserts otherwise, of ANY of those points, is simply ignorant and wrong.

You, well you don't really have a clue as to what you're talking about, because you think VR will fail this gen because it uses a headset, which is the kind of ignorance I'm talking about, and then you go off talking about some kind of future VR that doesn't use a headset at all—which is really in the almost complete fantasy realm of a holodeck—and you say that VR will only be a success once that is achieved.

Yeah, clue much.

@Kirk I'm not stating to what future tech future VR will use. I've not discussed that, I've discussed why helmet wearing tech won't penetrate mass market. Commercial market I'm referring to industrial application, domestic market I'm referring to retail of units to be used in domestic lounges and bedrooms on a daily basis.

To reason you are right cause I'm a moron for not agreeing is just retarded and pathetic.

I get that you think oculus will be a success, I'm asking you to explain WHY you think that is. You still have nothing apart check a box for "yes" and the proceeded to soil yourself that somebody dared tick the "no" box

@DESS-M-8 VR with a headset will penetrate mass-market, eventually, and not in some distant future tens of years down the line but in the relatively near term. It does not and will not require the removal of the headset component before VR will be a success. Saying it will only be successful once there is no headset is ignorant and moronic. Also, this very first generation isn't even trying to be mass-market, so no one is claiming it will be. It just needs to be commerically successful enough to assure a second generation and beyond, and it will. In fact, it's almost achieved that already, with the sales of Gear VR and the rapid pre-orders of Rift. The way things are already playing out, Gen 1 VR will be a qualified success. But VR with a headset will be mass-market soon enough, and meanwhile, in the short term, it will also be a commercial success. Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant and wrong.

And you want me to explain why. . . .

Look at all my blog posts or even half of the comments I've made above. I've posted examples of the tech that demonstrate how basically everyone that actually uses it almost immediately becomes a convert, which is a massive aspect of why the product will be successful. I've linked interviews with professional journalists, who have actually used the consumer model of Oculus and the latest Vive Pre, telling you why they are now also convinced it will be a success. I've also talked about it's relative success out the gate already in terms of Gear VR sales figures and Oculus pre-orders. As a few examples.

Now, you show my why it won't. . . .

Nothing, not a single word you have said is even close to showing how it won't be a success, given that it basically already is right out the gate, and is clearly only going to get better, be pushed further and harder, reach more people, and beyond.

And THAT's my whole point: Every single sign points to it being successful enough in Gen 1 to warrant a Gen 2, and so on. That's it. It's here to stay, and it will only get bigger and better. That is a success, as much of a success as Gen 1 VR needs to be and that any reasonable person would expect of it, and that will lead to VR's assured future and continued success.

Now, show me a single thing that says otherwise, other than your totally ignorant assertions that the likes of Vive/Oculus/PSVR won't be a success because they use a headset; or VR with a headset won't be a success because you think it's a gimmick; or VR with a headset won't be a success because you think it doesn't have any mass-market long term application; or that it's going to take at least 20-30 years before VR might eventually be a success (which is when I presume you think it's going to exist in a form that works entirely without headsets). . . .

Also, show me how we're even going to get close to a holodeck type VR in the next hundred or so years, because that is for all intents and purposes the kind of VR you are saying we need before VR will be a commercial mass-market success—VR that does not use a headset—and that technology is so far in the realm of sci-fi fantasy that it's not even funny to hear you argue that VR won't be a mass-market success until we basically have holodecks. Or maybe you're talking about jacking into our minds, or something else like that, which is just as ridiculous, far-off, sci-fi fantasy.

So, your idea of future successful VR without a headset is basically pure fantasy—unless we maybe jump forward a thousand years into the future and mankind has figured out how to break the laws of physics/biology/chemistry/psychology as we currently understand them. And yet, despite all your gibberish, current-gen VR with a headset is about to be a success right in front of you.

I'm talking about the reality of actual VR, which will happen in our lifetimes, and you seem to be talking about some kind of VR that almost certainty won't happen in our lifetimes, if in fact it is even possible at all. That's not VR; it's fairytale.

Here, read the first draft of my sci-fi fantasy VR novella, as that has stuff about jacking into your mind. You might like it: http://www.inceptional.com/Presence.pdf

Again:

"VR is a gimmick and certainly doesn't have any mainstream, mass-market long-term application. The minute you have to wear a helmet to use it, you've lost and it belongs in an arcade with all the other huge clumsy peripherals that are a blast for ten minutes. Unless the emerging tech is playable/usable straight out of the box without wearing anything, it will not succeed." - You.

"VR is ultimately going to be a huge part of the future of videogames, and entertainment in general, and only people who don't really know what they are talking about would be claiming otherwise at this point—and that is a fact." Me.

@Kirk you are an utter spastic and it is hilarious every time you refer to yourself as a smart person.

I have never mentioned a holodeck. I'm saying helmets are a no-no for mass market.

Nothing about oculus is an instant success in terms of taking over the world as you claim it will.

You STILL have not said why you think it will be a success. You "wrote" ALL that and it still basically sums up to
"Oculus will be a mass market success because I say it will"
Can you not see the inherent failure in every word of that sentence?????

@DESS-M-8 You say VR won't be a success until it doesn't use a headset. Well, if it's not something like a holodeck or tapping into your mind, or some other unrealistic idea like that, what the hell do you think it will be, for Christ's sake?

Most people understand that VR basically is the headset (plus the extra controller, games, and services)—that's the VR that most people mean when they even use the term VR, and it's that VR they've been waiting to see for a long time—and only the ignorant are waiting for it to become something it's highly likely it will take a lifetime to become, and might never become, before they consider it a worthwhile VR experience.

If you have no clue what it might be without a headset, you're really just blowing fluff in the air—because you have no idea how it will realistically be made better, but you claim it has to be basically entirely different before enough people will care to make VR a success. Even though this VR, VR with a headset, is exactly the kind of VR most people have been looking forward to finally being realised since the '90s. All you're saying is "VR [with a headset] will fail" with no real direct evidence to support such an assertion—despite it being exactly the kind of VR most people who even care about VR are desperate for. All you are saying is total junk, like "Move failed", which it absolutely has not. And this is the exactly kind of ignorant comment I'm talking about.

VR will still be a success, even with a headset. And unlike you, at least I have some direct evidence to support my claim (Gear VR sales, Oclus pre-orders, general consensus around the industry and among people who've used it, and just good sense and a far deeper understanding of what I'm talking about than you). You're just too dumb to get that. Seriously. And I never said it will take over the world, so stop being a tool and exaggerating crap just because it makes you feel better.

Going by your logic in saying that I've not explained how it will be a success, you've still not said why it won't be a success either—far more so than me.

So, why won't it? Show me how it won't be a success. . . . Prove it. . . . Show me that you're not just ignorant about current-gen VR. . . .

And no, just because you think Move was a failure—which it isn't—that doesn't count. Nor does saying something like "3DTV was a flop" either (just an example), because if you can't see the difference between 3DTV that requires glasses and VR then you understand even less of the situation than I thought (or, to be fair, just as little as I thought).

Hurry up. . . .

@smashbrolink to can bet when it does bomb they will point fingers hard back at the nineties as the reason people today were unwilling to adopt it.

@Kirk I am vastly more intelligent than you. Fact. You are clearly a complete idiot and most junior school students will undoubtedly have a higher IQ, but let's continue. Let's try and break down these walls you retarded mind has created for you and break this down into single sentence bullet points. We'all number them aswell for assistance with reference.

1) virtual boy has damaged the VR industry, making current VR's more difficult.
DESS-M-8: no it didn't in anyway. People's perception of VR is based on VR itself. The mass market will have little recollection of Virtual Boy. Even people who played VirtualBoy are able to make the distinction that it had zero to do with Virtual Reality; they may aswell blame Virtua Fighter while they're at it.
Kirk: you have not passed your opinion on this at any point.

2) Will VR be a success over the next two years?
DESS-M-8: no. It's current form it will not be adopted by the mass market. Some VR devices will have industrial application like microsofts augmented reality display. But this is totally different tech. I believe it will not be a success because it is cumbersome and it is not able to be used for sustained periods of time; console gaming is played for sustained periods of time. Wearing a helmet will never work. NOTE: this does not mean the only alternative is a full Holodeck! This was your assumption, not mine. This assumption belongs in the realms of your comparison of using "psychohistory" as sufficient reference material to validate your ramblings.you and I do not work in consumer electronic R&D so have no clue what alternative methods are. My statement that a helmet is out stands; it does not however, rule out wearable technologies.
Kirk: says yes it will be a success within two years, supporting this with "because I am smart and I say so"

3) Will VR ultimately succeed?
DESS-M-8: Maybe. I can see way more potential in Augmented Reality with this having some serious developments in industry and home retail for entertainment and function. With this developing further, a true next generation "virtual" reality application may evolve from that. Closing your entire headspace off inside a helmet and willing signing away the long term health if your eyesight is just a no-brained and resounding no.
Kirk: VR will reign supreme and literally consume all electronic interfacing on a global scale within 10 years. - if anybody else is still reading this painful thread please do comment on this with directing any insults or fun making at @kirk. This is what he believes and he is entitled to his opinion.

4) you worked for Rare who snubbed you and stole all your ideas.
While this is off topic, I do feel it adds some relevance when it does direct a light on the viability of any credibility to anything you say; including having a right to question anybody else's intelligence levels and to justify your opinion with literally no reasoning or explaination beyond "I am right because I am right and you are wrong you f'n moron!".

That closing quote from you does actually sum your entire pathetic and flawed argument up in as little as 13.5 words"

Please stop, or if you do continue please do it calmly and logically without swearing or "spittin' barbs like the hardcore Scottish g'man" you so wish you were. I know you like to think you "roll" like some journalistic renegade, and when you "go off" there's a chance you hurt people's feelings but you're "down with that".

But you just sound sad, childish and it makes reading anything you've written difficult to read without immediately discrediting any valid point you could possibly be making.

@DESS-M-8 lol

Dude, I'm not even going to bother.

See you in a few years time.

lol

@Kirk bother what? Learning to read? Use logic? Learn how to answer a question? Not lie? Not talk utter rubbish?

I hope Rare take you back, they're gonna need your amazing ideas for VR when it rules the world by end of next year. You are the VR guru and nobody knows more about with you. Steam, Sony, Google, Microsoft; they should all get you in their payroll to advocate VR, especially with your eloquent crash of English and untouchable ability to convey any sense of knowledge. You should be head hunter by them all. I'm surprised they haven't already, they all need somebody as technologically minded as you, the way you can break down reality and explain science with fiction. It's a unique skill. When you die, the world is owed your brain so we can all learn from your vast knowledge for eons to come, even though we won't have you, your technical mind will still be with us, so how could you be dead!!!????

Glad this has come to end. Especially with a lack of retort from your yourself. Speaks volumes to be honest and is the most intelligent thing you've typed this week.

Live long and prosper lawnmower man.

@DESS-M-8 lol

@Kirk .

@DESS-M-8 So, have you actually used the consumer version of the Oculus Rift (or even DK2)? Or have you tried the Vive Pre? Or maybe the PSVR in its latest incarnation. At the low end of the scale of proper VR, have you at least tried a Gear VR?

And you can see the relative quality of each VR solution in this article, which details the difference in quality between even something like Gear VR and a more complete VR solution like Vive Pre:

http://www.polygon.com/2016/1/15/10772026/virtual-reality-guide-oculus-google-cardboard-gear-vr

I've not tried any of the latest versions of any of those VR solutions, but I have tried Oculus Rift DK1, and obviously both consumer Rift and Vive Pre are vastly superior in pretty much every single way.

So, have you tried any modern day VR, and ideally the actual latest versions of any of the main VR headsets (Vive, Rift, or PSVR)?

@Kirk what are you talking about now? That has nothing to do with anything or even been a point raised by anyone.

At no point have I disputed the quality of the experience. My point is that the delivery method and its application is not suitable for sustained periods of time and the entire product is just too cumbersome.

The restrict the focal length of the human eye at less than 100mm for an extended period of time is going to cause long term damage and unnecessary strain. In addition to this, the fact it is a helmet and closing you off from the space around you is something that will never be adopted at a general level in a home lounge entertainment centre.

Beyond this, there will be people who feel uneasy using a product like this, some it makes feel ill, some who don't trust the potential damage it will cause, some who sitting your house with a helmet on is just ridiculous and those who really aren't that bothered about it. Add to this the product costs over a £100 for something that only enhances a product you already own and it will be written off by a majority worldwide. The only remaining consumers of this product are technophiles and "gotta have it" geeks. It will sell but it will not penetrate mass market as it is currently applied and positioned within the market.

They have a chance of breaking a serious market share if it is issued as standard with PS5. Beyond this, this product is way way way in its infancy, and in my opinion, is not the route that gaming should attempt to go. It will serve a niche over the next two-three years and that's it.

@DESS-M-8 So, have you tried any of them or not?

@Kirk every point I have made is no dependent on trying them, neither is the product is released yet.

My point is that:
A) the product can not be used for longer than 30 minutes at a time,
B) it can have severe damaging effects on a wide range of people.
C) it can not be used by people under 13 and those between 13-18 must be closely monitored while using it.

All these points are 100% fact and narrow down the potential market massively before it's even considered on a shop shelf. As an engineer reviewing this product under a decision matrix, it would be at the bottom of the pile. The only reason it is going ahead is that there is a niche market of people desperate for this experience regardless of its effects. A bit like crack-heads really.

It is there money invested direct through Kickstarter that has made this happen which means oculus will make a return on investment guaranteed. Without Kickstarter, it wouldn't have seen the light of day.

The experience for sale is enticing, but the inherent health risks and potential damaging effects of its use when not used to the letter of its own health and safety documents, will prevent it from penetrating the mass market.

@DESS-M-8 Have you actually tried one of these new VR devices or not?

It's not a trick question, or a complicated one to answer.

@Kirk I never said it was complicated, I said it was irrelevant. You seem to displaying your complete lacking grasp of reading ability and logical reasoning yet again.

@DESS-M-8 So, have you actually tried one of these new VR devices or not?

Again, it's not a trick question, or a complicated one to answer.

Oh, and what did you think of the first draft of my story/novella about VR?

If you've not read it yet, give it a go (you might actually enjoy it):

http://www.inceptional.com/Presence.pdf

@Kirk actually using one is not relevant to any point I have made. The facts I have pointed out are health warnings issued by Oculus. I wouldn't even have to put the thing in my head to support anything I've said.

I have also not doubted the quality of the experience, I have no doubt it is amazing. It is the inherent health risks introduced with its current application method.
I'm boring myself now I've typed that sentence that many times, would help Out if you read it once and understood.

I tell you what, I will actually look at that fiction piece you've written and give you an honest opinion.

@DESS-M-8 So, I'm going to presume the answer is No.

Cool: It would be interesting to hear your opinion on my story, as any/all feedback is useful for improving it in further drafts.

I'm sure you will be perfectly blunt in what you think about it—which is exactly what I want.

@Haz Part of the work I'm doing now is providing computers to the needy, who cannot afford the prices of even relatively cheaper computers today. All of our computers are offered to those with a referral granted in compliance with their government assistance, which allows them to acquire a computer for us for between $25-$100. In many cases, they struggle to pay even that much...

So, yes, I would honestly say that devices like the Oculus Rift are restricted for ownership to the mid to upper middle class, and the wealthy. Without more practical uses, this is a prohibitively expensive purchase for lower middle class and under. It's not like smartphone or tablet plans, where you can just rent the thing.

Perhaps you have not been exposed very much to the reality that poorer people must face?