Why isn't anyone here talking about virtual reality?

[YellowKing]

That was really cool. The full room stuff is a really strong draw for me over the Rift, though I don't really have the room right now to take full advantage of it.

[wonderpug]

That was really cool. The full room stuff is a really strong draw for me over the Rift, though I don't really have the room right now to take full advantage of it.

You wouldn't know it from the way Oculus advertises, but the Rift will also be able to do full room stuff once the Touch controllers come out. The Rift doesn't have the front camera so it can't do the passthrough Tron view thing, but Valve's gridline wall Chaperone system thing is already compatible with the Rift.

[YellowKing]

That's good to hear. By the time I can comfortably afford one or the other I'm hoping there will be a bit clearer picture on which horse to back.

[Madmarcus]

This new video from Valve is the best I've seen yet for showcasing what VR is all about without actually putting a headset on someone's face. I'll be using this any time I want to try and explain to someone what VR can do that a top notch big TV or monitor can't do.

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

(Start at about 45 seconds in if you want to skip the intro.)

I find that video really underwhelming.

[wonderpug]

This new video from Valve is the best I've seen yet for showcasing what VR is all about without actually putting a headset on someone's face. I'll be using this any time I want to try and explain to someone what VR can do that a top notch big TV or monitor can't do.

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

(Start at about 45 seconds in if you want to skip the intro.)

I find that video really underwhelming.

Fascinating. Even if none of the particular games that were shown are your cup of tea, there's not even a little part of your imagination that gets you thinking of a game or experience you'd love to experience in that way? Stalking your post history a bit, it looks like you got into Rebel Galaxy. Taking cost out of the equation, is there no part of you that thinks it'd be neat to be completely immersed and surrounded by a Rebel Galaxy space battle rather than just seeing it on a fixed 2d screen?

[YellowKing]

I agree the graphics in the video are really cheesy, but I kind of viewed it through the lens of potential rather than what they were actually showing. Those tech demos always come off as cornball.

[naednek]

ya, after seeing the video, it heavily reminds me of the wii. Lots of gimicky games with some few quality ones. I'm on the wait a few years approach to see how it survives and matures. There was some cool moments in the video, but it's not making me want to go out and buy one anytime soon.

[wonderpug]

The simplistic graphics a lot of these titles have are more a symptom of the small budget sizes and short development times these early games have.

Here's a better example of the graphical capabilities of these headsets:

360° preview video of the Alps environment for The Climb

Be sure to set the video quality as high as you can support, watch in full screen, and click & drag to move your view around.

[TiLT]

Motion controls are likely to be mostly a gimmick throughout this generation of VR, but they'll find a place. Seated VR is still where it's at, when it comes down to it. The number of genres that motion controls will clearly improve are limited, but the ones that are improved will be massively improved by them. Still, I suspect that in 2 months time, most Vive owners will be sitting in their chair with a gamepad in their hands and the Vive on their head, while the motion controllers gather dust, waiting for a new batch of guests to impress. This is the main reason I'm going with Oculus for now, because they seem to agree with my sentiment in this regard. They've been more focused on perfecting the seated experience, while still keeping motion gaming open with the Oculus Touch (which to me seems like a better solution than the Vive's too, with the only downside being one is available now while the other isn't). Everything I've heard points to the Rift feeling more polished and being more comfortable to wear, with an easier to use UI.

But VR is not a gimmick. I can't stress this enough. It's as big a leap as the transition from radio to TV, and I mean that quite literally. TV added another dimension (sight) to radio, while VR adds another dimension to TV (presence, for lack of a better word). And just like radio to TV, there's still room for both. Playing games on a monitor will be just as important in the years to come as it is today, but we'll have more options. In 10 years or so, we're likely to look at non-VR gaming as "retro" but still useful and fun.

But it's not just gaming. Today, IKEA launched their virtual kitchen for Steam VR, which they've been secretly developing for a while. It lets you physically step into an IKEA kitchen, try out the drawers and other stuff, and replace materials and colors to try out different combinations while actual "being there". It's most likely a prototype for a much more massive solution in the near future. Imagine using your cell phone to take a couple of panorama pictures of your apartment/house, submitting it to an IKEA app (or any other company), and then having it convert it to a 3D model you can walk in with VR. Then add in IKEA's entire catalog of furniture, letting you try all kinds of combinations and color choices, paint your walls, try different forms of lighting, etc. All this while providing you with a perfect 1:1 experience of being there, seeing exactly what will fit and what won't, and if you actually have room to move around. If you put the fridge at this spot, will it be uncomfortable to open the door? Will it bump into anything? This shelf, will it get in the way if you're running from your bedroom to your living room? Is your proposed shower solution big enough for your tastes, or is the picture in the catalog fooling you? This is just one incredibly exciting way that VR will enhance our lives, and it's going to happen sooner than many people think.

[Jaymann]

And that may be how the price comes down - endure a few VR ads before your gaming session.

[Grifman]

Maybe my imagination is lacking but for many games I play, I don't see the advantage of VR and indeed see problems. Take Fallout 4. Do I really want to stand and do all this stuff with my hands that I can do much more easily via a keyboard or controller? Do I really want to turn my whole body to fire at someone flanking me? Do I really want to raise my hand like I have a hammer in it and craft a gun or a piece of armor? Or walk down a row of plants to harvest them? A keyboard/controller is much easier and quicker. I don't really want the game to micmic real life to that extent. Do I really want to walk all the way to Diamond City? Or jump into the water and flail my arms swimming to avoid a super mutant chasing me?

I could see a game where you have to sit in real life such as a racing game or a flight sim. But a FPS shooter or RPG? Seems like more work than fun - what am I missing?

[Nightwish]

But VR is not a gimmick. I can't stress this enough. It's as big a leap as the transition from radio to TV, and I mean that quite literally. TV added another dimension (sight) to radio, while VR adds another dimension to TV (presence, for lack of a better word). And just like radio to TV, there's still room for both. Playing games on a monitor will be just as important in the years to come as it is today, but we'll have more options. In 10 years or so, we're likely to look at non-VR gaming as "retro" but still useful and fun.

So, eventually it will be great. Maybe.
I love the Wii and the 3ds, so I'm for gimmicks, but I don't need every game to have motion controls and "real" 3d. I'll very likely wont want every game to have VR either, and certainly not anywhere near these prices.
It'll depend on whatever physical limitations they run into.

And on how much data they send to the mothership, anything by facebook or google or microsoft or... can go fuck itself.

[TiLT]

Maybe my imagination is lacking but for many games I play, I don't see the advantage of VR and indeed see problems. Take Fallout 4. Do I really want to stand and do all this stuff with my hands that I can do much more easily via a keyboard or controller? Do I really want to turn my whole body to fire at someone flanking me? Do I really want to raise my hand like I have a hammer in it and craft a gun or a piece of armor? Or walk down a row of plants to harvest them? A keyboard/controller is much easier and quicker. I don't really want the game to micmic real life to that extent. Do I really want to walk all the way to Diamond City? Or jump into the water and flail my arms swimming to avoid a super mutant chasing me?

I could see a game where you have to sit in real life such as a racing game or a flight sim. But a FPS shooter or RPG? Seems like more work than fun - what am I missing?

What you're missing is that far from all genres translate well to VR, which is why regular monitor gaming is going to stay relevant also in the future. Fallout 4 would be a horrible VR game if it was translated directly, and it would be very unlikely to include the motion controls you head aiming you seem to take for granted, simply because you're absolutely right: it would suck. There is room for games like Fallout 4 in VR, but they need to be specifically designed with them in mind. And don't worry, you'll be playing the more traditional kind of games sitting with your ass firmly planted in your chair and your hands holding a regular controller even when in VR. Despite what room-scale enthusiasts may tell you, the future doesn't include playing lengthy games while standing and waving your arms around.

There will be a lot of variation in how games and their controls are approached in VR. Expect 3rd person to be a popular choice for more traditional games. A common misconception about VR is that it only works for 1st person experiences. That's wrong. 3rd person experiences work incredibly well. In fact, two of the best received games for the Rift so far (Lucky's Tale and Chronos) are third person games, and playing them feels like nothing you've played before despite sitting in a chair and using an Xbox One controller while not tossing your head back and forth like a madman.

You mention RPGs as a genre that won't work. Well, Chronos is an RPG-lite with about 10-12 hours of gameplay, and it works exceedingly well.

So, eventually it will be great. Maybe.

No, it's great already. Today. It was great 2 years ago. I'm sorry you don't want to see this.

And on how much data they send to the mothership, anything by facebook or google or microsoft or... can go fuck itself.

If you're referring to the EULA debacle, it's the result of non-lawyers trying to understand lawyer speak. There's really nothing about the Rift's EULA that isn't standard and necessary to provide the kind of online service Oculus does with Oculus Home. I haven't checked, but I expect that even the EULA for this very forum we're communicating on right now contains similar wording. I know the people who got super-paranoid on NeoGAF calmed down once they realized that their forum had the exact same wording as Oculus Home.

[Madmarcus]

This new video from Valve is the best I've seen yet for showcasing what VR is all about without actually putting a headset on someone's face. I'll be using this any time I want to try and explain to someone what VR can do that a top notch big TV or monitor can't do.

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

(Start at about 45 seconds in if you want to skip the intro.)

I find that video really underwhelming.

Fascinating. Even if none of the particular games that were shown are your cup of tea, there's not even a little part of your imagination that gets you thinking of a game or experience you'd love to experience in that way?

There is a reason I said underwhelming, I can see the potential in vr but nothing in the video made me any more excited about vr. If anything it cooled my interest because it focused on the full motion, cartoony graphics, gimmicky side of vr that holds very little interest to me.

The Idea kitchen bit sounds great but only if it is lifelike in presentation. That seems fairly far away if we are being shown Wii Sports except that the players can look to the side and see cartoon world instead of living room.

[TiLT]

You're only seeing a dominance of "cartoony" graphics in demos because it makes asset creation much, much cheaper. There's nothing stopping developers from creating photorealistic graphics in VR, as demonstrated by games like Elite: Dangerous and The Climb, to mention two easy ones. The IKEA Kitchen app looks like it's going for "photorealism".

[Madmarcus]

You're only seeing a dominance of "cartoony" graphics in demos because it makes asset creation much, much cheaper. There's nothing stopping developers from creating photorealistic graphics in VR, as demonstrated by games like Elite: Dangerous and The Climb, to mention two easy ones. The IKEA Kitchen app looks like it's going for "photorealism".

But in the context of "the best video for showing what VR is all about" the cartoony graphics and the shots of people watching someone else play with a VR headset gave me a poor impression. The video that Wonderpug linked emphasized all of the gimmick without giving me any better feel for the real advantages in anything other then cockpit games.

[Grifman]

TiLT, your enthusiasm is admirable, do you own stock in a VR company? I just prefer to take a wait and see on this

[wonderpug]

You're only seeing a dominance of "cartoony" graphics in demos because it makes asset creation much, much cheaper. There's nothing stopping developers from creating photorealistic graphics in VR, as demonstrated by games like Elite: Dangerous and The Climb, to mention two easy ones. The IKEA Kitchen app looks like it's going for "photorealism".

But in the context of "the best video for showing what VR is all about" the cartoony graphics and the shots of people watching someone else play with a VR headset gave me a poor impression. The video that Wonderpug linked emphasized all of the gimmick without giving me any better feel for the real advantages in anything other then cockpit games.

For me, I think the toughest thing to explain about VR is that it does more than you can get from a huge TV, or a huge 3d TV, or even the best 3d IMAX theater experience you can find. Without putting a headset on someone, how do you explain how VR puts you into the environment in a way that an IMAX theater can't?

Before this video, this image was probably my favorite explanation to give to people:

[TiLT]

You're only seeing a dominance of "cartoony" graphics in demos because it makes asset creation much, much cheaper. There's nothing stopping developers from creating photorealistic graphics in VR, as demonstrated by games like Elite: Dangerous and The Climb, to mention two easy ones. The IKEA Kitchen app looks like it's going for "photorealism".

But in the context of "the best video for showing what VR is all about" the cartoony graphics and the shots of people watching someone else play with a VR headset gave me a poor impression. The video that Wonderpug linked emphasized all of the gimmick without giving me any better feel for the real advantages in anything other then cockpit games.

It's related to what I said before: Motion controls are mostly a gimmick at the moment, so that's mostly what they can show too. Valve wants to sell what's unique about the Vive compared to the Rift, and that's motion controls (right now). That's why you're seeing the gimmicky stuff in that video, and not most substantial content.

Having said that, a lot of the content (but certainly not all) available right now is shorter and more experimental than what we're used to, so it can be hard to understand the value of these experiences for someone who has never tried VR.

The best place to go to in order to understand the impact of VR for more traditional games is Elite: Dangerous right now. It completely transforms the game while still being a seated experience with traditional controllers. Not only does VR change the game from letting you see a flat screen of your avatar flying a spaceship, to putting you personally in the cockpit of a spaceship, but it makes people better at the game too. Frontier Developments (the game's devs) have numerical data that shows that the players using VR headsets do better at the game. I notice it too. When attempting docking while playing on a monitor, I'm very careful and not quite sure if I'm about to hit a wall or not. In VR I fly directly into the ports at high speed and with no worries, with perfect understanding of where I am in the world and how close I am to crashing into anything. It makes me more effective, and it makes me feel like I'm there. It's an experience that can't be described in words.

TiLT, your enthusiasm is admirable, do you own stock in a VR company? I just prefer to take a wait and see on this

No, I don't have any financial ties to VR beyond what I've paid for the DK2 and the CV1 versions of the Rift. I'm just genuinely enthusiastic about the largest revolution in home entertainment in my lifetime. Seriously. That's what it is. Find me someone who argues otherwise, and I'll show you someone who has never tried a real, modern VR experience.

[Nightwish]

So, eventually it will be great. Maybe.

No, it's great already. Today. It was great 2 years ago. I'm sorry you don't want to see this.

Well, it's not it the video neither in your description. It's moot, since I can't see it anyway.

And on how much data they send to the mothership, anything by facebook or google or microsoft or... can go fuck itself.

If you're referring to the EULA debacle, it's the result of non-lawyers trying to understand lawyer speak. There's really nothing about the Rift's EULA that isn't standard and necessary to provide the kind of online service Oculus does with Oculus Home. I haven't checked, but I expect that even the EULA for this very forum we're communicating on right now contains similar wording. I know the people who got super-paranoid on NeoGAF calmed down once they realized that their forum had the exact same wording as Oculus Home.

In the US it may be normal, in the EU it's just illegal.
Also, a website is much less dangerous then a program running on your PC. If I wanted to get data mined, I'd use Chrome on Windows 10 without Ghostery.

[Rumpy]

Here's an interesting writeup about the Vive:
http://steamed.kotaku.com/the-htc-vive- ... 1769038228

[YellowKing]

I had a funny conversation with my daughter last night (6 years old) re: VR. I was showing her some 360 degree videos on YouTube to try to demonstrate VR (and for the record, she's also seen Google Cardboard so she's not completely clueless as to what I'm talking about). The one I was showing her was a tour of the Alps.

YK: "See, this is what you and your brother will grow up with. This is how you'll play games."
YP: "We'll climb mountains?"
YK: "Well you'll be in whatever world it is. Could be mountains or space or underwater."
YP: "Why wouldn't we just play it on the TV?"
YK: "Because this way you're INSIDE the game. Isn't it cool?"
YP: "Why is it making us be inside the game?"
YK: "It's not making you be inside the game. You'll choose to go in it because it's cool."
YP: "I don't want to climb mountains. I just want to play it on the TV."
YK: "But this is better than just playing it on the TV because it's like you're there!"
YP: "I think I'd just rather play it on the TV."
YK: "But the TV is just a flat screen, this is like being in a 3D world!"
YP: "I don't know what 3D is."
YK: "It's like real life. Real life is 3D. It's not flat."
YP: "I don't like how it's making me be inside it."
YK: "It's not making- look, it's COOL OK? It's super cool! I've been waiting for this forever! You'll think it's cool too when you get to try it!"
YP: "Ok, but I think I like it better when it's just on the TV."

[TiLT]

Welcome to my experience of trying to talk to VR skeptics for the last few years.

At least I can comfort myself with the fact that just about everyone who tries VR for the first time is completely stunned by the experience. They just have to get to the point where they try it. Trying to talk to them before that can be an exercise in frustration for both parties.

[Ralph-Wiggum]

Here's an interesting writeup about the Vive:
http://steamed.kotaku.com/the-htc-vive- ... 1769038228

Interesting article. It pretty much sounds like I expected: super cool when it works well but, at least in this first generation, can be pretty finicky. My friend is getting his Vive tomorrow; hopefully I'll get a chance to try it out next week.

[Rumpy]

I had a funny conversation with my daughter last night (6 years old) re: VR.

Ok, that's just cute. It almost sounds like it could be an SNL skit

[TiLT]

Here's an interesting writeup about the Vive:
http://steamed.kotaku.com/the-htc-vive- ... 1769038228

Interesting article. It pretty much sounds like I expected: super cool when it works well but, at least in this first generation, can be pretty finicky. My friend is getting his Vive tomorrow; hopefully I'll get a chance to try it out next week.

There were some things about that article that surprised me, particularly how poor the inbuilt microphone is compared to the Rift's (check the Rift impressions linked to in the article. There's a recording there of the Rift, and it sounds crystal clear) and how fiddly the setup process is, also compared to the Rift. I've also never heard anyone talk about problems with the cameras before, but the guy behind that article seems to have had lots of problems.

There's also a quote in there that seems to address something that was discussed in this thread a little earlier:

That said, when everything’s in place, games look great. While none of its games pack the graphical punch of an ultra high-end PC game, they look decent enough that my brain buys the illusion. Despite the temptation to believe realer virtual reality = better, I’ve found that more stylized games are better at leaping the uncanny chasm. Games like Job Simulator, Irrational Exuberance, Hover Junkers, and Fantastic Contraption spirit my mind away to other places, whereas more realistic-looking experiences sometimes leave me thinking, “Huh, that texture looks awfully muddy up close,” or “Why doesn’t this cereal box tell me exactly how many calories are in every bite?”

I can confirm that even the most simple of graphics have a tendency to look very real and convincing in VR, where they'd look absolutely primitive on a monitor.

There's a fundamental problem that we're going to see with some early VR titles where developers apply things they've learned in traditional game development, which no longer work well in VR. These include pretty basic stuff like texturing and (particularly) normal mapping, which have been used for years to trick us into thinking 3D objects are more detailed than they really are. The problem is that the illusion doesn't work at all in VR, so they instead have to either keep graphics basic or actually make the objects more detailed instead of cheating.

[Grifman]

Welcome to my experience of trying to talk to VR skeptics for the last few years.

At least I can comfort myself with the fact that just about everyone who tries VR for the first time is completely stunned by the experience. They just have to get to the point where they try it. Trying to talk to them before that can be an exercise in frustration for both parties.

Ok, you were doing fine until this post. That first sentence is pretty condescending.

And the statement that everyone who tries if for the first time is stunned doesn't mean much. Just google "why VR will fail" and you can find any number of gamers and games journalists who, while were "stunned" or impressed by their initial experience, still think VR will fail and is not ready for prime time. Not to mention a number of financial analysts who have looked at the market, run the numbers and just don't see it.

I get that you are excited and you may be right - or you might not. Only time will tell. Just don't act like those that are doubtful or wait and see are just stupid and your are brilliant.

[raydude]

I had a funny conversation with my daughter last night (6 years old) re: VR. I was showing her some 360 degree videos on YouTube to try to demonstrate VR (and for the record, she's also seen Google Cardboard so she's not completely clueless as to what I'm talking about). The one I was showing her was a tour of the Alps.

YK: "See, this is what you and your brother will grow up with. This is how you'll play games."
YP: "We'll climb mountains?"
YK: "Well you'll be in whatever world it is. Could be mountains or space or underwater."
YP: "Why wouldn't we just play it on the TV?"
YK: "Because this way you're INSIDE the game. Isn't it cool?"
YP: "Why is it making us be inside the game?"
YK: "It's not making you be inside the game. You'll choose to go in it because it's cool."
YP: "I don't want to climb mountains. I just want to play it on the TV."
YK: "But this is better than just playing it on the TV because it's like you're there!"
YP: "I think I'd just rather play it on the TV."
YK: "But the TV is just a flat screen, this is like being in a 3D world!"
YP: "I don't know what 3D is."
YK: "It's like real life. Real life is 3D. It's not flat."
YP: "I don't like how it's making me be inside it."
YK: "It's not making- look, it's COOL OK? It's super cool! I've been waiting for this forever! You'll think it's cool too when you get to try it!"
YP: "Ok, but I think I like it better when it's just on the TV."

Perhaps the Alps might not be the must-have scenario for her. Think of a universe or setting that she really likes and tell her to imagine herself in it. For my girls I think they'd be thrilled if they were inside the My Little Pony universe and could reach out and interact with all the ponies. Or my oldest right now is having fun with Harvest Moon on the iPad. I think she'd be thrilled with being in a VR farm and interacting with the townsfolk in VR.

A friend of mine bought the Vive. I may have to arrange a visit to his house to check it out one of these days.

[TiLT]

Welcome to my experience of trying to talk to VR skeptics for the last few years.

At least I can comfort myself with the fact that just about everyone who tries VR for the first time is completely stunned by the experience. They just have to get to the point where they try it. Trying to talk to them before that can be an exercise in frustration for both parties.

Ok, you were doing fine until this post. That first sentence is pretty condescending.

And the statement that everyone who tries if for the first time is stunned doesn't mean much. Just google "why VR will fail" and you can find any number of gamers and games journalists who, while were "stunned" or impressed by their initial experience, still think VR will fail and is not ready for prime time. Not to mention a number of financial analysts who have looked at the market, run the numbers and just don't see it.

I get that you are excited and you may be right - or you might not. Only time will tell. Just don't act like those that are doubtful or wait and see are just stupid and your are brilliant.

Wait, are you implying that I called Yellowking's daughter stupid? Do you really think I would do that? Really?

I'm not calling anyone stupid. I'm saying that it's pretty much impossible to understand VR without trying it, so trying to discuss VR with someone who hasn't tried it is frustrating for both. Take your frankly insulting interpretation about what I said elsewhere.

[Grifman]

Wait, are you implying that I called Yellowking's daughter stupid? Do you really think I would do that? Really?

No, you seemed to be implying that the rest of us were stupid because Yellowking trying to explain VR to his little daughter reminded you of your conversations with others about VR, in other words talking to us was like talking to a child. Maybe you didn't mean it that way but that's how it came across to me.

I'm not calling anyone stupid. I'm saying that it's pretty much impossible to understand VR without trying it, so trying to discuss VR with someone who hasn't tried it is frustrating for both. Take your frankly insulting interpretation about what I said elsewhere.

I think then the correct response would be to say that I just misinterpreted you, and not get all in a huff about it, but it seems to late for that. I'm sorry I misinterpreted your response and I apologize for offending you.

[Nightwish]

There's a fundamental problem that we're going to see with some early VR titles where developers apply things they've learned in traditional game development, which no longer work well in VR. These include pretty basic stuff like texturing and (particularly) normal mapping, which have been used for years to trick us into thinking 3D objects are more detailed than they really are. The problem is that the illusion doesn't work at all in VR, so they instead have to either keep graphics basic or actually make the objects more detailed instead of cheating.

And that's what some of us are saying, it's not worth the >1000€ investment now when it'll be much more interesting and cheaper by the second or, more likely, third generation of hardware. I'm sure I'd be amazed if I could try it, but it wouldn't magically be a sane idea for me to spend the money on what is currently a gimmick.
I'm sure it'll be a pretty good (unsure about amazing) addition to gaming in the long run.

[YellowKing]

Yeah for what it's worth, I'm really excited about it. I remember spending hours talking about the possibility of VR back in the early 90s with my computer science classmates. It's no exaggeration to say I've been waiting decades for it.

On the other hand, I hesitate to go all in and drink the Kool-Aid without trying it firsthand, and without knowing how the market will play out. I think there's a huge difference between "cautious optimism" and "skeptic." I'm firmly in the camp of the former, because I absolutely want VR to be the best thing since sliced bread. On the other hand, as a gadget geek, I also know that most things don't spring from the ether fully-formed and perfected.

[Daehawk]

I think when VR is a holodeck it will be cool. As is with the tech right now I dont see VR doing any better than 80s and 90s VR...failure.

EXCEPT that with this VR I see the headset ....if costs go WAY WAY down....becoming a new peripheral like a joystick is. I see the headset in use for games like it is in Elite Dangerous. A tool to look around within sims ...space, racing, tanks and such. Bout all I see VR anything being good for with the limited tech of today. I admit that I care nothing at all for it but I would love a headset just for Elite. I might actually get around to playing it then

But Im not the target for it..Im 46 so Im old and Im not rich or even well to do. Im poor.

[TiLT]

And that's what some of us are saying, it's not worth the >1000€ investment now when it'll be much more interesting and cheaper by the second or, more likely, third generation of hardware. I'm sure I'd be amazed if I could try it, but it wouldn't magically be a sane idea for me to spend the money on what is currently a gimmick.
I'm sure it'll be a pretty good (unsure about amazing) addition to gaming in the long run.

And as I've been saying, nobody expects you to jump in for the first generation. If you're not interested, you're not interested. It's going to be a niche product for its first 2 generations or so.

Your claim that it's a gimmick is something I disagree very, very, very strongly with though, and it certainly doesn't logically follow the first part of your post. I'm not sure if you even intended it to though.

VR is not a gimmick. Not now, not 2 years ago, not 2 years in the future.

[coopasonic]

Some of us got all excited about Virtuality 20+ years ago so we are a bit hesitant now.

[TiLT]

Some of us got all excited about Virtuality 20+ years ago so we are a bit hesitant now.

I was one of those people, based on my dreams of what it was rather than the actual thing. I tried one of those VR setups back in the 90s, and it sucked ass, much to my disappointment. The VR of today is a whole different beast. We didn't have the technology for functional VR back then. We have now.

[Lordnine]

VR is not a gimmick. Not now, not 2 years ago, not 2 years in the future.

Without a killer app or wide scale integration into games or other media it IS a gimmick though.

Practicality and usefulness is what makes a device move beyond being a gimmick.

Touchscreens used to be a gimmick. Now they are a feature.

[TiLT]

VR is not a gimmick. Not now, not 2 years ago, not 2 years in the future.

Without a killer app or wide scale integration into games or other media it IS a gimmick though.

Practicality and usefulness is what makes a device move beyond being a gimmick.

Touchscreens used to be a gimmick. Now they are a feature.

Well, if you're going to invent definitions for the word, it's hard for me to argue against that. The word "gimmick" doesn't mean what you think it means. The closest I could find was on Urban Dictionary, which says "a special feature for the sake of having a special feature". Dictionary.com doesn't even get that close.

[Lordnine]

noun
1.
an ingenious or novel device, scheme, or stratagem, especially one designed to attract attention

Or this kind of works too

verb (used with object)
5.
to equip or embellish with unnecessary features, especially in order to increase salability,

[TiLT]

Yeah, that's the definition I'm using, and it definitely doesn't apply to any of the three main VR headsets. And it certainly has nothing to do with this quote:

Without a killer app or wide scale integration into games or other media it IS a gimmick though.