Is VR worth almost 1000 dollars?

[Bigbazz]

It will be irrelevant in a decade IMHO.

Automatic gearboxes are now a thing and electric motors don't need a gearbox.

Automatic gearboxes have been a thing since long before my 58 year old mother was born, so your honest opinion doesn't really hold up on that one. Here in the UK almost all cars sold are full manual H-shifter, most of the automatic are semi-autos with paddles, electric vehicles are the eventual future but our immediate future is with hybrids, where technology has advanced greatly in the last 5 years.

The infrastructure to support electronic vehicles on the large scale does not exist, the technology to make them worthwhile for the environment is not yet there, producing these vehicles actually has a far larger hit on the environment than internal combustion vehicles and the power that charges them has to come from somewhere, aka nuclear plants and burning coal.

So until everything else catches up we wont be phasing out Internal Combustion for electricity, that will take quite a long time.

[Triggered Fridgekin]

Definitely not for first generation and I'm sure the price will only go down over time if it turns out to not be a fad.

[SodiumChloride]

Automatic gearboxes have been a thing since long before my 58 year old mother was born, so your honest opinion doesn't really hold up on that one. Here in the UK almost all cars sold are full manual H-shifter, most of the automatic are semi-autos with paddles, electric vehicles are the eventual future but our immediate future is with hybrids, where technology has advanced greatly in the last 5 years.

The infrastructure to support electronic vehicles on the large scale does not exist, the technology to make them worthwhile for the environment is not yet there, producing these vehicles actually has a far larger hit on the environment than internal combustion vehicles and the power that charges them has to come from somewhere, aka nuclear plants and burning coal.

So until everything else catches up we wont be phasing out Internal Combustion for electricity, that will take quite a long time.

There are 2 types of automatics. The old inefficient kind that does it via hydraulics and the modern kind that is basically a computer that shifts gears for you - the latter is used in F1 too if I'm right.

[Bigbazz]

There are 2 types of automatics. The old inefficient kind that does it via hydraulics and the modern kind that is basically a computer that shifts gears for you - the latter is used in F1 too if I'm right.

Those are semi autos as I described, most paddle shift semi-auto cars can also be fully automatic. F1 doesn't have automatic gears, since the early 1990s they have had manual sequential, clutch operation is not needed to change gear (only used for starts and to avoid the engine stalling), prior to that F1 cars were full manual.

Semi-auto transmissions for road vehicles were developed by Porsche in the 1960s (called sportomatic, no full auto mode) so that sort of technology has been in development for a long time, later (especially in the 90s) quite a few cars came on the road with tiptronic. The tiptronic on Porsche cars in the early 1990s though was more like a traditional automatic with a manual override up/down shift level that cut ignition on upshifts to allow you to drive without lifting the throttle when you upshifted. CVT transmissions (seen in some modern hybrids/electric) were also in development around this time with Williams F1 developing a CVT for their F1 cars in 1993 that was banned from being used.

And then we have dual-clutch semi auto's as seen in many high end supercars, the 2nd clutch is always engaged in the next gear allowing very quick upshifting via the paddles or automatic via the computer. But these have been around now for over 10 years too, with the basic single clutch semi-auto tiptronic with paddle shift having been around in road vehicles since the mid 1990s.

So what I'm saying is, we're 20-30+ years past the point where these types of technologies have been available and widely used, but yet the full manual transmission is still widely popular, especially with sport cars offering it to enthusiasts instead of the semi-auto option and with many motorsport racing series still running only full manual cars. And as I said before, most cars sold at least here in the UK are full manual.

[Deleted]

If I were to buy one, it would be the HTC.. Is the price tag worth it?

Absolutely not.

Here's why IMO:

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post39848681

Okay, so here it is, the brutal truth: We're not there yet.

The pros;

- VR per se, is amazing, it pulls you into a new dimension and makes you forget reality for a (very short) while.
- There is no latency whatsoever. Every movement is perceptible as 1:1. This really is a breakthrough.

The cons (quite a few, at this point);

- The resolution is far too low, which makes enjoying games not especially made for the device horrible to look at. (E.g. Elite Dangerous, ETS2, ATS, etc.)*
- The headset is heavy and requires you to put it into position every five minutes or so.
- The cables are an extreme nuisance, even when managed properly like I did (headset cable bundle hooked to the ceiling).
- There barely is any interesting content.

*The bundled games are, as you may well know, very simplistic. Both graphically as concerning content. The low graphical fidelity fools you into not noticing the device's low resolution and quite frankly, the experience is amazing - once or twice. Afterwards, chances are you'll never play The Lab, Fantastic Contraption, Job Simulator, Tilt Brush or Surgeon Simulator again.

The brutal truth, is that I wouldn't advise anyone to buy either the Vive or the Rift. It will most likely end up collecting dust, because it's just not impressive enough with games you'd ideally use it with. Elite Dangerous for example, looks horrible; textures are a big blur of jagged edges, text is barely legible and 'space' looks like a low-res wallpaper.

Work bought a few of these devices for research purposes, but if I had dished out €980 to buy the device, I would've most definitely returned it or sold it for a profit.

VR will be great eventually, but right now it's merely a fun and exciting gimmick, which I predict, will not be used extensively by home users. Save your money.

[Nethlord]

Absolutely not.

Here's why IMO:

http://www.mmo-champion.com/threads/...1#post39848681

That link quote is all valid, but there is the dependency costs associated with it. The peripheral has a hefty price tag...but the computing costs (dependency) pushes the price out of the margins for the general population. Nothing turns off a consumer when the $600+ device needs near an additional $1500+ computer to run it not to mention the content to buy along the way.

This generation of VR sets aren't for the population at large, instead consistent visionary/early adopters are the only ones buying this now (and of those, the ones with a fluid a constant stream of disposable income). The dependent hardware costs are too high, the software costs are too high, the supporting content is not there, and the Headset's have no provable identity to the consumer population. Are they for games? Are they for movies? Are they for things not associated with entertainment? Is it all of these things? Can it be more, or is it just novelty?

I'll say it here, but we're looking at least 2-3 generations of these devices before they are mainstream and affordable (3-5 years). Costs have to come down, dependencies have to be more inclusive (The set is the only thing you need or at most a mobile device i.e cell phone ala' samsung gear VR) and the usefulness of the item has to be something you "can't" live without (i.e like a phone, but better).

[Bigbazz]

For me at least I'd need to test out Occulus/Vive with an Assetto Corsa/Dirt Rally/Project Cars setup before I consider buying one. I have been strongly considering it lately but I'm on the shelf, they are so expensive and it's so early days. On the Assetto Corsa steam forums there are a LOT of guys running Vives and Rifts in their setups, AC just released support for VR and Vive is working properly through Revive with official support coming later.. The guys there generally seem quite amazed by the whole experience of playing in VR.

Outside of racing though there doesn't seem to be much in the way of anything worth playing, all 5minute demos like Job Simulator, which was one of the 5 demos I was shown when I tested a Vive last weekend.

[Valium104]

Do not ask. Try. And I mean it. In a long run (but less than 10 years) everyone will replace monitors with VR. For now, VR is games and enterprise solutions designed specificially for it. And for now, those games can't compete with Fallout, Witcher, Assassin's Creed and so on. But we'll get there and faster than smartphones has spread out (first Iphone 2007).

[RuneDK]

Definitely not for first generation and I'm sure the price will only go down over time if it turns out to not be a fad.

misread what you typed....my bad.

[Knaar]

Personaly, i dont think VR will be "that" huge for the gaming world. I can see it been usefull elsewhere, but not for games. I dont feel like i want to stay up and moving in all direction for couple hours in a row every time i want to play something.... it's much better to sit and look at the screen

Like the new Sword art online VR game. Looks totaly amazing! Now, can you swing that "sword" for more then 30 minutes? How about for 1 hour? Would be fun to try, but not fun for the long ride.

Worth buying? i highly doubt it. It falls more in the "new gadget of the moment" categorie than anything else, imo.

[bbr]

Just let the big players enter the market, price go down, more games come out and get support,. and the latency going down.
at this time it's just a monitor that's closer to your eyes,. not much else.

At 1000$ that's just ridiculous,.

[kamuimac]

If I were to buy one, it would be the HTC.. Is the price tag worth it?

if you have money and nothing to spend them on - ye why not - if not wait with rest of the world till prices drop in few years.

[Rennadrel]

Automatic gearboxes have been a thing since long before my 58 year old mother was born, so your honest opinion doesn't really hold up on that one. Here in the UK almost all cars sold are full manual H-shifter, most of the automatic are semi-autos with paddles, electric vehicles are the eventual future but our immediate future is with hybrids, where technology has advanced greatly in the last 5 years.

The infrastructure to support electronic vehicles on the large scale does not exist, the technology to make them worthwhile for the environment is not yet there, producing these vehicles actually has a far larger hit on the environment than internal combustion vehicles and the power that charges them has to come from somewhere, aka nuclear plants and burning coal.

So until everything else catches up we wont be phasing out Internal Combustion for electricity, that will take quite a long time.

Well, only now has manual started being phased out in cars, as automatics have reached 10 speed while manuals are stuck at 6 for optimal gear shifting. I don't see VR overtaking other technologies for a long time. TVs are cheap and good monitors keep getting better and cheaper, a lot of people still like the big screen experience.

[Nihilan]

Before deciding which unit to buy, if any, you need to understand the fundamental difference between them. That is, you must understand the difference between actual VR and simple 360/180 video.

The Occulus is not a true VR system in the sense that the Vive is. The Rift plays stereoscopic video recorded in either a frontal quarter-sphere, or a full 360 degree panoramic dome. The video does feel like 3d. But its not VR at all. Its just a video with a sense of depth to it and a very large field of view that allows you to turn your head and look around.

The HTC Vive on the other hand IS a true VR system that can generate an actual virtual world in any space ranging from 6'x6' up to 15.5'x15.5'. You can move around in this space, view anything from any angle, interact with anything you see using the controllers, etc. What you must understand is that a simple 2d screenshot of any world-space VR game on the Vive is going to be entirely incapable of depicting what that experience is going to be like in VR. Yes, i was personally dissapointed in the resolution, but the Vive delivers something the Occulus cannot even come close to achieving.

Right now, most of the Vive games are cartoonish and low-poly because the system is very new and the big studios have not yet begin releasing games for it. However, even those cartoonish games can deliver an astonishing sense of "realism" once youre inside one. I was playing Job Simulator last night doing the convenience store clerk minigame and i found myself on more than one occasion trying to rest my arm on the countertop in front of me and had to keep reminding myself that it wasnt actually there in my living room.

It must also be stated that the Vive can also display any of the stereoscopic 360/180 video content that is developed/recorded for the Occulus Rift.

Yes, including the porn.

As to whether or not its worth $900? No, not right now - not for the average consumer at least. There just isnt enough content for the Vive yet. But some of the content that is out is pretty fucking amazing to experience. And more is coming.

---

I would also like to add that to play one of the Vive's world-space VR games, you actually have to be on your feet and physically moving around. Playing Vanishing Realms (an RPG) and and hammering away at skellingtons with a sword/shield or rapid firing your bow for an hour straight can get very tiring. So can dodging weapons fire from the drones in the Pirate Training Simulator game. You have to go full on Neo in that fucker to not get hit.

Actual VR games are not for the lazy or the lame. If you cant handle the notion of actual physical exertion then you dont want a Vive.

[Deleted]

Backpack-PC for VR gaming.

http://techcrunch.com/2016/05/27/hp-omen-x-vr/

It removes the need for a cable.