Inflation based on consumer pricing only makes sense when the average person is actually wealthier than in the past. The average american is broke.
lol, you do know minimum wages have gone up? A cup of coffee may not be 5 cents any more but every average america can buy a cup, even a hobo? lol you killing me.
The average american is BROKE.
A $600 accessory is not something regular people can afford.
The average american is broke because they feel they need to have things they don't need at all. You don't need cable/dish. You don't need netflix. You don't need a PC. You don't need a video game console. Hell, you don't even need a TV. You definitely don't need an Oculus Rift. After you cover living expenses you can decide what you can and can't afford. Americans are broke because there are people willing to buy an Oculus Rift on credit because they just HAVE TO HAVE ONE! Entitlement is breaking peoples wallets.
People are breaking themselves so they can have that new shiny. When you have an Iphone 5, and you go buy an Iphone 6 on a credit card because you need to have the newest product...it's your own fault you only have "less than $1,000 in savings".
You add all these statistics without taking into account that people are doing it to themselves, and you are saying that the Oculus should be cheaper so MORE PEOPLE will buy something they absolutely do not need. Which only contributes to their "less than $1,000 in savings".
his entire point is mute because of two phrase:
The majority: Smart phones The gamer: Video cards
my smart phone costs $600
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The fact Oculus Rift fans are trying to argue, against any reason, that stereoscopic 3D was a success....reeks of desperation.
VR has already failed.
Yes, stereoscopy has been a terrible disaster. Not that the 3DS sold 54.34 million units or anything. People sure weren't going crazy to see Star Wars in IMAX3D. I guess none of these things happened because it was definitely NOT a success for anyone...It sure didn't make any company a profit at all!
The fact Oculus Rift fans are trying to argue, against any reason, that stereoscopic 3D was a success....reeks of desperation.
VR has already failed.
Yes, stereoscopy has been a terrible disaster. Not that the 3DS sold 54.34 million units or anything. People sure weren't going crazy to see Star Wars in IMAX3D. I guess none of these things happened because it was definitely NOT a success for anyone...It sure didn't make any company a profit at all!
EDITED BECAUSE I DONT READ SOMETIMES:
what this means is that despite oculus selling out twice we will never ever hear the end of its demise
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The fact Oculus Rift fans are trying to argue, against any reason, that stereoscopic 3D was a success....reeks of desperation.
VR has already failed.
Yes, stereoscopy has been a terrible disaster. Not that the 3DS sold 54.34 million units or anything. People sure weren't going crazy to see Star Wars in IMAX3D. I guess none of these things happened because it was definitely NOT a success for anyone...It sure didn't make any company a profit at all!
EDITED BECAUSE I DONT READ SOMETIMES:
what this means is that despite oculus selling out twice we will never ever hear the end of its demise
To me failure = way more product than demand. So in my eyes...Oculus Rift has already succeeded.
3D TV failed because it adds very little to the experience of watching TV, yet requires awkward eyewear to watch the handful of shows specifically filmed in 3D. Once that show finishes, you have to remove the eyewear to watch the other 90% of the non-3D content.
Things you watch on TV are VERY rarely filmed in first-person perspective, so the 3D SFX were more often than not really contrived gimmicks designed to shock the viewer.
When watching TV or a movie, you passively consume a product that was produced by someone else who was telling a story in a set format. You cannot change the narrative or change the camera position at will. 3D TV does not overcome these restrictions. All it does is add more depth to a scene that your brain can process perfectly without the added 3D "depth".
Playing certain types of games while wearing a VR headset profoundly changes the experience compared to playing on a normal monitor. I doubt it will add anything of consequence to a MOBA or an ARPG, but flight/space sims and any game with an FPS viewpoint will be greatly enhanced by a VR headset.
Playing certain types of games while wearing a VR headset profoundly changes the experience compared to playing on a normal monitor. I doubt it will add anything of consequence to a MOBA or an ARPG, but flight/space sims and any game with an FPS viewpoint will be greatly enhanced by a VR headset.
This also profoundly changes the experience for some types of games but how mainstream are they?
Things become adopted into the mainstream only when they allow us to go on about our normal business while making it all a bit better... and if you've been watching tech for the past 20 years, you'd know that the mainstream adoption trend is clearly towards greater mobility.
This cockpit and VR force you to be more plugged-in and static. Yes, they will be adopted by the few but I have my doubts that either will be part of the mainstream no matter how cool they are.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The fact Oculus Rift fans are trying to argue, against any reason, that stereoscopic 3D was a success....reeks of desperation.
VR has already failed.
To be fair though, this isn't the first kick at the cat for VR. VR has existed in some form or another for decades. It's popped up, failed, popped up, failed. It's more about technological advancement than price. Whether or not Oculus has figured it out, I don't know. We've got an early dev unit of Oculus here at work, but the early content we've worked with is extremely underwhelming. We didn't really have anything where you'd suspend your disbelief. I've been in many immersive environments like simulators and caves, etc. and I felt much more immersed in those environments than I did with VR (at that time and with what content we had).
You can't call 3D TV a failure, we can call this round a failure, but there is already emerging technologies for glasses-free 3D. When that sort of technology hits the consumer market, then it becomes much more accessible and sensible. That's when it'll really succeed.
Take a look at cinema. 3D was a failure with anaglyph 3d (red/blue) but now is much more successful. Advancements in technology is what has done that. Frame rates are increasing, reducing eye strain, the 3D is just better, overall, brightness is better and adoption rates are better.
So you can't say VR has already failed. Again, even if Oculus isn't commercially successful, you can look ahead to technologies like Hololens and already see the landscape changing. The market is there, whether or not they get it right this time or not isn't an indicator of the market demand.
Playing certain types of games while wearing a VR headset profoundly changes the experience compared to playing on a normal monitor. I doubt it will add anything of consequence to a MOBA or an ARPG, but flight/space sims and any game with an FPS viewpoint will be greatly enhanced by a VR headset.
This also profoundly changes the experience for some types of games but how mainstream are they?
Things become adopted into the mainstream only when they allow us to go on about our normal business while making it all a bit better... and if you've been watching tech for the past 20 years, you'd know that the mainstream adoption trend is clearly towards greater mobility.
This cockpit and VR force you to be more plugged-in and static. Yes, they will be adopted by the few but I have my doubts that either will be part of the mainstream no matter how cool they are.
did that chair sell out twice? like Oculus has?
Besides, does something really need to be 'mainstream' in order to avoid failure? seruiously?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I don't think VR will be a failure. To me that isn't the point of contention with the release.
The point is, as @Iselin has pointed out again, mass adoption.
so if its not a failure then its just not mass adoption.
ok fair point not exactrly sure the underlining point in that statement.
By that I mean why are so many posters hyper focused on Oculus not being mainstream? why do we care about this?
and although I completely and totally agree that the headset is overpriced its really hard to argue that the price will damage its success when it sold out in 2 hours.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
By that I mean why are so many posters hyper focused on Oculus not being mainstream? why do we care about this?
You really have to ask that? Ask a game developer why it matters.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The question some posters here should ask themselves is why they're so quick and adamant to dismiss reasonable criticisms. The concept is cool, but has some serious flaws in how it's implemented.
What reasonable 'criticisms?' Most is unsubstantiated conjecture and comparing RV headset to giant chair with three monitors or 3D glasses for a TV set that has limited use? No one that is criticizing it in here has even bothered to look at what Oculus has said in response to the price being higher. I bet most if not all haven't even had a chance to experience it. It's all made up BS. How is any of that reasonable? Not to say VR doesn't have room for a civil discussion about the real details of what it is and isn't. But the detractors most certainly have not been able to do that here. All they have is hyperbole.
You said "reasonable criticisms", friend Torval, and that's the problem... it's hard to sort out among all the bullshit posted.
I totally agree that VR won't become mainstream with this batch, or even the next. But most criticism comes from people who obviously never even tried that technology and who rely on personal feelings and opinions rather than facts to dismiss it.
There are a couple people trolling the OR in all threads and we all know who they are, but "most" people trying to exercise critical thinking about the effect the price will have on adoption, the awkwardness of the hook up and the limited content are manically being replied to by the same one enthusiastic adopter.
I'm not calling him "most" either
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I don't think VR will be a failure. To me that isn't the point of contention with the release.
The point is, as @Iselin has pointed out again, mass adoption.
so if its not a failure then its just not mass adoption.
ok fair point not exactrly sure the underlining point in that statement.
By that I mean why are so many posters hyper focused on Oculus not being mainstream? why do we care about this?
and although I completely and totally agree that the headset is overpriced its really hard to argue that the price will damage its success when it sold out in 2 hours.
Because the Rift team advertised that their focus was mainstream adoption.
really seriously?
so all these posts over the past year about how Oculus will fail really isnt about that. its ACTUALLY about
'because they said they want mainstream and they will not get it we are going to post forever about how its not going to be mainstream but never say why that statement matters until someone asks and then pretend like its obvious'
lol
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The question some posters here should ask themselves is why they're so quick and adamant to dismiss reasonable criticisms. The concept is cool, but has some serious flaws in how it's implemented.
What reasonable 'criticisms?' Most is unsubstantiated conjecture and comparing RV headset to giant chair with three monitors or 3D glasses for a TV set that has limited use? No one that is criticizing it in here has even bothered to look at what Oculus has said in response to the price being higher. I bet most if not all haven't even had a chance to experience it. It's all made up BS. How is any of that reasonable? Not to say VR doesn't have room for a civil discussion about the real details of what it is and isn't. But the detractors most certainly have not been able to do that here. All they have is hyperbole.
I used it with some extra added "4D" enhancements in a GOT exhibition to go tot the top of the wall and it was amazing... but what does that have to do with price, multiple PC hook-ups, forced isolation from your environment or anything else? That 3-monitor cockpit also is awesome and I also sat in one of those for an F1 game demo. The point is that as awesome as they both are neither is mainstream because of the obvious flaws in pricing and odd ergonomic requirements.
VR will be niche until they can totally replace a monitor for every day all around use, you can easily flip a toggle to see through them to your RL environment, are much cheaper... wireless would also be pretty important to a lot of people.
All I see is some overly enthusiastic early adopters trying to shout down all valid criticism.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
"Stay connected to your surroundings with our see-through technology. With 10% transparency, you'll be able to see your friends, to see the drink cart in the airplane aisle, and to start experiencing augmented-reality apps. Of course, if you want a VR experience, then just snap on the visor cover."
That blurb makes me think these guys live in the real world and they get it.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
"Stay connected to your surroundings with our see-through technology. With 10% transparency, you'll be able to see your friends, to see the drink cart in the airplane aisle, and to start experiencing augmented-reality apps. Of course, if you want a VR experience, then just snap on the visor cover."
That blurb makes me think these guys live in the real world and they get it.
OMG! Can you imagine when they add an app that augments reality so when you are wearing the mask and look at a female her body is augmented to be naked! I would buy one right away and head to my nearest college campus!
I'm such a perv...
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
"Stay connected to your surroundings with our see-through technology. With 10% transparency, you'll be able to see your friends, to see the drink cart in the airplane aisle, and to start experiencing augmented-reality apps. Of course, if you want a VR experience, then just snap on the visor cover."
That blurb makes me think these guys live in the real world and they get it.
OMG! Can you imagine when they add an app that augments reality so when you are wearing the mask and look at a female her body is augmented to be naked! I would buy one right away and head to my nearest college campus!
I'm such a perv...
My favorite superhero power was Superman's X-ray vision, so...
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
The question some posters here should ask themselves is why they're so quick and adamant to dismiss reasonable criticisms. The concept is cool, but has some serious flaws in how it's implemented.
What reasonable 'criticisms?' Most is unsubstantiated conjecture and comparing RV headset to giant chair with three monitors or 3D glasses for a TV set that has limited use? No one that is criticizing it in here has even bothered to look at what Oculus has said in response to the price being higher. I bet most if not all haven't even had a chance to experience it. It's all made up BS. How is any of that reasonable? Not to say VR doesn't have room for a civil discussion about the real details of what it is and isn't. But the detractors most certainly have not been able to do that here. All they have is hyperbole.
I used it with some extra added "4D" enhancements in a GOT exhibition to go tot the top of the wall and it was amazing... but what does that have to do with price, multiple PC hook-ups, forced isolation from your environment or anything else? That 3-monitor cockpit also is awesome and I also sat in one of those for an F1 game demo. The point is that as awesome as they both are neither is mainstream because of the obvious flaws in pricing and odd ergonomic requirements.
VR will be niche until they can totally replace a monitor for every day all around use, you can easily flip a toggle to see through them to your RL environment, are much cheaper... wireless would also be pretty important to a lot of people.
All I see is some overly enthusiastic early adopters trying to shout down all valid criticism.
I don't really see that honestly. For me I have pre-ordered OR, but I could cancel before shipping. I'm looking at the HTC and waiting for more information about OR consumer product before finally deciding.
I'm glad you got to try it out. My point about the 3 monitor thing isn't about it being awesome or not, it's that the thing is HUGE. Takes up a lot of space in someone's home as opposed to a lightweight headgear.
As for your experience, did you try the OR consumer product that they will be selling? I haven't myself. Mine was with the DK2.
I can't believe it's 2016 and the discussion is Virtual Reality goggles that are selling for $599. I don't know if this is The Matrix Reloaded or Idiocracy, or both at the same time. Surreal.
I honestly thank you guys for the laughs man. This has legit been a good source of entertainment for me for the past couple of days. Let me know when Lawnmower Man: Oculus Rift comes out.
As for your experience, did you try the OR consumer product that they will be selling? I haven't myself. Mine was with the DK2.
I'm not sure what it was actually. It was whatever the GOT exhibition was using in August 2014... might have been the DK1. What really made it impressive was that I was experiencing something specifically designed to take advantage of it. IMO, that makes all the difference in the world.
There are already software solutions that allow you to use it in many things (Elder Scrolls Online included) without native support. Native support is one step up from that but games designed for it is what really would bring it to the next level.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Comments
I just think the two technologies are barely even similar on what they are trying to do for the user to be used reliability as an example
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The majority: Smart phones
The gamer: Video cards
my smart phone costs $600
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Ranghar LoD
Lords of Death
what this means is that despite oculus selling out twice we will never ever hear the end of its demise
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Ranghar LoD
Lords of Death
Things you watch on TV are VERY rarely filmed in first-person perspective, so the 3D SFX were more often than not really contrived gimmicks designed to shock the viewer.
When watching TV or a movie, you passively consume a product that was produced by someone else who was telling a story in a set format. You cannot change the narrative or change the camera position at will. 3D TV does not overcome these restrictions. All it does is add more depth to a scene that your brain can process perfectly without the added 3D "depth".
Playing certain types of games while wearing a VR headset profoundly changes the experience compared to playing on a normal monitor. I doubt it will add anything of consequence to a MOBA or an ARPG, but flight/space sims and any game with an FPS viewpoint will be greatly enhanced by a VR headset.
Things become adopted into the mainstream only when they allow us to go on about our normal business while making it all a bit better... and if you've been watching tech for the past 20 years, you'd know that the mainstream adoption trend is clearly towards greater mobility.
This cockpit and VR force you to be more plugged-in and static. Yes, they will be adopted by the few but I have my doubts that either will be part of the mainstream no matter how cool they are.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
To be fair though, this isn't the first kick at the cat for VR. VR has existed in some form or another for decades. It's popped up, failed, popped up, failed. It's more about technological advancement than price. Whether or not Oculus has figured it out, I don't know. We've got an early dev unit of Oculus here at work, but the early content we've worked with is extremely underwhelming. We didn't really have anything where you'd suspend your disbelief. I've been in many immersive environments like simulators and caves, etc. and I felt much more immersed in those environments than I did with VR (at that time and with what content we had).
You can't call 3D TV a failure, we can call this round a failure, but there is already emerging technologies for glasses-free 3D. When that sort of technology hits the consumer market, then it becomes much more accessible and sensible. That's when it'll really succeed.
Take a look at cinema. 3D was a failure with anaglyph 3d (red/blue) but now is much more successful. Advancements in technology is what has done that. Frame rates are increasing, reducing eye strain, the 3D is just better, overall, brightness is better and adoption rates are better.
So you can't say VR has already failed. Again, even if Oculus isn't commercially successful, you can look ahead to technologies like Hololens and already see the landscape changing. The market is there, whether or not they get it right this time or not isn't an indicator of the market demand.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
"Hey dad, I didn't fail Math because if you can look ahead to when I have to take it again I could get an A!"
https://youtu.be/ShwM7gBGjWs
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
did that chair sell out twice? like Oculus has?
Besides, does something really need to be 'mainstream' in order to avoid failure? seruiously?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
ok fair point not exactrly sure the underlining point in that statement.
By that I mean why are so many posters hyper focused on Oculus not being mainstream? why do we care about this?
and although I completely and totally agree that the headset is overpriced its really hard to argue that the price will damage its success when it sold out in 2 hours.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Yes. They made two and they both sold out
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I'm not calling him "most" either
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
so all these posts over the past year about how Oculus will fail really isnt about that. its ACTUALLY about
'because they said they want mainstream and they will not get it we are going to post forever about how its not going to be mainstream but never say why that statement matters until someone asks and then pretend like its obvious'
lol
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
VR will be niche until they can totally replace a monitor for every day all around use, you can easily flip a toggle to see through them to your RL environment, are much cheaper... wireless would also be pretty important to a lot of people.
All I see is some overly enthusiastic early adopters trying to shout down all valid criticism.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
"Stay connected to your surroundings with our see-through technology. With 10% transparency, you'll be able to see your friends, to see the drink cart in the airplane aisle, and to start experiencing augmented-reality apps. Of course, if you want a VR experience, then just snap on the visor cover."
That blurb makes me think these guys live in the real world and they get it.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I'm such a perv...
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I'm glad you got to try it out. My point about the 3 monitor thing isn't about it being awesome or not, it's that the thing is HUGE. Takes up a lot of space in someone's home as opposed to a lightweight headgear.
As for your experience, did you try the OR consumer product that they will be selling? I haven't myself. Mine was with the DK2.
I honestly thank you guys for the laughs man. This has legit been a good source of entertainment for me for the past couple of days. Let me know when Lawnmower Man: Oculus Rift comes out.
https://youtu.be/doAnB5_eDnw
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
There are already software solutions that allow you to use it in many things (Elder Scrolls Online included) without native support. Native support is one step up from that but games designed for it is what really would bring it to the next level.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED