Also important to note that, according to the article, 15% of respondents said they were 'certain' of buying a VR headset "this year". Many more were 'uncertain', and some may be waiting until next year or further. Also, while the article indicated 75% of respondents owned a "gaming PC", it did not indicate what percentage of these gaming PCs were VR capable.
In short, I found the poll results somewhat dubious.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
i think the ones saying its crap are people that havent tested VR Havent got the money/job or parents that will buy them one.
I just pre-ordered the playstation VR cant wait, i tested one last year and it was awesome cant wait to watch porn with it play games like racing games with my wheel ad racing chair will be lots fun
Just me , or there a certain poster who seems like they "need" everyone else to like it , can't stand the idea others not wanting it , and posts constantly in every single VR thread trying to convince everyone they they will like it , that it's a problem not want to wear a mask on your face to play a game and so on ?
Almost religious dedication to a device......................
yeah its a problem however what I am relgious about is NOT having other people like it but having other people understand that it is a big deal and that it will be wide spread and that its not a gimmick.
I dont like sports but I know its big, I know its wide spread and I know its not a gimmick.
You dont need to like everything that is widely popular in order for daddy to approve
and
'nobody is running out at buying these things right now' yeah that one really fired me up.
now if you excuse me I have my oculus paid shill check to pick up today because you know....they need my kind of marketing
The entire reason that devices "go viral" or become "mainstream" is because the companies that produce them manage to convince a few people that they need them. Then other people see them and they want one too. If you asked people two years before the iPhone came out if they wanted one, then they probably would have said no. If you asked someone five years before the first iPad came out if they wanted one, they would have said that they have no use for such a big bulky device.
Nothing that you say on these forums, in any way shape for form will cause people to have a sudden revolution in their desire to own these devices. However, when their roommate buys one and they don't have one, then suddenly the Ego kicks in. Ohhh, my roommate has VR and I don't. Two of my coworkers have it and I don't own one.... the desire to stay relevant with one's peers is what pushes these things.
25% of the people I know that have smartphones use them to do two things: Make calls and send texts. But they still have a smartphone. Why? Because if you whip a flip phone out of your pocket in 2016 while standing in line in Wal-Mart to pay for your groceries, then people will give you really weird looks. No one wants to deal with the stigma of being ridiculed for their ancient technology. So they go buy a smartphone that they don't want or need in order to stay recent.
What I'm getting at is that all of this zealot'ish defending of VR that you're doing on the forums is worthless. It's just dust and ash in the wind. If you really want to defend it, then ride around on the subway while using yours as if everyone is doing it. Sit in a restaurant with them on and play games on your phone as if it's as common as checking facebook while waiting for service. Let people see it and let them think to themselves "Oh man, I wonder what that's like, I gotta get me one too!"
Just me , or there a certain poster who seems like they "need" everyone else to like it , can't stand the idea others not wanting it , and posts constantly in every single VR thread trying to convince everyone they they will like it , that it's a problem not want to wear a mask on your face to play a game and so on ?
Almost religious dedication to a device......................
The entire reason that devices "go viral" or become "mainstream" is because the companies that produce them manage to convince a few people that they need them. Then other people see them and they want one too. If you asked people two years before the iPhone came out if they wanted one, then they probably would have said no. If you asked someone five years before the first iPad came out if they wanted one, they would have said that they have no use for such a big bulky device.
Nothing that you say on these forums, in any way shape for form will cause people to have a sudden revolution in their desire to own these devices. However, when their roommate buys one and they don't have one, then suddenly the Ego kicks in. Ohhh, my roommate has VR and I don't. Two of my coworkers have it and I don't own one.... the desire to stay relevant with one's peers is what pushes these things.
25% of the people I know that have smartphones use them to do two things: Make calls and send texts. But they still have a smartphone. Why? Because if you whip a flip phone out of your pocket in 2016 while standing in line in Wal-Mart to pay for your groceries, then people will give you really weird looks. No one wants to deal with the stigma of being ridiculed for their ancient technology. So they go buy a smartphone that they don't want or need in order to stay recent.
What I'm getting at is that all of this zealot'ish defending of VR that you're doing on the forums is worthless. It's just dust and ash in the wind. If you really want to defend it, then ride around on the subway while using yours as if everyone is doing it. Sit in a restaurant with them on and play games on your phone as if it's as common as checking facebook while waiting for service. Let people see it and let them think to themselves "Oh man, I wonder what that's like, I gotta get me one too!"
again..I want to be clear.
I dont care one bit at all whatsoever in any fashion if anyone on these forums tries a VR headset. Nor do I care that they ever in a million years like it.
What I care about is the asine 'logic' that is being posted as to why said headsets will fail.
I dont like sports, but that doesnt mean I make up silly reasons like 'I dont like wearing baseball caps' 'I will get head strain' 'llooking at a screen is bad for you' 'its requirements is the same as The Divsion and that is crazy!' 'it make my hair look messed up' 'multiple sell outs means that people are not rushing out to buy these things'
again.. I repeat. You dont have to like it, you dont have to try it. just for the love of god think thru some of these crazy statements guys..please!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Like any other new tech, the uses for this are just starting. Once the tech develop, has more applications, gaming and beyond, and the price becomes more affordable, interest will intensify. Right now, none of the games seems appealing to a great many people.
gamers used to be an innovative crowd. I dont think they are anymore, maybe developers and the industry itself can be but gamers are no longer innovators or early adopters.
because of my age somewhere around 100% of my facebook friends are not gamers. but they are talking about VR
If innovative means parting with a truck load of cash for a gadget peripheral then indeed, today's gamers are not "innovative".
Here in the EU the price tag for e.g the Oculus is considered a truck load of euros and rightly so. With this amount of cash one can buy a new gaming tower or upgrade his rig with top notch stuff.
If and when the prices descent to acceptable levels then we will become "innovative" again.
gamers used to be an innovative crowd. I dont think they are anymore, maybe developers and the industry itself can be but gamers are no longer innovators or early adopters.
because of my age somewhere around 100% of my facebook friends are not gamers. but they are talking about VR
If innovative means parting with a truck load of cash for a gadget peripheral then indeed, today's gamers are not "innovative".
Here in the EU the price tag for e.g the Oculus is considered a truck load of euros and rightly so. With this amount of cash one can buy a new gaming tower or upgrade his rig with top notch stuff.
If and when the prices descent to acceptable levels then we will become "innovative" again.
well to be fair I posted that before I read the article. If you read the article you willl notice the title of this OP is just triolling
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Here's the thing, it's not just for gamers. It's much bigger than that; as Joanna Stern from the Wall Street Journal says: "You're going to own a virtual reality headset one day".
To all the 'five-sensers': pretty much everyone is calling it virtual reality by now (something like 10 million articles as of today?). May want to withhold judgement until experiencing it for yourself.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Here's the thing, it's not just for gamers. It's much bigger than that; as Joanna Stern from the Wall Street Journal says: "You're going to own a virtual reality headset one day".
To all the 'five-sensers': pretty much everyone is calling it virtual reality by now (something like 10 million articles as of today?). May want to withhold judgement until experiencing it for yourself.
well to fair any games who stays with CRT monitors and a 386 and refuses to gradually upgrade his gaming experience until all 5 sense are involved are a bit off in my book anyway
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
An exclusive Gamer Network survey reveals that only 15% of players intend to purchase any of the VR platforms this year
Attend any game conference this
year, and the words virtual reality are likely to be heard ad nauseum.
Industry buzz around the technology is reaching an all-time high but
even with three VR headsets (Oculus, Vive and PlayStation VR) hitting
the market this year, it's unclear just what kind of installed base
developers making games for the platforms will be able to target. The
need for expensive PC gaming rigs (in the case of two out of three
headsets) and prohibitive price tags of $600 and $800 for the Oculus
Rift and Vive, respectively, point to the market remaining niche in
2016.
This is backed up by a new survey of nearly 14,000 gamers across Gamer Network websites.
Out of close to 13,000 respondents who answered, only 15 percent
actually said they intend to purchase a VR headset this year, with 60
percent flat-out saying they would not consider a purchase. Another 25
percent were unsure. Interestingly, 75 percent of respondents said that
they currently own a gaming PC, so it's clearly a PC oriented crowd, the
very kind that you would think would be most receptive to a VR headset
purchase.
Price is likely to be a big factor, ranked most
important by almost 32 percent of gamers. Of the VR headsets launching
in 2016, PlayStation VR was the most cited (around 20 percent) to be
purchased (and 35 percent already own a PS4). While Sony has yet to
announce a final launch date and price, it's believed that PlayStation
will offer the most affordable package.
Oculus Rift meanwhile, which certainly has had more momentum from the
very start among developers, was lagging both Vive and PlayStation VR
with only 13.74 percent of purchase interest from those surveyed,
although Vive was only slightly ahead of Oculus with 15.5 percent.
Apart
from VR purchase intent, gamers were asked which platforms they plan to
buy in the future. Despite literally no information being available for
Nintendo's next console being available, the NX actually led the pack
with nearly 31 percent of respondents choosing it; that's certainly
encouraging news for Nintendo which has seen its bottom line hit hard
thanks to the failure of the Wii U and declining 3DS sales. Buying a new
gaming PC was a close second around 30 percent, and in the world of
current-gen consoles Sony's PS4 easily outpaced the Xbox One, 20 percent
vs. 9 percent.
Well, I would say its lower then that, considering the few people with the power required to use a vr set. , we know that Oculus Rift CV1 will feature 1080×1200 pixels for each eye with 90Hz dual split screens
I mean, the only way you are gonna rock 90 fps, in a maxed out new game, is with 2 980tis. So your talking like a 5 grand computer, to use VR. So yeah, its gonna be like anything else, intill the price comes down not many people are gonna buy it. Not to many people have 2 980 tis.
But stats are useless any ways. I mean this site says this. #3
I don't even like wearing a headset for teamspeak. Can't stand it.
thank you...finally somoene with some reasoning.
Although you might want to look into your discomfort with having anything on your head .
I agree with him. Regardless of the 5000 dollar computer you need to rock a vr set. I am not gonna put a thing on my face, and a head set that totally makes me obvious to the world. Some ones gonna be rocking that, and forget about their stove, and burn there house down haha.
Well, I would say its lower then that, considering the few people with the power required to use a vr set. , we know that Oculus Rift CV1 will feature 1080×1200 pixels for each eye with 90Hz dual split screens
I mean, the only way you are gonna rock 90 fps, in a maxed out new game, is with 2 980tis. So your talking like a 5 grand computer, to use VR. So yeah, its gonna be like anything else, intill the price comes down not many people are gonna buy it. Not to many people have 2 980 tis.
The requirements to run Oculus is the same as the suggested requirements to run The Division and this time next year the next super hype hype game will have even higher requirements.
this meme of the requirements is asine
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Well, I would say its lower then that, considering the few people with the power required to use a vr set. , we know that Oculus Rift CV1 will feature 1080×1200 pixels for each eye with 90Hz dual split screens
I mean, the only way you are gonna rock 90 fps, in a maxed out new game, is with 2 980tis. So your talking like a 5 grand computer, to use VR. So yeah, its gonna be like anything else, intill the price comes down not many people are gonna buy it. Not to many people have 2 980 tis.
The requirements to run Oculus is the same as the suggested requirements to run The Division and this time next year the next super hype hype game will have even higher requirements.
this meme of the requirements is asine
Its not the same, because not to many people run games over 60hz, so this thing needs 90hz or 90 fps. There are alot of games you can't even get 90 fps in. Not to mention its talking about dual split screens, which if that is the case. Its gonna be impossible with current hardware, to get 2k resolution to run at 90 fps, in high end games.
This is for a old game bf4, and 1 980ti or 1 titan x cant even run it at those high resoultions at 90 fps Battlefield 4 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
78.7
77.7
Not to mention the fact that computers are at the end of their life spans, so its never gonna get any better. They have maybe one more graphics card to make after the new cards coming out this year. So when they get to 7nm that is it. So this thing will be usable to the masses with the games out now, when they come out with the last graphics card.
Its not the same, because not to many people run games over 60hz, so this thing needs 90hz or 90 fps. There are alot of games you can't even get 90 fps in. Not to mention its talking about dual split screens, which if that is the case. Its gonna be impossible with current hardware, to get 2k resolution to run at 90 fps, in high end games.
This is for a old game bf4, and 1 980ti or 1 titan x cant even run it at those high resoultions at 90 fps Battlefield 4 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality
Frames per Second - Higher is Better
78.7
77.7
Not to mention the fact that computers are at the end of their life spans, so its never gonna get any better. They have maybe one more graphics card to make after the new cards coming out this year. So when they get to 7nm that is it. So this thing will be usable to the masses with the games out now, when they come out with the last graphics card.
1. The SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS of the latest super ultra hype hype game that is supposed to redefine and entire industry and is ONE GAME is almost the same as the Rift.
2. Will next year be the first year in 30 or so years of computer gaming in which the latest super hype hype game doesnt not increase the min and SUGGESTED bar for a game because moorse law has come to an end? perhaps. are you willing to bet a paycheck that next year will be the first year that happens? lilke...ever?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
When it costs about half what my self built computers costs then I'll look into it.
"I used to think the worst thing in life was to be all alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel all alone." Robin Williams
As people have already said, it just doesn't have the games to make it worth buying for me yet. I've looked at the list of rift games and apart from a few racing games and Elite (I happen to not be interested in those) it's a giant list of gaming "experiences". If I'm going to pay $700~ for a vr kit I want more than 1-5 hour games concentrated on the "experience" I want good game play mechanics.
I think its ridiculous to say vr is "doomed" or anything of the sort already, but a list of 160 games most of which might as well be called tech demos, isn't exactly a strong enough selling point for myself to buy one anytime soon. I don't have a problem wearing it personally, It wasn't uncomfortable for me but I could see how that could detract from it for some people. In the end it's success in the gaming world relies on it having great games. If great games are released that get people hyped up, it will do well. If the only actual games released are racing/dogfighting sims it will be kind of a niche market. You can only ride a vr roller coaster so many times before it gets old. (the virtual desktop looks snazzy though)
go back and get the SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS of The Division and rewrite all over again.
you are wasting huge amounts of engery
And again you don't listen. Suggested requirements don't matter.
comparing the min. requirements for ONE game which evreryone seems to think is mainstream and normal specs wise to that of a new PC peripheral the likes of which we likely havent seen sense the math co-processor in the early 90s is NOT comparing apples to apples in the first place bro
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
go back and get the SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS of The Division and rewrite all over again.
you are wasting huge amounts of engery
And again you don't listen. Suggested requirements don't matter.
comparing the min. requirements for ONE game which evreryone seems to think is mainstream and normal specs wise to that of a new PC peripheral the likes of which we likely havent seen sense the math co-processor in the early 90s is NOT comparing apples to apples in the first place bro
You are absolutely right, it's not a fair comparison.
You shouldn't be comparing a software game to a peripheral in the first place - that's where the dissimilarity comes in to play, not the "minimum" vs "recommended" part of it.
go back and get the SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS of The Division and rewrite all over again.
you are wasting huge amounts of engery
And again you don't listen. Suggested requirements don't matter.
comparing the min. requirements for ONE game which evreryone seems to think is mainstream and normal specs wise to that of a new PC peripheral the likes of which we likely havent seen sense the math co-processor in the early 90s is NOT comparing apples to apples in the first place bro
You are absolutely right, it's not a fair comparison.
You shouldn't be comparing a software game to a peripheral in the first place - that's where the dissimilarity comes in to play, not the "minimum" vs "recommended" part of it.
more than once in my life I spent $1500 to play one game.
why? because my machine needed to be updated and I knew there would be more games coming.
oh but that doesnt apply of course because its not like every GPU ever created (a peripheral) runs on ever CPU ever created...right? never need to update the PC for a peripheral no way.....usb? what that now costs $1500?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
No, you just said it yourself - you spent $1,500 to play that game, and games that you thought would be coming. That's not the same as "one game". You could have played "that game" with what you had before, if you wanted to and were willing to turn down some settings and accept some performance compromises. Just because you decided to throw $1,500 at it doesn't mean you ~needed~ to. It means you ~wanted~ to, and that's a big difference.
People who want to play with VR, will be ok with that price. People who are borderline, well, they may be curious, but they don't need to play with VR, so most of them won't.
If that $1,500 requirement did not exist, more of those just curious may be willing to give it a shot. But it does exist, so you keep trying to frame it in the same light as other items (monitors, cars, games the list goes on of examples you've attempted to make), but none of them are true parallels, because VR is such a specific niche. You should just embrace it as a potential game changer, and that it has no true parallel, but instead you keep trying to bring it down to the level of a mere peripheral, or worse yet, a single video game title...
Ces't le vie. I could continue to make your own case better than you are, but I'm pretty much in the camp that it's another fad. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but so far, including your particularly rabid fanboy white knight sycophant comments (how many more cliches can I work in there), nothing has convinced me it will be anything other than a fad. And your dogged devotion to ill-formed parallels is doing more harm than good for your case - your driving more people away from VR just by spewing this nonsense incessantly than any pricetag is doing.
Comments
Also important to note that, according to the article, 15% of respondents said they were 'certain' of buying a VR headset "this year". Many more were 'uncertain', and some may be waiting until next year or further. Also, while the article indicated 75% of respondents owned a "gaming PC", it did not indicate what percentage of these gaming PCs were VR capable.
In short, I found the poll results somewhat dubious.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
I just pre-ordered the playstation VR cant wait, i tested one last year and it was awesome cant wait to watch porn with it play games like racing games with my wheel ad racing chair will be lots fun
Nothing that you say on these forums, in any way shape for form will cause people to have a sudden revolution in their desire to own these devices. However, when their roommate buys one and they don't have one, then suddenly the Ego kicks in. Ohhh, my roommate has VR and I don't. Two of my coworkers have it and I don't own one.... the desire to stay relevant with one's peers is what pushes these things.
25% of the people I know that have smartphones use them to do two things: Make calls and send texts. But they still have a smartphone. Why? Because if you whip a flip phone out of your pocket in 2016 while standing in line in Wal-Mart to pay for your groceries, then people will give you really weird looks. No one wants to deal with the stigma of being ridiculed for their ancient technology. So they go buy a smartphone that they don't want or need in order to stay recent.
What I'm getting at is that all of this zealot'ish defending of VR that you're doing on the forums is worthless. It's just dust and ash in the wind. If you really want to defend it, then ride around on the subway while using yours as if everyone is doing it. Sit in a restaurant with them on and play games on your phone as if it's as common as checking facebook while waiting for service. Let people see it and let them think to themselves "Oh man, I wonder what that's like, I gotta get me one too!"
~~ postlarval ~~
I dont care one bit at all whatsoever in any fashion if anyone on these forums tries a VR headset. Nor do I care that they ever in a million years like it.
What I care about is the asine 'logic' that is being posted as to why said headsets will fail.
I dont like sports, but that doesnt mean I make up silly reasons like
'I dont like wearing baseball caps'
'I will get head strain'
'llooking at a screen is bad for you'
'its requirements is the same as The Divsion and that is crazy!'
'it make my hair look messed up'
'multiple sell outs means that people are not rushing out to buy these things'
again.. I repeat. You dont have to like it, you dont have to try it. just for the love of god think thru some of these crazy statements guys..please!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Here in the EU the price tag for e.g the Oculus is considered a truck load of euros and rightly so. With this amount of cash one can buy a new gaming tower or upgrade his rig with top notch stuff.
If and when the prices descent to acceptable levels then we will become "innovative" again.
@Skullagrim : Agree
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Source: Why You Should Try That Crazy Virtual Reality Headset
To all the 'five-sensers': pretty much everyone is calling it virtual reality by now (something like 10 million articles as of today?). May want to withhold judgement until experiencing it for yourself.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I mean, the only way you are gonna rock 90 fps, in a maxed out new game, is with 2 980tis. So your talking like a 5 grand computer, to use VR. So yeah, its gonna be like anything else, intill the price comes down not many people are gonna buy it. Not to many people have 2 980 tis.
But stats are useless any ways. I mean this site says this. #3
If you go to steam there are like 400 people playing it.
I agree with him. Regardless of the 5000 dollar computer you need to rock a vr set. I am not gonna put a thing on my face, and a head set that totally makes me obvious to the world. Some ones gonna be rocking that, and forget about their stove, and burn there house down haha.
this meme of the requirements is asine
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This is for a old game bf4, and 1 980ti or 1 titan x cant even run it at those high resoultions at 90 fps
Battlefield 4 - 2560x1440 - Ultra Quality
Not to mention the fact that computers are at the end of their life spans, so its never gonna get any better. They have maybe one more graphics card to make after the new cards coming out this year. So when they get to 7nm that is it. So this thing will be usable to the masses with the games out now, when they come out with the last graphics card.
It isn't accurate, but he keeps repeating it, hoping it will somehow become relevant.
go back and get the SUGGESTED REQUIREMENTS of The Division and rewrite all over again. you are wasting huge amounts of engery
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. Will next year be the first year in 30 or so years of computer gaming in which the latest super hype hype game doesnt not increase the min and SUGGESTED bar for a game because moorse law has come to an end? perhaps. are you willing to bet a paycheck that next year will be the first year that happens? lilke...ever?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I think its ridiculous to say vr is "doomed" or anything of the sort already, but a list of 160 games most of which might as well be called tech demos, isn't exactly a strong enough selling point for myself to buy one anytime soon. I don't have a problem wearing it personally, It wasn't uncomfortable for me but I could see how that could detract from it for some people. In the end it's success in the gaming world relies on it having great games. If great games are released that get people hyped up, it will do well. If the only actual games released are racing/dogfighting sims it will be kind of a niche market. You can only ride a vr roller coaster so many times before it gets old. (the virtual desktop looks snazzy though)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You shouldn't be comparing a software game to a peripheral in the first place - that's where the dissimilarity comes in to play, not the "minimum" vs "recommended" part of it.
why? because my machine needed to be updated and I knew there would be more games coming.
oh but that doesnt apply of course because its not like every GPU ever created (a peripheral) runs on ever CPU ever created...right? never need to update the PC for a peripheral no way.....usb? what that now costs $1500?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
People who want to play with VR, will be ok with that price. People who are borderline, well, they may be curious, but they don't need to play with VR, so most of them won't.
If that $1,500 requirement did not exist, more of those just curious may be willing to give it a shot. But it does exist, so you keep trying to frame it in the same light as other items (monitors, cars, games the list goes on of examples you've attempted to make), but none of them are true parallels, because VR is such a specific niche. You should just embrace it as a potential game changer, and that it has no true parallel, but instead you keep trying to bring it down to the level of a mere peripheral, or worse yet, a single video game title...
Ces't le vie. I could continue to make your own case better than you are, but I'm pretty much in the camp that it's another fad. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, but so far, including your particularly rabid fanboy white knight sycophant comments (how many more cliches can I work in there), nothing has convinced me it will be anything other than a fad. And your dogged devotion to ill-formed parallels is doing more harm than good for your case - your driving more people away from VR just by spewing this nonsense incessantly than any pricetag is doing.