In use, this makes a huge difference if you're looking to put someone in a virtual environment. It's not even restricted to gaming applications. All of the software I've tried on my Rift dev unit and someone else's Gear made this abundantly clear to me. Not being able to lean forward/back/around things takes away a huge part of the "immersion" factor leaving you with more of a souped-up 3d screen.
In terms of cost, for the Gear, don't you also need one of a few specific, expensive Samsung phones? I admit I haven't followed it as much lately so I don't know if they are selling something more affordable with the phone-stuff integrated or allowing the use of other phones. When I looked last, you needed a ~$700 phone plus the Gear. Not too big a price difference between $800 for phone+Gear and $1000 for a good video card+Rift. Personally, when I'm even considering something this expensive, new, and unnecessary, $800+ versus $1000 isn't a huge difference since I'm already spending a lot on something I don't really need.
The other huge thing I've noticed is that all of the best new and in-development VR stuff just isn't gonna be something you can run on a phone or a Playstation. It's gonna be beta software (if you're lucky) and require a powerful, flexible platform like a computer. Down the line it will even out but right now, none of the really impressive stuff I've seen for VR will run on Gear and I doubt it will be in the Sony Playstation store anytime soon. That same console-level polish and ease comes with a flip-side: no access to anything that isn't seamless or marketable just yet.
...maybe the specs wouldn't be so goddamn high if they actually let us do dev work against a lower-level interface. Forcing us to deal with massive frameworks like Unity and Unreal might well be the cause of spec creep. :(
EDIT:
And Meta can go eat a bag of rocks--no public docs on their API, and they seem to be wed to Unity...which can really screw up certain types of AR work they'd otherwise be perfect for.
Oculus, at least, offered a native SDK for the brave and foolish.
But I've read more than a few people in the VR space (game journalists, developers) say that there is something special about the Gear because there is no cable. There's nothing you have to keep conscious of so you don't trip over it or feel it on your back breaking immersion.
The Gear VR could be enhanced with better tracking, and as new phones come out it will get better processing power. I think Fowler is right.
VR is very new. Let's say your a consumer who wants to play with it. What's a better investment? $2200 in a PC and a Rift, or $100 that clips on your phone (assuming you're on Samsung)?
If you just want to try it for now, play around a bit? The Gear is very compelling.
(I'd love one, but I use an iPhone. I've got a PS VR on order though.)
Your figures are a little off. A rift is (all following figures in USD) $599, and a computer that will support it is generally quoted at $950, making it's package price $1550. You can buy bundles that include a Rift and an Oculus ready PC for $1499[1].
The gear VR only works with very recent phones, and only works on all games without heat problems on the S7. S7's are generally quoted at $700, making the package price $800.
Rough figures, I know, but yours are well out of whack.
[1] http://www.techtimes.com/articles/134240/20160217/oculus-rea...
I'm assuming you're not buying the phone but that you already have one. People still get them with subsidies too.
The point is that for someone who wants to dip their toes and had a recent Samsung phone the Gear is DRASTICALLY cheaper. If you have a PS4 (or even if you don't) then the PS VR is cheaper too.
For people who aren't already committed to VR, I think Fowler is right that the Rift is way too much at this point.
Give it time.
And on the other end of that, I have a GTX 970 but my phone is from Sony and I don't own a console. If I want to get into VR, the Rift is my cheapest option.
Different target markets - the Gear is aimed at the general public with Samsung phones, the Rift is aimed at PC gamers with gaming PCs. Sure, some people will buy a slightly better rig or upgrade sooner than they would have otherwise, but fundamentally it's targeting people who are going to own a gaming computer anyway.
I'd guess that the people buying a Rift + PC bundle as their first PC gaming setup will be doing it after trying one on in person to evaluate it. It'll happen, but it'll be a slower push driven by word of mouth.
And the article is aimed at the general public, not gamers. That's why there is nothing wrong with Fowler's analysis.
I'm not arguing that the Gear is going to give the best experience of all solutions, I was defending Fowler's point.
I think we agree, but it feels like he's writing an article proclaiming "Tesla Roadster Isn’t Ready for the Mainstream" just because Elon Musk said that electric cars are going to be a transformational technology.
If the big takeaway of the article is "Bleeding edge product that isn't intended for the general public isn't ready for the general public" then I'm right on board with him.
On the other hand, for those that have a recent gaming PC an Oculus Rift is both cheaper and technologically better. So what?
All I was doing was defending Fowler's point that the Gear VR might be a better option for people wanting to dip their toes in for now without spending big $$$. Not the 'I have hundreds of dollars and a good computer' case (we all know the Vive and Rift and even PS VR will do better than the Gear).
Perhaps even then is not a good idea after all. Consider the option that some Joe Average will try out Gear VR on his Samsung mobile phone and is dissatisfied with the quality (say, because it causes nausea on him). So he will avoid trying out VR again in the expected future. If from beginning on he had tried a product of satisfactory quality he would perhaps have liked VR.
TLDR: Trying out a cheaper, but inferior product can be worse than trying no product.
I bought a Google Cardboard for my iPhone and the experience basically sucks. I can't use it with my glasses, and I get eyestrain (and everything is blurry) without them.
But it's still kind of neat and has me interested. I've got a PS VR on preorder. I'm hoping this one of those cases where if someone is shown that the apps are good enough that they'll see it as "Well this is only $100, I'm sure those $500+ versions do much better" in the same way a $800 smartphone is usually much better than a $100 feature phone.
You're right though. We still run the risk (with ALL of this, even bad games on the Rift/Vive) that consumers will quickly learn to avoid it due to a few very bad experiences. Oculus/Sony/Valve have been pushing hard to make sure developers don't screw it up. The Gear is a bit more wild-west.
Why even compare with Gear VR if you're trying to illustrate how cheap this solution is? Why not simply talk about Cardboard -- which you can get literally for $1/free if you know the tricks, or the rest of the cheapo plastic VR sets you can buy for around $10-$20?
Source: I have an S6 and Gear VR.
http://venturebeat.com/2015/03/04/oculuss-technology-guru-jo...
It will be another generation before VR really comes to roost, but by putting this in the hands of early adopters it really opens up the imagination of developers - and it opens up their abilities to actually get to work.
I'm guessing there's a middle ground here. We already have the Solun Q shipping shortly, which uses a low power AMD CPU/GPU combo that can deliver graphics that land somewhere between what a phone and a console can do. All of it running on battery power with no wires.
Its an interesting form factor at the very least. I imagine the first gen of all these products will be pretty poor, but being attached to a $1500 PC is going to be the first problem solved in this space. Its too much of a hassle and cost. Being able to just buy a VR set that you turn on and put on your head is going to be a big win. People won't be intimidated by this and will prefer an all-in-one machine. It'll need to ship with motion controls and somehow get this all to work without a lighthouse/usb camera system.
The whole argument behind why websites like wsj are allegedly valuable and thus worth un-adblocking or paying 10c an article for or whatever is the trendy solution now is that they're supposed to be offering a higher standard of information than whatever reddit thinks.
If the guy writing the article knows so little about the topic he cannot even make factually correct comparisons between similar but distinct products, I might as well stick to reddits opinion, no?
I don't see what's factually incorrect in this article. The author says that the tether is kind of a pain, and the fact that the Gear is tether-free makes it more compelling (even though it's weaker in other aspects). That's opinion -- useful opinion! The basic facts (tethered versus untethered) seem correct.
I own a DK2 and for many concrete reasons disagree with the author, it is not a novelty. Phone-based stuff is most certainly a novelty.
The original Gear VR ("Innovator edition") could not be charged while used though if I remember correctly.
I already got the sense that the author really hadn't done much research before writing the piece, but that statement is very telling. The key benefits of a rift over a gear vr are in it's motion capture, the processing power made available to it by the attached computer and not being time restricted by limited battery life, and I would expect a critic to know that.
As it stands I respect the dudes view, and it'll be one shared by a lot of non-gamers, but this is basically a lets-play, not a critical review.