It really speaks to the disgustingly privileged and cloistered attitude of many tech geeks that they would consider a $400 consumer electronics device like the Oculus Quest cheap. And that they would rather see mainstream VR crash and burn, or dwindle to a tiny, dying niche, than make even the slightest concession to people who can't or won't spent $2k+ to indulge in the latest fad. What a joke.

So many things here.

$400 too expensive? PS4 cost $350-$500 and has sold over 80 million units.

What VR fans want is VR so good it knocks your socks off and is therefore as or more compelling than a video game console. What the cheap VR sets get you is a basically a mostly useless viewmaster that's interesting for 30 minutes and then put in a drawer somewhere. I'd argue the cheap VR sets damage VR more than help as the experiences are so poor people try them and are unimpressed and write off VR as not interesting where as that's far less true with the top devices with full 6DOF input controllers and room scale VR.

There's a minimum spec for great VR. We aren't there yet. Features needed. Higher res, wider field of view, mouth and eye tracking for facial features, full hand tracking (gloves), lighter headsets, and I'd add in feet tracking as well having played some feet tracking games and seeing how useful they are.

> $400 too expensive? PS4 cost $350-$500 and has sold over 80 million units.

The PlayStation brand has roughly two decades of solid hits and great sales, and cultural credit. People know what they're getting into. VR has no such claim to fame (outside of fantasy scifi) and nowhere near the same volume to push costs down.

Not to mention, the volume of units sold has actually nothing to do with the point the OP was making, which was that it's still expensive. And I hate to break it to you, but: the PS4 -- or any $400 gadget -- is still expensive for many people, even in places like America. But it's not expensive for privileged tech users like you and I.

> $400 too expensive? PS4 cost $350-$500 and has sold over 80 million units.

But the PS4 actually does stuff by itself - the VR headsets (at $400) do -nothing- without extra hardware to drive then, no?

Going off https://kotaku.com/a-useful-tool-checks-if-your-pc-is-ready-..., you'd be looking at another $400+ just to drive it at the minimum specs.

Have you tried Oculus Go? The experience is far from poor. I myself was a diehard htc vive fanboy and I love the Oculus Go. Can't wait for the Quest.

It’s not cheap. It’s not anywhere near high quality enough for it to be anything but a fad for the masses either.

It needs to be good before it can be cheap.

Because for the general populace adoption of VR hinges on affordability.

Yes, but if they are just affordable, but crappy, VR will die again.

Price is the least of VR's problems. The biggest issue is there's no way to produce an immersive experience without ridiculous space requirements or requiring the user to sit down. I'm extremely skeptical VR will become more than a novelty accessory for gamers and that overall it won't make much of a dent.

Personally I feel like gaming is the least interesting application for VR/AR/MR. There are plenty of use cases I can imagine where the user does not have to suspend their disbelief to forget they're not actually running, walking, jumping, shooting, ducking, etc. And most of those use cases are in industries where buying a $4000 specialized tool would be considered cheap and easy to get a return on investment.

I'm still waiting for "virtual monitors" in AR/VR so my entire office wall becomes a giant screen.

> I'm still waiting for "virtual monitors" in AR/VR so my entire office wall becomes a giant screen.

VR displays need to be far higher resolution for that to work. Your monitor is likely only 2,000-4,000 pixels wide and doesn't completely fill your vision. Even Vive Pro is only 1,440 pixels wide and is expected to fill your vision. We need a minimum of double the resolution, and would probably need triple or more to make it work well.

On the other hand, VR/AR/MR application windows wouldn't necessarily need Retina resolution. I'm imagining a world (as a first step into virtual monitors) where I have a real monitor, but beside it I can have a graph of my server's response time. The application might only be rendering at 480p, but that's good enough. If I need to interact with it, I can move it back to my monitor.

In this situation, I read text on my 4k monitor while I put charts and graphs and notifications and iTunes and my time tracker on my wall. That frees up my real screen for the stuff I need a high resolution for, while the low-res stuff is off to the side. If I need to look at it, it will flash to catch my attention anyway, and then I can turn my head.

I too am waiting on VR to be good enough for monitor replacements and tv replacement I.e. a personal theatre I can put on while laying in bed.

I haven't tried Magic Leap yet, but Oculus, Vive and Playstation VR all deliver a weak experience. The headsets are uncomfortable, they make a lot of people sick, and they are anti-social (ie you look goofy using it and they are isolating). The headset could be $50 with an included game and I still wouldn't buy it.

I don't think VR will really take off until it gets to the sunglasses form-factor phase.

When I read comments like this I just don't believe it, I haven't seen anyone get sick since the CV1/Vive came out.

The DK2 totally had those issues and the PSVR is a sub standard experience but hey each to his own I guess.

I had a Vive. In a game running well, where the only movement was my own (i.e. walking around my room), I did not get motion sick.

However, when anything glitched (frame drops, tracking errors, etc.), I'd get sick. Even worse, any game with artificial motion (such as walking with the trackpad), would make me SUPER sick very fast. Teleporting was generally OK, but still not great.

I say this as someone that thinks VR will be a huge success, but it's definitely still early.

Unlike OP, I think gen 2 alone is going to make huge strides in making VR closer to mainstream.

I think some people are just so susceptible to motion sickness that they will never be able to enjoy it. Contrary to your experience, minutes after setting up my Vive for the first time I was comfortable floating around with true 6 DOF for my simulated character, with near zero quease.

I don't think there is any sort of "advances" that can prevent some people from being uncomfortable with "virtual" motion. It is unnatural and that's not going to change.

I think VR will be a huge success, but not as long as it's something that you have to strap to your face. I think the glasses form factor is key.

A great application could accelerate that.

Yeah but sunglasses form factor won't just appear, without lesser implementations first.

My favorit way to think about this is DooM from -93. It had tons of tech limitations but dint stop me and other geeks from enjoying it. Today FPS games are several magnitudes more advanced, and accessible for the average joe in his couch.

> they are isolating

That's kind of the whole point isn't it?

I want to be immersed an isolated while I'm experiencing VR.

Isolated in local space yes, but thanks to games like VR Chat, not isolated in "virtual" space. I have spent entire nights hanging out with a virtual crowd who all shared each other's living rooms

That's a specific type of experience though. Not all VR applications are going to be social experiences.

I don't care about the adoption of VR for the general populace. I only care about it for suiting my, and other power users', needs. The concern is that, like many other engineering-first projects, we'll be left in the dark on the very tech we helped to propel to success.

VR is clearly not ready for general adoption. It's promising, but it's not there yet.

The obvious path for a company with resources would be to focus on catering to enthusiasts while R&D gradually develops better, cheaper headsets.

I've read an opinion piece that theorized that HTC is catering to businesses (mainly VR-gaming cafes), so not quite enthusiasts, but the same idea of higher price lower volume. The evidence being that stuff like the Vive Pro and wireless headset are really expensive, but the purchase makes sense if you're making money off them. I can't recall the source.

Another piece of evidence would be that "Enterprise" is featured prominently on the Vive website.

As a standalone device (no gaming PC required) will be a major step forward towards mainstream adoption. Coming next year on Oculus.

I suppose the ultimate crappy low-rent VR headset will be the smartphone.

I think it's actually the opposite. The way most people use VR globally is at arcades. And then the cost of the equipment is secondary to employees and real estate.

If we had acceptable quality for $10k / set, I imagine we would see a lot more competition and growth.

They are MUCH cheaper -- especially when graphics card is factored in -- and don't require being tethered to a computer. Most consumers just aren't going to put up with that.