"The obvious path forward". Man, you're so close to a revelation... :D
How about more than four hundred thousand people?
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
The real reason VR and streaming wont break through: they're for first world people
- Thread starter Deleted member 227
- Start date
"The obvious path forward". Man, you're so close to a revelation... :D
How about more than four hundred thousand people?
OP
OP
I'm happy you're actually going to post something substantial now. I'm sure SuperHOT and Beat Saber are two great games. Great enough for a $400 dedicated system? How much liquidity do you think anyone middle class and under in even first world has for that to be reasonable?
If you can't see the difference between a TV that has application for many things, and a $400 device used for a handful of games I'm not sure what to say.
I guess as Kurt Russell(lol) said it differs from country to country.
Where I am (SADC) we might share a console between multiple people, and discs are constantly being passed around.
But the number of PC gamers I know even when they have relatively powerful laptops is actually very very low.
And my country isnt even recognized by Steam MS or Sony.
South Africa yeah......but the rest of Africa might as well be no mans land,
Well, it could goes way beyond that "third" experience in the long term. Oh wait, am I answering this within a VR headset?
It maybe kinda could but it really seems like VR has "been around" plenty, yet it still cant hit mainstream and feels like a gammicky after thought mostly.
There you have it folks, VRs only application is "a handful of games". But remember, even if you create more content in order to expand VR's reach then you're engaging in first world-ism and should stop.
FOMO for a AAA pc exclusive has really broken some brains here today.
Lightweight? You can play a shit ton of high quality games on it with some like Asgards Wrath being full on AAA releases.... And also yea grab a fuckin USB cable and you can use your PC lmao
So a tv can play display movies, games, play audio....
Ok now a VR headset and let's go with the quest so it doesn't rely on everything else.
It can display movies, games, play audio....
Wait a second.
"A $400 device used for a handful of games"? Completely ignoring VR's impact in medical, construction, education, etc is so disingenuous.
It'll get cheaper and become even more popular like most tech.
I mean, I figured at least one of us should. :)
I expected you to move the goalposts yet again, and sure enough, I wasn't disappointed. Your entire argument (post third-time goalpost moving) was that the Occulus is too underpowered to run games that are worthwhile. I gave you just two examples of games that are not just "worthwhile", but top tier VR games by any metric. Of course you would then move the goalposts to a new "well these two games don't justify purchasing one!" argument. Do you think we all have Alzheimer and don't remember the actual point we were arguing five minutes ago,? Are you arguing for the sake of an hypothetical audience with less retention than a mosquito? Who, exactly, are you attempting to befuddle here?
As an aside, I love how you unwittingly admitted not to have played the two games that pretty much everyone who has played VR for over five minutes has played. :)
A TV that has many applications like... watching TV? Or do you also believe smart TVs and consoles were a thing during the TV boom? Replace it with consoles if it's that confusing.
Well that would be a first. Ran out of field to move the goalposts to?
If I am correct the first TV had 3 to 4 inch screen, had one channel and started at around $55 in 1928 that would be around $800 today.
Back then when compared to say Raidio they have been seen as just a luxury for the rich.
I am sure their would have been a 1920s version of you saying if you "if you cannot tell the difference between a Radio that has many stations and a $55 device that has one channel for a few hours a day then I don't know what to say"
I'm surprised we're allowed to say "first world" and "third world" on Era. I thought the politically correct terms were "developed" and "developing."
Absolutely. I am under middle class here in canada, 500$ wasn't that crazy to save up for.
Both of those games are easily among my favorite of all time. Plus I could buy Thumper for a 5th time!
Also: pornography.
That is all.
I agree and even as someone who is first world like so if i want to play VR i first need a 400$ piece of equipment (which is the cheap one) Then i need a Gaming PC plus i need to buy the game thats 1000+ at the cheapest option like if it was 400 for a headset only and it was a full device then maybe
Seriously, is this meant to sound affordable? $400 for an apparatus that only works for a handful of games, not including the price of the game and the price of the platform you already bought to play the game.
No, let's have a talk about why streaming and VR won't really break through: the barrier to entry is too high. For streaming you pretty much need not only fiber but also to live in a spot deemed worthy enough to have a data center close. Meanwhile VR is just superfluous luxury. I'm sure people who threw money at it can write essay upon essays about how great it is, but that doesn't really change that it's a luxury that's low on the list of many people's priorities.
You can't really compare it to other luxury items that went mainstream like say the iPhone, because when that came out it was a product that covered a demand not many people knew they had at the time, and developed their consumer base from there. And Android had an incredibly low barrier to entry at the time it launched with HTC devices. Meanwhile VR isn't something people need, most people are content with never getting it. In fact using it makes some people sick.
Companies can turn as many desired IPs as they want in to the next tech demo showcasing their technology they want to sell, but will it ever really break through until they lower the entrance fee?
Having lived in a poor country myself. Up until the PS3,even if you could get your hands on a console (no official distribution) it was impossible to find non pirated games. We never got the 360. Now we have the PS4 but the games are incredibly expensive, like 3 times as more. No one can afford consoles (except upper class rich people) and everyone just plays pirated/f2p/cheap games on PC.
A very large amount of gaming has been luxury from the start. VR and streaming are not different, they are more of the same for this industry. I think VR will find its grove.
I think streaming is not a good fit for gaming. Steaming is great for consumption of data. You take data from the stream (music, videos, podcast etc.). Your biggest interaction is telling the stream to pause/stop. Games don't fit that mold. Games are constant interaction each having impact on what the stream is giving you in real time. By nature streaming is a bad fit architecturally for gaming. How multiple companies have missed this fundamental architectural discrepancy is baffling to me.
I think streaming is not a good fit for gaming. Steaming is great for consumption of data. You take data from the stream (music, videos, podcast etc.). Your biggest interaction is telling the stream to pause/stop. Games don't fit that mold. Games are constant interaction each having impact on what the stream is giving you in real time. By nature streaming is a bad fit architecturally for gaming. How multiple companies have missed this fundamental architectural discrepancy is baffling to me.
OP
OP
Why do you people even assume in interested in HL2?
That consoles are basically first world products isn't exactly news.
A comparison between the console sales by country and steam user numbers clearly shows a much larger PC audience in poorer countries.
And it makes sense - paying for online probably already kills the prospect of buying a console for many people.
Add higher game prices, free games you can get (piracy or not) and the fact that a console is an all or nothing device while you can build/buy a (used) PC from "nothing"-anything.
OP
OP
This is true and valid but also inherent to the nature of the platform/input methods used for VR. It might be possible to mitigate it somewhat through hardware/controller redesigns (kind of like what Xbox has done) but that's not something your average developer can implement.
How are you still using this outdated as fuck argument?
And how does it invalidate the point everyone that you've quoted with this weak take has made?
New tech always has its nay-sayers. Sometimes that tech changes the world, sometimes it dies off. But it being new, expensive, or "superfluous", doesn't inherently make it destined to fail like you're trying to argue.
So if I came across as troll-y in the Alyx thread that wasn't my intention. I just think there's a big dichotomy between VR users and nonusers. Personally, I fail to see how this is a technology that will ever become mainstream in the recent future. Granted, I am not following it too closely, but just in the gaming scene alone to me it seemed like a year or so ago all of these VR machines came out and then more or less fizzled out. There is absolutely a fanbase for this kind of gaming, but it is an undeniable fact that it is or has become anything more than a niche product.
I consider VR in its current state to be the newest supplemental device like PS move, Kinect, etc, NOT a new console. If Valve wants to cater and try to develop this audience, all the power to them, but I think we all need to admit the barrier to entry is absurdly high.
I consider VR in its current state to be the newest supplemental device like PS move, Kinect, etc, NOT a new console. If Valve wants to cater and try to develop this audience, all the power to them, but I think we all need to admit the barrier to entry is absurdly high.
It doesn't have to run it by itself if you link it to a PC. It was presented as a cheaper alternative to the more expensive PC-bound VR kits.
OP
OP
So you still need actual hardware to run the game itself? We're walking in circles here.
you can play all current games with a video card that costs 150 bucks. FHD/60 FPS
I would beg to differ on that one.
OP
OP
Okay, but the point here stands that you still need to buy the peripheral AND the hardware to play the game that's intended to push the system to mainstream appeal.
YOU and other people have decided that only non-native games can "push the system to mainstream appeal". The facts we have contradict you (like Oculus saying the Quest is doing far better than their PCVR headsets). So what's the point here? Are you going to move the goalposts yet again? You might run out of field, eh...
No, why would it need to? You need to be able to play every VR game in existence for it to count? Can any console play other console's exclusives? No? Guess they're all doomed.
Here's hoping you come up with a new exciting way to move the goalposts in your response!!
Third worlder here, just want to chime a little.
This is correct. The VR headset that costs like $200 in the US costs like $600-$700 here. Not to mention that Valve doesn't sell Index here but the price must be crazy.
I have 300/100 unlimited and costs like $20, the barrier to streaming here is not the internet speed (I believe that my internet is better and cheaper than most American) but it's the fact that it's not available here. PSNow? Nope. Xcloud? Nope. Stadia? Lolnope.
Hmm maybe people here don't really know this since almost all of the live in first world country but here console is a luxury. $300 (at the lower end btw, console is also more expensive here) for a box that can only play games is a luxury. Meanwhile PC is more expensive than console but you can do a lot of thing there. You can use it for work, game, and entertainment. That's why every single person have a PC (to be honest I'm quite surprised to read that some of the people on this forum doesn't have PC). Most of the people who have a console also don't play first party exclusive like people on this enthusiast forum plays, they play FIFA or other sport games.
But you need to buy console for that.
Consoles here sold much because of piracy. I never saw a legit copies of PS1, PS2, and PSP games here. It's not until PS3 that I can find legit copies. Console is a luxury item that plays FIFA here. Meanwhile everyone have a PC and a phone and do their gaming there.
OP
OP
Okay, but are you guys then arguing that what's available to run on the Quest's alone is enough to push it as a $400 system for low liquidity markets?
Stop talking about goalposts and attempt poor gotchas I already admitted Quest works as a standalone system. Doesn't really change the point.
So? A standalone VR headset powerful enough to play the game would cost more than those two bought separately. And when you buy a gaming PC, you're also getting access to countless games, VR or not.
Well in the thread OP qouted i was informed if i wanted to play Half Life Alyx every setup would require a headset plus a gaming PC
I think both ends of the argument in this thread are largely true. it's interesting.
Games have always been a luxury, and VR is not just a gimmick. (or rather, it has recently flourished a bit beyond being one) That being said, I think a lot of people who are already completely sold on VR don't have a good grasp on how hard of a sell it could be to someone still. There is no getting around VR being extremely expensive (even with a cheaper headset, you need an expensive PC, and it seems like opting for a headset without the latest and greatest control options hinders the experience quite a bit) and potentially inconvenient. (room space, cable management, storage, so on and so on) It's also fundamentally less accessible depending on disabilities or even things like the size of your glasses, etc.
It's a big ask for a lot of people right now. I don't think it's directly comparable positively to HD or negatively to 3D or other failed tech initiatives. It's so reliant on you already being heavily invested in PC gaming that the cost is astronomical to anyone not already on the mid-to-high end of that platform, and to outsiders it's a relatively unproven medium still. Obviously the point of Alyx is to try and change that, but we're still at a stage where getting into VR is a huge, huge up front cost with a lot of variables and the likelihood of future tech advances radically changing things and making your set obsolete fairly quickly.
so, yeah, I both understand that VR is very exciting but I think it's reasonable for people to still be skeptical, and that's going to take a lot of time and a smoothing out of the pricing to change I think.
Games have always been a luxury, and VR is not just a gimmick. (or rather, it has recently flourished a bit beyond being one) That being said, I think a lot of people who are already completely sold on VR don't have a good grasp on how hard of a sell it could be to someone still. There is no getting around VR being extremely expensive (even with a cheaper headset, you need an expensive PC, and it seems like opting for a headset without the latest and greatest control options hinders the experience quite a bit) and potentially inconvenient. (room space, cable management, storage, so on and so on) It's also fundamentally less accessible depending on disabilities or even things like the size of your glasses, etc.
It's a big ask for a lot of people right now. I don't think it's directly comparable positively to HD or negatively to 3D or other failed tech initiatives. It's so reliant on you already being heavily invested in PC gaming that the cost is astronomical to anyone not already on the mid-to-high end of that platform, and to outsiders it's a relatively unproven medium still. Obviously the point of Alyx is to try and change that, but we're still at a stage where getting into VR is a huge, huge up front cost with a lot of variables and the likelihood of future tech advances radically changing things and making your set obsolete fairly quickly.
so, yeah, I both understand that VR is very exciting but I think it's reasonable for people to still be skeptical, and that's going to take a lot of time and a smoothing out of the pricing to change I think.
You realize that you have to buy or own a TV to use your console, right?
OP
OP
You do realise a TV is used for other things than a console and people already buy them for that, right?
That's not your original point. Your original point is that the cost of VR headsets kills any chance they have in less affluent regions. Every time anyone posts anything that contradicts it, you change your "point".
You do realise a PC is used for other things than gaming and people already buy them for that, right?
This forum is funny sometimes :)
OP
OP
I'm not sure that a VR headset has as large an array of applications as a TV right now.
Yeah my point is that the cost of VR headsets kills any chance they have.
Either it's $400 to play games specifically able to run on a SOC, what's on Quest right now exclusively. A small catalogue.
Or $400+price of a higher end PC as a peripheral to be able to run the system sellers, things like Half-Life.
It's a money sink either way, and not for low liquidity markets. You're still not contradicting that.
But that wasn't your point at all. And as others have pointed out, people in less affluent markets usually have a PC (I can definitely attest to that!, I work with it a lot). You kept moving goalposts so far you've now run out of field and are making more of it. How much does the artificial stuff they use nowadays cost?
OP
OP
But for those people the price of the PC itself is enough for what it should do. How many are available to throw $400 extra in it? And that IS my point did you read the wrong OP or something.
The required base system is in both cases obviously the TV and the PC where you can add a console or VR headset to that setup.
Following simple logic means that you should / have to compare the TV and the PC with each other and check if there's anything that a TV and PC is used for that is not tied to gaming. And the answer is clearly: yes?
Is Netflix 1st world only? Go read up on StarLink OP. Broadband internet to any location in Earth for $60/month. Partners with SpaceX. 2020. Game streaming is real, which is why every big company is getting in on it.
As for VR, it will be a slow but sure growing market. Eventually it will be a cheaper and better experience than buying a new TV.
As for VR, it will be a slow but sure growing market. Eventually it will be a cheaper and better experience than buying a new TV.
a meaningfully large audience of people who want to put something expensive in their house with an expensive add-on that often requires dedicated space for a niche of a niche hobby that blocks them off from other people in the same space as them simply does not exist.
the only reason alyx exists as a vr-only game is because valve has the money to burn on making an attempt at a loss-leader to drive vr adoption. it won't work. the most popular thing about the game will be mods that let you play it without vr.
and I say this as someone who thinks vr is mostly good, owns a psvr v2 and a pro to drive it. it's just not a home technology.
the only reason alyx exists as a vr-only game is because valve has the money to burn on making an attempt at a loss-leader to drive vr adoption. it won't work. the most popular thing about the game will be mods that let you play it without vr.
and I say this as someone who thinks vr is mostly good, owns a psvr v2 and a pro to drive it. it's just not a home technology.