After a VR-free year from Apple, VR headsets deemed "the biggest loser" of 2016

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 64


    That's obvious because a tethered headset and joystick are ridiculous things. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat sreen why would I wear the whole display assembly on my head?

    There is no VR unless you introduce your very self into the scene. That requires an untethered headset and a body kit.
    You have obviously not used this technology. The reason you wear the headset is so you can move and look around in a fully three dimensional environment. This is not the same as moving a controller and watching your view pan around on a TV in front of your eyes. A good example is an interactive "film" type thing on a miniature stage with claymation type characters I was watching, where you could literally peer around a corner to see another character walking down a street that you couldn't see before. Or walking toward an object and looking down into an opening in the top of a ship to see the characters doing stuff inside of it, as if the object is right in front of your chest. By moving your head, and your feet (to a limited degree). Or in a 3D world where you're standing in an alley, and you can look up and crane your head to peer around a fire escape, or around a corner to spot an enemy. It "feels" like you can reach out and literally touch things in front of you. As I said in my previous posts, trying to describe it is difficult. Trust me, it's nothing like your 2D flat screen.

    Edit: maybe you're focusing on the tethered aspect of it, but it's not that big of a deal. Nobody is going to set up a full walk-around multi-camera setup in their living room. The PSVR limits you to probably the average amount of space that most people have in front of their TV/living room area. Move controllers give you wireless dual hand controllers, some software just uses the DualShock controllers which is better suited to some types of games, etc.
    Yes it works exactly as you describe and that is the easiest way to break your neck in a game. If you have to turn your head left right fast enough to fight bandits you'll get a neck injury before even completing level one. This is why they include a game controller, thanks to the game controller you don't have to shift left right so fast, the game controller shifts the view before your eyes. And that makes both game controller and the VR pointless, because since I need a game controller to shift the view, I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why would I wear the whole display assembly on my head?
    Break your neck? Are you joking?

    That's not how it works — head tracking changes your view, not the controller. That's the whole point! Nothing is made pointless by a controller to any degree whatsoever.

    Again, you've obviously not used VR in any capacity. Go pick up a Google Cardboard, it'll give you a decent experience for a few bucks and you'll quickly understand why you're so completely wrong about how it works.
    You've obviously not played games in any capacity. All games are written for keyboard+mouse combo, or game controller. Not a single game re-written from scratch uniquely for VR has been announced yet.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 42 of 64
    muadibemuadibe Posts: 134member
    Except for a few niche groups including gaming, design, engineering and medicine, VR won't become a 'thing' until it's at StarTrek Holodeck level. 
  • Reply 43 of 64
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,718member
    The History of all visual arts shows without exception (that I am aware of) until the medium finds a way to be exploited for shall we say, ahem, 'sensual reasons', it won't take off.  Yes I folks I mean porn.  :)
    spheric
  • Reply 44 of 64
    VR has the same inherent issue as stereo photography, it's a one person at a a time experience. This makes it not a group social thing, but more of a mommy's basement loner product. Have a look at the ads currently running. One person is wearing the headset, and everyone else is reacting to that persons reactions. Once the new wears off, the reactions are done. Beyond that, a group of people hate waiting around for their turn. I see the same phenomenon when showing stereo photos. The person with the viewer may be enthralled, but everyone else is waiting for their turn. It grows old very quickly. Choose your reason why, but Mr Dilger is correct. VR may carve out a niche, but it will be in either technical disciplines, or the basement.
  • Reply 45 of 64
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member

    Gee, I have been saying this exact things for over a year and those people here, and you know who you are keep saying I have no clue what I am talking about and VR is the next big thing. Sorry but these head set fail the geek test, well they actually pass the geek test, meaning geeks love it so the rest of society hate it since it fails on the social norm scale of what is acceptable. Yeah the liberal and all say we have to be nice to one another and not make fun of peoples differences by they will be the first to shun you in society if you look like a geek. Picking on geeks are fair game to anyone.

    Most people do not get it especially here, and the fact these products are not flying off the shelf proves that. At least google was smart enough to make their headset out of cardboard and your phone, you can through the cardboard away when you get bored and still use the phone.


  • Reply 46 of 64
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    VR has hardly been a failure for Sony. How on earth could they sell 2.6 million VR headsets in less than 2 months? Playstation VR has only been on the market since October. Every retailer has been saying they fly off the shelves when they are in stock. Even Sony has said sales have been great and are on track to meet sales expectations. Sony is expanding VR production to meet demand. Playstation VR is sold out just about everywhere. Whoever estimated Sony to sell 2.6 million VR units in less than 3 months is a complete idiot. 

    That is because the geeks are buying them the average consumer is not, to put this in perspective and gaming is a consumer product and is subset of people who buy product around the world. Today over a 1B cell phones are sold each year, that is success no matter how you cut it. 2.6M units is a drop in the bucket of consumer dollar spent on a product. We talking about less then 1% of people who spend money on consumer product are buying these headset. Today in a global market success is no longer measure in million sold, it measure in 100"s of millions to Billion sold is the measure of success. People today use the PC era measurement of millions sold as some level of market acceptance. Even apple who sold 10 of millions of watch is not seen as a success.
  • Reply 47 of 64
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    Lots of commentary from people who don't sound like they've used any of these devices at all on an article by research firms who are talking about sales numbers versus forecasts etc. versus experience.

    As an owner of the PSVR, let me just say that I'm completely blown away by it, especially considering that it's a first-gen product. I've had several experiences where my jaw was figuratively on the floor with what I was seeing. Not all the software out there is equally impressive, there are definitely some duds and half-baked demos, but the ones that work well are really, truly amazing.

    I tried a couple passive demos at first where you can only look around, but once I played the Batman game where I could grab Batarangs from my utility belt with the Move controllers and wave/rotate them in front of my face and interact with the environment, I finally got it — it's the future of gaming, and going back to a 2D experience on the TV felt like a second-class experience IMHO. I can totally imagine how much more amazing it'll get with a wider field of view, higher resolution, etc, but again — amazing for a first-gen console add-on product.

    It's not something you can figure out by watching a video online or having someone describe it to you, you have to experience it for yourself. That, I would imagine, is going to be the biggest uphill battle in selling a lot of these things.


    Just because you like to separate yourself from the people around you when you play a games does not mean everyone else feels the same way. This is not a failure of people not trying the device, it is a failure of people like you who do understand why others can not see what you seem to think is great. Yes I have and It is cool, but I have no desire to sit there with a head set on while playing a game. 2D is fine and I play games to escape for a few minutes or maybe an hour but when someone walks in the room I can look up and have a conversation with them and not look like I am rude and ignoring them. Humans as whole are social animals and some who choose to isolate themselves behind technology is seen by everyone else as being anti-social. The issue is the anti-social types who like these systems are less then 10% of the population most people rather have personal eye to eye contact with people.

    The porn industry will make these successful since that is something anyone will do in the privacy of their bed room.

  • Reply 48 of 64
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    I think many here are missing the point of the article.  Sure, DED puts his own colourful spin on it, but the article is stating facts:
    - VR was highly touted (for 2016) as a huge new market
    - Many companies went in hard for this space (Facebook, Samsung, MSFT, Sony)
    - Apple was widely criticized in the tech media and by media publishing analysts as missing the boat by not having a product here
    - Some real data (or guesstimates masquerading as such) are showing the actual units sold to be much less than the hype
    - Perhaps Apple was not so stupid after all.

    I don't think that VR will go the way of 3DTV.  I don't doubt it will be the next wave in high performance gaming.  That is great, and good for the companies that get there first (Sony sounds to be doing the best so far from the comments here).  However, in the grand scheme of things, that hard core high-performance market isn't that big - ~$50B for combined PC/MMO + console worldwide in 2016 - what you might call hard care / high performance a subset of that.  That figure includes, H/W, games, advertising, etc.  VR will be small over the next few years, but would grow to subsume that market space.

    Just as mobile and casual gaming came to be valued more than higher performance PC & console gaming, there is expectation that AR will have many more applications and thus be larger than VR.  Apple has so far never gone into, nor indicated at desire to enter, the high performance gaming area.  So I don't expect they will address VR in this way anytime in the near future.


    roundaboutnow
  • Reply 49 of 64
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    muadibe said:
    Except for a few niche groups including gaming, design, engineering and medicine, VR won't become a 'thing' until it's at StarTrek Holodeck level. 

    I agree, when everyone at once can experience the same thing and see everyone else's reaction at once it will be successful.

    ignomini said:
    VR has the same inherent issue as stereo photography, it's a one person at a a time experience. This makes it not a group social thing, but more of a mommy's basement loner product. Have a look at the ads currently running. One person is wearing the headset, and everyone else is reacting to that persons reactions. Once the new wears off, the reactions are done. Beyond that, a group of people hate waiting around for their turn. I see the same phenomenon when showing stereo photos. The person with the viewer may be enthralled, but everyone else is waiting for their turn. It grows old very quickly. Choose your reason why, but Mr Dilger is correct. VR may carve out a niche, but it will be in either technical disciplines, or the basement.
    Yep, agree but the people with some sort of social attention disorder who miss social queues around them do not understand this, they think everyone should be exactly like them. 
  • Reply 50 of 64
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member


    That's obvious because a tethered headset and joystick are ridiculous things. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat sreen why would I wear the whole display assembly on my head?

    There is no VR unless you introduce your very self into the scene. That requires an untethered headset and a body kit.
    You have obviously not used this technology. The reason you wear the headset is so you can move and look around in a fully three dimensional environment. This is not the same as moving a controller and watching your view pan around on a TV in front of your eyes. A good example is an interactive "film" type thing on a miniature stage with claymation type characters I was watching, where you could literally peer around a corner to see another character walking down a street that you couldn't see before. Or walking toward an object and looking down into an opening in the top of a ship to see the characters doing stuff inside of it, as if the object is right in front of your chest. By moving your head, and your feet (to a limited degree). Or in a 3D world where you're standing in an alley, and you can look up and crane your head to peer around a fire escape, or around a corner to spot an enemy. It "feels" like you can reach out and literally touch things in front of you. As I said in my previous posts, trying to describe it is difficult. Trust me, it's nothing like your 2D flat screen.

    Edit: maybe you're focusing on the tethered aspect of it, but it's not that big of a deal. Nobody is going to set up a full walk-around multi-camera setup in their living room. The PSVR limits you to probably the average amount of space that most people have in front of their TV/living room area. Move controllers give you wireless dual hand controllers, some software just uses the DualShock controllers which is better suited to some types of games, etc.
    Yes it works exactly as you describe and that is the easiest way to break your neck in a game. If you have to turn your head left right fast enough to fight bandits you'll get a neck injury before even completing level one. This is why they include a game controller, thanks to the game controller you don't have to shift left right so fast, the game controller shifts the view before your eyes. And that makes both game controller and the VR pointless, because since I need a game controller to shift the view, I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why would I wear the whole display assembly on my head?
    Break your neck? Are you joking?

    That's not how it works — head tracking changes your view, not the controller. That's the whole point! Nothing is made pointless by a controller to any degree whatsoever.

    Again, you've obviously not used VR in any capacity. Go pick up a Google Cardboard, it'll give you a decent experience for a few bucks and you'll quickly understand why you're so completely wrong about how it works.
    You've obviously not played games in any capacity. All games are written for keyboard+mouse combo, or game controller. Not a single game re-written from scratch uniquely for VR has been announced yet.
    I have no idea what you're talking about — I have played several games specifically developed for VR with both Move controllers and the DualShock controller, neither of which control your view. Your head movement tracking changes your view, not the controller. That's the whole point. You're describing how these games function in a way that does not mirror reality and I have no idea why.
  • Reply 51 of 64
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member

    maestro64 said:

    Just because you like to separate yourself from the people around you when you play a games does not mean everyone else feels the same way. This is not a failure of people not trying the device, it is a failure of people like you who do understand why others can not see what you seem to think is great. Yes I have and It is cool, but I have no desire to sit there with a head set on while playing a game. 2D is fine and I play games to escape for a few minutes or maybe an hour but when someone walks in the room I can look up and have a conversation with them and not look like I am rude and ignoring them. Humans as whole are social animals and some who choose to isolate themselves behind technology is seen by everyone else as being anti-social. The issue is the anti-social types who like these systems are less then 10% of the population most people rather have personal eye to eye contact with people.

    Huh. Personally, I pretty much only play games when other people aren't around, I'm not separating myself from anybody. I'm not saying everyone else has to like VR, I'm just saying people here are panning the tech as a gimmick without having actually tried it which is ridiculous. If you have and don't like it, that is totally fine — but it's very odd to insinuate everyone else who does is somehow antisocial. What a bizarre correlation to make.
  • Reply 52 of 64
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member

    ignomini said:
    VR has the same inherent issue as stereo photography, it's a one person at a a time experience. This makes it not a group social thing, but more of a mommy's basement loner product. Have a look at the ads currently running. One person is wearing the headset, and everyone else is reacting to that persons reactions. Once the new wears off, the reactions are done. Beyond that, a group of people hate waiting around for their turn. I see the same phenomenon when showing stereo photos. The person with the viewer may be enthralled, but everyone else is waiting for their turn. It grows old very quickly. Choose your reason why, but Mr Dilger is correct. VR may carve out a niche, but it will be in either technical disciplines, or the basement.
    Yes, it's very much a one person at a time thing right now. Being able to see what they see (sort of) on the TV does help some. Obvious next steps is to allow a second headset running from the same console, but obviously the hardware needs to improve dramatically (and prices to decrease) to allow that. It will come in time.

    Also, I've seen at least one game where one person uses the VR headset while others with DualShock controllers play another aspect of the game on the screen simultaneously. So, there are ways to bridge the gap some.

    It's meant to be immersive. You have headphones in too with 3D sound controlled by head tracking. Any breach of that from the outside world is jarring, like if my cat comes and rubs against my leg while I'm in deep. :) It's obviously meant to be a single player experience in this current incarnation, not sure why people are harping on that so much here.
  • Reply 53 of 64
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,408member
    maestro64 said:

    Gee, I have been saying this exact things for over a year and those people here, and you know who you are keep saying I have no clue what I am talking about and VR is the next big thing. Sorry but these head set fail the geek test, well they actually pass the geek test, meaning geeks love it so the rest of society hate it since it fails on the social norm scale of what is acceptable. Yeah the liberal and all say we have to be nice to one another and not make fun of peoples differences by they will be the first to shun you in society if you look like a geek. Picking on geeks are fair game to anyone.

    You realize you don't go outside with these things on, right? Not sure how this is geekier than playing COD with a mic/headphones on or waving Move controllers around to play frisbee golf with friends or my neighbors jumping around and waving at an invisible Xbox sensor. Also protip: it's not liberals — it's decent human beings who don't make fun of people's differences.

    Most people do not get it especially here, and the fact these products are not flying off the shelf proves that. At least google was smart enough to make their headset out of cardboard and your phone, you can through the cardboard away when you get bored and still use the phone.


    I have a Cardboard (made of plastic mind you). It was a great entry-level way to experience VR for about $25 and my existing phone, which is the whole point — to make the technology accessible to the masses. Huge kudos to Google for making that spec open and easy to use. You sound very angry about the fact that people enjoy VR for some reason. "they think everyone should be exactly like them" indeed.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 54 of 64


    That's obvious because a tethered headset and joystick are ridiculous things. If it is joystick then I already do that in my 2D flat sreen why would I wear the whole display assembly on my head?

    There is no VR unless you introduce your very self into the scene. That requires an untethered headset and a body kit.
    You have obviously not used this technology. The reason you wear the headset is so you can move and look around in a fully three dimensional environment. This is not the same as moving a controller and watching your view pan around on a TV in front of your eyes. A good example is an interactive "film" type thing on a miniature stage with claymation type characters I was watching, where you could literally peer around a corner to see another character walking down a street that you couldn't see before. Or walking toward an object and looking down into an opening in the top of a ship to see the characters doing stuff inside of it, as if the object is right in front of your chest. By moving your head, and your feet (to a limited degree). Or in a 3D world where you're standing in an alley, and you can look up and crane your head to peer around a fire escape, or around a corner to spot an enemy. It "feels" like you can reach out and literally touch things in front of you. As I said in my previous posts, trying to describe it is difficult. Trust me, it's nothing like your 2D flat screen.

    Edit: maybe you're focusing on the tethered aspect of it, but it's not that big of a deal. Nobody is going to set up a full walk-around multi-camera setup in their living room. The PSVR limits you to probably the average amount of space that most people have in front of their TV/living room area. Move controllers give you wireless dual hand controllers, some software just uses the DualShock controllers which is better suited to some types of games, etc.
    Yes it works exactly as you describe and that is the easiest way to break your neck in a game. If you have to turn your head left right fast enough to fight bandits you'll get a neck injury before even completing level one. This is why they include a game controller, thanks to the game controller you don't have to shift left right so fast, the game controller shifts the view before your eyes. And that makes both game controller and the VR pointless, because since I need a game controller to shift the view, I already do that in my 2D flat screen, why would I wear the whole display assembly on my head?
    Break your neck? Are you joking?

    That's not how it works — head tracking changes your view, not the controller. That's the whole point! Nothing is made pointless by a controller to any degree whatsoever.

    Again, you've obviously not used VR in any capacity. Go pick up a Google Cardboard, it'll give you a decent experience for a few bucks and you'll quickly understand why you're so completely wrong about how it works.
    You've obviously not played games in any capacity. All games are written for keyboard+mouse combo, or game controller. Not a single game re-written from scratch uniquely for VR has been announced yet.
    I have no idea what you're talking about — I have played several games specifically developed for VR with both Move controllers and the DualShock controller, neither of which control your view. Your head movement tracking changes your view, not the controller. That's the whole point. You're describing how these games function in a way that does not mirror reality and I have no idea why.
    I am describing how all games function, not these ones. If there are such games specifically developed for VR then provide names. You cannot just plug a VR HMD in and play COD in it. Then you break your neck.
    edited December 2016
  • Reply 55 of 64
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,430member
    I expected this. So did many people. 

    "You just need to try it", say the supporters. Well, any guess as to why so many of us haven't tried it?

    This isn't like spending 15$+ per person at the cinema to see a 3D movie (which is generally too much for me because that money could feed me instead). It's far easier to do that than to buy into a 3D tv setup. Even worse is the prospect of buying into a 3D gaming platform.
  • Reply 56 of 64
    SchmorgasboardSchmorgasboard Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    VR vs. Apple Watch?! What?

    This article just falls to make any sense.
    Next time on apple insider: Quart of milk vs. Macbook Pro 2016.
    gatorguyfastasleep
  • Reply 57 of 64
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,176member
    ignomini said:
    VR has the same inherent issue as stereo photography, it's a one person at a a time experience. This makes it not a group social thing, but more of a mommy's basement loner product. 
    http://www.roadtovr.com/neos-core-enables-a-world-of-multi-user-multi-device-vr-collaboration/
  • Reply 58 of 64
    Hey, AR supporters: Have you ever actually put on a AR headset? The graphics look like a ghost over reality. VR is awesome. We are in the Commodore 64 stage of development. The headsets are big, ugly, uncomfortable, don't work well with glasses, rather expensive and the games suck. But OMG have you tried them? It's awesome. No really I mean it. Kind of a life changing experience. Come back in a few years and you will find light weight super high resolution self contained VR goggles with the ability to also do AR and for a price anyone can afford.
    fastasleep
  • Reply 59 of 64
    ZitiZiti Posts: 1unconfirmed, member
    Apple rarely pioneers a new field of consumer technology. They're usually entering after the industry scouts make their mistakes, then come in with a product more refined than anything the market has seen prior. It was like that with MP3 players (ipod), smart phones (iphone), wearable tech (apple watch). They weren't the 1st ones to the market, but eventually they were the best on the market.
  • Reply 60 of 64
    clemynx said:
    Anyone calling VR a gimmick is out of touch with reality and clearly hasn't ever tried it. 
    It's were gaming was always headed, for most forms of games at least. It's just the beginning and it's amazing already. 
    VR has limited utility (games and applications that do not involve all-day exposure to a synthetic environment) and will remain limited by its very nature. It's a confining experience compared to AR, which is more "open" in terms of interaction with the environment, but will likewise remain a niche product. AR will serve a broader niche than VR.
Sign In or Register to comment.