4 ms·
I think VR is already there unfortunately, and that it's one of the things holding back wider scale adoption. On PC there's Revive which lets you play Oculus ga
by mojzu 5y ago
I think VR is already there unfortunately, and that it's one of the things holding back wider scale adoption. On PC there's Revive which lets you play Oculus games on other headsets which is great, but it requires a little setup so most consumers aren't going to do it, and if Meta/FB decided tomorrow to remove accounts using it there'd be no recourse. So there are effectively arbitrary silos between hardware/stores on PC already, and any console headsets are unlikely to support OpenVR which further restricts the potential market for the devices and games. Arbitrary software and hardware exclusivity at this stage only seems to be serving the goal of some companies trying to dominate the market
- chaostheory 5y agoNormal people don’t care. For example, Apple does just fine with their walled garden. The biggest issue with VR at the moment from my personal experience is the form factor. The giant box you put on your head really intimidates normal people. Even if you take care of the price and complexity of VR, people still don’t want to fully dive in beyond trying out a demo. I am still having trouble understanding why
- JeremyNT 5y ago"Normal people" may not care, but enough of us early adopters / tech savvy people do care to have some impact here. Facebook's reputation is so deep in the gutter that some people will never purchase anything from them (I count myself among those ranks). VR's widespread adoption has been "right around the corner" for at least a decade now, but it keeps failing to actually materialize. These things are niche gaming peripherals still, and proponents can ill afford to ignore potential users if they really want to reach ubiquity.
- chaostheory 5y agoI’m not saying that meta’s past rep isn’t important, but that’s still not as big as the form factor. In my little adhoc experiment, even if you took that away, it didn’t matter. Form factor still drives them away. It’s like being a VR user makes you Neal Stephenson’s “gargoyle” if I’m using the right term from snow crash
- thfuran 5y agoAnd what's cooler than that, other than the pet Rat Thing in the freezer?
- recursive 5y ago> Apple does just fine with their walled garden There is a large group of Apple apologists right here on this very site!
- chaostheory 5y agoI’m not defending Apple. I’m just saying that non-techies tend to not care about that particular issue.
- logifail 5y ago> Even if you take care of the price and complexity of VR, people still don’t want to fully dive in beyond trying out a demo. I am still having trouble understanding why Maybe the people who aren't diving in to VR are "having trouble understanding why" they should? (Full disclosure: I honestly can't think of many things worse than strapping a box of electronics onto my head!)
- baby 5y ago> holding back wider scale adoption That doesn’t make any sense. Users want a good out of the box experience, which is what they’re getting. Without the Quest there would be no realistic consumer VR development out there. Most people writing these types of comments have never owned or used a Quest.
- mojzu 5y agoI wasn't saying the Quest out of box experience is bad, more that they're holding back wider market adoption through exclusivity deals and throwing up arbitrary walls that may put off potential consumers and competing headset manufacturers who don't have the money Meta/Oculus has to throw around. The markets still relatively small and the cost of entry high, so giving potential customers any reason to buy a console instead is a mistake in the longer term in my opinion (better to have a smaller slice of a much bigger pie), and might make studios less likely to invest their time in making VR games