I'm not sure if you remember the release of the PS3, but the price point at release was completely ridiculous ($499 for a 20GB hard drive version, $599 for a 60GB hard drive version). They then removed the cheaper option half a year later, marked down the 60GB version to $499 a little under half a year after release, and then made a 40GB $399 version a full year after initial release. It took another two years after that to make a $299 console, which was the same price as the top-of-the-line 360 of the time. Sony has 83.8 million units sold compared to the 360's 84 million, even though the price point was so much higher.
This comes down to the assumption that developers would need to figure out
immediately that it's too expensive and then lower the price enough so that's it's appealing to consumers and still make profits off it, and even then, it's still a long shot. Let's face it: making VR is expensive and if companies want to make their money back, they won't lower the price anytime soon, unless, of course, they're actually okay with losing some cash for awhile.
Also, PS3 was released almost a decade ago. People were much more forgiving back then, so when Sony made changes to the console and lowered it's cost, people gave it a second chance, all because they made it enticing and affordable. Nowadays, people giving extra chances to things rarely ever happens. (instant-gratification)
There's also the high probability that if it's too expensive at launch, it won't sell enough units, and if it doesn't sell enough units, then it won't sell enough software, which means that any developers making games for it won't be able to get all their money back. Most of them WILL jump ship and go back to making games the way they've always been making games because they will do whatever makes the most money. It's happened before and it's still happening today.
For example: Remember the Kinect? That thing was $150 at launch. Microsoft spent $500 million on advertising for it. Look where it's at now. Yeah, they did sell a lot of them, but not enough to convince developers to invest a ton of time and money on it. Then they bundled it with the Xbox One and reversed that decision almost immediately for obvious reasons.
The point is, in order for VR to last, they're going to need support, and that won't exist if they can't sell enough within the first few months at least. The launch price will be one of the biggest factors in that, if not the biggest. As I've said before, as a consumer, I'd much rather spend my money on a console, mostly because it's cheaper and it's not nearly as much of a risk.
It's also worth mentioning that last generation saw a major rise in a ton of new gamers. That 83.8 million isn't that surprising when you consider that gaming REALLY took off last gen, especially compared to previous generations. Also, Sony was really pushing the Blu-ray format. That could've been another factor in their success.
Most of the 3D games were either not directly supported by mainstream gaming companies (like glasses-based 3D not taking off in any area of consoles or PC gaming), had large problems (screen angle with stereoscopic 3DS), and you don't feel immersed in the experience because you can see everything else in the room in addition to the "immersive 3D experience" (which distracts the eye from what it should be focused on). VR on the other hand is already supported by Sony and Valve, and are VERY immersive because you can't see your real-life environment and if you have good headphones, they can use surround sound that changes as you turn your head (something 3D could never accomplish). VR has more potential and if the price drops, it could be a viable gaming experience for the general population.
I was comparing VR to
how the mainstream media was acting towards 3D in general, not just games. Also, if "immersive 3D experience" is what your eyes should be focused on, then we already have that. If you're playing a game, your eyes would be focused on the game and not on the room around you. Whether or not you notice the room around you while playing depends on how much immersion you want to feel. As for surround sound that changes when you turn your head, all you have to do in any 3D game is turn the camera around. The sound changes. This isn't anything new. It's been done before.
Speaking of turning your head around, picture this: I'm playing an FPS. There's some guy screaming to my right, so I move my head to the right. In fact, if I want to look around at all, I need start moving my entire head in all directions, which would easily start giving me headaches and make me feel exhausted from carrying this headset on my face after a short amount of time.
In that situation, the thought of using a mouse or a control stick to look around (giving me much quicker movements, BTW) on a regular monitor doesn't sound like a bad idea.
Have you tried it? Finalark said it's the most immersive experience he's ever seen. If there's a demo that can make an informed gamer say that, I tend to think the technology running the demo is worth looking into.
As a matter of fact, I have tried it, and you know what? It was cool. It really was. I'm not kidding. There was a few major problems I had with it though.
One was the fact that I did feel slightly nauseous after I was done with it. I've been playing games literally my whole life (it's my favorite hobby). A lot of times when I get the chance to, I marathon a game for hours on end, including fast-paced, action heavy games. Heck, even when the 3DS came out, I cranked that 3D to the max and never turned it off. All of this is stuff that many people have claimed made them feel ill or given them motion sickness. I've never had anything happen to me that would be considered health related when playing video games until I tried that one bit of VR (
this is obviously on a much more personal level and it might not happen to you or anyone else). That being said, I didn't feel too nauseous and I probably would try it again if given the chance.
Then there's also the "immersion" problem. I'm willing to bet that there will be some software that, in order to give you full "immersion," it'll give you the option to actually move around in a real life environment. That will cause a ton of problems that I shouldn't even have to mention, most, if not all them health related. I remember at E3 2014 (I think?), they had a luge demo for Project Morpheus, where they would actually have you lie down and try to dodge cars on a road as if you were on an actual luge. What if someone tries that and starts, say, sweating uncontrollably, hyperventilating, or gets a seizure simply because it feels
too real, and as a result, they need to be rushed to a hospital?
Of course, this is highly subjective and most likely won't happen to someone, and granted, they could get it from any bit of media, but it's still worth mentioning.
However, the
main problem I have with this is, as I've said before,
are the games themselves that will be available to VR. I can't stress this enough. The only games I see that people will want to play in virtual reality are games that are in first-person or something similar to that. That alone severely limits the tech. Assuming VR succeeds, it's library of games would most likely be overrun with more first-person titles than the Xbox. Could you imagine playing a typical platformer or fighting game while using VR? Unless devs somehow figure out some voodoo to make that work in a way that someone would want to play like that, it would be awkward as heck.
Look, I totally understand if all of you hate my guts for speaking so negatively about VR, but I just think that VR has more factors working against it than for it (the world is just too unpredictable, y'know?), but as I've said before, more power to you if you're excited for it. It really is pretty cool, and you know what? I hope I'm completely wrong about all of this. I hope VR succeeds. It most likely has a lot of untapped potential that no one knows about.
Spak
None of this is meant to directly "attack" your post or anything, I was just trying to make a debate. Please don't take offense. Speaking of...
I usually try my best to avoid lengthy, complicated debates, so this'll be my last post on this matter. If you guys wanna call me out for being a dork on anything I've said so far, go ahead. I won't judge