2016 is the Year of VR; but is VR ready?

High prices and scant software will restrict VR to a narrow group of enthusiasts; a wider view of VR's potential could open up the tech to the world

As the end of 2015 rapidly approaches (seriously, how on earth is it October already?), the picture of what we can expect from VR in 2016 is starting to look a little less fuzzy around the edges. There's no question that next year is the Year of VR, at least in terms of mindshare. Right now it looks like no fewer than three consumer VR systems will be on the market during calendar 2016 - Oculus Rift, PlayStation VR and Valve / HTC Vive. They join Samsung's already released Gear VR headset, although that device has hardly set the world on fire; it's underwhelming at best and in truth, VR enthusiasts are all really waiting for one of the big three that will arrive next year.

Those fuzzy edges, though; they're a concern, and as they come into sharper focus we're starting to finally understand what the first year of VR is going to look like. In the past week or so, we've learned more about pricing for the devices - and for Microsoft's approach, the similar but intriguingly different Hololens - and the aspect that's brought into focus is simple; VR is going to be expensive. It's going to be expensive enough to be very strictly limited to early adopters with a ton of disposable income. It's quite likely going to be expensive enough that the market for software is going to struggle for the first couple of years at least, and that's a worry.

Oculus Rift, we've learned, will cost "at least" $350. That's just for the headset; you'll also need a spectacularly powerful PC to play games in VR. No laptop will suffice, and you're certainly out of luck with a Mac; even for many enthusiasts, the prospect of adding a major PC purchase or upgrade to a $350 headset is a hefty outlay for an early glimpse of the future. It's likely (though as yet entirely unconfirmed) that Valve's Vive headset will have a similar price tag and a similarly demanding minimum PC specification. The cheap end of the bunch is likely to be PlayStation VR - not because the headset will be cheap (Sony has confirmed that it is pricing it as a "platform" rather than a peripheral, suggesting a $300 or so price tag) but because the system you attach it to is a $350 PS4 rather than a much more expensive PC.

"More than almost any other type of device, I think VR is going to need a pretty big public campaign to convince people to try it out and accept the concept"

It is unreasonable, of course, to suggest that this means that people will be expected to pay upwards of $600 for Sony's solution, or $1500 for the PC based solution. A great many people already own PS4s; quite a few own PCs capable of playing VR titles. For these people, the headset alone (and perhaps some software) is the cost of entry. That is still a pretty steep cost - enough to dissuade people with casual interest, certainly - but it's tolerable for early adopters. The large installed base of PS4s, in particular, makes Sony's offering interesting and could result in a market for PlayStation VR ramping up significantly faster than pessimistic forecasts suggest. On the PC side, things are a little more worrying - there's the prospect of a standards war between Valve and Oculus, which won't be good for consumers, and a question mark over how many enthusiasts actually own a PC powerful enough to run a VR headset reliably, though of course, the cost of PCs that can run VR will fall between now and the 2016 launch.

All the same, the crux of the matter remains that VR is going to be expensive enough - even the headsets alone - to make it into an early-adopter only market during its first year or so. It's not just the cost, of course; the very nature of VR is going to make it into a slightly tough sell for anyone who isn't a devoted enthusiast, and more than almost any other type of device, I think VR is going to need a pretty big public campaign to convince people to try it out and accept the concept. It's one thing to wax lyrical about holodecks and sci-fi dreams; it's quite another to actually get people to buy into the notion of donning a bulky headset that blocks you off from the world around you in the most anti-social way imaginable. If you're reading a site like, you almost certainly get that concept innately; you may also be underestimating just how unattractive and even creepy it will seem to a large swathe of the population, and even to some of the gamer and enthusiast market VR hopes (needs!) to capture.

The multi, multi million dollar question remains, as it has been for some time - what about software? Again, Sony has something of an advantage in this area as it possesses very well regarded internal studios, superb developer relations and deep pockets; combined with its price and market penetration advantages, these ought to more than compensate for the difference in power between the PS4 and the PCs being used to power Rift and Vive, assuming (and it's a big assumption) that the PS4's solution actually works reliably and consistently with real games despite its lack of horsepower. The PC firms, on the other hand, need to rely on the excitement, goodwill and belief of developers and publishers to provide great games for VR in its early days. A handful of teams have devoted themselves to VR already and will no doubt do great things, but it's a matter of some concern that a lot of industry people you talk to about PC VR today are still talking in terms of converting their existing titles to simply work in 3D VR; that will look cool, no doubt, but a conversion lacking the attention to controls, movement and interaction that's required to make a VR world work will cause issues like motion sickness and straight-up disappointment to rear their ugly heads.

If VR is going to be priced as a system, not just a toy or a peripheral, then it needs to have software that people really, really want. Thus far, what we've seen are demos or half-hearted updates of old games. Even as we get close enough to consumer launches for real talk about pricing to begin, VR is still being sold off the back of science fiction dreams and long-held technological longings, not real games, real experiences, real-life usability. That desperately needs to change in the coming months.

"Getting the equipment into the hands of consumers at Tokyo Games Show or EGX is a start, but only a first step"

At least Hololens, which this week revealed an eye-watering $3000 developer kit to ship early next year, has something of a roadmap in this regard; the device will no doubt be backed up by Microsoft's own studios (an advantage it shares, perhaps to a lesser degree, with Sony) but more importantly, it's a device not aimed solely at games, one which will in theory be able to build up a head of steam from sales to enterprise and research customers prior to making a splash in consumer markets with a more mature, less expensive proposition. I can't help wondering why VR isn't going down this road; why the headlong rush to get a consumer device on the market isn't being tempered at least a little by a drive to use the obvious enterprise potential of VR to get the devices out into the wild, mature, established and affordable before pushing them towards consumers. I totally understand the enthusiasm that drives this; I just don't entirely buy the business case.

At the very least, one would hope that if 2016 is the year of VR, it's also the year in which we start to actually see VR in real-life applications beyond the gaming dens of monied enthusiasts. It's a technology that's perfectly suited to out-of-home situations; the architect who wants to give clients a walkthrough of a new building design; the museum that wants to show how a city looked in the past; the gaming arcade or entertainment venue that wants to give people an experience that most of them simply can't have at home on their consoles. VR is something that a great many consumers will want to have access to given the right software, the right price point and crucially, the right experience and understanding of its potential. Getting the equipment into the hands of consumers at Tokyo Games Show or EGX is a start, but only a first step. If VR's going to be a big part of the industry's future, then come next year, VR needs to be everywhere; it needs to be unavoidable. It can't keep running on dreams; virtual reality needs to take a step into reality.

Related stories

Native American nation files lawsuit against Valve over skins gambling

“Valve has profited handsomely for years from illegal online gambling, and has made only token efforts to stop it,” says Quinault Nation

By Haydn Taylor

Valve finally tackles review bombing as Borderlands 2 attacked over Epic exclusivity

Last week's work of user scores discounted under Steam's new 'off-topic review activity' system

By James Batchelor

Latest comments (23)

Julian Williams Founder, WIZDISH Ltd.3 years ago
an early-adopter only market during its first year or so
isn't unreasonable when you think about it.

If only one of these companies was doing this I would be far more pessimistic but as they all have deep pockets and loads of talent I think what we'll see is a normal trajectory for a successful new technology. After all the hype some may see that as a failure but remember most people don't know what VR is and therefore won't think that.

It's funny that after all the predictions that digital downloads will kill off gaming shops they're likely to feature heavily in the take up of VR, because you have to try it in person to understand it. Expect other bricks-and-mortar retailers like Realty agents to realise they can use VR to get people back in the shops, where their sales people have influence. Many businesses will regard these consumer products as cheap and buy them in bulk.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Julian Williams on 9th October 2015 9:35am

2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
James Coote Independent Game Developer 3 years ago
Those enterprise applications are already being made and I think that's where the real money will be for a few more years. I don't think it'll actually matter that much in the long run if as a consumer device, the experience is a bit middleing, and I reckon this first wave will still sell in the low millions to core gamers and early adopters.
Many businesses will regard these consumer products as cheap and buy them in bulk.
Why would they buy more headsets than they need? Especially when they only need a handful for most applications? I actually think this will be a headache for the device manufacturers. Most of the value will be in the software, leaving them a bit out of pocket for having done all that R&D.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Renaud Charpentier Game Director, The Creative Assembly3 years ago
You sell a tech on fantastic usage, you sell gaming tech on fantastic game experiences.
VR need a fantastic, not just impressive, not just new, not just a blast for 10 minutes, game that you freaking want to play for hours and hours on. If this game releases in 2016, then it will be the year of VR, if it doesn't, no "professional" usage will make it happen.

Many clever ppl are now trying to create that fantastic VR game, so it should happen, but it can also take quite some time, counting in years.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Show all comments (23)
Wesley Williams Quality Assurance 3 years ago
I love VR and I want to own a VR headset, but VR is the next Kinect when it comes to games and I really worry for any developers putting everything into the VR basket. The best we can hope for are that we see VR centers popping up, much like arcades from the 80s, where you can pay small amounts for the experience, rather than the large outlay for a niche gaming device.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Julian Williams Founder, WIZDISH Ltd.3 years ago
@James. We are already supplying enterprises so there are indeed applications being made. I didn't suggest buying more than they need but before long these will just be considered consumables and reordered like printer cartridges. That's another example where domestic use followed business.
If a killer app does appear I wouldn't be surprised if its not a game that appeals to hardcore gamers. It could be exercise or safety instruction or selling holidays. i.e. something that affects most people.
My rule of thumb is nothing ever turns out quite as everyone expects.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
...will restrict VR to a narrow group of enthusiasts;
It is not so!
I think it is now possible to look a little beyond the original high expectations of consumer adoption of VR regarding this latest phase of VR and look at a more realistic approach. The elephants in the room regarding platform price and performance needed (machine and space), sim-sickness (and hygiene) and the issue of available content aside, the reality is what can VR offer in the medium term, beyond the halcyon expectations of dreamers now looking at 2020!

There is an industry that is already deploying VR in entertainment – one that has been first ignored and then brushed aside – the digital out-of-home entertainment (DOE) sector, (is my bailiwick as you all know), but it is also an industry that has already deployed the first public space entertainment offerings such as with the VR Coaster, and also points to an exciting new genre of product with examples like TheVOID location-based entertainment center.

The issue of ‘room-scale’ (battleship) VR has come as a big surprise to the enthusiasts as has the high sticker price for entry level hardware, or the realization that much of the promises and assurances of what would blossom from the original Kickstarters have faded and been sidelined. The opportunity great, the delivery and compromise, lacking. Looking at the host of Kickstarters that supported the original Oculus VR undertaking back in 2013, and a thin veneer remain – initial funding burnt through waiting for a platform that never arrived as promised!

The out-of-home entertainment sector is ignored by many as it does not fulfill their original expectation of how VR would work this time round – it is not what their false prophets promised them the opportunity would represent – VR was going to be in everyone’s home and would be affordable and simple, open-source with no walled gardens!

This misjudgment, and the possibility of others benefiting from VR, for other industries causing not only resentment, but also a seething hatred of the sector they don’t understand – veiled attacks at what the DOE sector stands for and can achieve, hiding the fear by those that they may have compromised too much and delivered too little – their attempts to control and dictate the future of VR placed in doubt after so much investment!

Now the reality is that the majority of the mainstream public for the medium term will experience the best VR out-of-home, at specialist venues that will build on the social element of entertainment, rather the failed seated joypad compromise proffered by the first attempts in consumer VR!

But why a divide? Can not the two sector live together?
4Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Julian Williams Founder, WIZDISH Ltd.3 years ago
Don't worry @Kevin, we are rooting for you!
I don't think there's anything VR enthusiasts would like more than some top-notch curated experiences where you just walk in and pay an impulse purchase amount.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
James Coote Independent Game Developer 3 years ago
If a killer app does appear I wouldn't be surprised if its not a game that appeals to hardcore gamers. It could be exercise or safety instruction or selling holidays. i.e. something that affects most people.
I'd hope it wouldn't be something so dry as safety training, but definitely, it'd be nice to see something that isn't "the usual" gaming fare take off!
But why a divide? Can not the two sector live together?
Just looking at other stuff like Kinect or second screen, it feels like most game designers lack imagination to break out of their traditional ideas of what games are and how they work. Also, I wonder if some of the more entrepreneurial devs have worked out they can make more money in the types of experiences you describe, and that's why we're not seeing as much exciting stuff coming in the form of straight-up play-at-home games.

Also on the hygene issue, spent two days demoing VR headsets at EGX and yeah, wiping off the sweat from those foam bits around the mask was not something you want people to see when they're standing in the queue waiting to don these headsets. Hopefully the porn industry will come up with a solution.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by James Coote on 9th October 2015 1:39pm

2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Richard Browne Head of External Projects, Digital Extremes3 years ago
The biggest problem VR faces above cost and software is a sheer usability issue and the bigger problem there is the technology is moving away from it faster than its gaining ground. Issue 1 is space when it comes to the VIVE solution. The number of people that have an applicable space in their house for two sensors and room to freely move around in is likely pretty small. I played with it in a ten by ten space and while it was all very cool it feels incredibly limiting. But that's the easier issue, the bigger issue is the tether. Simply stated the only way you can utilize a headset today is sat in a chair, preferably a swivel one, and use it that way. Standing up without a guide to help you is a non starter for most applications, the tether to the PC is a massive irritant and immersion blocker, not to mention bloody dangerous. Now wireless HDMI is feasible, but more and more screens are becoming higher and higher resolution, everyone is jumping to 4k and 4k wireless is a non-starter at least for now. Whether that race will ever overlap remains to be seen but while tethered there's a massive problem with VR. THe Gear obviously isn't tethered but the quality of the experience suffers as a result.

The other problem is the machine requirements. With 0.7 Oculus turned off support for any laptop devices, this at a time when arguably laptops for every other purpose in life is where people are headed. I'm not sure I'd ever buy a desktop machine again unless it was strictly as a gaming rig, which limits the size and scope of the market massively.

Location based VR is definitely a better bet - though there's the hygiene issue at large there, but you know we did try this back in the 90's - I did a Virtuality product back in the day! I'm not saying that VR won't take off in some forms, indeed Oculus being purchased by Facebook gives it the biggest hope yet that with simpler solutions like Gear VR it can work itself into the mainstream at a lower end rather than require the higher end rigs (live concerts and sporting events could be big break out areas) but there's still a raft of challenges that lie ahead, let alone in 2016.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Richard Browne on 9th October 2015 3:35pm

3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Bob Johnson Studying graphics design, Northern Arizona University3 years ago
Unless Oculus has already made a deal with Capcom and the RE development team to make the next great RE game specifically for VR then I don't think 2016 is the year of VR at all.

That's the type of experience that is needed to sell this thing to gamers.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Andrzej Wroblewski Localization Generalist, Albion Localisations3 years ago
VR will definitely require full VO localization. Which is good for the localization industry :)
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Aaron Eastburn QA Lead, DropForge Games3 years ago
I have been following VR for quite sometime and I am glad to see people say 2016 will be the Year of VR.
I think VR is going to need a pretty big public campaign to convince people to try it out and accept the concept..
I think that the whole "2016 is the year of VR" IS the public campaign. As for a Killer App I think something like a theatre simulator where the user can network to other users and play games on (X-Box ONE will have this and PS4 most likely will as well) or watch Video on a simulated huge screen will be the main one. This will really take off in the fall of 2016 when a new college year starts and a student is faced with either buying a TV for a small dorm or apartment or buy the VR rig for the game console they already own. With that increase in the number of base users I think it will justify more money for better experiences/games. Q1 or Q2 in 2017 we will start to see what the current generation will do since by then most game devs will be more knowledgable about how to get the most out of the hardware.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Aaron Eastburn on 9th October 2015 6:44pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Andrea Schwendimann Editor / Author, Everyeye.it3 years ago
I do not agree on certain points of the article, though I find it interesting since it gives a good (and reasonable) perspective about the downsides of this new technology. I write this as I am pretty confident, from the events and fairs that I have been in, that VR is about to stay for good. Most likely it will take years to get it out on the mass market and it will stay as a niche product for some years, as CD-ROM and Blu-ray did (and there are many other examples, like Full HD panels and smartphones).

New platforms such as this one do not definitely get on the market with a bang from day one. It's an iterative process, that requires years, especially on the software side of things, since now the hardware challenges are well known and on their way to be overcome. I think on the engineering side the main problem is to cut down the production costs while eliminating the pixel grid. The former issue requires after-launch market analyses, but both mainly requires new hardware production lines. Especially for such small screens, the factories that can produce them are few and they profit from producing those kind of screens for the movile and camera markets (I think they are literally four companies who can make them, Apple, Samsung and Dell come to my mind, for sure).
The software side of things is going to be the most interesting, in my opinion. As Valve's Faliszek said recently, currently if you feel motion sickness using the Vive (and I add from experience, also the Oculus) the reason is most likely poor optimization of the software. I tried many products, from small indie studios to Crytek's Dinosaur Island, ex-Vigil Chronos and other big productions like Valkyrie. And the difference, on the same device, is enormous.
Developers are already coming up with new interesting ways of gaming as well. Apart from cockpit driven games which are a blast already (being sit helps the immersion! Elite Dangerous and Assetto Corsa are gorgeus and bug free), I'm mainly referring to two titles which have really the chance to set a new standard: Chronos and Adrift. They tackle respectively the third person and the first person view in ways that truly made me feel like that happy child firing up the NES for the first time. Especially Chronos and its briliant 'your head is the camera' POV could really be a new trend setter. And VR needs this the most at the moment: to prove to the public what entertainment could be with VR. On this note, I think Sony will point in that direction with Morpheus, at least for a start. The PS4 cannot handle the hardware burden VR requires and it shows in their demos. On the other hand, Oculus seems to be in the perfect spot. They lack the market penetration of Sony (oh, and of Valve by the way! We all know Steam), true, but their social network liason will have a huge impact on one side, while on the TV side they assured their ways with Microsoft and Windows 10 (plus the Xone support through that, that acts as a theatre). Valve has the flip-side when it comes to mere technology though. A slightly less defined screen than Oculus but their controller is something else... but it requires a whole room to be used, which could be not an issue in the US but it is definitely in Europe (we lack the space here...).

Summing it up, I believe that VR is going to stay. The standard problem might raise some brows, with 3 companies competing but the truth is that Valve and Oculus shared the engineers to build their prototypes. Would it really be a good move by either to shut down their platform? They can own their respective market without even trying to compete on the software side: they both want the VR to succeed and without stepping on each other toes they can make it real. Currently many multi-platform products (VR on,y titles I mean) can run smoothly on both Oculus and Vive. What about Morpheus? We know that Sony has a poisoned tooth when it comes to impose standards (it goes way back to the Betamax vs VHS days) and it will try for sure to set Morpheus as THE VR device somehow. I do hope though that it will be compatible with he PC at least (as the DS4 pad is), otherwise I have the feeling it's going to set a really low standard for VR, if any at all.

Opinions aside, 2016 will be one hell of an year for gaming and tech enuthusiasts the same.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
I agree with Andrea. If not 2016, it may be 2017 or 2018, but the point is the tech is coming and will be part of our world sooner rather than later. I wonder how old the author is because I remember my father bringing home a hand calculator in the early 70s from work to show us the new tech. These hand held calculators were 200 bucks or so back in the early 70s, that is over 1000 bucks in 2015 dollars, and did that initial high price stop calculators? We saw it with color TV, the first computers, and so on and so on, initial price is not going to effect the long range adoption of a wanted technology. Hell I think $350 is kinda cheap for such a leap. Cell phones can cost twice as much as that.

VR is coming, its going to be big, its just a matter of when , not if. Anyone who thinks otherwise most be too young to simply reflect back on the last 40 years of tech. Some things are just obvious.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Petter Solberg Freelance Writer & Artist, 3 years ago
Of course it's going to be a challenge to reach consumers, but the biggest challenge isn't going to be short-term profit but keeping the technology alive throughout the transition stage. I think it is interesting to see how people are already making use of VR in the arts, I've encountered Oculus Rifts during my gallery visits more than once. Of course, most people don't visit art galleries, but I think it shows that you can already do a lot with the technology. Perhaps thinking beyond the game retailer wouldn't be such a bad thing.

And let's not go back to comparing Kinect to VR. I don't really see how that's relevant, unless we're talking motion controllers, which is just one of many aspects of VR.
1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Bob Johnson Studying graphics design, Northern Arizona University3 years ago
Kinect is just another tech that was hyped, made for a fun tech demo, and had its share of tradeoffs in the gaming experience, but ultimately wasn't enough to make for a gaming platform.

IT only added $100 to the cost of the X1, but still sunk the X1 until MS patched it up by removing it entirely. Consumers didn't want to pay extra for Kinect. Publishers weren't going to sink much money into supporting a feature only 1 of the 2 big consoles had

It had tradeoffs in input lag and accuracy compared to a standard controller which limited its appeal in today's games.

Everyone at the store had fun trying it out. But after the novelty wore off, reality set in and consumers moved on. IT wasn't the next coming.

I see a ton of parallels to VR.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Bob Johnson on 9th October 2015 9:20pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Steve Peterson Marketing Consultant 3 years ago
I've talked to several developers working on VR titles, and they all say the same thing -- VR requires rethinking many basic parts of game design, such as on-screen interface and basic interaction (when there's quite a variety of control options). They're all excited, but there's an amazing amount of work to be done. Really great software could be available right away... or it might not appear for months, or even years. Software that's so compelling that thousands or millions of people will buy the hardware may not appear soon -- or ever.

There is great potential for VR, but when it will turn into a market where a developer can make a good profit on a VR title is a huge question. Not in 2016, I'd say. Maybe not even in 2017. So we'll need to see a lot of investment by very patient people before this becomes a large market.
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
We agree @Steve – the opportunities and the issues all need serious consideration by conventional game developers entering the virtual arena. Game play duration is one such issue, consideration for player comfort and experience intensity, all aspects of design development for this new medium.

It is interesting to think that the jump-cut nature of modern children cartoon television would be totally bewildering to a child brought up in the 1970- the market matures and the medium evolves. VR (or in my case Mixed Reality) technology will usher in the same realization.

For me however, there are a number of issues for new developers that will have to cut their teeth on supporting VR in this latest phase. Many had already committed at the time of DK2 (2014) and have wandered a long and expensive path to wait for the 2016 release. Some were unable to make this arduous trip falling at the wayside. I just hope the VR HMD manufacturers know how much they owe those that have supported this latest phase of adoption!
3Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Nick Parker Consultant 3 years ago
Triangulating a number of industry analysts forecasts, by the end of 2016, there could be 3 million VR headsets (all devices) for gaming in homes on a global basis then rising to 30 to 40 million by 2020. Small fry compared to consoles installed bases.
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Julian Williams Founder, WIZDISH Ltd.3 years ago
@Richard. Well said. Just as a footnote, the space issue, inability to walk any distance and cable management are all dealt with very neatly by a well designed locomotion platform.
The Wells Fargo VR developers have just sent us this:

As you can see those problems are easily dealt with. Sitting down when you're supposed to be walking is bad VR, as is pressing a button to navigate.
Anyone going to WIRED 2015 this week can give it a try!
0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Justin Biddle Software Developer 3 years ago
It solves the problem of movement and space but it doesn't really solve the problem of if your average consumer is willing to have the giant skeleton of a dalek in the middle of their living room. It is definitely not an easy thing to store by the looks of it no matter how much it may fold down.
2Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
Julian Williams Founder, WIZDISH Ltd.3 years ago
The base is around a yard (.9m) in diameter by the same height. The crucial thing is that it only weighs 14Kg so if it's in the way it's no more inconvenient to move than a chair. The box is 96cm square by 12cm (5") deep and will fit under a single bed.

Something that may not be obvious is that VR is going to need a containment frame anyway. Even the marvellous Valve HTC Vive demos need a minder, which you don't tend to think about at trade shows. Another thing to look out for is how much people move their heads and bodies when using VR. If the main movement is their fingers on a gamepad then most buyers will decide to stick with a playing on a monitor. VR is about adding physicality.

In terms of adoption I think people can find the money so long as the overall product experience is worth it. During these early adopter days that's what we all need to concentrate on.

some other thoughts..

The thing to remember about walking is that you're not normally aware of doing it so any attempt to simulate it should put that first and foremost.

If you look at the very last clip of that video the girl isn't saying "Wow, cool tech", she couldn't give a hoot about the kit, all she knows is that she enjoyed it. As many smart people have pointed out: VR will have succeeded once the tech is no longer important.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Julian Williams on 14th October 2015 12:00pm

0Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply
John Sibson Solutions Architect - Software Developer, Holovis International3 years ago
@Wesley is more or less heading in that direction.

As for the VR and Kinect comparison, I think that's fairly shortsighted. And you're comparing an entire field of visualization and interaction to a single device.

Seeing as VR technology is still being developed, it hasn't had nearly enough time to be exploited and fully understood by developers. So we're more than likely going to see plenty of rubbish games and other applications which fail to use VR devices properly within the first few years and maybe just a handful of gems. I think the Kinect is an example of some cool tech which has been implemented poorly in some games, or just used in uninteresting ways.

If we're patient, and I don't think it will take too long, we'll start to see applications and games which are worth our time and don't feel like a gimmick.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by John Sibson on 14th October 2015 1:25pm

1Sign inorRegisterto rate and reply

Sign in to contribute

Need an account? Register now.