Any of you actually buying it at this launch price?
They said it would be in the neighborhood of $350.
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
With that money, I can buy a console and a load of games for it or even build myself a nice gaming pc.
That's a better use of $599.
Not unless I'll find some way to try it first. No way I'm paying that much unless I find it amazing.
At 1/7/16 10:35 AM, SmartyPants wrote: With that money, I can buy a console and a load of games for it or even build myself a nice gaming pc.
That's a better use of $599.
As long as display and peripherals are out of the picture, you really could get yourself a decent PC for $600 I agree.
Probably $300 of it goes towards the GPU. If you can squeeze it to $350 or $400 without hamstringing some other component then you're golden.
That said, just like TotalBiscuit said, $700 is a normal expected price for a high end display. My three displays were $700 each and they're 1440p * 144 Hz.
To me the deciding factors are:
-they will definitely lower price later
-oculus has given strong indications they want to create a console war with exclusive titles. and if they are making first moves in that arena, i won't give them a cent until they have a lineup that is absolutely stellar. same reason i STILL haven't bought a PS4 but am close and likely will with uncharted 4
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
Not for that price. You need a real high spec computer to run the oculus (I think they said from scratch (ie no pc) to having an oculus machine you would need to spend $1500), might be better off waiting for the vive which will ship with a controller designed for VR.
illicit makes a damn good signature.
At 1/8/16 04:55 AM, iMini wrote: Not for that price. You need a real high spec computer to run the oculus (I think they said from scratch (ie no pc) to having an oculus machine you would need to spend $1500), might be better off waiting for the vive which will ship with a controller designed for VR.
Not to mention Occulus are telling me my USB's (which are standard USB 3's from a very popular and expensive motherboard) and my 3930k CPU are insufficient.
Gotta be kidding me on both accounts.
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
Fuck that shit. I'll stick with my PS4..
Fuck that, $600 for a pair of goggles with an accelerometer?
I'll pass. It's a gimmick now and if it stays at that ridiculous price, it'll be a resounding failure purchased primarily by Pewdiepie wannabes.
"Death upon death... Nothing but death in this barren land. Who can we pray to? There are only demons and fiends here."
~The Journal of a Man Who Wandered into Another World
That is WAY to much to pay for a (albeit kind of cool) novelty gadget. I can buy a half decent computer for that price.
This is where I wrote something funny
At 1/9/16 12:31 AM, TOXlCITY wrote: Fuck that, $600 for a pair of goggles with an accelerometer?
I'll pass. It's a gimmick now and if it stays at that ridiculous price, it'll be a resounding failure purchased primarily by Pewdiepie wannabes.
They want to turn it into such a necessary item that people will pay whatever for it.
And the CEO released some comment to the effect of "$600 is more than fair for what it can do and what it brings to the table"
Hey. Fuck you. $600 is way too much, dickhead.
And guess what. Other competitors are on the way. They'll all probably be out this year. And every single one of them will learn from their mistake and charge a reasonable price.
People will flock to the best price point and then those guys will hold the cards.
Oculus has shown signs of wanting to make VR headsets into a console war with exclusives. Turned me off to them right there long before launch.
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
Smart companies know that when you release new tech, you sell it at a manageable loss to get your foot in the door.
"but oculus is just a small tech company they can't afford to sell it at a loss they'll go bankrupt1"
Actually they're run by fascist Facebook. They can afford it.
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
I will give it some time and purchase it when the price drops. $199 - $250 is my sweetspot
I'll let the Youtubers and Tech Bloggers jizz over it for a couple years and see where VR is at once the hype has died down and the corporate passing matches are over. There is absolutely no reason to be an early adopter other than vanity reasons to show off how ahead of the curve you are.
Happy with what you have to be happy with
you have to be happy with what you have
to be happy with you have to be happy with what you have
At 1/9/16 01:59 PM, sharpnova wrote:At 1/9/16 12:31 AM, TOXlCITY wrote: Fuck that, $600 for a pair of goggles with an accelerometer?They want to turn it into such a necessary item that people will pay whatever for it.
I'll pass. It's a gimmick now and if it stays at that ridiculous price, it'll be a resounding failure purchased primarily by Pewdiepie wannabes.
And the CEO released some comment to the effect of "$600 is more than fair for what it can do and what it brings to the table"
Hey. Fuck you. $600 is way too much, dickhead.
To be fair, OLED screens aren't cheap. $600 is probably a reasonable price for the hardware itself but I just can't justify spending more money than a console on a fucking peripheral.
So, yeah, I still agree it's way too much, I've never had trouble immersing myself in a game by using my thumb to control the camera; certainly not enough trouble to justify a $600 add on.
"Death upon death... Nothing but death in this barren land. Who can we pray to? There are only demons and fiends here."
~The Journal of a Man Who Wandered into Another World
Hell no. I don't give a fuck about VR and I only have a GTX 660 Ti.
At 1/9/16 04:48 PM, Jercurpac wrote: I'll let the Youtubers and Tech Bloggers jizz over it for a couple years and see where VR is at once the hype has died down and the corporate passing matches are over. There is absolutely no reason to be an early adopter other than vanity reasons to show off how ahead of the curve you are.
I always say this. Stupid tech fanboys who adopt tech right away and think it's great and defend it.. and don't admit it sucks and it was a shit purchase until months or years later.
They lost money doing it. Gained nothing but looking like a moronic hipster.
I will buy this when a better version comes out. There will probably be some take two on this shit that will have higher res screens or something and a better price hopefully.
And more exclusive "must play" titles.
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
At 1/7/16 02:43 AM, sharpnova wrote: Any of you actually buying it at this launch price?
Remember the time when the 3DO console released and it costs ~$700? Well, a FIVE-HUNDRED-NINETY-NINE US DOLLARS, FIVE-HUNDRED-NINETY-NINE US DOLLARS, FIVE-HUNDRED-NINETY-NINE US DOLLAR PC peripheral felt like a ripoff to me. It's just 2 screens with some witchcraft inside of it.. with a headstrap. TL;DR Answer: Nope.
Time to bust a move and get it started. Time's wastin'.
-Mace 2.0
not me, my gtx 770 doesn't cut it and i can't afford the upgrade at this moment. plus, the canadian dollar is weak as shit so factor all of this together and it comes to around $1400
i'll wait for pascal, see what the other vr competition will offer and then i'll make a move
They've pretty much disqualified themselves from the VR race with this move. Vive and Morpheus are the top players now. The only way VR can take off is through affordable pricing. No one is going to invest this much in what could easily just be a fad that'll die in a couple of years.
At 1/11/16 01:29 PM, Jackho wrote: could easily just be a fad that'll die in a couple of years.
Not sure if I agree with this bit. I'm almost certain that increasingly immersive VR is the future for pretty much everything, not just gaming.
Think about it this way: One of my plans when I have a VR headset is to simulate a redirection of GPU output. So I could have, in the VR, 6 displays. I just look around with my head to look at them the way I would outside of VR.
So now I paid $500 (at most) for a VR headset and I got thousands worth of displays.
Resolution would be the only limiting factor.. but it's been proven that the human eye can't see above 6 fps or a resolution higher than 640x480
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
At 1/12/16 09:44 PM, sharpnova wrote: Not sure if I agree with this bit. I'm almost certain that increasingly immersive VR is the future for pretty much everything, not just gaming.
There is a lot of potential but it could just as easily never catch on for mainstream consumers
Think about it this way: One of my plans when I have a VR headset is to simulate a redirection of GPU output. So I could have, in the VR, 6 displays. I just look around with my head to look at them the way I would outside of VR.
I just can't see it working that well compared to regular monitors. Having to sit in front of multiple screens for hours can be nauseating as is without having one screen pressed right into your face. The eye fatigue would be unreal.
but it's been proven that the human eye can't see above 6 fps or a resolution higher than 640x480
was that a joke fam
At 1/13/16 06:58 AM, Jackho wrote: There is a lot of potential but it could just as easily never catch on for mainstream consumers
Short run sure. Long run... def not.
I just can't see it working that well compared to regular monitors. Having to sit in front of multiple screens for hours can be nauseating as is without having one screen pressed right into your face. The eye fatigue would be unreal.
The eye fatigue wouldn't be any different from normal. Eye fatigue (muscle fatigue) isn't caused by the amount of light hitting the eye. It's the strain of the muscles. Your brain will see things in VR as far away as they would be irl. Also eye fatigue is mostly bullshit anyway.
I don't really think there'd be much of a difference between real monitors and VR monitors other than the resolution which I'm already aware of but you didn't mention. To give sharp 1080p resolution in a simulated display that you're not right up to, the VR device's display will need to have at least 2x that linear resolution (2160p) But that can't be that far off. The pixel density of smartphones is already ridiculous.
was that a joke fam
No. Play a video at 6 fps. Then at 24 fps. There's no discernible difference. It takes a super computer doing insane image processing to determine, by sight, that there's any difference.
Also 640x480 resolution looks the same as 4k. Compare 4k media to DVD media, you'll see they look exactly the same.
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
At 1/13/16 08:20 AM, sharpnova wrote: No. Play a video at 6 fps. Then at 24 fps. There's no discernible difference. It takes a super computer doing insane image processing to determine, by sight, that there's any difference.
I'm not one to whine about resolutions or framerate but I mean firstly this is a load of garb, videos and animations look very noticeably smoother, but in gaming you can tangibly feel the difference in a drop of just a few frames per second. Metal Gear Solid 2 and 3 feel completely different due to the drop in framerate and the HD version of 3 feels like a whole new game in comparison. When something with Dark Souls' level of tactility can make people feel ill with one area that runs worse than the rest, then you'll need very high and very consistent framerates to make VR bearable.
Also 640x480 resolution looks the same as 4k. Compare 4k media to DVD media, you'll see they look exactly the same.
This is just demonstrably untrue, for films you have to go up to 720p at least until adding more pixels gets futile, depending on the size of the screen and your distance from it. PC monitors generally need to be significantly higher resolution just because of how close you are and VR would need to be higher still. Even still there's a big difference in using six 1080p screens vs. rendering six 1080p displays with an environment around them good enough to not make you vomit.
At 1/13/16 11:36 AM, Jackho wrote:
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I've run my own tests and in all of them I wasn't able to tell the difference between even as low as 4 fps video/gaming and 60 fps other than my gpu's fan getting louder.
Just now I pulled out a VHS cassette and a 4k movie and watched them side by side and it honestly took me awhile to notice any increased detail or sharpness in the 4k and even then I might have been imagining things. They look identical to me.
Try this out and tell me what you think. Put the left on 3 fps and the right on 30 fps.
http://www.supercircuits.com/resources/tools/video-frame-rate-comparison-tool
∀x (∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ∀x ¬(x ∈ e)) ∨ ∃y ¬∃e (e ∈ x ∧ ¬∃z (z ∈ y ∧ z ∈ e ∧ ∀x ¬((x ∈ y ∧ x ∈ e) ∧ ¬(x = z)))))
