Some interesting stats on current VR state

Both Vive and Rift and not being sold here in India as well, I have to make my sister who lives in the US buy it for me and smuggle it back home when I go meet her for the holidays, LOL. Kinda weird considering the DK2 was sold here.

 

In flight sim land there's a general acceptance that the current resolutions available aren't enough. That's not to say it's unusable but for utility it can't compete with a good monitor yet.

In DCS for instance while you can interact with the cockpit people struggle to read the instrument and switch labels. Then there's picking out aircraft at a distance, much better on a decent monitor than in VR. Raising pixel density helps but brings ANY current PC to its knees. So there's a second problem, you need a monster PC to get the most out of it...

A lot of people, me included, are waiting for CV2 or even CV3. £700 is just too much to spend when I'd want the new version within a year (probably) If it was cheaper I might have a punt, but not currently.

 

Well, you buy the level of immersion where it's at. I had no problem waiting till cv1 came out, and when I tried it, I wasn't convinced over my triples. It took me time, and more tryouts, then I bought one thinking I could easily sell it again. Now, I've taken down my triples, well aware of the Rifts limitations. I probably wouldn't have taken down my triples if I drove as much as back in the day, endurance and stuff. For a few hotlaps, short races and just showcasing to friends, VR excels. And that's what I have time for these days.

I most certainly will sell my rift once the next thing comes, preferably 4k/200+ FOV, so already saving for the pc upgrades as well. And I'm staying on my current rig till then, 970 performs fine for my needs (and wallet).

 

Currently, the price of entry for VR on PC is around €2000 (the price of the headset plus decent PC). It is a lot of money for gaming for most people.

Most PC gamers buy €200-300 GPUs and skip one (or even several generations) of GPUs, which means they replace their GPUs about every 3-4 years. GPU generations usually last about 18-24 months. There are so few people who upgrade within a single generation (from 980 to 980Ti for example) that it's as if they did not exist, sales wise, regardless of the fact that, being uber-enthusiasts, they are vastly over represented on the internet.

For most average PC gamers, VR is still very expensive. The price of the entry is extremely relevant to the success of machines. There's a reason why consoles are cheap. The business model is to sell a device very cheaply (and even lose money for a couple of years as production costs decrease) so you have a wide audience to sell your games (and DLCs) to.

VR headsets are currently first generation high tech products, which have always historically been expensive. Compare the price of Full HD TVs in 2005 to now, a Blu Ray player in 2006 to now, or OLED TVs 3 years ago to now.

There's no way around the fact that early adopters pay a huge premium for the privilege of being the first and that big budget VR experiences will only exist in a few years, once (if?) the number of devices on the market is sufficient to justify the cost of development. Industries that require a device first before content can be played on it (so called "two-sided markets" as competition lawyers call them) always have a 1-2 year period during which content is scarce. The fact that VR experiences are currently small budget, quickly developed, expensive experiences is perfectly consistent and there's nothing surprising here.

In other words, nobody anticipated a huge game like GTA or Fallout on VR devices in 2016.

The price of PSVR, combined with the number of PS4s already on the market (when compared to a high end PC plus the cost of a Vive/Rift) may indeed be game changer. The price difference is huge.

PS4 + PS4 VR= roughly €700
vs
high end gaming PC + Rift or Vive = at least €2000

Totally agree with that. Sim racers the perfect target market for VR. Very few categories of gamers are used to spending more than the price of consoles for what is just a peripheral. I'm almost embarassed to answer when my friends who play on consoles try my simracing rig and I have to confess that just my pedals cost the price of a PS4!

You can also see on the forums that simracers are very different from the typical gaming population. The typical simracer is male, older than the typical console gamer and has a lot more disposable income.

***

Anyway, I have mixed feelings about VR. I bought an Oculus Rift 3 months ago because I want the technology to succeed and it won't unless there's early adopters. Although I expected it before buying it, I'm still disappointed by the lack of content and resolution, which are both a lot worse than I thought they would be.

My Oculus Rift is collecting dust as long as I don't replace my SLI system with a hopefully soon to be released 1080Ti. If I had to make the decision again, I would not buy an Oculus Rift and would wait for generation 2 with higher resolution. Hopefully, interesting content (and VR designed GPUs) will be much more common in 2017.

Even though I'm not impressed so far, I still think the VR market will succeed though for several key reasons:

- all big IT companies are investing billions (Google, Facebook, Nvidia, Microsoft, Sony, Samsung...) in it. They're smart people. They usually don't invest billions unless there's a reason.

- the margin to improve content is huge. It's a radically new medium. We haven't scratched the surface of its possibilities. We started video games with Pong, not the Witcher 3. In a year or two, someone will bring a polished / revolutionary must have experience (which by definition is not done in a few months) that the general media will be crazy about. On that day, sales will skyrocket.

- the smartphone industry is pushing like crazy for cheap VR devices and just about everyone has a smartphone.

- cloud computing/gaming/streaming is perfect for (especially portable) VR and this industry is skyrocketing at the same time as VR.

- premium sports contents producers (football, basketball, F1, boxing) will invest a ton in VR because it's a great way to sell a new/premium experience that they can charge a lot for to early adopters who are known to have more disposable income.

- there's already cheap VR headsets (Gear VR for example) so it's almost guaranteed that you will get devices that are at least as good as the Vive/Oculus Rift for less than €200 before 2020.

- two super profitable global industries that usually shape the future of tech industries (video games and porn) are supporting VR.

That's too many factors for VR to fail in my opinion. It just won't be as quick as some had hoped.

 

Some of the projections made around VR were ridiculously optimistic to begin with and adoption and development of content and hardware have both been much slower than anticipated. VR is still in the "Baby Steps" of early evolution and some people are lining up to take turns pounding the last nail in it's coffin and yelling "I told you so" from the rooftops. Of course, this is nothing new, it's just human nature and the natural ebb and flow of things in general.

VR and AR are going to really gain momentum in the broader market when the social aspects are more fleshed out and the cost is lower. Right now, those of us exploring VR in Sim-Racing are a niche within a niche within a niche. Still, it takes more than just demand to push the VR rope, there needs to be bold developers, investors, inventors, and a lot more to pull it from the other end. We are fortunate enough to have such developers so bold as Kunos, SMS, iRacing and Scawen to lead the way.

Investing in VR-support now requires understanding that it's a long-term one with any tangible payback being years away at best but; if you ever wonder what people that are financially successful know that others don't, it's that there's no reward without risk and hind-sight is 20/20. Most people trust their hind-sight more than their fore-sight, especially when it comes to money so it's no surprise that so many adopt a "wait & see" attitude with something like VR.

 

Five months ago, almost to the day, I posted https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/i...-play-game-designer.31615/page-54#post-664511 in the let's play game designer thread in response to someone who said "VR support is the only feature on that list that will increase AC sales." The short version of what I posted was, VR support in AC will not increase AC sales, VR support in AC may increase HMD sales ,slightly, if at all, but, by all means, add VR support to AC for some other reason than expecting to increase sales of AC. Suffice to say, numbers like 0.18% and 0.10% for Vive and Oculus respectively look mighty impressive when compared to, for instance, the amount of support my opinion got in that thread.

I wonder, the vocal minority that use questionable justifications to get "what they want" - do they ever do the math at the end of the day and realize just how far off the mark they were? Do they even care? Or do they say things like...

...or...

...or...

...to keep the dream alive? What's wrong with just accepting the truth for what it is?

PS: I think, @Jaye, that you need to up the sarcasm level a notch or two in order to turn this...

...into this...

80,000 people bought AC in the last two weeks because Kunos added VR support.

 

I think the key mistake that is constantly (but understandably) being made with guesstimates as to how popular a device/equipment is base your guesstimate on what you read in simracing forums.

The very fact you're posting here makes you a niche (active posters) within a niche (simracers who own or at least are interested in AC) within a minority (PC gamers interested in VR in 2016) within a quite common community (racing games enthusiasts) within a wide population (gamers, including console gamers). It's more levels than Inception!

Saying than 0.2% of people posting in the PC section of Assetto Corsa's forum want a feature is basically saying that a few hundred people (thousands at best) are concerned. Just because there's long threads about VR here does not mean people play AC in VR. You're probably in the minority if you're using a €200 wheel already, even on PC!

Honestly, we're even lucky that Kunos has worked on VR at all. They're probably doing it because Stefano is interested technically and they see it as the future but I doubt it's profitable for them to spend much time on it, at least today.

 

It's good that there are people who have visions and believe in something and are willing to take some risks. Otherwise we wouldn't have evolution and still live in the trees...

 

people just don't want to play job simulators in vr.... wait for actual games for vr and people will buy...

 

I only wanted to say that the numbers are very vague and not very representative cause VR is still expensive early adopter stuff with a very big lack of content.

Kunos helps me a lot with alpha VR support because I still can resist Same like Microsoft with their Hololens price and this device was already on my head.

VR and AR is awesome, but also a final product is nothing without proper content. No doubt that both will become a huge market one day.

 

I doubt anyone developing for VR is really turning a profit at this point; if that was the only thing driving VR development - it would be a non-starter. VR is about so much more than just money and gaming, certainly much less Sim-Racing. Even though VR and Sim-racing make pretty ideal partners right now, the bigger picture shows so much more potential for other uses far and away from gaming altogether; the gaming aspect is just one tiny market for VR in the long term.

VR, AR and mobile variations will be used in so many new ways in the future, it'll boggle the mind in a decade or two. It's already being used in science, medical and treatment facilities with remarkable success. In terms of VR gaming, it's way, way too early to be making any claims regarding it's success or failure; we should re-visit this in 5-10 years and then maybe, we'll have some proper data to consider.

Food for thought: How VR is Changing the World

 

What's wrong with living in the trees? Looks better than my apartment!

 

Tree houses are awesome

 

I bet car seles weren't that good five months after the first ones were available to the public. So everyone should have just gave up until somehow magically the technology would get better without anyone building new cars because the first one wasn't as good as a car is today?
Makes sense to me.

 

I think VR will take off once they start demoing VR headsets in mainstream shops. VR is fairly unique in that it can't be advertised effectively without trying it out for yourself. I love my Rift and would not want to be without it for playing AC and then there is the..ahem...adult stuff which is just something else!

 

I remember the early 90s... Cellphones ("car phones" at the time) ran about $800 (in 1990 money) and with so few towers to carry the signals, there were only a few places they even worked outside of urban areas.

Given the high price of entry and lack of substantial infrastructure, it's pretty obvious why cellphones never caught on. An expensive gadget for a tiny niche.



Trying to judge the success of VR at this time is foolish at best. No, I don't expect it to ever be as ubiquitous as cellphones are today, but it's way too early to render any kind of verdict.

 

Isn't the official retail launch date for Oculus something like 20th Sept in the UK? I know I'm still getting preorder messages and offers from Oculus and I didn't actually preorder I waited until they had stock.

Steam knows if you have a VR headset no doubt about that.

VR as it stands is an incredible experience, AC VR is good, pCARS is visually clearer, DCS world is amazing and better than real flight sims of just a few years ago, DiRT Rally is mind bending and still makes me feel ill, War Thunder (terribile PTW game) has stomach testing depth perception (wait until you get shot down!), Elite Dangerous is mesmerising. The rest of the VR games are forgettable.

Oculus has more space in the headset for those who wear glasses imo. If you don't care about, or have the room for, Vive Roomscale and only want the Sim type experience Oculus provides a that a little bit cheaper.

I'd buy Oculus again just for the reactions of those who try it for the first time.

 

That´s not a universal truth. Brazil, for example, which is widely known for its big gaming community, but one thing that differentiate us from the rest of the world is our usurper import taxes. We could already have got into VR, as we´re all very much willing to, if only the headset piece cost no more than $499 altogether (including shipping). Starting from $500, we pay ~50% to 100% the price tag in import taxes, making it impossibly expensive. IMO, $299 is a reasonable price for a VR headset and is the price I´m willing to pay and no more. $599 for early entrants, as we screamed a while back when the price was announced, is a complete rip off, specially when it´s still barely supported by most games and its a price that excluded most of south american market from VR instantly.

 

The simple facts are that currently more speaks against paying these insane prices (devices plus robust system), than speaks for it. What would speak for it, are three reasons, and none of these three reasons are given, currently:

1. Prices must drop. Dramatically.

2. Systems capable to use them must be forming a greater share of the market. If people must not only pay the VR headsets, but also for a new system, this makes costs even more deterring.

3. Quality and quantity in game titles making use of VR must go up. Too much tech demo out there, currently.

It reminds me a bit of the situation with 3D movies and 3D TVs a couple fo years ago. A big hype, and every movie was said to now be produced in 3D, and 3D TVs were the thing to buy. But truth was: the quality of movies went into a steep decline since instead on story they tend to focus on arranging scene after scene in a way best suitable to maximise the demonstration of 3D effects. And people at home, families, couples, did not wish to sit together wearing stupid shutter glasses, although these are lightyears better than the old green-red-glasses from the 60s, 70s and 80s experiments. Today, the number of blockbusters and movies shot in 3D has gone back dramatically, and the number of new 3D movies on DVD also have dramatically declined. And who knows somebody who recently used shutter glasses for his movie on his 3D TV...?

Too early to say the war is lost - but this latest in a series of opening battles over the past 20 years, again has stalled down faster than expected. The only rescue plan: prices must drop. Quickly, and signficantly. Else its game over. Question is whether business is ready to read this message as what it is. Aggressive pricing of VR headsets - coupled with a visible drop of prices in sufficient gfx boards and system hardware. To wait until the non-sufficient hardware systems have been phased out by users by "natural" means, probably is no option. Rigs like mine are still in heavy use around the globe (see my sig). It runs smooth and stable and reliable, and I do not intend to replace it with a new one only because VR headsets costs 150 bucks. I bet there are very many users who do reason like I do, or who simply cannot afford or are not willing to waste their money carelessly.

I just got a new, fast notebook for running Linux, btw, to get even more independant from Windows 7. Many people are pissed by MS due to the events of the last 18 months. Guess how eager we are to invest into stuff that once again bases on Windows and increases our dependency on it. You better have very damn good arguments and quality points to make us seriously considering that! And people like me, allergic to W10, then also depend on hardware that is new, capable - and can be adressed by W7, still.

I would prefer to see AC on Linux before getting into VR myself any time.

 

3D is shoved into every new TV set these day, you essentially get it for free, but that doesn't make 3D more popular.
You missed one bullet point in your list, that should be in the first place. First of all, VR headsets technology must mature, it's just not there yet for masses to replace convenience and higher resolution eye candy of traditional monitors, esp. 4k.