Nice! Let's see Vive follow the price to $499 then!

VR is dead people, relax. It will only be used on dedicated Arcade places, for home users is dead.

Prima.VeraVR is dead people, relax. It will only be used on dedicated Arcade places, for home users is dead.

It would be nice if it brought a real revival of arcades. That's my first love all things gaming... or hell, all things computers really.

Prima.VeraVR is dead people, relax. It will only be used on dedicated Arcade places, for home users is dead.

....yeah I must have missed something....was all the rage and then seem like someone just flipped the off switch. Its success would made the desktop ultra relevant again. Crap I used the word ultra... Nothing since Ultraman with ultra connected to it will be successful......only thing that came close was that toothpaste....ultrabrite

I dunno, I love my Rift, and my wife likes it too.

Prima.VeraVR is dead people, relax. It will only be used on dedicated Arcade places, for home users is dead.

Far from dead.

ensabrenoir....yeah I must have missed something....was all the rage and then seem like someone just flipped the off switch. Its success would made the desktop ultra relevant again. Crap I used the word ultra... Nothing since Ultraman with ultra connected to it will be successful......only thing that came close was that toothpaste....ultrabrite

Transformational technology takes time to develop and accept. This is far different from say the iPhone. This is akin to the mobile market in the early 2000's. The iPhone of VR is still far away.

How on earth is VR dead? I'd like to know, I mean if you're talking about google earth VR then maybe :P

Prima.VeraVR is dead people, relax. It will only be used on dedicated Arcade places, for home users is dead.

Gotta disagree.
It's like crypto, slow start but will eventually suck away resources from traditional game development.

The problem with VR is it's need for space. As long as you don't play something where the character is bound to a fix point you need space to move. A lot. You have to manage cables and such and if you think you go wireless, then you get the battery to look after. Currently -for home gaming- VR is only superior in fixed player scenarios ie simulators. Flying, racing, driving and all the cases where the player itself does not move but the platform/vehicle it's "mounted" on.

Kohl BaasThe problem with VR is it's need for space. As long as you don't play something where the character is bound to a fix point you need space to move. A lot. You have to manage cables and such and if you think you go wireless, then you get the battery to look after. Currently -for home gaming- VR is only superior in fixed player scenarios ie simulators. Flying, racing, driving and all the cases where the player itself does not move but the platform/vehicle it's "mounted" on.

How does that Batman title play? The original had a lot of character moves. If I have to stand around emulating all the kicks, throws, and punches, I'm not sure I'd like it (this goes without mentioning the space issues you mentioned). Part of the gaming experience IS buttons and keys and whatnot. Making it more realistic isn't necessarily fun.

The other thing is that focusing on simulation encourages some of the most unimaginative "game" designers. Games aren't necessarily meant to simulate anything. Games are more about pattern recognition. If they had started off on this VR paradigm, we wouldn't have ever had a falling barrel in donkey kong or timing your jumps in Metroid or a boss battle in Dark Souls. Simulation gets in the way of designers coming up with patterns that are the actual ingredient to "fun". Racing is the only thing off of the top of my head that incorporates both simulation and pattern based gameplay (getting the feel of speed and timing your turns).