More details here: https://uploadvr.com/palmer-luckey-truly-mainstream/
Original blog post: http://palmerluckey.com/free-isnt-cheap-enough/
Last edited:
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Palmer Luckey: ‘No imminent VR hardware is good enough to go truly mainstream’
- Thread starter Deleted member 15428
- Start date
Original blog post: http://palmerluckey.com/free-isnt-cheap-enough/
I really think the all in one wireless solutions are the best fit for the mainstream. Vive obviously gives you a much better experience but being tied to the pricetag of an expensive PC really keeps it from becoming anything more than something for enthusiasts.
OP
OP
Maybe but it's no iPhone. Now that's truly mainstream
While playing some games with Vive and others is impressive, it's really not there to be a really satisfying VR experience. The resolution needs to be way higher to remove the screen door effect, but at the same time it would increase the hardware demands by another huge factor.
But the most important thing is imho that there are absolutely no system seller games. Most are some enjoyable minigames/experiences that you can play for an hour or two, but nothing really stands out as something that you play over and over again. I guess mostly because of having no satisfying way to move as a player.
My biggest wish for VR would be that they should invest in threedimensional treadmills to build a full VR experience where you can really move. But that would add more costs for the customers, so maybe the future of VR are intense VR experiences at arcades and not at home
But the most important thing is imho that there are absolutely no system seller games. Most are some enjoyable minigames/experiences that you can play for an hour or two, but nothing really stands out as something that you play over and over again. I guess mostly because of having no satisfying way to move as a player.
My biggest wish for VR would be that they should invest in threedimensional treadmills to build a full VR experience where you can really move. But that would add more costs for the customers, so maybe the future of VR are intense VR experiences at arcades and not at home
The point is that it's not good enough for mainstream and PSVR is clearly the weakling compared to the other two.
Neither were the people saying the same thing two and a half years ago.
You can give millions of VR gear and games away to people for free, but if the experience is just a novelty (or frustration) that quickly wears out in a few days, it doesn't matter how much it was. More people would try it out, but if there's no retention, it's a zero-sum. It might be better now than in the 90s, but the situation isn't too terribly different when you compare it to the rest of our contemporary technology. VR won't be ready for mainstream for at least another decade.
Last edited:
Well, most people haven't read the article so don't understand what he is trying to say. There are lots of people using VR on phones, etc, but those people aren't staying or paying money for many apps, etc. Those users aren't helping build an ecosystem. Basically, if the hardware was super cheap but not very good, that isn't what will help VR right now, which is why he is saying it is very worth improving the current tech, even if it gets overall less users to buy right now.
By mainstream he means everyone using it regularly, not for a few seconds to try it out or show a friend once. So free entry wouldn't really help unless it was good enough to make people stay and keep using. Wouldn't matter if everyone had it.
Yeah I agree with the statement. VR wows people initially, but all the technical limitations and most titles being nothing more than fancy tech demos or low budget experiences means it won't take off in the mainstream for now and people either sell their device or it collects dust.
We need what was shown in the Oculus direct show, but that tech could still be 4 years away and might not even be wireless. Ie, high resolution lenses with foveated rendering so a crazy gpu isn't required, inside out tracking with near flawless 6 dof controls, very wide FOV with no annoying God rays, 100% wireless, and mechanical lens shifting for quick, sharp focusing. That will be a true next gen experience. But of course the second part of the equation is also having compelling titles, which is an issue with a small user base.
We need what was shown in the Oculus direct show, but that tech could still be 4 years away and might not even be wireless. Ie, high resolution lenses with foveated rendering so a crazy gpu isn't required, inside out tracking with near flawless 6 dof controls, very wide FOV with no annoying God rays, 100% wireless, and mechanical lens shifting for quick, sharp focusing. That will be a true next gen experience. But of course the second part of the equation is also having compelling titles, which is an issue with a small user base.
Weakling in what way, power?
Do we know which VR device has sold the most to date?
Sure, I read the whole sentence but I think that even with big investments that's an unrealistic prediction (even as a "ultimate ceiling").
For me:
1. The fact that not everyone (Including me) can't use VR at all or long periods of time because of health reasons (something that is constantly ignored here and nearly everywhere else despite it being an very important factor and for those who say "They don't deserve it, they should be left behind!", the people peddling 3DTV said the same thing and look at them now, almost like ignoring the concerns of a big part of your potential consumer base is a bad thing)
2. The price
3. The lack of connivance not helped by many games insisting on motion controls (again another thing that's tied to health issues) and it's hardcore fan constantly insisting that room space (you know that thing most people don't have access to) standing up is the "future" when all I want to do is lie on my couch and play SC6 while eating toffee crisps. Again why should I have to go out of my way to set something up and do convoluted motions to do the same thing a button does.
4. The fact that many people don't want to lose out on games just because of VR means AAA devs aren't going to make their high end major releases games VR exclusive.
Even if we got to Holodeck levels their still would be problems like the health issues and issues of people with physical disabilities and the fact that I don't want to play something like Street Fighter by actually getting beating up by Juri Han but want to play it passively and so much of this it's "the future, this should be the only way to play games, every other form must die!" attitude is ridiculous like when Executives declare "single player is dead!" (Hell even Star Trek showed regular gaming still existed in a world with Holodecks).
1. The fact that not everyone (Including me) can't use VR at all or long periods of time because of health reasons (something that is constantly ignored here and nearly everywhere else despite it being an very important factor and for those who say "They don't deserve it, they should be left behind!", the people peddling 3DTV said the same thing and look at them now, almost like ignoring the concerns of a big part of your potential consumer base is a bad thing)
2. The price
3. The lack of connivance not helped by many games insisting on motion controls (again another thing that's tied to health issues) and it's hardcore fan constantly insisting that room space (you know that thing most people don't have access to) standing up is the "future" when all I want to do is lie on my couch and play SC6 while eating toffee crisps. Again why should I have to go out of my way to set something up and do convoluted motions to do the same thing a button does.
4. The fact that many people don't want to lose out on games just because of VR means AAA devs aren't going to make their high end major releases games VR exclusive.
Even if we got to Holodeck levels their still would be problems like the health issues and issues of people with physical disabilities and the fact that I don't want to play something like Street Fighter by actually getting beating up by Juri Han but want to play it passively and so much of this it's "the future, this should be the only way to play games, every other form must die!" attitude is ridiculous like when Executives declare "single player is dead!" (Hell even Star Trek showed regular gaming still existed in a world with Holodecks).
Well duh. You have a piece of equipment that already sets you back $200-300+ from the jump. Then comes the price of games and actually having to set everything up. The only way VR becomes "mainstream", is you would have to lower the entry cost and make equipment that's easy to set up and use. Him saying that VR wouldn't become mainstream even if it were free is just asinine though.
It doesn't need to go mainstream immediately. As long as it continues to grow rather than die out, then VR is doing just fine.
He says unreasonable investments, and that they wouldn't be the best place to put the money anyway. Basically saying that he too thinks it is very unrealistic, but would be the absolute best possibility.
Basically he says what you said, but you quoted it like he said it was gonna happen.
Last edited:
I'm an Oculus owner, and he's not wrong. Really liked this part of the quote. They need to not try and make attempts for artificial mainstream adoption, but focus on the hardware and software. Improve the value proposition so it makes its own case.
In 2014 he said Oculus will be mainstream in 5 years, in 2015 he said "they will become mainstream when they drop under $100, just like smartphones today"... I always thought that price alone was oversimplifying the hurdles way too much. Now his $0 comment is taking it a bit far but it's also a very unrealistic scenario as nobody will be giving away a technological impressive VR set-up for nothing anyway. That aside I don't really think there is much weight in anything the dude is saying in regards to VR, despite his Oculus creator status that he has. He managed to promote a way of creating a VR set-up that was at all affordable to "common folks" using available everyday smartphone tech and to me that's basically the end of it, everything else he is saying and predicting is as reliable as the guess of any random VR enthusiast on the internet.
Reads to me like he sorta learned the lesson the hard way. The excitement of making something so different and new is gone, and now that the headsets are out in the wild people have a better understanding of the things actually holding them back. He isn't really wrong here IMO. The technology will have to actually wow people and not be so cumbersome before it will be used regularly in mainstream, it just isn't there yet. What is here now is something for the technology geeks and the curious. It's cool, but not cool cool.
Nah, I'm for this. Palmer Luckey can go fuck himself. I don't particularly care what he has to say regarding the VR ecosystem and I don't think people should be shielded from the consequences of their actions, so yeah, I'd like to not see his goddamn name as though he still has some unique viewpoint or anything of value to contribute to the continued growth of a platform that has long since left him behind.
Regardless if you don't find his comments insightful, other people do, and part of the value of having a doscussion thread about this particular piece is to educate people who fail to comprehend what his comments even mean.
Totally necessary.
Fuck Palmer Luckey, and everything he stands for.
you never know with new tech...t the start mobile phones were considered expensive commodities that only people that had the need to be reacheable at any time for job purposes invested into...now everyone has 1 or 2.
sure it took time and the tech had to evolve accoridngly, but you never know how a new technology will develop.
but it's also true that it has not experienced the huge growth that some people expected.
If you're failing to see the irony in having a discussion thread in which you complain about relevant discussion, well...
If people want to discuss the comments themselves, they are clearly welcome to. But people pointing out that this person has a fairly horrible worldview and that he no longer contributes anything of value to the VR ecosystem is also very much in play.
True. VR ist inconvenient.
-I have to change my glasses for lenses.
-All headsets are long term uncomfortable
-Even after using VR for a year I regularly get motion sick during some games
-you have to stand for most games, which I don't want to do after being on my feet for 8 hours at work.
-even the best screens are still do not have a high enough pixel density
-it is so hot under those masks. Especially during summer. Sweat is running into my eyes.
-cables and sensors everywhere
All that said:
If it works... It's on another level of gaming.
Played star trek bridge crew with friends. That was a mind changing experience. Hands down, the best gaming experience I had this generation.
-I have to change my glasses for lenses.
-All headsets are long term uncomfortable
-Even after using VR for a year I regularly get motion sick during some games
-you have to stand for most games, which I don't want to do after being on my feet for 8 hours at work.
-even the best screens are still do not have a high enough pixel density
-it is so hot under those masks. Especially during summer. Sweat is running into my eyes.
-cables and sensors everywhere
All that said:
If it works... It's on another level of gaming.
Played star trek bridge crew with friends. That was a mind changing experience. Hands down, the best gaming experience I had this generation.
I just fear that by the time VR could become mainstream, something else like AR (or a new tech altogether) takes its place instead. But we'll see.