I created this petition for the big companies to make cheaper and more practical versions of their Virtual Reality headsets, with all the useless "augmented reality" stuff removed, ie. leaving them only with the stereo display and head tracking. The "augmented reality" capabilities are way too niche, limit game design too much, is impractical (because it requires a large room space, and rearranging the room), and can even cause accidents and property damage when people stumble onto furniture and trip over. And all this only makes the virtual reality headsets more expensive.
If you agree with the petition, feel free to sign and share.
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/cheaper-virtual-reality-headsets-without-augmented
Since you created this petition I want to ask you personally Warp:
Did you try out a Virtual Reality headset with all the useless argumented reality features yourself?
I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just wondering if you can support your opinion with your own experiences.
Warning: Might glitch to creditsI will finish this ACE soon as possible
(or will I?)
Since you created this petition I want to ask you personally Warp:
Did you try out a Virtual Reality headset with all the useless argumented reality features yourself?
I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm just wondering if you can support your opinion with your own experiences.
I have used the Oculus Rift development kit version 1, but other than that, no, I haven't tried the retail versions of any of these new VR headsets.
I am basing my opinion on demonstration videos and critical reviews, as well as articles like this one. Reading that article is very illuminating because it reveals something I see as a problem with emphasizing the Augmented Reality portions of the headsets too much: It is giving people the false impression that AR is the only way to use the headset (as seems to be the case with the author of that article.) In other words, that you must rearrange your room and give space for all the tracking sensors and for yourself to move in a specified area, for the device to work. Many critics are in fact comparing it to the infamous Kinect, with all of its problems (requires a lot of space, is inconvenient and sometimes impractical because of it, and sometimes has even resulted in accidents with people hurting themselves, or property damage.)
While I recognize that probably the most expensive part of a VR headset is its display, I still think that these companies have spent way too much development time on the augmented reality features, which can be seen in the higher price of the device. And the major problem with this is that the augmented reality features are pretty much useless from a gamer's point of view (because nobody will be playing games for hours by standing up and walking around inside a room.)
My petition is for them to develop a more bare-bones version, a version optimized for practical games, existing games (such as Half-Life 2, the Portal series, the Doom series, and so on), which would hopefully be cheaper for the end consumer. We really don't need the ancillary augmented reality stuff. Stereo vision and head tracking is enough.
I was going to chime in and stay "start a business / make a product" but Bisquit was far ahead of me with that post. So instead, I'll elaborate on points made in your previous post.
Warp wrote:
I am basing my opinion on demonstration videos and critical reviews
That's fine. You're free to start a petition as you have, but think about this practically: you aren't the first to have this thought and if you were, people aligning with your viewpoint don't exist in numbers. There maybe grumbling, but there is no large outcry. But let's say there's a missing market here. Start a business based on this opinion. If others feel the way you do, maybe you can get what you want and make some money.
Warp wrote:
While I recognize that probably the most expensive part of a VR headset is its display, I still think that these companies have spent way too much development time on the augmented reality features, which can be seen in the higher price of the device.
Then don't buy them.
Warp wrote:
And the major problem with this is that the augmented reality features are pretty much useless from a gamer's point of view
You may think so. I disagree. But how you have framed your argument, you are arguing your opinion as fact. I want to call this out.
(Oh, and what is "pretty much?" Perhaps you are admitting defeat already?)
But let's imagine you are right: perhaps, then, gaming isn't the primary goal of this class of product? Perhaps the industry intends with these products to, I don't know, develop the state of the art. Maybe it is to enable new applications for immersive AR. Maybe these applications have nothing to do with gaming. This doesn't disqualify your use case, but if the market is not delivering it, maybe you can do something more substantive about it?
As a tip: this has been done before. While not as immersive as today's technology, each time, it failed in the gaming space. Research and creativity dominate gut opinion on these products today. If you aren't interested in what's out there, and seriously feel a niche isn't being filled, create a product that fills the niche.
Warp wrote:
My petition is for them to develop a more bare-bones version, a version optimized for practical games, existing games (such as Half-Life 2, the Portal series, the Doom series, and so on), which would hopefully be cheaper for the end consumer. We really don't need the ancillary augmented reality stuff. Stereo vision and head tracking is enough.
Keep in mind that the industry does not agree with you about your requirements.
I honestly can't understand what your point is. You seem to be saying that it's a stupid idea to petition these companies to make a cheaper version of their product that would be more practical for the average gamer.
These VR headsets were from the very beginning aimed at videogames, and for the gaming masses. They were intended to be used with your regular normal 3D games. Many video game companies have been on board with these projects from the beginning. For example, look at the list of games with Oculus Rift support at Wikipedia. Many of these games are not "VR-only" games specifically designed for it. Many of them are mainstream AAA games (such as Alien Isolation, Doom 3, Dying Light, Half-Life 2, etc.)
None of those games benefit from augmented reality (with the exception of head tracking, if you want to define that as an AR feature). The stereo vision is the main purpose of the VR headsets, to be used in actual practical video games.
Why do you oppose the idea of petitioning them to keep it simple (and cheap)? Do you honestly want to pay $800+ for features that you will not be using?
Keep in mind that the industry does not agree with you about your requirements.
I don't even understand what you are trying to say with that.
Well bear in mind VR headsets are still pretty new technology. Just like phones, the price will go down eventually. Also the whole point of a VR headset is the augmented reality, being able to move your head around and stuff. Elsewise just tape black paper against your screen and stick your face to it if you want VR.
effort on the first draft means less effort on any draft thereafter
- some loser
Warp, if you have a good phone, go grab a pair of these cardboard frames from Clas Ohlson and stream your desktop to your phone. I've heard it works fine and it is affordable, if you have a phone that's capable.
I think this petition is futile, as are about 99.99% of all online petitions. Sites that don't require you to confirm your identity in any way don't have that much power in the eyes of people and I can understand why.
Gyroscope particularly is necessary for VR to function with Google cardboard, and a good screen resolution (like 1080p) would be good too.
People have quite often complained that it's unnecessary to make smartphones that have 2K and 4K resolution, but it's interesting that in VR, you would benefit even from having over 8K resolution per eye: http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/virtual-perfection-why-8k-resolution-per-eye-isnt-enough-for-perfect-vr/
I honestly can't understand what your point is. You seem to be saying that it's a stupid idea to petition these companies to make a cheaper version of their product that would be more practical for the average gamer.
Yes, I believe it is. Go for it, but what do you _really_ expect you'll get? I think you'll get farther by making your own product.
Did you know the original creator of Oculus Rift did this very thing?
Warp wrote:
These VR headsets were from the very beginning aimed at videogames
No, they weren't. Most were designed for purpose-built applications, such as simulators. Those that were designed for games were _already_ cheapened significantly and were quite awful to use. Oculus Rift was an exception, as it was a quality HMD inspired for gaming use, but in later iterations it was discovered that there is _much_ more than gaming that a quality HMD could be used for - such as AR. With this "discovery" (or more appropriately "re-discovery") it was realized that the HMD alone was not the only part of the solution. Since then, there have been other gaming-oriented sets, but the creators of these also feel that their VR solutions _require_ some these other "useless" features. They aren't just targeting VR representations of existing games, but are trying to create new game genres, or even expand beyond gaming.
If you think there is a market for a product that the industry is not selling, do what the creator of Oculus Rift did. Create a product and compete.
Warp wrote:
Why do you oppose the idea of petitioning them to keep it simple (and cheap)? Do you honestly want to pay $800+ for features that you will not be using?
I don't oppose it. But it would be like petitioning my neighbor down the street to pull his weeds. I could ask him, or I could get all the neighbors to sign a petition asking him, but it still just isn't happening. It's a futile argument. If it bothered me that much, I would be better served pulling his weeds for him. You would be better served looking at some already cheaper solutions (some of which have been presented in this thread), or if none of them suffice, creating your own product.
By posting a petition, you seem to feel there is a market for a cheaper, cut-down HMD. If so, and they aren't delivering, then create one, sell it, and support it. You might then have an idea as to why these are so expensive and no, it isn't just parts cost, in particular the AR-related gear.
Warp wrote:
Keep in mind that the industry does not agree with you about your requirements.
I don't even understand what you are trying to say with that.
Exactly what was said. Perhaps that's really the issue here - you are unwilling to see why your petition is untenable? But I won't stop you from living your imagination... good luck with the petition.
These VR headsets were from the very beginning aimed at videogames
No, they weren't. Most were designed for purpose-built applications, such as simulators.
I am not talking about VR made in the 60's. I'm talking about the Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive and the PlayStation VR, which started this modern wave of VR for regular gamers.
Oculus Rift was quite clearly designed as a generic peripheral for video games. Regular video games, not just exclusives made for it. Many game companies (such as id Software) supported the project, and planned to add support to existing games (such as Doom 3) and new ones. Just look at the list of supported games at wikipedia; many of them are your regular PC games, with patches/mods to add support for the VR headset; they are not games made exclusively for it.
Both development kits of Oculus Rift were designed to be used while sitting at a desk or couch. They had no AR features other than the head-tracking.
Then they started developing AR stuff for it. Granted that they have kept it to a modest amount. The HTC Vive, however, went completely overboard with it, and what do we get? A $900+ device with tons of useless cruft that's not useful to anybody, except to keep them entertained for an hour or two, even if that.
Contrast that to the PlayStation VR. A minimalistic set of features, those needed for actual gaming, at half the price. (I have no idea of the quality. It might be complete crap. But at least they kept to the essentials, and kept the price to a reasonable level.)
They aren't just targeting VR representations of existing games, but are trying to create new game genres, or even expand beyond gaming.
And thus they create an overly expensive device with half of its features being completely useless to the average consumer. The majority of who will not buy it because it's too damn expensive, and too niche, because it's full of extraneous cruft.
The AR stuff has been compared to the infamous Kinect (and rightfully so): It's an extremely niche feature which is extremely inconvenient (requires lots of room space), and with only a handful of games (most of which are crappy), and actual triple-A games do not benefit from it at all, because of the physical limitations it has. Moreover, it has the potential for accidents and damaged property, even more so than with the Kinect, when people trip over and hurt themselves or damage their furniture.
People will be amused for perhaps an hour or two, and then just toss the thing aside and go back to the couch to play some actual games. Unless there are actual games that support the VR headset, that is. But even in that case, they paid a hefty sum of money for features they won't be using.
If you think there is a market for a product that the industry is not selling, do what the creator of Oculus Rift did. Create a product and compete.
I am baffled at the inanity of this sentiment, which is being repeated over and over.
Yeah, surely I own the millions of dollars and resources required to start this kind of company. If I owned millions of dollars, I would just buy these headsets; all of them. Regardless of how much extraneous cruft they have.
Unfortunately I don't own millions of dollars. My income is very low. Which is why I'm not going to buy any of these headsets, until their price is reduced significantly.
Warp wrote:
Why do you oppose the idea of petitioning them to keep it simple (and cheap)? Do you honestly want to pay $800+ for features that you will not be using?
I don't oppose it. But it would be like petitioning my neighbor down the street to pull his weeds. I could ask him, or I could get all the neighbors to sign a petition asking him, but it still just isn't happening. It's a futile argument.
It certainly won't be happening if nobody tells these companies what we want. "It just isn't happening" becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Signing costs you absolutely nothing, and it's not something you oppose. But you won't sign. That's fine; you can do whatever you want. But it's just a rather odd principle you are showing there. It just feels like a rather odd principle of apathy.
It would also help to vote with your wallet, but if too many people do that why not just scrap it altogether? :/
That and chances are there's a small group of people who would be willing to throw tons of money at it to balance out the loss from boycotters.
Well bear in mind VR headsets are still pretty new technology. Just like phones, the price will go down eventually. Also the whole point of a VR headset is the augmented reality, being able to move your head around and stuff. Elsewise just tape black paper against your screen and stick your face to it if you want VR.
This is the most important point in the thread. Much like the automotive world, where F1 invents technology that slowly filters down to consumer/mass produced cars, this technology will be available in cheaper, less feature-filled variants within a few years. Not every technology is affordable at launch, sorry to say. Look at how 4k monitors have dropped in price, though. Similar things will happen with VR headsets.
So, a whopping 1 signature. And this isn't the only place I have advertised the petition.
The general sentiment seems to be that of apathy and disinterest.
Nice.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Sometimes, what you consider to be important is just not what other people consider important. It happens sometimes, and you'll just have to deal with that fact.
Clearly the people here, and wherever else you posted, are not bothered by the extra features that are put in VR hardware by Oculus et al. Apathy, disinterest, maybe, or perhaps they just don't agree with your position.
Also, I have some questions:
Warp wrote:
Contrast that to the PlayStation VR. A minimalistic set of features, those needed for actual gaming, at half the price. (I have no idea of the quality. It might be complete crap. But at least they kept to the essentials, and kept the price to a reasonable level.)
Isn't this exactly what you are already asking for? If Sony is already creating a minimalistic VR headset with a lower price, why not just exclusively buy or support that? Why do all the other companies also need to cater to those like you who want just the gaming essentials?
If the rest of the companies don't want to comply to your wishes, just don't buy or support their products. I bet that that sort of voting with your wallet will have a far greater chance of affecting the VR market than a petition like this ever will.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
So, a whopping 1 signature. And this isn't the only place I have advertised the petition.
The general sentiment seems to be that of apathy and disinterest.
Nice.
It's going to sort itself out, don't worry. There'll be plenty of market for affordable VR solutions in a couple of years once the gaming hardware market is sufficiently advanced price/performance-wise, and that VR hardware generation will be more focussed.
I can understand the wish that everything has to be right the first time and things can't advance quickly enough, but the VR situation is out of our hands, so vote with your wallet I guess (and here's hoping that VR-exoskeletons for full-body (not in that sense you dirty rascal) force-feedback soon follow :)).
All syllogisms have three parts, therefore this is not a syllogism.
Warp,i think of you as a smart person but this is really weird.
you made a petition for something which is actually bound to the way economy works and technology development,and doesn't even look like it would be an improvement to any society's problems(poverty,renewable energy,whatever your choice here man),you should have just saved the whales or something cuter.
The whole thing reminds me of people who complain of taxation in games.While i don't enjoy taxes at all,i can certainly understand that videogames aren't exactly a priority and lessening their distribution by making them pricier wouldn't really matter to the common citizen,as opposed to food,energy and housing.
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
So, a whopping 1 signature. And this isn't the only place I have advertised the petition.
The general sentiment seems to be that of apathy and disinterest.
Nice.
Well, I think augmented reality might be cool, because as you can see from my avatar, it's from Deus Ex: HR, so maybe it can transform me into an "aug".
And also... prices will probably get cheaper without petitions, as they usually do naturally when technology progresses.
Clearly the people here, and wherever else you posted, are not bothered by the extra features that are put in VR hardware by Oculus et al.
I'm not bothered by the extra features. I'm bothered by the high price (which, I'm certain, is in part caused by the enormous amount of development time put into those augmented reality features and needed peripherals.)
Apathy, disinterest, maybe, or perhaps they just don't agree with your position.
My position is that I want a cheaper version. A "value pack" version, if you will. People oppose this idea? It's not like it would be taking away the possibility of buying the full version.
Warp wrote:
Contrast that to the PlayStation VR. A minimalistic set of features, those needed for actual gaming, at half the price. (I have no idea of the quality. It might be complete crap. But at least they kept to the essentials, and kept the price to a reasonable level.)
Isn't this exactly what you are already asking for? If Sony is already creating a minimalistic VR headset with a lower price, why not just exclusively buy or support that? Why do all the other companies also need to cater to those like you who want just the gaming essentials?
Because it's for the PlayStation 4 only. It won't allow me to play PC games.
(Also, its image quality might not be in par with the OR of the Vive.)
If the rest of the companies don't want to comply to your wishes, just don't buy or support their products.
Don't worry, I won't.
I'd rather buy eg. a GTX 980 Ti, or a g-sync monitor, with that same money.
I'm not bothered by the extra features. I'm bothered by the high price (which, I'm certain, is in part caused by the enormous amount of development time put into those augmented reality features and needed peripherals.)
If they don't put the high price, they'll lose money, who want to lose money? They need to pay the employees who contributed to it. Think of it like creating a new drug. It takes years of research and billions of dollars. In the end we get a new drug far more expensive. And once the copyrights are done, new cheaper analogs are made. These new ones avoid all that long and expensive debut of development.
Maybe it will stay expensiv esimply because of the materials it uses(Maybe it has sa lot of gold inside, which makes it expensive?
Prices is not an easy factor to balance. If it's expensive, it must have a reason.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
I've used VR headsets 20 years ago. I'm still waiting for the prices to go down.
edit: I guess I only really wanted the 3d effect, but headtracking isn't very expensive is it.
