Price, PC-Specs, and ridiculously complicated setups are the reason, why VR hasn't taken off yet. The Rift-S helps with all of those issues.
It makes some smart tradeoffs, so that it is accessible to more people.
This is wrong. All of the other things you mention matter, but at the end of the day I cannot buy a compelling VR experience at any price. VR itself still needs to be improved before all of those other things matter.
VR is incredibly underwhelming at this point, regardless of price. I'd say it's still a few years away from being good enough I'd want to buy it, and I'd expect to have to pay over $1000 for that pleasure when the time comes (ignoring the cost of the top-of-the-line gaming PC to accompany it).
And that's only talking about the actual technology in the headset, that's not even discussing the lack of good content.
And many (maybe most) people still get sick when using VR for more than an hour, so the argument it's "good enough" is absurd.
There are obviously still lots of things that could be improved, but high resolution isn't necessary to make VR "compelling" any more HD screens were necessary to make console gaming compelling.
I've also tried the regular HTC Vive.
Both felt like a gimmick, and the Vive made my girlfriend nauseous after a few minutes.
I'm a big believer in the potential of VR, but the current options do not impress me. I think it's still a few years away for someone like me, and still another 5+ years where it starts to become mainstream (largely due to cost and lack of content).
That's coming out in a few months though, and it certainly addresses the cost point. Is the main thing you think will take 5+ years content? Trying the Quest I couldn't help but be reminded of the Wii (maybe because I played a tennis game). Even though it's not perfect it offers a very novel experience at an affordable price point. I have no idea what the content line up for the system is though.
The second problem is it's too expensive. Once there is enough demand to scale the technology better, costs can come down. And costs for better screens and chips will come down in time on their own anyway.
The third problem is a lack of content. For the amount of money Facebook has been pouring into VR developers, it's really just sad how few good games there are. The general consensus I hear from gamers is they've just given up on VR, and I don't know any devs who see it as anything more than an experiment right now.
There just isn't anything compelling about VR right now, at least not for me. Even the people I know who used to champion it almost never use it anymore, and many of my friends who used to work at Oculus have quit as they no longer believe in the vision.
All of this is anecdotal of course. The real data point is sales, and they are bad. Look at VR sales and compare them to the Microsoft Kinect, which MS has essentially abandoned and admitted to being a failure (at least for gaming and mainstream consumer applications). If VR is woefully trailing behind a technology accepted to be a failure that was practically force-fed down consumer's throats as MS tried to push it with their Xbox business, it's hard to see a bright future for VR.
It's been years and billions of dollars have been spent, and VR has a couple of indie hits and no killer app.
If you look at tablet PCs, Microsoft didn't capture much market share with early $1000+ systems with non-touch based software, but there was still room for the iPad to come in at a lower price and be a successful product.
I think the difference between a (not-terrible) mobile system like the Quest at $400 and existing PC based systems is at least as stark. BTW I didn't hear of anyone getting motion sick, but neither of the Quest demos had any artificial movement, and people weren't using it for hours.
Of course there still needs to be content with some sort of appeal. That's pretty subjective. I liked the tennis demo I had, the lack of a cable made quite a big difference and the lenses aren't nearly as fussy to get a clear picture. I'm not a big gamer but I like being active IRL and playing table tennis etc. I don't know how big a market that is. But I could see myself buying one at $400, not as a developer, if it had a variety of that sort of stuff. None of the other systems I've tried get remotely close to that, in terms cost/inconvenience for what you get.
I'm also curious about movie watching. I wouldn't use existing systems for it, but a higher-res mobile system with better lenses (and hopefully a native Netflix app)? I'm very curious to see if it's a practical thing yet. People watch lots of shows on their phone, it doesn't seem unthinkable that VR could have some appeal for that.
If they have decent content, I think they will probably move more units than VR systems have to date. But to think about the Wii again, even though it was successful as a device it still didn't end up having a major long-term impact...
I don't think just the numbers matter in early stage hardware while there are still extreme qualitative differences. You see companies that focused on cardboard/GearVR based on that sort of reasoning, even though that had an even less likely future as a platform than fully-tracked systems. The Palm Treo wasn't a mass market product, but that hardly doomed smartphones.
The content is what makes people sick, not the hardware (these days). I haven't gotten sick in VR since Rift DK2. Been using the Vive since. No sickness in The Lab. Recently tried playing Everest VR -- queasy due to lots of flying, slow camera movement. Apollo 11 was a lot better, but still had some iffy swooping camera moves.
Basically, you can not make the same kind of game for VR that you would for non-VR, but developers keep trying and they end up making players sick.
Finally, there's a problem with maximizers vs. satisficers and VR. I would say that it's not about comparing specs and buying the "best" device -- although maybe that's a problem of price point. Instead of looking for flaws, allow yourself to suspend disbelief. This requires good content.
Every single game and experience in Valve's "The Lab" is excellent. On Rift, Robo Recall is excellent. Very few games reach this level of polish (graphics, audio, HCI).
Look at the original Star Wars (A New Hope). The special FX are shite by today's standards. If we were just to compare bullet points of features, it would be garbage. Let yourself be transported.
Vergence-accommodation conflict:
https://medium.com/vrinflux-dot-com/vergence-accommodation-c...
My educated guess is that it actually is quite important and the key to making VR more comfortable for long term use.
I think it is the primary issue. I am a software developer who works in the neuroscience field. I am not an MD but I have read enough research to know you cannot definitively say what the cause is, and that disrupting such natural processes in the brain are likely to have consequences. To me it seems obvious that it's the primary source of the headaches and nausea commonly associated with VR.
For example I have certainly felt sick in the real world from roller coasters. But I have never felt the type of sick I get when I put on a VR helmet. It's another feeling all together. And it comes on differently than any other sick feeling I've had. This is anecdotal of course. I digress.
If VR doesn't solve this issue, VR doesn't go anywhere IMHO. But it's obvious they will solve it in time and as someone who closely follows the field it seems to be one of their primary concerns.
You need foveated rendering to start with but im sure you know the rest. If you want VR, well you need actual VR. Its not enough to trick your vision superficially. You have trick the whole system. I digress.
Yes, even in a decent VR experience you will get headaches after an hour or two, possibly or even probably from vergence-accomodation conflict. But that's entirely secondary - you won't last more than a couple minutes on a virtual roller coaster.
Also, lack of positional sensing (versus angular) on mobile VR devices is a much bigger contributor to discomfort.
I'm not sure why you're so keen on vergence accommodation, but it seems that you're focusing on a tiny effect, when the large effects are known.
Just because there's little in the peer-reviewed literature, does not mean that this is poorly understood by practitioners.
No one Ive met can stay in VR for hours regardless of game. Most of my friends who have tried or have VR devices get sick after 45 minutes. Admittedly they are not VR enthusiasts or hard core gamers however.
I'm not saying this qualifies as any sort of degree nor was I saying you should count my anecdotes as facts.
It is simply my belief that the vergence-accommodation conflict needs to be solved before VR will be adopted by the masses. I think vergence-accommodation neurological process should stay coupled as it does in nature to provide a completely natural feeling and non strained experience for the user. The research here is scant. Perhaps someone is aware of some ongoing research on this topic.
EDIT> I have a relatively low tolerance for motion sickness.
I've read that this is a problem for astronauts IRL when they're in free-fall next to a slowly rotating or panning object that occupies a lot of their field of view. So, that would be a kind of existence proof that it's not vergence, but rather optical flow that is decoupled from the subject's actual motion.
It sucks, but basically FPS games are out for VR, until you can actually run around, leap, etc.
EDIT> Another example -- during a scene in Apollo 11 where the camera (and hence my view) was orbiting the spaceraft while my IRL body was still, I started to feel queasy. I was able to reduce the sensation by looking at the growing space-craft as it started to fill more and more of my field of view -- it was relatively stationary to me. This again speaks to optical flow, and motion that is out of whack with what the player's ears are telling them. Another cheat along these lines is to use a cockpit that is fixed relative to the player's view to reduce the amount of visual area that is giving wrong motion cues.
EDIT2> I'd be interested to know whether you can last longer in a game that uses only your own IRL motion + instant teleport. So, no thumbsticks, mouse, keyboard locomotion -- as these are all known chunder inducers. Unfortunately non-VR games with bolt-on VR are like the worst-case for comfort, but also often the games that we really want to see in VR.
I bought the Odyssey+ HMD during the Black Friday sale and I must admit, it is fantastic. But outside of that incredibly low priced sale ($299 I think it was?), I don't think WMR headsets have been really hot sellers while having access to most (all? I don't know) SteamVR titles and the ability to use Oculus ones via ReVive. I personally haven't had any tracking issues, but I haven't played anything where a hand goes behind the view of the visor like Skyrim, apparently.
Oculus Quest/Gear VR/etc seem more like the setups that will make VR "take off" (if it is going to, that is). The tethered experience seems more for the enthusiast but this particular side-upgrade seems to be going for the worst of both worlds (a tethered experience that isn't going to really resonate with enthusiasts as it most likely isn't an upgrade over their current setup and due to that tethering probably not going to appeal to the mass market either).
I can only speak for myself here: I bought the Rift, because I didn't know anything about VR and trusted Oculus more than some 'wierd unknown' manufacturer. (a lack of knowledge is another huge issue in my experience)
To be clear: I don't think, the Rift S is going to _fix_ any of those issues. But it certainly is an improvement. And that's what so many are debating here.
> The tethered experience seems more for the enthusiast
I don't know... If everybody with a 1070 or better is an enthusiast, then you might be right. But as PC's get faster, that will hopefully change.
https://www.roadtovr.com/oculus-founder-palmer-luckey-price-...