OSVR 2 @ $399 + AMD RX 480 @ $199 or Oculus Rift $599

$399


$199


$699

 

Neither. Save a little more and go with the HTC Vive. I've used the Oculus Rift and currently own the Vive and the ability to walk around combined with the motion controllers is a true game changer. It costs more, but it's absolutely worth it

 

You can walk around with Rift too just fine however the controllers won't be available until later this year so if they are important at this point with the current games there is only Vive.

 

I have an OSVR. I haven't used a Rift or Vive, so I can't really compare them. But the OSVR definitely feels like the early developer release that it is rather than a consumer product. It was what I could afford, and suits my purposes for developing in VR fine, but I don't think I'd consider it on the same level as the Rift or the Vive yet. Of course, as I said, I haven't tried those. That's just a gut feeling from comparing the OSVR to the smartphone based headset that I have. The display is a little clearer motion wise, but the resolution is smaller. Head tracking is of course better, but positional tracking isn't all that great. It isn't a huge step up from a smartphone based headset and I suspect that the Rift and Vive are.

 

Yeah the 1st linked image is from HDK2 which is Hacker Dev Kit

@Arowx did not say which one he is focusing, gaming or making games but either way it's best to check what is available as games for it and what can be played/developed in future without proper controllers.

 

This. Investing in technology when it first becomes available is never cheap. Pick the one that will do the job for you and don't base your decision entirely on price. I want the HTC Vive myself because that's the one Bethesda seems to have latched onto for PC.

 

A long, long time from now at a price point far, far away from those, I may buy VR or AR.

 

Secret option number 3:
Wait until this fad passes and buy any of them you want for cheap in the discount bin.

 

With both console manufacturers preparing to fully support the "fad" I'm starting to believe it will be very successful.

 

You mean just like 3DTVs and motion controllers?

Remember that time Sony made a 3DTV especially for PS3, that had all these cool features that people could use like that cool 3D split screen thing that that one game supported, and all their big titles were gonna support it, then like, they did absolutely nothing with it and dropped support for it before most people were even done paying off the ones they had bought?

VR is an expensive gimmick just like that that real consumers don't actually care about.

 

The Wii Remote was considered to be a gimmick originally too. Besides technology is always expensive initially. A 3DTV may have cost thousands of dollars but so did the initial monochrome, color, and high-def televisions.

 

The Wiimote was a gimmick, just like Playstation Move and Xbox Kinect. The good games on Wii (of which quite honestly there were few) either barely used or didn't use the motion controls.

Yeah, but that TV was just part of the fad of 3DTVs a few years ago, and Sony pretty much stopped supporting it like 45 minutes after it came out. They did effectively nothing with it, maybe 4 games supported it, and it was $500. Once the world had gotten bored with the gimmick of 3D everything, Sony and the other tech companies moved on to the next shiny object within arms reach and now 3DTVs are just referred to in the past tense.

The difference between regular TVs, and 3D and VR, is they require an additional step. Lazy, normal people take the path of least resistance and just want to plop down in front of their TV and play their unimaginative Triple A FPS games and watch Game of Thrones. Hooking up goggles or glasses is just an extra step at the end of a long day of work, that doesn't add nearly enough immersion to be worth it.

The change from black and white to color or the change from CRT to LCD usually had obviously preceptable improvements over their old technology and usually made the experience more convenient, like adding remote controls or making your TV weigh a fraction as much as it used to. 3D and VR don't do that, it's not an improvement, it's a paradigm shift

VR and 3D and all this stuff is for enthusiasts, not mainstream consumers. There is no compelling reason for them to buy this stuff, because VR doesn't have a killer app that makes it worth the trouble to them yet.

VR is gonna have to become way more convenient and useful before they can accend to a level higher than "gimmick". VR only works for certain types of games, it isn't universally useable the way a TV or monitor is.

 

Which is why the Wii outsold its competitors at the time by a country mile. Sometimes gimmicks work.

I'm actually tentatively optimistic that VR may work this time. I see a bunch of signs. VR devices advertised in the general media. Succesful VR arcades like Zero Latency. Art installations built in VR. The big companies like Microsoft and Sony taking it seriously.

VR will have truely arrived once Apple announces its headset. But in the meantime it's getting close.

 

@KnightsHouseGames @Ryiah You need to try it on the Vive.

 

Apple only step in when a technology works fully, e.g. VR Shades, 'Gloves', Face and Body capture all with a mobile wireless iARVR device.

 

Yeah, but that was just old people buying it being like "Oh! Wii makes you active! Maybe I'll finally get fit!" and they'd play it until they got bored with it (usually a week), followed by years of sitting on their antique shelf collecting dust. I know this because most of the old people I know have one, sitting next to their TVs covered by a thick layer of dust with their copy of Wii Fit still sitting in the drive. And they always tell me it doesn't work, and I always tell them it's because the batteries died in their Wiimote years ago.

Or you know, for little kids to play their shovelware.

Basically Wii was like heat stroke or west nile virus, ithe very young and the elderly got it the most.

I can't think of any interesting uses for VR on the consumer level. And clearly no one else has, given the lack of interesting VR games.

 

You do have a point, for instance current VR cannot do modern FPS. That is equivalent to saying the next generation car only works with three wheels and one seat.

The motion sickness triggered by the discrepancy between in VR and real world movement has not been solved as a problem. Although large arena VR and cockpit VR games do not seem to suffer from this problem as much.

Imagine the benefit FPS players could get from wide FOV VR HMD's independent head and two gun hands, duel wielding.

But this is only the first 'next' generation and games like EVE Valkyrie, Elite: Dangerous and Star Citizen look like they could be amazing in VR.

 

I think the fact that you can't think of any interesting uses for VR says more about you than anything else, especially given that big guys in the industry from John Carmack, to Gabe Newell, to our own David Helgason, to Mark Zuckerberg all seem to think the opposite. So much so that John Carmack is part of the Oculus team, and Valve decided to roll their own headset, the HTC Vive (and if you think Valve's future games won't support VR after that kind of investment well I don't know what to tell you).
Also, lack of VR games? There are over 200 VR games on Steam. Among them are games like Waltz of the Wizard, The Lab (by Valve), Adr1ft, flight simulators like DCS World, shooters like Hover Junkers, etc. Flight simulators alone mean that at the absolute minimum, VR will always have a niche if nothing else.

I'm also going to preempt the inevitable argument because it's the same one everyone who hasn't tried the Vive always say--those games look dumb, they have bad graphics, they're just gimmicks, etc. To which I reply: if you haven't tried them, you don't know what you're talking about because watching a video of the gameplay isn't the same as actually experiencing them. It simply isn't the same.

HTC Vive partially solves this by allowing you to physically walk around and it's only a matter of time before someone works out the kinks for extended movement via controller to open the door for more traditional FPS games. And even so, th. Games like Arizona Sunshine, Adr1ft, Hover Junkers, even first person games like Waltz of the Wizard, Surgeon Simulator, The Lab do just fine even with the limits. Obviously not the same type of game as the latest Call of Duty or Halo, but certainly a gazillion times more immersive

 

But thats just it, it can only do FPS games really, you can't do like platformers or RPGs or even Third Person Shooters in VR. Meanwhile, you can do pretty much everything on a TV, with the added bonus of playing multiplayer with your friends

I am inclined to agree with the idea of doing cockpit games in VR though, thats about the only thing it can do truely well. Of course, this is something for really niche enthusiasts though, not consumers. Though having arcade VR would be pretty cool.

I must say that when I saw some of that Star Wars X Wing gameplay on PS VR, I have to admit I was a bit excited. But again, this is a niche, nerdy thing, this isn't mainstream consumer mass appeal

 

Don't you just hate it when you can see the inside of your hand when you are reaching for something? I hate when that happens to me

Also, whats with the zombies running like Naruto?

 

Lucky's Tale shows that you can do platformers and third person games just fine. And Hover Junkers shows you can do multiplayer with friends just fine too.

 

Sure you can do third person games, but being in VR would not provide much benefit (as compared to simulators and such). As a result, the inherently lazy population of gamers would just go back to their old TVs and avoiding the hassle of a VR headset. Disclaimer: I have not played any third person games in VR.

 

I'm willing to bet over the next decade we will see some new genres of games built that handle the limits and as advantages of VR well. You can't dump a PC game on a mobile and have it work. But mobile games are massive anyway.

 

Theres a difference here

Phones and computers were useful before, and still would be useful without the existance of games.

VR is less of a platform and more of a peripheral. It's probably more akin to a Guitar Hero guitar than it is a game console or a tablet.

And like a Guitar Hero guitar, it is very focused in terms of usefulness to a very spesific type of game.

But with a Guitar Hero guitar, at least you know what game to play it with. With VR, you don't even have that. Everyone just seems to be throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks with VR, no one has really made VR's Guitar Hero yet.

 

3rd person games are fun in VR. instead of being the actor, you're a God manipulating other characters, persons. Or in a 3rd person shooter you'd be like a witness of all what's happening right next / in front of you. It's actually pretty fun.

 

The OSVR headset doesn't have controllers or any third party option... even if you prefer a gamepad you are only getting a few games as nearly all Vive games are room scale with the controllers. Most Oculus games are exclusives and won't work on it.

To many people are excited for VR for it to die. If it wasn't for enthusiasts in companies I think it would be extremely niche but nearly every studio has high ranking people who love VR so I think we'll see at least small teams making VR content for a long time.

 

I'm just planning on getting the rx480 as my HD6950 is really showing its age in general. Not interested in VR right now though as I don't find any of the games particularly interesting (most of them seem like a tech demo that would be fun for 20 minutes), especially for the price point the headsets are at so I'll wait a year or two at least (not planning to dev for VR).

 

These type comments make it seem that you have never even played or experienced any VR games. For example Lucky's Tale is gorgeous platformer, Chronos a RPG and Edge of Nowhere a TPS. All flight and driving games are very nice. While you can play all these on PC or TV it's not the same as your are not "in the game". VR does not have to mean you are standing there in 1st person view doing things with your hands. It's the thing that you feel being there.

So far as I have shown VR stuff to whole bunch of people, more than half of them have asked in the first 30 minutes of trying "where or how can I get one". I only have Rift and Leap Motion so I haven't even had any controllers yet to show which add a whole new dimension to this stuff as I've tried with Vive. Leap Motions simple Blocks demo however has been very wow wow to many people and one even messed an hour with it alone.

 

Check out Out of Ammo on the Vive, nice RTS/FPS hybrid.

 

Actually, I worked on a game for Rift at Global Game Jam a few years ago. A lot of people were impressed, but I bet none of them bought a Rift.

I have basically become immune to hype trains and gimmicks, so I know one when I see one.

 

Well that's part of the problem. I backed Oculus at their kickstarter and was one of the first ones to get Rift but after few months it was not a thing anymore since most of the content was demo/jam style stuff and real games with support were mainly old games with VR slapped in to them. The display and tracking quality was not the best and there were also no proper controllers or stuff and the whole was developer scene without unknown release dates. At some point DK2 appeared and was a nice improvement plus hydras were nice in limited amount of games. Overall the whole thing was not a consumer thing and was literally developer scene.

Today we have Vive and Rift and both are very good experience and Vive already has nice controllers and more devices are coming fast. There is a lot more of content popping out every week for VR than a year or two ago and big names are involved on all fronts as seen at E3.

 

Yes, I believe you're spot on here. Quite a number of people bought into the Rift early on. I wonder how many of those who label this as a "fad" started with the prototype headsets and have had their future exposure tainted by it.

 

Probably a stupid question, but can OSVR be used with nVidia cards? The media on their site shows something that looks like Vive-like controllers so its should be possible to play Vive games with it.

//edit: This is the image I've talked about (big one so link only): http://assets.razerzone.com/eeimages/osvr/assets/images/hdk2/osvr-hdk-2-unlimited-choice.jpg

 

Have to imagine they do when they support NVIDIA GameWorks.

http://www.roadtovr.com/osvr-gets-nvidia-gameworks-vr-support-adds-65-new-industry-collaborators/

 

I feel like even if VR does grow beyond the niche enthusiast sphere, it will be if some other major technological advance comes along to make it worth it to the mainstream buyer.

And if that happens, Vive and Rift, at least in their current state, will be rendered obsolete anyway.

You have to remember, All the VR solutions on the market right now cost as much or more than a game console, and yet are completely useless by themselves, and require already having some sort of other device to make them work. For the same prices as an Oculus Rift, you could buy a PRETTY nice TV, at least 40 inch, probably even 4K, and that, in addition to being able to play way more games than a Rift can, it can also just be used as a TV.

VR is nowhere near ready for primetime. It's gonna have to get WAY cheaper and frankly it needs to be able to do more if it ever hopes to seriously break into the mainstream

 

Have you at least tried the models intended for consumers?

 

Cool. Will keep an eye on it when I can afford to buy both necessary computer (my main one still uses Core2Quad, lol) and the headset.

As for VR going mainstream, I don't think it'll be too popular until we can achieve full-dive technology (think Matrix, though w/out neckport).

 

VR and 3D both give me motion sickness. I can't even play 3DS with the 3D on without getting dizzy.

By comparison, I can play any game I want on my cheapo 32" TV, and I could also watch TV on it, or hook it up to my computer. And do so with my friends. And do it for a fraction of the price, and not have to get dizzy to get a marginally more immersive experience.

 

That's not an answer. Besides my understanding of the newer consumer-oriented models is that they've reduced it a lot.

 

Yeah I agree that Vive/Rift are not yet a mass product cause of the high requirements from hardware side but Sony is probably going to be one of the first ones in that area with their known name for a large customer base and cheap VR price. Vive/Rift will become more popular as there will more cheaper hardware available every few months. In a year or two all this tech will be a lot cheaper.

 

You think $400 is cheap? After the cost of buying a $400 PS4 to play it on, it ends up costing $800. Which is WAY more than a normal grown up who pays bills is willing to spend on a toy.

Besides, knowing Sony, by E3 after next, they'll be saying "PS VR? Never heard of it." Like they did with Playstation Move and Playstation Vita.

VR is gonna have to drop to the sub-$100 price point before any normal person thinks it's worth saying "eh, lets try it, why not"

Most people when it comes to computer stuff just buy the cheapest monitor they can find, and hook it up to a crappy Dell and just expect it to work well enough to check Facebook. They don't really care. It's a very vocal minority who even knows what a GTX 1080 is, or even know it's possible to open the case on a computer.

 

Good thing they're aimed at a demographic that is known for spending hundreds on a single part of their computer.

Besides you'd be surprised what a "normal grown up" is willing to spend on a toy. You don't need a smart phone but I know plenty who spent hundreds. You don't need an Apple computer yet I know people who passed up on a cheap PC because they wanted one.

Yes. I believe $400 is cheap for a device that will get several years of use. That said rent around here is easily between one and two thousand per month. That may have something to do with it. If you're in a poorer part of the world you'll view the amount differently.

 

Especially when they launch with a Zelda title.

 

It's cheap for the experience it will give and compared to the costs of a single game. People used to buy the $100-$200 guitar hero band sets just to use them on few games.

I don't expect everyone to have one (for pc or console) but I would expect it will be popular enough so that most tech aware households will have at least one VR device in next few years when you include mobile.

 

Yeah, exactly, Enthusiasts, people who actually care about this stuff. You could almost call it a niche.So it's a product that fits into a very spesific niche. A niche product.

But unlike VR goggles, as I've stated previously, a smartphone or a computer (even an Apple computer suprisingly) is useful by itself, and isn't an added cost to something else. Smartphones and computers have obvious, perceptable value on their own, and make life easier. VR doesn't have a single use by itself. It's basically a very small monitor that you strap to your face, that costs more than what some people I know will spend on a car.

As I am from a poorer part of the world (America), yes, I indeed view that amount as a lot, as a lot of people do.

Besides, you aren't gonna get a few years out of the current gen goggles, they're still too new, people are still shoehorning it into games not built for it instead of building real games for it. There will be a better one next year. And if the fad hasn't died yet, the year after that.

 

As I've said, I don't think VR will take off until we can achieve full dive technology without any "prosthetics" (omni, gun controller, etc.). Such thing is teorethically possible, because transcranial stimulation is a thing, but no one to my knowledge is working on such stuff yet.

 

Except it becomes an added cost when you buy beyond what you actually need. A Dell computer is good enough for many people yet some of them still buy an Apple instead.

I'm on the eastern coast of the country, in Virginia, situated between two university-based cities. Costs of living tend to be pushed up around my area because of this.

It strongly depends on the gamer. I can easily get years out of a computer because the games I play with it are ones that I can enjoy playing game after game, year after year, etc. Titles like the Elder Scrolls, the Fallout series, No Man's Sky (once it FINALLY comes out), Minecraft, etc.

I won't need newer generation goggles so long as I pick ones that are known to support the games I enjoy. The Vive appears to be the way to go for me but I'm waiting for a little while longer (plus my computer can't handle them yet).

By the way just because something is a niche doesn't mean it won't catch on. A product doesn't need to be mainstream in order to survive. Graphics cards are very much a niche but AMD and NVIDIA are making a fortune off them.

 

Theoretically we can do that already with the Kinect. The device just came out at the wrong time and didn't catch on.

 

I mean, like in The Matrix (though without neckport). You sit in a chair and you are transported to a virtual world where everything feels like in a real one. Every sense, not just vision.

 

You don't need that degree of integration though and most likely won't see it for decades at best. Comfortable goggles and some form of scanning device for input would be more than enough.