Oculus blinks, slashes Rift package's price to match PS4 VR.

From the International Business Times:

Oculus is temporarily cutting down the price of Oculus Rift virtual reality headset to match cheaper rivals like the PlayStation VR. Oculus, the company acquired by Facebook Inc. in 2014 for US$3 billion, is taking steps to discover if the price has been the bottleneck for the device to become the bestseller in the bunch.

The Oculus Rift starting Monday is priced at US$399, including the Touch controllers. The price reduction will run for six weeks as Facebook targets to determine whether price had been the major roadblock why its immersive gaming and stories did not take off, Oculus vice president for content Jason Rubin said in a statement.

Selling a device at, or even below, cost has been a fairly standard practice for videogame console manufacturers for decades. The idea is that you take a loss on the hardware, and make your profit with licensing fees and the like on the back end, once your platform is established. Normally, though, a firm that's planning to pursue this strategy does so right out the gate; Facebook initially priced the Rift at US$600, though, a price that didn't even include the Touch controllers, which weren't even available when the headset launched.

At the time, Oculus seemed confident that the buzz surrounding VR as a whole would see the Rift selling like hotcakes even at that premium price, but the Rift is now well behind HTC's Vive in total sales, and even the two of them combined can't come close to matching Sony's PS VR sales numbers, which is why Oculus slashed US$200 off the price earlier this year. Agressively matching Sony's price is the obvious next move, but with Oculus' identity as a premium-priced product already well and truly established, and the general public showing very little interest even in Sony's budget-priced offering, I have serious doubts about whether this move will prompt consumers to suddenly start buying Rift sets in large numbers.

Look, if you've been eying the Oculus Rift with envy, and only waiting for the price to drop before buying, than go ahead and buy one. It's your money; you do you. VR does not currently enable any new experiences; it can only be used to buff a limited set of familiar experiences. Someone first needs to identify a VR activity that can only be achieved with VR, and that I'll actually want to do; on that glorious day, if and when it comes, I will start comparison shopping for VR headsets. But until then, even at US$399, and even with the Touch controllers included for that price, the Oculus Rift is simply not useful enough to be worth that kind of money.

VR started the year by posting terrible sales numbers across the board; I've seen nothing since then to suggest that VR sales have improved significantly. Against that backdrop, for distant fourth place Oculus to be slashing their price point by half looks more like desperation than strategy.

The PSVR review embargo ended today, and the hype machine is in full effect

Because the tech media runs almost exclusively on empty hype, today's tech sites have been replete with headlines proclaiming Sony's new VR headset to be a "must have" item. (My personal favourite? "When good enough is great." Yes, seriously.)

Methinks they protest too much, though, since some of the actual reviews are somewhat less effusive, once you read down the pages a bit.

Por ejemplo... The Verge:

For every thoughtful design decision, though, there’s a reminder that PlayStation VR isn’t a totally novel gaming system, but a patchwork of various weird Sony experiments that may have finally found their purpose. It’s a new headset inspired by a personal 3D theater from 2012, paired with a set of motion controllers that were released in 2010, plus a camera peripheral that’s been around in some form since 2003.

On one hand, Sony deserves credit for seeing the potential in all these things. On the other, it’s saddled PlayStation VR with the worst motion controls of any major headset. The PlayStation Move controllers are painfully limited compared to either Oculus Touch or the HTC Vive remotes, simply because their interface is a bad fit for VR. They’re pimpled with four miniscule face buttons that are almost pointless for anything but menu selections, with inlaid, difficult-to-find options buttons along the sides. The only useful elements are a single trigger and one large, awkwardly positioned button at the top. The Move was originally paired with a second, smaller peripheral bearing an analog stick and directional pads; without it, navigating menus (including the main PS4 interface) involves dragging your controller like the world’s clumsiest mouse.

GameRevolution:

The most commonly overlooked element of virtual reality is headtracking. Having two displays cover your peripheral vision is just one part of the equation. Tracking head movement, and replicating it on-screen with as little delay as possible is absolutely pivotal to immersion.

The PlayStation VR relies on the PS4 Camera, which has effectively inherited the internals of the PlayStation Eye with minor adjustment. In other words, it's an outdated piece of tracking technology that was originally intended only to track the PlayStation Move hand controllers.

The problem is that every minor flaw of the PS4 Camera's technology is amplified when it's used to track your head movements at over 60 frames per second. Missed frames and delayed response of hand movement was a mere inconvenience when it came to tracking PlayStation Move. These technical shortcomings are dramatic when it comes to headtracking.

Or VG24/7:

It’s a lot of money – you could buy a console and a bunch of good games for the same price – and you need to accept that this isn’t the future of video games. It’s a new direction, and an interesting one, for sure. But it’s not going to replace your console and TV set-up anytime in the next 10 years. At this stage there’s a lot of fun to be had with VR and the games I’ve played so far show variety, with a handful offering up a genuinely new experience. But as with any launch, some games are great and others mediocre.

But I think the site that eventually came closest, at least so far, to my own assessment of PSVR may be Gizmodo:

Selling VR tech with actual games people want to play is a big problem for not just Playstation VR, but VR as a whole. There’s a distinct feeling of impermanence to the concept. Games are all brief and feel more like technical showcases than experiences meant to consistently entertain. Outside of Battlezone, which has a major online competitive mode, and the puzzle titles, which are replayable by nature, none of the games I played had much lasting value. Spending $20-$50 for a very short game feels excessive.

Not a single VR system has a game I’m thirsting to return to again and again like I might to Witcher 3 or Overwatch, and support for games from major game developers is still relatively sparse. They seem to be playing the same game consumers have played up until now—waiting to see how the tech will pan out before jumping in with both feet and investing their dollars.

Is PlayStation VR interesting? Yes. Should you try it out, if you have a chance? Sure. Do you need to own one? Not at all. Seriously, just save your money. Or, at the very least, try it before you buy it.

Samsung doesn't know if VR is hype or mainstream, won't launch Rift rival until they're sure

Finally, someone adopting a sensible approach to the VR hype.

From Wareable:

Will VR ever be mainstream? Samsung, which has had one of the biggest VR hardware hits so far with the Gear VR, still doesn't know if or when.

Young Sohn, Samsung's president and chief strategy officer, told an event in San Francisco: "Is hype or mainstream? I don't have an answer." He also said that Samsung is holding off on the launch of its confirmed high end standalone VR headset to match the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive until it's clear that these types of devices will be widely adopted.

Sohn described the VR headset game as having a "chicken and egg problem right now" - to take VR mainstream we need great, affordable headsets but some companies don't want to spend on R&D for headsets until they know it will be mainstream.

Honestly, I'd entirely forgotten that Gear VR had even happened, let alone that Samsung was developing a standalone version of the thing. Among the other tidbits in the article: the Rift and Vive are estimated to have sold only 100K units or so each, compared to the Gear VR (Galaxy Note smartphone not included) which has moved about a million units. 

When the company with the best-selling VR "headset" is wanting to wait before selling a standalone version, thus competing directly with the Rift, Vive, and PS4 headsets... well, maybe the rest of the tech media world can press pause on the VR hype flow, too. Not that I expect them to, of course, but we can dream.

VR's unexpected problem: Supply

From CBC News:

The Oculus Rift virtual reality headset's retail launch in Canada has been delayed in some stores — one day before its planned release.

The Rift was scheduled to hit store shelves Tuesday, but Best Buy's site now says it's due on Oct. 11, a delay of three weeks.

A Best Buy representative confirmed the store is experiencing "unexpected delays" and that the retail chain is "working hard with Oculus to expedite orders as quickly as possible."

[...]

A Microsoft Store representative in Toronto said Rift headsets also aren't expected in their stores on Tuesday, but online orders should ship normally.

[...]

This isn't the first time Oculus has dealt with product delays. In May, Rift headsets began showing up in some stores in the U.S., while customers who had already pre-ordered a headset were told they would have to wait months for their units to arrive.

With all the other challenges that VR faces in convincing consumers to buy into an essentially useless new technology, and with even VR evangelists admitting that people really need to try VR to be convinced to buy, it certainly isn't going to help that the biggest brand in VR can't even get their headsets onto store shelves. It probably shouldn't be a surprise, though; Oculus themselves are technical experts, not logistics experts, and Facebook aren't exactly in the business of manufacturing and shipping physical goods, either. Marketing is a lot easier, in some ways, than physically delivering promised products.

Oh, the Rift's other problem? Price point. Still from CBC News:

The Rift sells for $849 with the game Lucky's Tale included. A Windows PC is required for it to work.

The delay will place the Rift in stores only two days before the launch of the cheaper PlayStation VR headset, which will sell for $549, or in a bundle with a camera, two Move controllers and the game PlayStation VR Worlds for $699.

The pricier HTC Vive is currently available in Canada for $1,149.

Seriously, HTC? $1149 CAD? Good luck with that, especially considering that the Vive needs a special, separate room for its room-scale set up to work at all.

Even at a relatively modest $849 CAD, though, not including the $1500 PC that you need to drive the thing (the Vive's required PC specs are basically the same), the Rift is going to be a tough sell compared to the $699 CAD PlayStation VR ($379.99 CAD PS4 not included). And PlayStation VR is going to be a tough enough sell to start with, simply because it's a basically useless toy right now, that most users aren't even going to be able to get much use out of for gaming, and none at all for anything else, given that it'll be married to a gaming console.

Did I say yet, that VR isn't going to change everything? Because I'm standing by that prediction. This is just too much money, for a product that simply doesn't do enough out of the box.

Except play Lucky's Tale, of course:

Yes, that's right... the bundled VR game that Oculus expects to blow your mind is basically Super Mario 3D World, except not quite as good. Sweet. </sarcasm>

Seriously, people... you don't need this. At any price point, really, but certainly not at $849 CAD.

I finally tried VR for myself, and was not blown away

One of things that you continually hear from VR evangelists like the ones at Kotaku is their frustration at how difficult it can be to get people to try VR for themselves:

It remains frustratingly difficult to convey what is good or interesting about new VR games, especially to anyone who hasn’t already played games while wearing virtual reality goggles.

VR will blow us all away, we're told, if we'll just strap on a VR headset and give it a go ourselves.

Well, Sony seems to have taken this criticism to heart, because they're setting up shop in big retail outlets and probably at a mall near you, to let you try virtuality in actuality:

The excitement around PS VR has been enormous and once you try it, you’ll understand why. As all of you would expect, it’s our goal at PlayStation to deliver the best and richest VR gaming experiences, and we can’t wait for you to put that headset on and be transported into these worlds. If you get some hands-on time with PS VR this weekend, be sure to let us know what you think in the comments!

And when I say a mall near you, I mean a mall near me. As in, the mall I happened to be passing through earlier this evening, on my way to somewhere else. So, I did what any self-respecting gaming geek would do... I gave it a whirl.

The experience was rather underwhelming.

The Highs And Lows Of VR Gaming, according to a VR evangelist

As anyone who's been paying even the slightest bit of attention well knows, VR is the current darling of the tech media world, and of the gaming media world in particular. The hype has been off the chain, with VR's most ardent supporters bemoaning that VR's critics simply aren't interested in VR, leaving us criticizing something we haven't actually tried.

The reasons for this are very simple, of course:
a) VR is hella expensive, and
b) VR appears to be completely pointless.

Nonetheless, while sites like Kotaku have noticed, and noted, that stories about VR get fewer clicks and more negative comments than stores about actual, playable games, that apathy on the part of VR Luddites like myself hasn't stopped the VR faithful from clinging ferociously to the bandwagon, beating the drum of VR with all the energy they can muster.

Why is a third of Valve working on VR, instead of working on Steam's other, and much more serious, issues? Like the cheating loophole that it took them forever to get around to closing? Or the Counter-Strike skins gambling that they let run rampant on their service for way too long? Or their horrible, horrible customer service? Or the open sewer that is Steam: Greenlight? Or Half Life 3?

Well, quite simply, it's because VR is where the sex is. VR is the new hotness. At least, according to those with a vested interest in VR, or who've drunk the VR Kool-Aid.

So, after five months of this shameless boosterism, exactly how does one such booster feel about the current state of VR?

From Kotaku:

I’ve had an Oculus Rift and the rival Valve-backed HTC Vive headsets for several neglectful months. As amazing as it is to play games that surround you and as crazy as I am about playing video games in general, I don’t use either of my VR headsets very often. Two reasons: difficulty of use and lack of compelling games. The former may improve with future hardware iterations but will be overcome sooner the more we get VR games that can be called amazing without needing the caveat “for a VR game.”

Yep... pretty much as I expected.

I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it again: you don't need a VR headset. There's nothing you need to do, or even really want to do, which requires VR; almost everything can be done just as effectively, if not more effectively, without these expensive, currently pointless gizmos.

VR is not ready. It will be years before VR is anywhere near ready for mass-market adoption, and none of this current generation of VR hardware will be part of what VR evolves into, when that time comes, if it ever comes. Sony's VR headset will sell better than Oculus Rift or HTC Vive, but only because it will be cheaper; it won't provide any better or more compelling experiences, and by next June all of those Xmas Sony VR purchases will be gathering dust like the useless tat they are.

Now, if you've got $2K to waste, and nothing better to do with it, and want to waste it on VR gear that you'll barely use, then by all means, knock yourself out. It's your money, after all; you do you. But don't expect us to do the same, and for fuck sake, stop preaching about it. After all, as Kotaku themselves put it, our apathy towards VR is entirely rational. It's the VR evangelists who are being ridiculous about this.

Intel may have solved 1 of VR's many problems

There are many reasons why I don't think current-gen VR is going to be anywhere near as influential as the hype would have you believe, but Intel may have solved one of them: they've cut the cord.

From Gizmodo:

Intel just announced its own virtual reality headset called Project Alloy, a VR competitor to the Oculus Rift, HTC Vive, and the forthcoming PlayStation VR headsets. But what separates the Alloy from the pack is that it’s completely wireless [...] and it should give you complete spatial awareness without all the dongles the Rift and Vive currently require.

It does this using two of Intel’s RealSense cameras to continuously map your environment. It can even map your hands. 

[...]

Intel calls the idea “Merged Reality,” essentially combining inputs from cameras around your environment into a virtual world. And Intel was able to pack everything—the processor, sensors, and controllers—into one cord-free headset.

The headset is still too large, but and apparently isn't as smooth an experience as, say, Oculus or HTC Vive, both of which tether you to your PC, and it won't be available anytime soon (Intel plans to open-source the hardware in the 2nd half of 2017), but even so... finally going wireless is a step in the direction that VR technology needs to move, if it's to make itself more attractive to anyone other than well-heeled and highly forgiving early adopters.

Mind, while this is a step, it's only the first step, of what will likely be many, many steps. The actual weight, performance, and battery life of Intel's headsets will all be critically important, for one thing; RealSense will have to improve significantly if it's to be used as the primary input method; I'm still not seeing anything that suggest Intel have solved the navigation problem (moving through virtual spaces), or the simulation sickness problem; the final cost of the headsets will need to be closer to Sony VR than Oculus Rift; and (of course) they still need a killer VR app, which they don't have yet...

So, yeah, problems still abound, folks. Don't get too carried away by the hype on this one. The biggest change that this will likely bring to the VR space is wireless versions of the competitions' headsets.