I think they're still figuring out ergonomics too. Eg, why has there been a rise of "living room PC's" and controllers on PC? Because people like to just flop out on the couch and say they find merely sitting up in a chair at a desk with a mouse is too much effort...VR by itself is a huge leap. Add motion controllers AND walking around, and I think it is too much, too soon for developers to figure out.
What I found interesting is that one of my coworkers surprised me by actually asking about the Vive. She was rather interested in the idea of being able to move around rather than having to be seated.
The Vive's 'moving around' isn't going to be practical in most cases. And while the controllers are wireless it doesn't seem that the headset is? Or am I missing that....because if it isn't wireless...moving around will be pretty limited.
I'll take the chair simulator. I kind of have room for the light sensors, but I don't want to change my room around to accommodate them. I'll wait to see how that stuff works out. I play games to relax and to chat with friends, I'm not quite sure how walking around a room will make that better.
VR by itself is a huge leap. Add motion controllers AND walking around, and I think it is too much, too soon for developers to figure out.
If you have 5 minutes, watch this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NixHENChoQ4
In the case of Hover Junkers, they adapt the spaceship platform to your room size. Yes, the headset is wired, which is a limitation, but you can get a long cable for power & data. There is a company working on high-speed wireless (remember, this is a combined 2160x1200 resolution with 110-degree FOV @ 90hz, so that'd be pushing an awful lot of data through the air), but you also have to factor in batteries & weight, so I don't imagine that we'll see that for another couple of years. You either get a high-powered desktop-driven setup like the Rift or Vive, or you go wireless with a Gear VR.
As a gamer I'm more interested in the Rift (i.e. seated experience). The room experience has a more 'Wow' factor, something to show your house guests to impress them for a few minutes, but not for playing games seriously, where I usually go for 2-4 hour sessions (or longer, in the case of MMOs).
I think they're still figuring out ergonomics too. Eg, why has there been a rise of "living room PC's" and controllers on PC? Because people like to just flop out on the couch and say they find merely sitting up in a chair at a desk with a mouse is too much effort...
I think the rise of living room PC's and PC controllers is due to console gamers wanting console-style games for cheap steam sale prices.
I'm not worried about my desktop being able to handle VR, but I was curious how my laptop would do. It's certainly no slouch with the i7-4710HQ and a GTX 980M, which I recall barely meeting Oculus's recommended specifications, but wow... it was BAD. It only scored a "Medium" with a 3.6 rating in the benchmark. Obviously, the GPU was the bottleneck, but until Pascal comes out, there won't be an upgrade avenue for my laptop. MSI has promised two generations of upgrades, but since I bought it prior to G-Sync being available, I don't even think it's worth spending the premium as the GPU upgrades are around $800.
EDIT:
To add, I just ran it on my desktop (i7-6700k + GTX 980 Ti (factory overclocked model)), and it got a 10.7.
Also regarding Rift vs Vive - you guys know the Rift can do standing/moving around too! The Vive may be better at full scale room movement. Which is nice for trade shows and demos. But most people are limited to a small room at home, which the rift can do just fine. Also the rift will be getting motion controllers and add-on tracking sensors in the future. The rift seems better to me for now, it is lighter, more ergonomic, and has better game support out the door. But we'll see once both are out how things play out.
Supposedly the GP100 is supposed to be out in June. If that's the case, I'll leave my Oculus in the box for a month & wait on my PC build. A 16GB Pascal GPU should have a pretty dang long shelf life. Hoping they give some ship dates soon so we know one way or the other...
Despite the Vive being technically better, I think the Oculus will win (1) for the lower initial price, and (2) for having more games supported. I don't remember the exact numbers, but Oculus has already shipped like 130k dev units out, whereas Vive had like 15k. So developers have had years to develop stuff & get prepped for the official release. I'm sure there will be dual compatibility & whatnot down the road, but out of the gate, I'm thinking the Oculus is going to have a pretty good head start.
I'm not worried about my desktop being able to handle VR, but I was curious how my laptop would do. It's certainly no slouch with the i7-4710HQ and a GTX 980M, which I recall barely meeting Oculus's recommended specifications, but wow... it was BAD. It only scored a "Medium" with a 3.6 rating in the benchmark. Obviously, the GPU was the bottleneck, but until Pascal comes out, there won't be an upgrade avenue for my laptop. MSI has promised two generations of upgrades, but since I bought it prior to G-Sync being available, I don't even think it's worth spending the premium as the GPU upgrades are around $800.
EDIT:
To add, I just ran it on my desktop (i7-6700k + GTX 980 Ti (factory overclocked model)), and it got a 10.7.