Slashdot Mirror
Oculus Founder Explains Why the Rift VR Headset Will Cost "More Than $350"
An anonymous reader writes: When Oculus took to Kickstarter in 2012, the company sought to create the 'DK1', a development kit of the Rift which the company wanted to eventually become an affordable VR headset that they would eventually take to market as a consumer product. At the time, the company was aiming for a target price around $350, but since then the company, and the scope of the Rift headset, has grown considerably. That's one reason why Oculus Founder Palmer Luckey says that the consumer Rift headset, launching in Q1 2016, will cost more than $350. '...the reason for that is that we've added a lot of technology to this thing beyond what existed in the DK1 and DK2 days,' says Luckey.
This sounds like a classic case of feature creep. Good luck to them, but at this point, things look very bleak. This team is lacking strong management that can throw the bullshit flag on the field and rein them in.
The parts of cheap. Make 100 Million headsets and you could sell them profitably for $150. They've got a mountain of engineering debt to pay off, though, and they're sure as hell not going to sell 100 million.
People (and research) are expensive. That's why it's going to cost so much.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
"added a lot of technology " but fails to mention what they added. Yup lenses. Expensive display. "sensors". Yes, and a lot of small parts add up quickly. If you need to add a high end pc as well, they better heve some steaming content!
Perhaps it's just one of those inflation controversies?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Depends on the game and the graphics settings. You could easily run a game with Lawnmower Man style graphics with a mid range card in 120FPS on each eye.
I think VR can be very interesting even without the super fancy hyper realistic graphics of the latest generaton games.
Like with most technology, VR will become a success thanks to how it can help improve self-pleasure.
The digital tablet, the smart phone, the World Wide Web, the PC, the VCR, cable/satellite television, the telephone, ham radio, and even the printing press became popular, despite being expensive technologies in their early days, because they could deliver erotica in one form or another to people, who then used it to arouse and stimulate themselves while they were self-pleasuring (aka masturbating).
VR has real potential here. Take your fantasy, for example. Although you're white, you've always wished that you had a large, black member to play with. When you're wearing VR goggles, they could give you the perception that the cock you're fondling is darker, thicker, and about three times as big as it actually is.
Expand these possibilities to all genital fondlers and all of their fantasies, and suddenly this technology starts looking better and better, even if it is expensive in the near term. The early, passionate adopters will help advance the state of the art, and soon enough this technology will come down in cost, while increasing significantly in terms of its feature set.
You'll feel like a real dork, I hope, in three or four years when VR headsets retail for less than $100, and have an FPS rate over 1000.
As a person who actually tried it (albeit preview version): you can get sick no matter the FPS depending on what is being shown to you AND your genetics.
You don't need 4k $ PC to get high enough FPS, another way is to have slightly simpler scene, no problem. And if you think consoles (Sony has something between AMD 7850-7870 in it) check out this demo (real time rendering):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I wouldn't bet on OR, though. (offtopic: a real shame how kickstarter backers won't get anything from FB deal)
If anyone, Sony, which YEARS AGO released wearable TV (HMZ series) is working on project Morpheus and has helluva experience in gaming/controllers area, will do that.
On pricing side of things, Sony's rep once said it would cost "as console", so 350$-ish area.
You just charged $5 for the perfect glass of lemonade. Your total profits for the week are down. Would you like to alter your lemonade recipe and pricing scheme?
I've been a huge supporter of Oculus since the Kickstarter. When people complained about the Facebook buyout, I tried to point out that a major player in the tech industry (like them or not, they are a major player) just dropped a massive investment in VR. When people complained about how long it was taking, I argued that doing something like this, and doing it well, has to take time - an inferior product could be a major issue for VR adoption. When they balked at releasing specs, I reminded myself that it's probably best, they wanted to make sure they had it right before they committed to something.
My first doubts started when they finally released the specs. I was really hoping for a 4K screen. After all the time and money, it seemed logical - come out of the gate with something really great or stay home. Sure, 4K isn't necessary, but there are applications for VR that would really benefit from it. Game will be the vehicle that carries the initial adoption of VR, but there are a ton of real-world applications waiting to be discovered. Personally, I want to throw out my monitors and use a VR headset to create a virtual workspace. But, anything less than 4K isn't going to give me the detail I need to write code on a virtual monitor "floating" a few feet in front of me.
My next doubts came when I started looking at the amount of "executives" and "directors" and people who stand up and do a lot of talking. I've noticed a trend (it's not new, it's always been there, I just finally noticed) - the more talking heads you have in a company, the longer, more expensive, more feature bloated (and never the features we actually want), more disappointing a product becomes. All these people swooped in and promptly buried something really cool in all the typical corporate ("we're not corporate, man! we're a startup that just happens to look like a bloated corporate monstrosity) BS.
Then this. After all the talk keeping it affordable, then they pull this crap.
I get that things add up, but I'll put this in perspective - I work for a company that is supplying them, and I know what we're charging (very low piece prices, and we're expensive compared to our competitors that do larger volumes). I also have access to price sheets from the kinds of suppliers that they're working with. Let's put it this way - there's no legitimate reason that they can't make a 4K rift with all the sensors they have, sell it for $200-$250, and still make a profit. So, either they've gotten a little top-heavy in the salary department, or they're getting greedy. Or both.
Either way, I'm done offering my (measly, not-reall-worth-much) support. My money is on Valve now (we're supplying them too, I've gotten to see some pretty cool stuff)
Yeah man, if I listen to music played though cables that aren't oxygen-free and connectors that aren't gold-plated, it gives me a splitting headache too.
Why should a company have to explain this at all? For things that aren't a public good it's morally a company's right to charge what the market will bear. Obviously charging $30 for a surgical mask after 9/11 or $750 for an AIDS pill that costs $1 to make is immoral, but we're talking about a new, innovative product used for entertainment. They don't owe it to the public to charge as little as possible.
If another company can make one just as good for a cheaper price, that's awesome. Until then this is a luxury item with the price of a luxury item and that's okay.
If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
For once, you are 100% on topic.
Oh no... it's the future.
First off, games that are optimized for pure eye candy strain current cards, yes. But you don't have to have teh bezt pozzible grafix for everything. Take Alien: Isolation - looked really good, but ran at excellent framerates even on older cards. And even has some vr support. Tradeoffs can be made to crank framerate, and not horrible tradeoffs. I can handle 2010 graphics on VR, it's not like those games looked bad.
And no, a $4000 PC isn't necessary. The official specs are more like $1K these days. In fact, definitely $1K.
And no, 120fps/eye isn't necessary. You need low latency, definitely, but not that low. The DK2 peaks at 76fps, and yet few people report sickness at that rate.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Input lag. If you move your head but the screen doesn't update the view until 1/60th of a second later then apparently that causes some (all?) people to feel motion sickness. But reducing the lag to 1/120th of a second alleviates the symptoms.
I would definitely trust Occulus's engineers on this one. They've actually tested these things and they'd have no reason to make things more difficult on themselves (by requiring higher refresh rates) unless it was a genuine issue affecting potential customers.
Content / Experience. Go back to the early flip phone days and ask if anyone could ever see paying $700 for a mobile phone (!). They would have you committed (or give you millions in VC money, because, insanity). "Surely not more than a few thousand die-hard fanboys will shell out that kind of money for a phone"
The content / experience has helped drive mobile phones to be valued so highly, and VR will likewise be dependent. If it becomes the Must See TV of 2017 then all projections are out the window. And there are a lot of content creators anxious to get in early. Many app developers, meet many VR experience developers.
Pretending this is my office full of bitter coworkers..
I agree. Also, if people will shell out $700 for the iPhone, there will be plenty of buyers for a VR headset. Even just for watching movies it would probably be a better experience than trying to watch movies on a small monitor. The games don't have to be lifelike to be fun.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
FYI: Oxygen free copper cables are quite cheap and commonly used for home wiring.
VR is sort of like 3D movies and TV. Every generation or so it pops up again, everyone gets all excited about it, products are released that either disappoint or don't sell well, it never really catches on, and then it goes back to hibernation for another generation or so.
Don't get me wrong, I *hope* it succeeds this time. But if it's going to, companies need to get some actual consumer products on the shelves. And they need to be:
1) Consumer priced (not over $1,000 total)
2) Relatively easy to use
3) On mainstream store shelves
4) Available with demos so people can actually see for themselves what all the hype is about
So far, there has been years of hype, but only one actual consumer product (the Samsung Gear). And even the gear requires a wonky paired cellphone (a very particular cellphone) setup, and it's far from the shelves of most Walmarts and Best Buys. I'm not even sure it's on the shelves at most cellphone stores.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Oh, and I forgot to add, of course:
5) They need to have SOFTWARE. A VR headset isn't very useful if no one is making games or apps for it.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Oculus Rift was dead to me the instant Facebook bought it.
I totally agree, the cost is simply too high. I put this in the same category as smartwatches, a nice toy, but not a must have, yet. When this is 100 - 150 I think then you'll start to see some movement.
"Science is the power of man"
I would not want my worst enemy to experience VR with a cheap headset. It takes precision, quality materials, high resolution low latency display panels, tracking, etc. I don't even know why this is a conversation at 350$ .. $850? Yes, then I would say hmm. But I'd almost expect even an $850 unit. You're talking about state of the art VR technology that you would not want to put down and it could transform how you even use computers. Let the knockoffs with poor quality components cater to the cheaper crowd. $350 folks! Not $3,500.. Geez
blatant lies!
Only the PC Master Race will get workable VR.
VR is not for unwashed console peasants.
All they deserve are 47fps bulimia simulators.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Why is it any thread about 3d or VR brings the party poopers out in force? We get it already. Really. You don't like 3d or VR. You got a tummy ache when you tried it or maybe your widdle noggin hurt. The idea is completely without merit and just a way to scam people out of their money, therefore no one should make or use these technologies. You point to the numerous failures to deliver, but decade after decade, someone tries to do it. It's just a matter of time before the killer app and the technology finally converge.
If the product is not for you, move along. I swear, sometimes this place is just filled with people that seem to WANT things to fail.
It seems like there are some very simply ways of getting around that. If the issue is simply turning your head, then you just need to render slightly more screen area than you use. So you are ready for when the user turns their head, and you an update the displays without needing another render. You probably only need like 10% more area, and now you only need to render half as often.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
The eye is capable of detecting that much because of the way the images are generated.
Vermifax
Logout
it is mostly eye vs body, but on the monitor aspect yes you can see when things run above 60HZ, its most pronounced on fast camera pans, is it a huge deal? not on a single screen, 2 screens strapped to your eyeball? dunno
I think the main reason these things fail is because people, upon getting the 3D devices, realize that they're not actually what was wanted in the first place.
What people think about when they hear "VR" is The Matrix (or something similar.) They kinda sorta recognize that a headset or 3DTV isn't going to give you that, but they go with it anyway and get excited because they think it might be a decent compromise between what can be done, and what's wanted.
And then you find out that if "normal", flat, technology is 231 millionths of the way towards VR, that actually 3D goggles (or whatever) is only 237 millionths of the way towards VR. And it's clunky, and makes your eyes bleed.
So they go back to the 2D devices, and we forget about 3D for another 20 years.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
But for other kinds of game I really don't see the benefit. Yeah it could be used for first person shooters (for example) but then the game has to somehow reconcile a person running, spinning, jumping, aiming, shooting, standing, crouching and throwing stuff to someone in real life sat on a couch. It's likely that it will be extremely disorientating and puke inducing.
And aside from FPSs what can we expect? Probably some lame jump scare horror games. Probably some table top style games. But nothing that particularly justifies the experience. I bet most games will work as well if not better in 2D.
The strange part is there are at least 3 major efforts to do VR plus a number of smaller ones and they'll end up cannibalizing the market for what it is. It's going to be a bloodbath.
How about motion blur? Won't that also reduce the problem without necessarily increasing the processing complexity?
Everyone said the same thing about the original Voodoo 3D card. But after the Voodoo 2 came out, even graphic card venders were jumping on the bandwagon. Yea this is going to be expensive, but if its good enough to see the future thats coming, it will be enough to jump start VR even at that price point.
Are your friends insects?
No sig today...
VR is dead, sorry. Early adopters might pay 350$ for the headset, if only they have the necessary 4000$ PC to run it. This thing is not going to be usable on a a 300$ PC/Console anytime soon. It requires 120fps per eye to not make people sick. Current mid-range video cards don't even do 60fps on a single card. So either people are going to get a poor experience because they have poor hardware, or they're going to get a visit to the hospital because the headset physically makes them sick if they make it run at anything less than 120fps.
Nope. You only need to update the headset at 120fps, not the rendered image. You can re-use/distort the same rendered image multiple times to keep the headset happy while you render the next one. It would only take a fraction of the graphics card's power to do that.
With this technique even a 30Hz scene update rate would be fine.
No sig today...
Motion blur in VR makes you sick to your stomach and makes it really hard to see what's going on. The DK1 suffered from lots of motion blur, and it was very unpleasant. The DK2 added a low-persistence display (the OLEDs turn off while the pixels are changing, and only stay on a shorter amount of time, tricking your brain into reduced perceived motion blur) and it was a huge improvement.
Time warp helps, but the more frames you have to interpolate, the worse the inconsistencies are. Using it to quadruple the framerate is not going to fly, because as your head moves, your perspective shifts, and time warp can't account for changes in perspective. There's also the issue that time warp does nothing for the game world itself, and your view moving around at 120Hz while everything in the world is moving at 30Hz is not exactly ideal either.
Nah... you obviously either never used the Rift headset or are too sensitive and frail... like a delicate flower
So their marketing strategy will be, "If you can't use this, you are a girly man?"
Will we they be resurrecting Hans and Franz as spokespeople?
Motion blur still won't change the fact your input is laggy, and there are performance issues.
If your turn your head, and the brain spots that the turning does not match what you see, there is a chance you get a headache right there after 2-3 goes at it.
Motion blur on the other hand only smooths your perception of how "neat" the turning was. It doesn't change that your head spotted the 1-2 frames of delay, and you now get sea sickness.
Occulus will run on a $1200 computer, if one shops smartly.
Why do they deserve 47fps, all it would do is ruin the cinematic feel: the human eye cannot perceive over 24fps anyway.
Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
At work they had an Oculus VR demo this past week and I got the chance to test one (I don't know the full specs of that particular unit). My experience and comments from the 5 min demo:
- Very first thing I noticed when I wore the headset was that the resolution seemed low, and the screen wasn't that bright.
- I had no control over the motion of the demo; as a result during panning, I could feel a twinge of motion sickness. Don't know what the framerate/latency was.
- It is a bit disconcerting to look at your virtual self, and while you move your real legs/arms, you don't see your virtual legs/arm move.
- The overall experience is very interesting and I think VR could be quite an enjoyable entertainment medium, but it definitely needs some work.
Guess what, not all tech needs to be all things to all people. This reminds me of the last few decades of 'PC gaming is dead because consoles are cheap'. The irony is that VR is what is pushing PC way beyond the consoles. The floor for VR is 1440p @ 90 HZ, we should be able to do that with sub-$500 rendering hardware in a few years. Right now a fully capable VR rig including headset and laser tracking is looking to land around $1500. Its only going to get cheaper over time.
Good-bye
"I agree. Also, if people will shell out $700 for the iPhone, there will be plenty of buyers for a VR headset."
Ah, here is the central point. Charge what the market will bear! Everyone has been dreaming of working VR for 30 years now. The pent up demand it outrageous. If you hear a price that makes sense, it's too low.
-- "Oh. This guy again."
Ok. So it's going to be more than $350. Personally, I found it a pretty low price to start with. Now the question is how much more? $400? $500? $750? Everything up to $500 would be ok, I guess. If you are willing to spend $350, then $500 isn't a real dealbreaker. Anything more than that and it's a different ball game. Of course, there is always the HTC Vive ( Playstation VR as well, but I'm not a console person.) so we can always see what those will cost. As for games, enough people have said that sims will be very nice with this ( Space, car, plane,...) it's a best fit were games are concerned. Some immersive horror games à la Alien: Isolation will work as well. But nothing with harsh, sudden movement like the FPSes we know today. I'm sure they'll come up with some variation of it though... For me, immersive landscapes would be nice as well. Something like the aquarium simulators, but you're sitting right in them. Oceans, lakes, great Barrier Reef, but also a pleasing meadow. You're sitting by the tree line, there are rabbits playing around your feet, squirels coming up to you, some deer pass a couple of dozen feet from where you are, a bear lumbers towards you, has a sniff and crashes in the underbrush behind you etc. Old peoples homes would be ideal for those experiences. Same with guided tours of famous places. More Grand Canyon than the Louvre because detail will be less then current crop of games at the start. And that is just the first version. Once we get a kinect-like camera on it so our hands/arms/bodies will be imported in the game at the same time enabling a form of AR, once we go wireless, higher resolution, eye-tracking for better detail i'm pretty confident ( well, ok, I hope....) that in 5 years we won't be able to imagine entertainment/ infotainment/edutainment without it.
VR is dead, sorry. Early adopters might pay 350$ for the headset, if only they have the necessary 4000$ PC to run it.
There are a number of 'Oculus ready' PCs advertised on the Oculus website for 1k.
This thing is not going to be usable on a a 300$ PC/Console anytime soon.
Your Ignorance of PC gaming industry is amusing.
It requires 120fps per eye to not make people sick.
Lots of things make people sick in VR. Lag, moving cameras, change in rate of motion, change in direction without commensurate forces felt in real life. For Oculus the target is 90fps because this matches the refresh rate of the display. Any disparity will make the experience suck. There are schemes like timewarp that try and make up for minor performance dips but you really need to sustain 90fps.
For most part sickness is a problem which more than anything has to be worked around in software... Sitting in cockpits of airplanes, space ships and race cars are probably going to be sort of games that work the best in VR for quite some time.
Current mid-range video cards don't even do 60fps on a single card.
Oculus requires a high end card. 90fps or bust.
That indeed is the elephant in the room:
* Nausea
There is a HUGE disconnect between with what your eyes are telling your brain and what your ears are. Your brain is getting mixed messages. We've been able to somewhat "get over" it in 2D monitors because of lack of immersion. I've been gaming since the early 80's and *never* get motion sickness. I do with VR. :-/ A certain percentage of the population gets sick on boats. That's not a great "strength" for VR.
I think it is way too early to write VR off. (I tend to as well but I also want to wait-and-see.) There are some fantastic *niche* markets.
Want to get over your fear of heights? Parachuting? Sky diving? Take a VR course! :-)
Apparently Tim Sweeney is betting the farm on VR
We'll probably see more hologram phone hacks like this in the meantime which is WAY more accessible.
This would be like the small rooms with projections on the walls, floor, and ceiling often called a "cave". You do lose the parallax from having a different image for each eye with the helmet or cave approach.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
Lack of humor detection detected.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'm not sure if he is actually using a VR headset, but he does mention he is using head tracking to look around the ship in that video.
The software is there, many games support VR, unfortunately, the hardware is still so hard to find, or over priced.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
It's not the fixed focal distance.
How do I know?
I'm old. Old people basically have fixed focus eyes. My DK2 is just as capable of making me sick as my VFX1 was. It isn't really any better. The DK2 developers are just getting used to it, so whatever they work on seems to help.
It's all about the content. Don't do descent in VR or you will puke, just like we did in Descent 2 in 1998.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
VR is not dead, and you guys are forgetting the most important thing. Vulkan/Dx12 Do you know what impact these bare metals will have with performance for VR?
Vulkan/Dx12 is coming soon and that is going to have a HUGE impact on gaming. Thus making it less expensive and not requiring such a high end PC.
Dunno - Oculus' people said 90 frames per sec, while the Anonymous Coward said 120, so clearly Oculus' engineers are talking out of their asses.
All cows are lawnmowers but not all lawnmowers are cows.
TMYK~
I've tried the Occulus Rift DK1, DK2, and Crystal Cove. I've also tried the Samsung GearVR. Here's my experience. DK2/Crystal/GearVR fixed the latency/movement issues. The problem is the resolution is too low. Now the Gear VR was the highest resolution headset. It is 2560x1440 so the resolution is 1280x1440 per eye. A 4K screen is 3840x2160 so 1920x2160 per eye. This resolution will be quite good, I don't think it will give you full presence however. But it will look a lot better than a 1990s DOS game. I suspect that VR will deliver presence at 7680x4320 aka 8K where each eye will have 3840x4320 pixels per eye. This is probably 2-3 years away, based on the current 4K screen technology. I'm not excited for the rift's release, but I don't think a flop would be fatal to VR. I do however think it's a bit premature to release it now. My guess is the early adopters are going to get burned, but the tech itself will be pretty good.
consumer Rift headset, launching in Q1 2016
i just don't think this will happen
Thank you Dave Raggett
VR is "Dead on Arrival"
It is DOA because the demand is mostly hype.
Also, the technology is at a level where things are either too easy to copy (every other company could bring one to market quickly, most have VR prototypes now) -or- it is too expensive and requires too much adaptation to get anyone interested.
Part of the hype comes from the sheer number of hobbyist/techies out there now willing to throw down on a Kickstarter for something like this. That's not good or bad that's just a fact...there are just more potential "early adopters" who will use things like Occulus on just a few games/applications after much tinkering and be happy.
Google's Cardboard is good example at the zero sum economic forces making this whole "VR revolution" thing essentially 'DOA': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Thank you Dave Raggett
why would you need 120fps per eye when the human eye isn't really capable of seeing that much?
Actually it's much more complicated.
Depending on several factor, humans might notice 120fps.
(Mainly "dotted path" type of artefacts).
(The situation is different than audiophile's obsession with 192KHz which CAN'T be heard)
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Inexplicably, the new Descent will work with the DK2.
Haven't tried it myself. My first/last cigar was 30+ years ago too. Some lessons you don't forget.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Just reading through this SD I just thought of another big potential problem with these displays. We are talking about people wearing headsets that put fully 100% of their vision a few mm from video displays potentially for hours at a time. There must be considered the quality of the light that these displays emit - it needs a good spectrum but even more importantly it needs to be non-polarised. In short over-exposure to highly polarised light is a strong contender as one of the causes of 'sickness' people often get if they persistently use ordinary LCD displays too closely and for too long. - The same effect could be a prime cause of the 'motion sickness' that still seems to be associated with using VR for extended periods of more than a few minutes.
A basic solution and researching it should be easy - do tests comparing displays using LED light, verses LCDs.
(However even the light from most LEDs is still quite coherent and sometimes partly polarised.)
A more complete & better experiment would be to extend the test to also include other plasma displays or even CRT types if they can be found or built. Both plasma displays and CRTs can solve partly the persistence issue using tuned phosphors.
An even better further extension might be to include DLP mirror type projection displays - they avoid the polarization problem and can use incandescent lights that can produce extremely good colour temperatures, or even RGB lasers.. Even DLP’s using white LED light could be used as long as the light is produced indirectly by a white phosphor.
Another Great potential Future Solution Brought to you by - Robert Lucien & Tech ONE Research.. :)
Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
Correction - the human *brain* is not capable of resolving *individual images* at that speed. Even 30FPS challenges it. However there is a LOT more to the visual system than image recognition. Motion detection for example happens at far higher speeds, and most people can easily tell the difference in fluidity between an animation at 60FPS and one at 100+FPS.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
There are separate images displayed to each eye. A wrap-around screen wouldn't be in 3D, because you wouldn't get the depth perception cues from parallax (as Agent0013 mentioned). You could get increased field of view though. However, a wrap-around screen with 3D glasses might be feasible. Still, if you want to do head tracking, so that you can lean around obstacles etc, you'd still need to update the screen quickly enough that you won't get sick.