Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Facebook Is Closing 200 of Its 500 VR Demo Stations At Best Buy Stores Across US (businessinsider.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the out-with-the-old-in-with-the-new dept.

According to Business Insider, "Facebook is closing around 200 of its 500 Oculus Rift virtual-reality demo stations at Best Buy locations across the U.S." The reason has to do with "store performance," as multiple Best Buy pop-ups told Business Insider that "it was common for them to go days without giving a single demonstration." From their report: Oculus spokeswoman Andrea Schubert confirmed the closings and said they were due to "seasonal changes." "We're making some seasonal changes and prioritizing demos at hundreds of Best Buy locations in larger markets," she said. "You can still request Rift demos at hundreds of Best Buy stores in the U.S. and Canada." "We still believe the best way to learn about VR is through a live demo," she continued. "We're going to find opportunities to do regular events and pop ups in retail locations and local communities throughout the year." Best Buy spokeswoman Carly Charlson said stores that no longer offer demos will continue to sell the Oculus Rift headset and accompanying touch controllers, which cost $600 and $200 respectively. Multiple "Oculus Ambassador" workers BI spoke with said that, at most, they would sell a few Oculus headsets per week during the holiday season, and that foot traffic to their pop-ups decreased drastically after Christmas. "There'd be some days where I wouldn't give a demo at all because people didn't want to," said one worker at a Best Buy in Texas who asked to remain anonymous. Another worker from California said that Oculus software bugs would often render his demo headsets unusable.

79 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Real answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... the real reason is that VR is dead. Normal people get sick after about 15 minutes of using VR. You cannot solve that problem. It is physiological. Facebook wasted billions.

    1. Re:Real answer... by avandesande · · Score: 2

      What's old is new again. Wasn't this discovered in the early 90's?

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:Real answer... by youngone · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yup, VR is pointless and dead.

      Some PlayStation people were demoing their take on VR at a local Mall before Christmas, and they really did it well, with a huge trailer and lots of music.

      The real attraction was the fact that the people doing the demos were all hot young girls with big boobs and tight tee shirts. It was very busy, but I don't suppose they sold a single unit.

    3. Re:Real answer... by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Facebook wasted billions.

      Just goes to show that Carmack is a genius and Zuckerberg isn't.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:Real answer... by Skuld-Chan · · Score: 1

      I'd like to have a VR setup, but to be honest it's still way too expensive for something I'd only play specific "games" with.

    5. Re:Real answer... by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Informative

      No, VR is alive and well.

      It's just that when comparing the Oculus to the HTC Vive, the Oculus is inferior and more expensive (if you include the price of the controllers).

    6. Re:Real answer... by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      1+ AC. Why do military projects sort their VR ready staff out with such effort? Early VR attempts only worked with select people.
      Users don't like chromatic distortion, color separation, that feeling of been unhappy when using VR in 2017.
      No amount of hype, positive reviews about VR perfection, charming demo staff and use by select tech media can make up for what users experience with VR.
      Try a big tent or dome. More users might feel more comfortable and the product might sell.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    7. Re:Real answer... by TheFakeTimCook · · Score: 1

      ... the real reason is that VR is dead. Normal people get sick after about 15 minutes of using VR. You cannot solve that problem. It is physiological. Facebook wasted billions.

      Exactly.

    8. Re:Real answer... by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      VR in it's current form has many flaws. The resolution, while pretty good, is closer (relatively speaking) to flip-phones than it is a modern smartphone. The headsets are a bit too heavy, the FOV while good isn't great, the wires are annoying, and you need a beefy computer to power them. And of course it's expensive.

      What it is not, is sickness inducing. The technology, as it is now, does not cause nausea. I suppose someone extremely sensitive could feel unwell after using it for a while, but for the average (or indeed even for most fairly sensitive people) the technology itself will not cause sickness. Now, some software for it certainly *can* induce some pretty gut-wrenching nausea, if it wasn't developed properly: developers are used to flatscreen 3D programming, where you can do horribly unnatural camera movements that'd make the most iron-stomached person upchuck in VR (I mean, some games on flatscreen monitors can make people nauseous). But the technology? No, nausea is solved from a hardware point of view. Of course there'll be naysayers, especially on Slashdot ("less space than a Nomad", anyone?), but VR isn't a gimmick, it isn't 3D TV (though ironically it's probably the best way to actually view 3D movie content), it isn't the VirtualBoy, it's a gamechanging technology. Which also isn't to say it's about to change the game anytime soon. Like any early technology, it's a few generations away from really coming into its own, but it's already well on its way.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    9. Re:Real answer... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Considering how people I know keep picking up VR kids left and right, I can't really say that VR is dead. Occulus may be, though. It got wedged between the cheaper PS4 VR kit that pretty much offers what the Occulus does and the Vive which, while about 1.5 times as expensive, offers a lot better and more exact controls as well as a room-scale experience.

      Occulus has a problem, I give you that. VR itself... I wouldn't cast the verdict yet. I do agree, though, that it lacks that application that makes heads turn. AAA studios steer clear of VR titles so far since there is simply no established set of "known successful" formulas yet, and they hare risking sinking money into something that's not tested. Hence what you get so far is mostly indie stuff, and that's hardly something that will make you want to spend a thousand bucks for the hardware.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    10. Re:Real answer... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I can see how some people may get motion sickness, but I cannot really say I had that experience.

      My guess is that this problem needs a solution, and that some people will not be able to utilize the technology because no matter how good the technology, they'll always get sick. I think what's needed to eliminate this problem is some way to "anchor" yourself, visually, in the room. Some object you can latch your mind onto that doesn't move, rotate or otherwise shift around.

      I noticed that most people have the biggest problems with lateral position changes, i.e. when the simulation moves you to the left or right. People are generally pretty tolerant to (virtual) acceleration and deceleration in the direction they're facing.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:Real answer... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Actually, the price tag is about 1000 bucks currently, give or take a bit. I use my kitchen, which can easily "converted" to the gaming room by moving the table to a corner. You don't really need that much room, 2.5x2.5 meters and you're on. More than 5x5 ain't supported anyway.

      As for the social aspect, there are actually games for "local multiplayer" where one person is "blinded" with the VR set and the others are using the controllers to e.g. guide him while they, in turn, can't see what he's seeing. That does actually make a pretty entertaining party game. Not to mention that it's hilarious to watch someone play the game while you watch him engage in shadow boxing while you can at the same time watch what he sees on the computer screen.

      All in all, it's a nice experience. Worth a 1000 bucks? Probably not. But then, with the current interest rates, what should i've done with the dough anyway?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    12. Re:Real answer... by ezelkow1 · · Score: 1

      Not really, they both have their positives and negatives. Rifts are for most people considered more comfortable due to the strap setup and that it has less weight resting on the front of your face. The touch controllers have also been reviewed as being better all around to the vive wand option as well as providing some semblance of hand presence that you cant get with wands

      The vive is generally considered to have better tracking with its recommended light house setup so for full 15x15 roomscale usage a vive generally works better

      Also they are the same price when you factor in controllers. The rift is only more expensive if you buy a 3rd sensor, which most people dont really need unless they have a ton of full roomscale games and they cant be covered by 2 sensors, which isnt many

    13. Re:Real answer... by ezelkow1 · · Score: 2

      The rift did get motion controls though. If you spend the same amt as a vive you can get the touch controllers, which provide much nicer and more exact controls than the vive wands.

    14. Re:Real answer... by bigfinger76 · · Score: 1

      ...with the current interest rates, what should i have done with the dough anyway?

      Bitcoin would have been a better investment.

    15. Re:Real answer... by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's old is new again. Wasn't this discovered in the early 90's?

      late 70s and early 80s actually. Military technology has had VR for a very long time, though we used to call it "Stereo". DOD specifications stated that Stereo should not be used for more than 3-6 hours per week and we used to have to keep log books for Engineers and Visitors to ensure they did not go over the maximum. I built a full power wall theater with VR, 4 projectors and full motion tracking, and a portable version of the same hardware with manually movable walls. Power walls for people that don't know can operate at either 3 displays flat for 8'X30', various angles on the outer walls up to a 90degree enclosed cave with the 4th projector on the floor at 8'x8'. Hardware was SGI Onyx with Infinite Reality graphics and a Linux cluster of 5 nodes running 2 each NVidia Quadro FX custom cards. Software varied from protected to commercial. The best was commercial CEI Ensight for display control.

      There is a lot that can help with reducing depth and eye position to remove strain, but that tends to reduce the effects of VR where getting a majority of people "comfortable" resulted in no depth.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    16. Re:Real answer... by ljw1004 · · Score: 1

      ... the real reason is that VR is dead. Normal people get sick after about 15 minutes of using VR. You cannot solve that problem. It is physiological. Facebook wasted billions.

      I've never seen anyone get sick from room-scale VR, never. (I've watched my brother give demos of his VR setup to 20+ people now).

    17. Re:Real answer... by arth1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What it is not, is sickness inducing. The technology, as it is now, does not cause nausea.

      When the inner ear tells one thing and vision tells another, queasiness is a common result. It doesn't matter how good the resolution is or how fast it updates.

      We can deal with stationary monitors and movie screens much better, because then the vision says one thing and the inner ear says nothing. When the inner ear doesn't give feedback, there's seldom problem. But when the inner ear says you've moved, but different from what your eyes tell you, you get motion sickness.

      Which is why children get car sick. Their inner ear tells them that they move sideways for each curve, but their eyes see a stationary seat back.

    18. Re:Real answer... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes some games now need hand rails grips to try and keep users aware of their in game movements.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    19. Re:Real answer... by gravewax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Many things sell well initially with the hype and marketing before crashing back to reality (pun intended). 3D TV's anyone? VR just isn't ready yet, still to many issues, poor resolution and high cost. Add in the fact that average playtime for VR is less than 15 mins and you have a recipe for an industry teetering on the edge, maybe they can recover but it is not a healthy looking tech at this point.

    20. Re:Real answer... by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      The glasses themselves are not dead, just poorly designed. Obviously much more compact glasses with lenses fitted at an optometrist, ground to fit, which provide a big screen experience for mobile phones will be the next big step. The problem with VR FPS nausea (still not one public competition between desktop mouse and keyboard vs FPS on any VR system, that looks quite bad for marketing purposes), very isolated gaming (other people in the room, in the home, around you) and massive cost for a family.

      VR for desktop, meh, big screen 3D viewing lying back in bed hooked up to your phone, yeah (or on a long commute to work or passing time anywhere).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    21. Re:Real answer... by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Currently, Rift motion controls are not considered to be 'functional' at roomscale. They feel great in the hand, they perform poorly compare to the Vive wands, overall.

      --
      Good-bye
    22. Re:Real answer... by Gussington · · Score: 1

      I can see how some people may get motion sickness, but I cannot really say I had that experience.

      My guess is that this problem needs a solution,

      There is a solution, don't buy VR, which is what most people for most of human history choose to do.
      What you really should be saying, is what problem is this 'solution' (VR) solving? Because ever since the original VR in the 90's I've never figured out how this could ever work outside novelty use cases.
      VR has always been stupid, Facebook are just now learning what most of us already knew.

    23. Re:Real answer... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Normal people get sick after about 15 minutes of using VR. You cannot solve that problem. It is physiological

      The Oculus, yes. The VIVE on the other hand, is usable. Literally dozens of people I know (including me) get sick in the minutes on the Oculus, but can be in the VIVE for hours.

      I do like that Zuckerberg wasted billions on the wrong tech, and 500M more on Carmack's code in progress. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    24. Re:Real answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everything you just argued 100% confirms that VR is just not ready yet. if you need to think about eating prior to use, perfect room for it and the perfect equipment then it aint fucking ready. the cost and poor resolution is just the cherry on the top. Also the fact that you can play for 2 hours straight doesn't negate the vast majority of people who will be either nauseated or have headaches (it isn't just nauseating) from the experience. I am sure it will come again but unless current tech massively evolves in the next year or so this will be chalked up to another passing FAD.

    25. Re:Real answer... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can spend as much as you spend on a Vive without getting the same level of quality. I should have mentioned that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    26. Re:Real answer... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      There's also a solution to car accidents, we just have to stop using cars. See how simple this can be?

      You see no use for VR. That's ok. Some of us would like the experience though. I hope we're allowed to? Or do we need your permit?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    27. Re:Real answer... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      I'd rather buy a stack of gold, that I can at least look at and enjoy how pretty it is...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    28. Re:Real answer... by Gussington · · Score: 1

      There's also a solution to car accidents, we just have to stop using cars.

      Cars solve a real problem, what exactly are you solving with VR?

      See how simple this can be?

      You see no use for VR. That's ok. Some of us would like the experience though. I hope we're allowed to? Or do we need your permit?

      Fill your boots. If you like VR and don't get nauseous using it then there is no problem that needs solving.

    29. Re:Real answer... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      VR solves the problem of immersion when it comes to video gaming. Not your cup of tea? Ok. Fortunately it's not mandatory to use and neither are you required to even consider it.

      What I don't get is why you are desperately unwilling to let those that are interested find out whether it is feasible.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    30. Re:Real answer... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      VR solves the problem of immersion when it comes to video gaming.

      ITYM "FPS video gaming". For simulation gaming, this problem is already 90% solved by using a gimbal. (The rest is solved by mounting the gimbal on hydraulics or pneumatics, but gimbals are expensive enough.) Hmm, now that's got me thinking, how cheaply can I build a gimbal big enough for me to stand up in? How about sitting down? ponder, ponder

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:Real answer... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hmm... building a different cockpit for every flight sim you play is really cheaper than buying a VR set and building the cockpits in software? I mean, that's certainly doable if you're a hardcore fan of a certain, very specific plane model, but ...

      Also, I dare say that when looking at the price tags of such cockpits, and considering that you still have to add monitors and input devices, a thousand bucks for the VR set starts to look like the cheaper option...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    32. Re:Real answer... by JMZero · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Slashdot has become a reasonably depressing site, where people with no idea or insight come to be mad about technology. Sometimes it's grinding some pointless axe about a programming language, bit of software, or company - sometimes it's sour graping about expensive tech.

      You, me, and everyone else who has played with modern VR understands current limitations. Meanwhile, the critics are stuck in some weird time loop from 2007 where it makes everyone sick and doesn't track right and looks terrible. I also like the complaint that it's not social - I game alone reasonably often, but pretty much never use the Vive alone, and I use it really quite often. Something about the experience makes it much better with other people.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    33. Re:Real answer... by JMZero · · Score: 1

      You need 3 cameras to do much with Oculus Touch (bringing the cost over that of a Vive) and the tracking is nowhere near as good. I have both headsets: the Oculus is more comfortable and makes for a generally a better visual experience, but Vive tracking and general roomscale experience is better. The Oculus cameras are a dead end - either they'll move to some kind of inside-out tracking, or something like Lighthouses will win.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    34. Re: Real answer... by JMZero · · Score: 2

      He's either overstating the case (Vive does have better tracking which helps) or maybe he's comparing different experiences. The real differentiator is what you're doing. On a proper setup, people don't get sick playing roomscale Vive games. That is true, and true for probably a hundred people I've had try my Vive. However, you can get people sick immediately with artificial movement, and especially artificial rotation. Quite often at the end of my demos, I'll see if people want to try feeling sick, and we'll pull out Fancy Skiing or something - and almost everyone gets queasy the first time.

      So yeah, if he's showing people Job Simulator on Vive, and some flying game on Oculus, he probably isn't lying, but he's coming to the wrong conclusion.

      --
      Let's not stir that bag of worms...
    35. Re:Real answer... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      What's old is new again. Wasn't this discovered in the early 90's?

      That's kind of the point. I would hate to live in a world where people decree something and 25 years later with 25 years of technological advancements we don't actually look into it and examine it again. Do you remember why people got sick in the 90s? Well we're discovering that quite well now, and the cutting edge computers needed now to prevent it weren't even a futuristic dream in the 90s.

    36. Re: Real answer... by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      Oh, it definitely is a room-scale vs. artificial motion issue. I've not played any artificial motion games on the VIVE (why would I? I know they make me sick) - so in my mind roomscale and VIVE were synonymous. But yes, your distinction is more correct.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    37. Re:Real answer... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Most people fuck for about 15 minutes at a time, but that's a plenty big industry.

      I'm not saying VR is fucking, but there are ton of activities that are done in about 15 minute increments; downhill skiing, autocross, skydiving, pretty much most adrenalin junkies activities.

      Besides, you're just wrong on the 15 minute limit. It all comes down to content. Bad VR content can have you puking in far less than 15 minutes, good content can be fun for far longer. Mostly it comes down to up remaining up most of the time. Moderate rates in all rotations help too. Short twisty race tracks aren't good.

      Doing things like roller coasters is kind of blowing their peckers off. VR versions of things that make people motion sick IRL isn't a great place to focus.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    38. Re:Real answer... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You still need controls in VR. If anything they are MORE important.

      I've built two seat/control frames. One car controls, one airplane. Adaptable to wide variety of games. Saves a bunch on screens, but there is still an impulse to buy things like trim knobs etc, keyboards/console controllers really suck in VR, having 8 hat switches on throttle and stick is better but still.

      I find that having good solid controls in my hands also helps decrease motions sickness.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    39. Re:Real answer... by JThundley · · Score: 1

      This is only a quarter true. My girlfriend gets motion sickness very easily (even in a standard keyboard/mouse/monitor FPS). She doesn't get motion sickness in VR because it's natural and not counter-intuitive. She does get queasy when using artificial locomotion however. It really depends on the game or experience.

      The only time I've ever gotten motion sickness in VR is when I tried that Deus Ex experience which is a port from the Oculus. There's buttons to rotate your view left and right which is really unnatural. I never get queasy otherwise, I don't think as many people get sick as you think.

      VR is not dead and is in the early stages. The Oculus sucks though, I'm a Vive owner. Try some stuff in the Vive, you might become a believer.

    40. Re:Real answer... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Published, that must make them true.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    41. Re:Real answer... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yep, obviously your anecdotal evidence is far more compelling than the stats collected from the various device and games providers.

    42. Re:Real answer... by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The main issues is the gpu needed. Why power a surround dome or tent when one consumer graphics card that can do 2K~4K?
      The fix is to have the human interacting normally but the cpu and gpu power is not ready.
      So just use one gpu and hope most of the users don't feel unwell or see all the wrong colors all the time.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    43. Re:Real answer... by Gussington · · Score: 1

      VR solves the problem of immersion when it comes to video gaming.

      I play a lot of games, I've never found this to be a problem

      Not your cup of tea? Ok. Fortunately it's not mandatory to use and neither are you required to even consider it.

      Correct, which is why it's not a problem. The issue of not liking VR is not solved by providing more VR gimmicks to convince people to like it more, it is solved by not using it. And that solution already exists for most people.

  2. Occulus What!!! by bayankaran · · Score: 1

    This thingy is the new Segway.

    --
    Tat Tvam Asi
  3. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Fuck Facebook, fuck Palmer Luckey, and fuck Oculus.

  4. Re:Best Buy is still a thing? by sexconker · · Score: 1

    I get 20% off video games and most accessories there (similar to Amazon Prime, but it works for more accessories). I get rewards too, but I think that's a wash since I get extra rewards for using my Amazon card at Amazon.

    The benefit to Best Buy is that I can get release day pickup instead of using Amazon's release day delivery which may or may not happen. Even when it does happen, it's DHL throwing it at my door at 8 PM vs. me picking it up on my lunch break.

    In theory, my local Best Buy will be doing a midnight opening for the Switch as well. The store itself isn't great, but ordering online and then picking up in store is great.

  5. Re:Best Buy is still a thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I shop at Best Buy when I want an extremely limited selection at high prices.

  6. Wait... by Shoten · · Score: 1

    There are still 500 Best Buy stores in the US?

    --

    For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
  7. VR is the new 3D TV by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another ridiculously hyped technology that has yet to deliver.

    1. Re: VR is the new 3D TV by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      It already delivers in spades, it's just too expensive.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:VR is the new 3D TV by arth1 · · Score: 1

      It's actually getting there hardware wise. The software still sucks. Controllers take getting used to. No one brilliant director has figured out how to make a good movie in the medium yet. (Standing on stage next to an aged rock star doesn't count. And neither do the NYT documentaries.) We are no where near ordinary people being able to create decent content yet.

      It won't take off until ordinary people can create indecent content.

    3. Re:VR is the new 3D TV by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      No, the big problem is it's too expensive. You spend $750 for the unit, but you also need to basically buy a brand new high-end PC - you need an i7 and a high end graphics card (GTX 970 or higher), so you're looking at another $750+ spend to buy a PC to work with it.

      Now you're wondering it better be pretty damn good if you want to drop more than $1500+ on it. Initially people are wowed by the demo, but then they see the price tag and can't justify it.

    4. Re:VR is the new 3D TV by 26199 · · Score: 1

      Having tried it -- I disagree.

      The hardware is excellent. (Talking about the Vive, but I guess the Oculus is similar). The software is enough to see the potential, but there's huge room for improvement.

      90% of the people who I've seen try it have been extremely impressed. This includes kids (4 yrs old, 5 yrs old) and people who would never touch a 3D game. It's just incredibly easy to use and very, very compelling.

      The technology has delivered. Whether it will take off is now a matter of marketing, cost, and the network effect -- there need to be more developers, more users, for software quality to increase.

    5. Re:VR is the new 3D TV by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The technology has delivered. Whether it will take off is now a matter of marketing, cost, and the network effect -- there need to be more developers, more users, for software quality to increase.

      Cost is the #1 problem which holds all that other stuff back. My $600 PC will only produce sufficient graphics for one eye. I need a $1000 PC to fix that problem, and then a $300+ set of goggles. That's a lot of money; not a lot a lot, but plenty especially given the state of the economy. Even if you only count the $700 on top of what I've already spent (which isn't reasonable, but let's just pretend I could just upgrade which I can't) that's a set of decent tires, or what I spent on my whole goddamned PC.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:VR is the new 3D TV by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      I remember when back a decent arcade game cost $3000-$5000 and weighed about 200 pounds, and they were nevertheless quite popular. Of course, almost nobody ever bought one; rather they went to an arcade and played on the machines that were available there.

      Given VR's cost and space requirements, I'm surprised there hasn't been more of an effort to develop "VR arcades".

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  8. Re:Best Buy is still a thing? by lgw · · Score: 2

    The only reason to go into a Best Buy is... um...

    When you need some AV component right now and don't mind paying a bit more. It's also nice for mid-tier TVs (I've had luck getting large TVs shipped from better places, but you do take your chances.)

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  9. Re: Best Buy is still a thing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I shop at Best Buy because I needed an extended warranty with my Monster HDMI cble.

  10. Re:Best Buy is still a thing? by by+(1706743) · · Score: 1

    Exactly -- I got an audio receiver (Sony) at Best Buy (it was within spitting distance of the Amazon price). And, when I realized that that particular brand/model could not properly decode Netflix DD+ audio**, I traded it in for a different (Yamaha) model. And they know that they have some added value by being brick-and-mortar -- their return process was very easy.

    Of course, for everything else I tend to go to monoprice or amazon...


    ** Not my post, but I had the same issue.

  11. Re: Best Buy is still a thing? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    I always thought Monster cables are already an extension for a tiny problem?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  12. Re:Best Buy is still a thing? by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    Getting 20% off routinely (as in, not as part of a clearing sale) only means that the store has an additional 20% markup that they just waive if you jump some hoops.

    Personally I prefer stores without "special discounts" that have decent prices in the first place. TANSTAAFL, if you want a discount, it first has to be slapped onto it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  13. Re:Best Buy is still a thing? by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The only reason to go into a Best Buy is... um...

    Demoing an item before ordering it from Amazon, or as lgw said, when you need a NIC/adapter/etc right now. I'm not sure how good they are for the second purpose anymore. Few months ago I needed a foot of cat5, all Best Buy had was 25+ foot lengths at a stupid price while a guy stood there asking if I wanted to see wireless routers instead. I ended up driving down the street to Walmart and picked up a 3 foot patch cable.

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
  14. if... by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

    if... we could only be so lucky as a species..

  15. Re:Best Buy is still a thing? by sexconker · · Score: 1

    Uh, video games have a fixed MSRP that's adhered to pretty strictly during launch.
    You can wait a few weeks to get a discount, or 2 months for a bigger discount. With Best Buy or Amazon Prime, I get 20% off on day one.

    Further, the discount applies to Nintendo games. Those things take forever to drop in price.

  16. That's all very nice and well... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    But what does Aleister Crowley's writings have to do with anything. Yes I recognized it from seeing it before, but I haven't gotten around to reading the entire thing. https://www.bing.com/search?q=...

  17. 1900 by Snufu · · Score: 2

    "This will be the year virtual reality takes off!"

    Repeat every 10-15 years.

  18. None of this should be surprising by DrXym · · Score: 1
    The crash and burn of VR was predictable before the hype train took off and now it's come to pass. I'm not surprised that Occulus thinks the best way to sell the tech is a live demo. But even that doesn't seem to be working. After the initial wow factor passes, it's replaced with a dose of reality - the headset is uncomfortable, all the wires are a pain in the ass, the setup is too much effort, the games aren't exactly great and plentiful and the thing induces motion sickness, eyestrain and headaches. It's a very expensive novelty. And it's a vicious circle - the less people buying (or using) the VR headsets, the less reason to develop games for it.

    I bet sales of the Rift, Vive and PSVR all took a dive after the preorders were fulfilled and usage too.

    That isn't to say VR is bad per se. Certain genres of games benefit enormously from VR - flight / car simulators for example. And perhaps VR headsets can be improved in a number of significant ways (e.g. lose all the wires, bump up the resolution / response rate / tracking / refresh). But as it stands... meh.

    1. Re:None of this should be surprising by DrXym · · Score: 1

      It'll be neat for architects to bring their customers into a room to demo a design with VR and so on but I expect for day to day purposes most people would be content to use a screen - less eyestrain etc. Same for AR.

    2. Re:None of this should be surprising by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Those guys have had VR for years, and yeah, it works OK for their purposes. All I really want is an AR notepad where I can make notes and they will stay attached to objects, and for rev 2.0 to recognize objects for me and attach useful notes to them automagically alongside my own annotations of the world.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:None of this should be surprising by erktrek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While VR is very cool I just have a hard time seeing how it will appeal to the general public. Special niche markets (gaming,medical, military, architectural) maybe but not for everyone. AR/Mixed Reality on the other hand seems to be where it's at if they can get the "field of view" issues worked out. I can see so much more potential with AR - especially networked AR but I may lack the imagination necessary to truly appreciate VR's mass appeal.

  19. people get sick drinking vodka, they still sell by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    then those sick people can go fukoff, and the others are still a large market to make sales.

    You sick people can go play Switch Cow Milk game, yeah jerk that hand.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  20. i blame you poor americans by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    if you are so rich, god damn buy everything then, not apple products.

    btw, i love my 3d tv, and vr.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:i blame you poor americans by gravewax · · Score: 1

      if you are so rich, god damn buy everything then, not apple products.

      btw, i love my 3d tv, and vr.

      good for you, you are free to love whatever the hell you like, just the majority doesn't agree with your taste. Doesn't make you wrong, just different and out of step with what most think of it!

  21. Re: Best Buy is still a thing? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    I would never pay full price for them, but I have a bunch of monster cables and aside from having fruity and thus less useful screw-down knobs on some of them, they tend to be of absolutely excellent quality. So while it's obvious there's tons of cables with superior price-performance ratios, out of curiosity, who actually makes better cables?

    Again, I would never ever pay full price for a Monster cable. All the ones I have came from flea markets, thrift stores, or discount shops. Just in case anyone thinks this is a sneaky ad or something

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  22. Re:Best Buy is still a thing? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Personally I like the idea of getting electrocuted.

    I've been to Best Buy once in my life. I landed in Chicago, got to my hotel and realised I left my travel adaptor at home. The Hotel pointed me to Best Buy underneath the John Hancock centre. They had an entire section for travel adaptors. Not a single Euro to US travel adaptor didn't also defeat the earth connection.

    Not. A. Single. One.

    Best Buy, for when you too like to live dangerously.

  23. Correction from down the rabbit hole by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Someone down below the AC response correctly pointed out that I was speaking only about room-scale VIVE experiences. Artificial motion is nausea inducing. Room scale tends to work fine.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!
  24. Re:Best Buy is still a thing? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    With games, the 20% off you get after 2 months IS already the clearance sale. The game is already on its way out, and any sale you may make after 2 months is one that you normally wouldn't make, on a product with zero per-unit costs.

    Games are a very odd commodity in that aspect that they cost literally nothing per unit now. At least they had a low per-unit cost attached back when you actually had to produce at least a CD to ship it on.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  25. Best Buy? by thomn8r · · Score: 1

    How is Best Buy even a thing anymore?

  26. Re:Best Buy is still a thing? by sexconker · · Score: 1

    You have no clue what you're talking about. While BB does sell some digital games, I'm referring to physical games. The GCU discount doesn't apply to digital games. Further, take a look at digital prices vs. physical prices a few months after launch. Physical prices are much lower for major titles. First party games are worse in this regard.