What really made it impressive was that I was experiencing something specifically designed to take advantage of it. IMO, that makes all the difference in the world.
I agree with this 100%. Oculus mentions this that they have close to a hundred titles planned for the coming year. How this will impact their device or demand of it is very much the big question for me.
Still cheaper than a proper TV and in the same range as a quality monitor. What's the problem?
What exactly is a proper TV lmao? Mine was 300 and works rather well I'd call it "proper"..
No kidding. I can pick up a 60" Vizio for $500. Heck of a monitor for $300 - $400.
I bet someone is going to chime in soon that for people with " real jobs " its only a half weeks work.
I wish I knew where you found a proper 60" Vizio TV for $500. I would buy all of them this instant. I paid over $1,000 for a 60" Vizio true 120hz TV not too long ago.
Sure you can get the 60hz or "Effective 120hz" Vizio TVs for cheaper, but I wouldn't call those a "proper TV"...I would call them entry level TVs for people who have no desire to have an outstanding experience.
If you want a TV that makes people go "WOW THAT LOOKS AMAZING" you aren't finding one of those for 500. Same with this VR tech. If you want the amazing quality then bust out the wallet. If you can settle for a less than best quality experience then go grab someones used DK2.
I think you should change up where you are shopping if you cant find a " Wow " TV for $500.. 4K TVs have already dropped down to the $900 - $1500 range depending on store ( mainly due to no one buying them ).. I bought a 120HZ 42" TV a few years ago for $450 and prices have plummeted since then.. Deals arent hard to find unless you are the type that likes to brag about how much you paid for something.. Which I get the feeling you are since price = " Proper " to you.
Nothing new is happening. There's not a mind-machine interface. There's not even some technical aspect that "tricks the brain" into some sensory illusion of "actually being there". It's a monitor you wear on your face. Touch your nose to the screen you're reading right now, with a blanket over your head. Voila, virtual reality.
Very incorrect.
If you are dying to deconstruct this device, you may call it an "orientation-position sensitive stereoscopic display with integrated audio and controls", but that still isn't telling you what the device "does".
Trying my best not to ad hom here, but your statement really shows a gross lack of understanding. If you kind of want to sort of get a vague idea of 'what it's like', try watching this video doing the "magic eye" thing (probably still missing much of the full effect - the frame rate on the example video is bad), but "nose to the screen"... just... no.
If you recall the last decade ("the aughts"), devices intended to accomplish what the Oculus does were available, however:
-The latency was bad (even more motion-sickness inducing than they might be now)
-The field of view was far narrower
-They were prohibitively expensive ($1000 - $2000 range)
You're not understanding. I tried to explain earlier, it is an optical illusion. I tried to demonstrate earlier, my mind doesn't process optical illusions as other minds process them.
So I say, "there's nothing new" and I cite what "new would be", actual chemical influence in the mind brought about by visual stimuli. You argue, "no! it's new because it's a much better, more advanced optical illusion!". You're completely refusing, in your argument to separate this "effect" from what it is in it's base nature.
"But it's so much better and more refined than just wearing a monitor on your face!". No, what you observe, because of the articulation, is tricking you into believing it's something more new and wonderful than "just wearing a monitor on your face". Maybe it all seems so obvious that I might be incorrect because you are incapable of that disconnect. I understand what you see. You don't understand why "what you see" isn't so amazing and therefore so you're amazed. You're taking something for granted. Further, I cannot physically be "immersed" in this, because of the way my mind works. Unless there is substantial chemical "triggering" occurring, I am a guy with a thing on my head, with something the equivalent of a monitor on my face.
And I'm not alone. There's still alot to learn about perspective and how the mind manifests visual data. I have decent vision with no corrective lenses, I have fine depth perception (or at least it's never caused me an accident and I do ok at pickup basketball), and I have no quantifiable variety of color blindness. Yet my mind does not process optical illusions as the majority. So, I view the entire issue with this inherent disconnect and can honestly explain to you, "new from old VR" is just a "better more articulate illusion", but still an illusion and "nothing to write home about".
uhm i have a 3d TV and used it to watch 3d movies ( the hobbit series, Avengers , Jurrasic park 1 (on 3d remastered is cool ) , there a few movies in 3d? true , but still enjoyable for me , and more will come in 2016 , starting with Star wars VII , the TV was a present so i dont feel bad for not using the "3d" all the time.
about VR ...meh , i dont have the PC to move that , but yeah VR has 3 issues :
price 600$ ugh... whats the real cost?
requeriments : u gonna need to have a top pc or being forced to upgrade if u want to use VR
games : 200 titles ...but only a few are "worth" anything.
And I'm not alone. There's still alot to learn about perspective and how the mind manifests visual data. I have decent vision with no corrective lenses, I have fine depth perception (or at least it's never caused me an accident and I do ok at pickup basketball), and I have no quantifiable variety of color blindness. Yet my mind does not process optical illusions as the majority. So, I view the entire issue with this inherent disconnect and can honestly explain to you, "new from old VR" is just a "better more articulate illusion", but still an illusion and "nothing to write home about".
So do you see the Rabbit, The Duck, Both or neither?
And I'm not alone. There's still alot to learn about perspective and how the mind manifests visual data. I have decent vision with no corrective lenses, I have fine depth perception (or at least it's never caused me an accident and I do ok at pickup basketball), and I have no quantifiable variety of color blindness. Yet my mind does not process optical illusions as the majority. So, I view the entire issue with this inherent disconnect and can honestly explain to you, "new from old VR" is just a "better more articulate illusion", but still an illusion and "nothing to write home about".
So do you see the Rabbit, The Duck, Both or neither?
And I'm not alone. There's still alot to learn about perspective and how the mind manifests visual data. I have decent vision with no corrective lenses, I have fine depth perception (or at least it's never caused me an accident and I do ok at pickup basketball), and I have no quantifiable variety of color blindness. Yet my mind does not process optical illusions as the majority. So, I view the entire issue with this inherent disconnect and can honestly explain to you, "new from old VR" is just a "better more articulate illusion", but still an illusion and "nothing to write home about".
So do you see the Rabbit, The Duck, Both or neither?
And I'm not alone. There's still alot to learn about perspective and how the mind manifests visual data. I have decent vision with no corrective lenses, I have fine depth perception (or at least it's never caused me an accident and I do ok at pickup basketball), and I have no quantifiable variety of color blindness. Yet my mind does not process optical illusions as the majority. So, I view the entire issue with this inherent disconnect and can honestly explain to you, "new from old VR" is just a "better more articulate illusion", but still an illusion and "nothing to write home about".
So do you see the Rabbit, The Duck, Both or neither?
I see a shadowy extraterrestrial with a sort of "third eye" orifice next to two floating canoes, one inverted over the other. I see a comet with a very large crater passing dangerously close to a large, downspin center of gravity. Of course I also see both the obvious duck with a messed-up bill and mouthless rabbit.
What I see "first", though, is a picture with a bunch of scratchy, etched lines, busy attempts at shading and poor use of negative space.
The truth of the matter is that Virtual Reality, will always demand at least twice the processing power and twice the memory from a GPU.
It needs to render 2 separate viewpoints, and needs a frame buffer twice the size.
That means Virtual Reality will remain expensive, even if somehow the device itself goes down in price, which I doubt it will. Niche products tend to remain expensive. (if you think VR will go mainstream, you're delusional)
That's wildly false if you're doing both eyes on a single GPU. Yes, you double the necessary size of the frame buffer (and depth buffer), but you only need one copy of your models, textures, and so forth. So while memory requirements go up, it's nowhere near double. VR actually isn't going to be terribly hard on video memory requirements.
As for computational power, it's not until rasterization that the GPU has any clue where an object is on the screen--or whether it is even on the screen at all. Everything up through geometry shaders could be done once for both eyes, then you split the output for separate eyes at geometry shaders. You do still greatly increase GPU processing requirements for a given frame rate, but it's considerably less than double. On the CPU side of things, you only see a small bump in CPU performance needed, due to not being able to cull objects visible to one eye but not the other.
Nothing new is happening. There's not a mind-machine interface. There's not even some technical aspect that "tricks the brain" into some sensory illusion of "actually being there". It's a monitor you wear on your face. Touch your nose to the screen you're reading right now, with a blanket over your head. Voila, virtual reality.
Very incorrect.
If you are dying to deconstruct this device, you may call it an "orientation-position sensitive stereoscopic display with integrated audio and controls", but that still isn't telling you what the device "does".
Trying my best not to ad hom here, but your statement really shows a gross lack of understanding. If you kind of want to sort of get a vague idea of 'what it's like', try watching this video doing the "magic eye" thing (probably still missing much of the full effect - the frame rate on the example video is bad), but "nose to the screen"... just... no.
If you recall the last decade ("the aughts"), devices intended to accomplish what the Oculus does were available, however:
-The latency was bad (even more motion-sickness inducing than they might be now)
-The field of view was far narrower
-They were prohibitively expensive ($1000 - $2000 range)
You're not understanding. I tried to explain earlier, it is an optical illusion. I tried to demonstrate earlier, my mind doesn't process optical illusions as other minds process them.
So I say, "there's nothing new" and I cite what "new would be", actual chemical influence in the mind brought about by visual stimuli. You argue, "no! it's new because it's a much better, more advanced optical illusion!". You're completely refusing, in your argument to separate this "effect" from what it is in it's base nature.
"But it's so much better and more refined than just wearing a monitor on your face!". No, what you observe, because of the articulation, is tricking you into believing it's something more new and wonderful than "just wearing a monitor on your face". Maybe it all seems so obvious that I might be incorrect because you are incapable of that disconnect. I understand what you see. You don't understand why "what you see" isn't so amazing and therefore so you're amazed. You're taking something for granted. Further, I cannot physically be "immersed" in this, because of the way my mind works. Unless there is substantial chemical "triggering" occurring, I am a guy with a thing on my head, with something the equivalent of a monitor on my face.
And I'm not alone. There's still alot to learn about perspective and how the mind manifests visual data. I have decent vision with no corrective lenses, I have fine depth perception (or at least it's never caused me an accident and I do ok at pickup basketball), and I have no quantifiable variety of color blindness. Yet my mind does not process optical illusions as the majority. So, I view the entire issue with this inherent disconnect and can honestly explain to you, "new from old VR" is just a "better more articulate illusion", but still an illusion and "nothing to write home about".
I don't believe I ever used the words "it's so much better and more refined".
Calling it a "monitor on your face" is misleading, and I think you understand that. OLEDs are not your standard monitor. This is important because it mitigates the "screen door effect" which would be present viewing a regular computer monitor super close, which is also important because it improves field of view. Furthermore, a regular computer monitor does not provide a stereoscopic view. In both these ways, saying "It's a monitor you wear on your face. Touch your nose to the screen you're reading right now, with a blanket over your head. Voila, virtual reality." is very misleading. Your reply makes it seem as though you are aware of this, which means you still haven't risen above the level of trolling.
When I go to the movies, I don't complain that I wasn't actually there alongside the heroes and/or villains. I don't leave the theatre upset that the chemicals in my brain haven't been manipulated(?). And yet, at one point, cinema was a very new technology that built upon, combined, and improved various other technologies of the time.
I'm not ready to discount this technology because it's a reiteration that improves on past designs (all technology is, in some shape or form). I'd wager this is a keystone moment, when all the right tech is there to introduce a new medium of artistic expression. Lower latency, wider field of view, better hi-rez displays, computing power, in a more connected age. The sum of these can be greater than its parts. That's all.
You seem to want something more, but are not even willing to acknowledge this as a step in that direction... you've discounted what might turn out to be a pretty exciting confluence without really understanding it, or worse, you are purposefully trying to mislead people.
As far as it being an illusion, see my example about cinema. Something doesn't have to be materially concrete in order to have a real impact. For all we know, those chemicals in your brain may be illusions, too. There is more than one way of understanding the universe.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
I see a shadowy extraterrestrial with a sort of "third eye" orifice next to two floating canoes, one inverted over the other. I see a comet with a very large crater passing dangerously close to a large, downspin center of gravity. Of course I also see both the obvious duck with a messed-up bill and mouthless rabbit.
What I see "first", though, is a picture with a bunch of scratchy, etched lines, busy attempts at shading and poor use of negative space.
Well 10/10 for making up the craziest rant against VR I have ever read.
Inflation based on consumer pricing only makes sense when the average person is actually wealthier than in the past. The average american is broke.
lol, you do know minimum wages have gone up? A cup of coffee may not be 5 cents any more but every average america can buy a cup, even a hobo? lol you killing me.
The average american is BROKE.
A $600 accessory is not something regular people can afford.
Buying X and being able to afford X are not always positively correlated. For example, lottery tickets or cigarettes.
With the dev kits, people said, yeah, it's flawed, but the final version will be much better because the specs will be much better. What did you think would happen to the price tag to build something with much better specs?
As far as it being an illusion, see my example about cinema. Something doesn't have to be materially concrete in order to have a real impact. For all we know, those chemicals in your brain may be illusions, too. There is more than one way of understanding the universe.
If this were true, we'd may as well all slap on VR hats, believe this is the new "real" and live "there" like the matrix. You're dangerously close to espousing what I'm purposefully aiming to avoid.
It's bad enough, today, many people think social media is real life. Defining what's "real" comes with pulling away layers of the onion, not wrapping new layers of wax paper.
Maybe you're right in a way, though. Many people want a "better, more realistic less real". It's like a new and improved technological hippie world, turn on, tune in, and drop out. Maybe I should leave well enough alone people who think this is some kind of good practice. Besides, no one was really ever "hurt" by some one or one hundred persons doing too much LSD, were they.
So it's akin to a drug? Am I doubting the efficacy of heroin to a bunch of junkies? Is that why common sense doesn't seem to be working? What's next, scare tactics of disease and health in general, physical and mental? When VR turns out to be "not great", will augmented reality be your methadone?
As far as it being an illusion, see my example about cinema. Something doesn't have to be materially concrete in order to have a real impact. For all we know, those chemicals in your brain may be illusions, too. There is more than one way of understanding the universe.
If this were true, we'd may as well all slap on VR hats, believe this is the new "real" and live "there" like the matrix. You're dangerously close to espousing what I'm purposefully aiming to avoid.
It's bad enough, today, many people think social media is real life. Defining what's "real" comes with pulling away layers of the onion, not wrapping new layers of wax paper.
Maybe you're right in a way, though. Many people want a "better, more realistic less real". It's like a new and improved technological hippie world, turn on, tune in, and drop out. Maybe I should leave well enough alone people who think this is some kind of good practice. Besides, no one was really ever "hurt" by some one or one hundred persons doing too much LSD, were they.
So it's akin to a drug? Am I doubting the efficacy of heroin to a bunch of junkies? Is that why common sense doesn't seem to be working? What's next, scare tactics of disease and health in general, physical and mental? When VR turns out to be "not great", will augmented reality be your methadone?
I think you are way too emotionally worked up about this. No, it's not a drug; it's a potentially revolutionary tech iteration that's less expensive and mechanically better than its predecessors.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
As far as it being an illusion, see my example about cinema. Something doesn't have to be materially concrete in order to have a real impact. For all we know, those chemicals in your brain may be illusions, too. There is more than one way of understanding the universe.
If this were true, we'd may as well all slap on VR hats, believe this is the new "real" and live "there" like the matrix. You're dangerously close to espousing what I'm purposefully aiming to avoid.
It's bad enough, today, many people think social media is real life. Defining what's "real" comes with pulling away layers of the onion, not wrapping new layers of wax paper.
Maybe you're right in a way, though. Many people want a "better, more realistic less real". It's like a new and improved technological hippie world, turn on, tune in, and drop out. Maybe I should leave well enough alone people who think this is some kind of good practice. Besides, no one was really ever "hurt" by some one or one hundred persons doing too much LSD, were they.
So it's akin to a drug? Am I doubting the efficacy of heroin to a bunch of junkies? Is that why common sense doesn't seem to be working? What's next, scare tactics of disease and health in general, physical and mental? When VR turns out to be "not great", will augmented reality be your methadone?
I think you are way too emotionally worked up about this. No, it's not a drug; it's a potentially revolutionary tech iteration that's less expensive and mechanically better than its predecessors.
Whoa, man. It's totally cyberdelic. Cybersociety ftw. Viva la sparse voxel octree of knowledge of good and evil.
As far as it being an illusion, see my example about cinema. Something doesn't have to be materially concrete in order to have a real impact. For all we know, those chemicals in your brain may be illusions, too. There is more than one way of understanding the universe.
If this were true, we'd may as well all slap on VR hats, believe this is the new "real" and live "there" like the matrix. You're dangerously close to espousing what I'm purposefully aiming to avoid.
It's bad enough, today, many people think social media is real life. Defining what's "real" comes with pulling away layers of the onion, not wrapping new layers of wax paper.
Maybe you're right in a way, though. Many people want a "better, more realistic less real". It's like a new and improved technological hippie world, turn on, tune in, and drop out. Maybe I should leave well enough alone people who think this is some kind of good practice. Besides, no one was really ever "hurt" by some one or one hundred persons doing too much LSD, were they.
So it's akin to a drug? Am I doubting the efficacy of heroin to a bunch of junkies? Is that why common sense doesn't seem to be working? What's next, scare tactics of disease and health in general, physical and mental? When VR turns out to be "not great", will augmented reality be your methadone?
You certainly are out there....
It isn't akin to a drug...it is an electronic toy for playing games (amongst other things).
Some people can afford it and others can't.
Some people think it is cool and others don't.
Some people think it works and others don't.
There is no conspiracy.
And I would suggest, whatever you are taking, don't try VR while under the influence.
Already dead? PlayStation are planing on releasing 100 titles for their version of VR. Sounds dead to me.
[mod edit]
IMO Playststion's VR is the litmus test on how the general public react and engage in VR.
I feel it's going to smash both the Rift and Vive even with it's lower specs due to reports of it's affordability (same price as a console), ease of entry (only need a PS4 and not a high end rig) and the amount of software/game support Sony has thrown at it.
Marketing and demos will also be a big factor. In the UK GAME is the bricks and mortar game store. In these stores everything is mostly centred around console gaming. The PC appears to be an after thought with a couple of small shelves of items. I'll be expecting demo units of PS VR in every store before it's released. Unfortunately I don't think the same can be said for the Rift or Vive due to the nature of purchasing games online compared to the physical and trade-in copies of console games that the store survives on.
Rift and the Vive unfortunately will be niche high end products over the next few years until the hardware required to run it becomes more mainstream which you can pick up at your local supermarket.
EDIT: Just wanted to add I'm not saying the PS VR is the better VR unit compared to the Rift and Vive; it's just going to have more mass market appeal, which leads to better market penetration which in turn will lead to better software/app third party support.
Comments
So I say, "there's nothing new" and I cite what "new would be", actual chemical influence in the mind brought about by visual stimuli. You argue, "no! it's new because it's a much better, more advanced optical illusion!". You're completely refusing, in your argument to separate this "effect" from what it is in it's base nature.
"But it's so much better and more refined than just wearing a monitor on your face!". No, what you observe, because of the articulation, is tricking you into believing it's something more new and wonderful than "just wearing a monitor on your face". Maybe it all seems so obvious that I might be incorrect because you are incapable of that disconnect. I understand what you see. You don't understand why "what you see" isn't so amazing and therefore so you're amazed. You're taking something for granted. Further, I cannot physically be "immersed" in this, because of the way my mind works. Unless there is substantial chemical "triggering" occurring, I am a guy with a thing on my head, with something the equivalent of a monitor on my face.
And I'm not alone. There's still alot to learn about perspective and how the mind manifests visual data. I have decent vision with no corrective lenses, I have fine depth perception (or at least it's never caused me an accident and I do ok at pickup basketball), and I have no quantifiable variety of color blindness. Yet my mind does not process optical illusions as the majority. So, I view the entire issue with this inherent disconnect and can honestly explain to you, "new from old VR" is just a "better more articulate illusion", but still an illusion and "nothing to write home about".
about VR ...meh , i dont have the PC to move that , but yeah VR has 3 issues :
price 600$ ugh... whats the real cost?
requeriments : u gonna need to have a top pc or being forced to upgrade if u want to use VR
games : 200 titles ...but only a few are "worth" anything.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=rabbit+and+duck+optical+illusion&view=detailv2&&id=2E463EB6F4BBC9D5025A704240FE4752D8BA623B&selectedIndex=0&ccid=wczNjWeC&simid=608055657860825105&thid=OIP.Mc1cccd8d678253adcacd57659389eac4H0&ajaxhist=0
Ok, this is hilarious, so there was the same picture right next to it with a little more contrast, but the same pic, and i see the rabbit clearly now:
https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=rabbit+and+duck+optical+illusion&view=detailv2&id=F8475FA76398FDC38D55AD673FD004FFDE03DB73&ccid=zg1Iqfer&simid=608008005210017512&thid=OIP.Mce0d48a9f7ab7c37b15e21aa16722424H0&ajaxhist=0&first=1&selectedindex=1
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
http://www.spring.org.uk/2012/01/duckrabbit-illusion-provides-a-simple-test-of-creativity.php
What I see "first", though, is a picture with a bunch of scratchy, etched lines, busy attempts at shading and poor use of negative space.
As for computational power, it's not until rasterization that the GPU has any clue where an object is on the screen--or whether it is even on the screen at all. Everything up through geometry shaders could be done once for both eyes, then you split the output for separate eyes at geometry shaders. You do still greatly increase GPU processing requirements for a given frame rate, but it's considerably less than double. On the CPU side of things, you only see a small bump in CPU performance needed, due to not being able to cull objects visible to one eye but not the other.
Calling it a "monitor on your face" is misleading, and I think you understand that. OLEDs are not your standard monitor. This is important because it mitigates the "screen door effect" which would be present viewing a regular computer monitor super close, which is also important because it improves field of view. Furthermore, a regular computer monitor does not provide a stereoscopic view. In both these ways, saying "It's a monitor you wear on your face. Touch your nose to the screen you're reading right now, with a blanket over your head. Voila, virtual reality." is very misleading. Your reply makes it seem as though you are aware of this, which means you still haven't risen above the level of trolling.
When I go to the movies, I don't complain that I wasn't actually there alongside the heroes and/or villains. I don't leave the theatre upset that the chemicals in my brain haven't been manipulated(?). And yet, at one point, cinema was a very new technology that built upon, combined, and improved various other technologies of the time.
I'm not ready to discount this technology because it's a reiteration that improves on past designs (all technology is, in some shape or form). I'd wager this is a keystone moment, when all the right tech is there to introduce a new medium of artistic expression. Lower latency, wider field of view, better hi-rez displays, computing power, in a more connected age. The sum of these can be greater than its parts. That's all.
You seem to want something more, but are not even willing to acknowledge this as a step in that direction... you've discounted what might turn out to be a pretty exciting confluence without really understanding it, or worse, you are purposefully trying to mislead people.
As far as it being an illusion, see my example about cinema. Something doesn't have to be materially concrete in order to have a real impact. For all we know, those chemicals in your brain may be illusions, too. There is more than one way of understanding the universe.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Well 10/10 for making up the craziest rant against VR I have ever read.
It's bad enough, today, many people think social media is real life. Defining what's "real" comes with pulling away layers of the onion, not wrapping new layers of wax paper.
Maybe you're right in a way, though. Many people want a "better, more realistic less real". It's like a new and improved technological hippie world, turn on, tune in, and drop out. Maybe I should leave well enough alone people who think this is some kind of good practice. Besides, no one was really ever "hurt" by some one or one hundred persons doing too much LSD, were they.
So it's akin to a drug? Am I doubting the efficacy of heroin to a bunch of junkies? Is that why common sense doesn't seem to be working? What's next, scare tactics of disease and health in general, physical and mental? When VR turns out to be "not great", will augmented reality be your methadone?
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
"No, it's not a drug."
I don't see them failing with this.
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
You certainly are out there....
It isn't akin to a drug...it is an electronic toy for playing games (amongst other things).
Some people can afford it and others can't.
Some people think it is cool and others don't.
Some people think it works and others don't.
There is no conspiracy.
And I would suggest, whatever you are taking, don't try VR while under the influence.
Already dead? PlayStation are planing on releasing 100 titles for their version of VR. Sounds dead to me.
[mod edit]
I feel it's going to smash both the Rift and Vive even with it's lower specs due to reports of it's affordability (same price as a console), ease of entry (only need a PS4 and not a high end rig) and the amount of software/game support Sony has thrown at it.
Marketing and demos will also be a big factor. In the UK GAME is the bricks and mortar game store. In these stores everything is mostly centred around console gaming. The PC appears to be an after thought with a couple of small shelves of items. I'll be expecting demo units of PS VR in every store before it's released. Unfortunately I don't think the same can be said for the Rift or Vive due to the nature of purchasing games online compared to the physical and trade-in copies of console games that the store survives on.
Rift and the Vive unfortunately will be niche high end products over the next few years until the hardware required to run it becomes more mainstream which you can pick up at your local supermarket.
EDIT: Just wanted to add I'm not saying the PS VR is the better VR unit compared to the Rift and Vive; it's just going to have more mass market appeal, which leads to better market penetration which in turn will lead to better software/app third party support.