>>107740527
>Why VR fail?
>posts that pic
>'starts at' $3,499
say what you like about Jobs
but he'd have booted cunts 3x right round 1 Infinite Loop for even suggesting releasing absolute shit like this.

>>107740527
No cheap chink alternative

File: facetest.jpg (96 KB, 743x734)

96 KB JPG

>>107740527
For me it was Mark Cuckerberg. My friend had the DK1 and when I tried it I was sold. I got the DK2 and demoed it to so many people, it was a great time. I even made a VR version of one of my games. Then Facebook bought Occulus then fire Luckey and I completely mentally checked out.

I stopped using my DK2, Stopped showing people demos, stopped working on VR games and never bought another VR headset ever again. However that one little moment in between was special. I learned women really wanted to look at naked bodies in VR...

People don't think of that as actual VR. To most "virtual reality" is the holodeck. Until you are offering that, don't bother.

Too expensive. No one wants to put a device on their head just to use it. sabemun

It's a novelty item, the vast majority of people won't wear goggles because they know it makes them look retarded plus it's against our natural instincts to have your vision impeded, especially in public

>>107740813
And you know that because?

>>107740527
maybe its just me but I have fundamental problems with these blocky things you wear on your head. everyone who tried wearing even something like open-ear headphones notice that these things WILL get heavy and hot over a long duration. I strongly believe the think the target audience for these things only wear them for 20-30 minutes at a time. no I want to wear them for 8+ hours at a time. I dont even believe its technically possible to make them so light and comfortable that you will be able to do so.

TVs and monitors are still too cheap

>>107741605
oh, trust me. I know.