@Schwah: When you go to the cinema you also get a much lower pixel density than you would on any reasonable TV at home, but the scope of the image kinda makes up for it. So I can see the appeal of watching a normal movie at home in VR, if you feel like you're watching a huge screen (as long as the perceived picture quality isn't too bad). Especially with apps that make it look like you are in a cool environment. A lot of movies, like action films and other epic spectacles, I think are also 'better' on a big screen over a smaller, sharper one.
I think the feature of being able to play non-VR games in VR is a less useful feature than watching movies, because in a game size is less important when you need to be able to draw information from the whole screen at once. So I don't see any advantage in VR over my (very good) monitor for that.
@straightcur: In two different paragraphs they mention that the minimum space is 5' by 6.5'. Given that 15 square feet is being given as the maximum possible space it can cover, they surely mean 15' by 15' (should be 15 feet squared).
I plain old VR it seems that many games are short tech demo experiences, but there are at least a good handful of games that are full experiences. Is there even a single title that uses the floor space that you would want to play because it is a good game, not just because it does something with your new hardware?
I'm sure all the tech demos are nice little things to mess around with, but until they are cool extras on top of a library of solid, deep VR titles, no number of fancy demo-like experiences will make it worth spending AUD$1250 on Vive.
@straightcur: People in San Francisco live in tiny boxes, not apartments, so they don;t have a lot of space. I, myself, have several places in my apartment that could accommodate 5x6.5ft without moving anything. I don't live in San Francisco.
@captainwonton: Fantasia: Music Evolved was apparently a very expensive project, that released for XBO Kinect a little while after MS dropped Kinect, so they must have lost a ton of money on that one, because it did not do well. They also ended up cancelling a second Kinect project that was well into development (I think they had written the story and created a lot of the levels). So after dropping their load on Kinect only to have the peripheral killed off before they got their games out, they're probably feeling a bit more risk averse these days.
@skipper847: Some of the best games from the last few years have come from Kick Starter, and it has completely revived several genres. Sounds like a win for gaming.
@Warlord_Irochi: Not necessarily. People have a lot of reasons why they might not want to give to a crowdfunding effort. Ultimately only a small proportion of people who would buy a game would fund its actual development. There is also that alot of people ignore crowdfunding efforts if they aren't on Kickstarter. Sort of similar to the Steam effect in PC gaming. Off-KS funding compared to KS is lower volume, lower average dollar, and lower success. And success is low enough as it is on KS.
I'm not a Rock Band fan, so I may be talking out the rear on this point, but it's possible that there is some resentment that Rock Band fans on PC would be expected to fund their version of the game in the first place.
If they would just have two optimization options for each game, one for graphics and one for 60fps performance, I think that would keep most people pretty happy, without anyone having to buy new gear.
jecomans' comments