There's been a division between many VR pioneers and the companies who fund them, and it centers over whether there's a similar division in what consumers actually want from VR: Something cheaper or something better. The truth has been for years that headset sales have been decent but never as strong as expected, and sales of VR titles have been far, far lower than expected. The question has been why. Everyone knew these would be the early days of VR development so it would be far from perfect. The headsets are a bit clunky, and obviously the graphical output from a television or computer monitor will on a technical level outstrip anything a VR headset can currently produce.
Many are quite happy with their VR headsets and keep supporting VR by buying VR games and applications whether on console, PC or both. But overall VR companies and VR divisions within larger companies are losing money when they were expected to turn a profit by now.
So they keep asking that central question of what to do about it, which largely centers on what we want. Many in the industry -- largely the folks doing the financing -- think the answer is to make VR headsets cheaper at the cost of quality. That would make them more accessible, drum up sales of hardware more, and more people would try out the games and some of them would stick with buying those games, supporting future development. Others, usually the folks creating the VR and who originally had the idea that VR was possible sooner than the rest of us thought, hate that idea and believe the answer is to make VR better, both in terms of hardware and in terms of games. For them, if the hardware were actually closer to supporting what a PC or modern console could actually put out in terms of video quality and video processing power without lag or drops in framerate, it would be more appealing and to more consumers, and also more appealing to more developers who would see it less as a gimmick and more as hardware to specifically develop support for from the get-go (for instance, RDR2 not just being developed for VR which would be huge since so far Bethesda is the only AAA publisher I'm aware of to go all-in on VR, but RDR2 VR being released the same day as RDR2 for non-VR).
This division was recently brought into sharp focus when Brendan Iribe, co-founder of Oculus, resigned from Facebook (owner of Oculus) because he wasn't interested in a "race to the bottom" in terms of VR technology. Facebook is looking to turn a profit on VR, while he still wants to create a true VR experience.
You must login or register to view this content.
Personally, I'm with the folks who want better VR, not cheaper VR. Sure I'd like to save some money on it, but right now I'm saving money on it as is because it's simply not there yet (for me). When VR first looked possible I was one of the first to be uber-excited, but as long as I can get significantly better video quality without the VR, and the games continue to be mostly, well, what they are, I have no interest. Only Skyrim tempted me, even with the degradation of visual quality apparent just in screenshots and videos without even needing to resort to a comparison -- I was still tempted. I feel the only way they can convince companies other than Bethesda is if they can make the quality better, not worse. Just my opinion, though. There's obviously a deep divide on this, and it's not like VR is cheap even as is.