>>51496980
>Thoughts on the device?

Nausea.

>>51496980
>implying anyone on the /Consumerism/ board would get one

>>51496980
Seems more interesting than the Cockulus Anal Rift, or Steam "I hope you have a big empty room" VR

The idea of open source promotes some kind of industry standard I'd imagine, and the user modifiable bits seem interesting.

http://www.razerzone.com/osvr-hacker-dev-kit

>>51497031
>being a defective human

Kill yourself

>>51496980
SHEEET /g/ someone discuss this thing, I'm really interested. It's open source, modifiable, it's fucking interesting.

>>51498584
It's pretty cool. It should definitely be up your alley if you're someone who thinks tinkering with hardware and also software to run the hardware is the fun part of things rather than the experience of the final product itself. The only con is that it will always be a generation or two behind the latest hardware from more proprietary equivalents like Oculus Rift and HTC Vive, no matter how much you swap out parts or mod the hardware and software. It takes a huge amount of real engineering and work to come up with the custom stuff Oculus and HTC/Valve are working on. OSVR might also not have as much software support. Get it if you're a hacker (in the actual definition of the term, not the pop cultural sense).

isn't this just an inferior oculus for people who get triggered by facebook?

The software behind it is arguably better: the OSVR standard has been adopted by Steam VR and Oculus. It has SDK's for Unity, Unreal and a bunch of other stuff; the main selling point for the hardware apart from price is the potential upgradeability.

>>51499203
Do you have any links about the standard being adopted? I want to read into it more, is OSVR really going to be a trendsetter for VR?

>>51499229
Check out osvr.org - has a bunch of research & a list of people they've partnered with.

The news site (news.osvr) has all the info too, but being in chronological order you might have to look through a lot to find it.