So, I'm out-and-about again, doin' my thang, when I see it on the
curb. In fact, it's the exact same curb as where I saw my last lucky
acquisition, the Coolermaster Cube PC. This time, though, they were
tossing out something a little bit larger.

Okay, a fair bit larger. Like, 70 inches (that's 177cm for people who
use proper units of measurement) large.

Yup, I just snagged a new 70" flat-screen TV. How's that for luck?

Now, it's not the best TV; it's about 7 years old and has a maximum
resolution of 1920x1080; no ultra-wide 4K monitor, this thing. It does
have a 120Hz refresh, though, and a good number of connectivity
options too (also a lot of out-of-date 'smart TV' options that I'll
never use). Still, who am I to complain; it's seventy-freaking-inches!

I didn't expect it to work, of course. Who the hell just throws out a
70" TV? At the very least you can offer it on FreeCycle, if you don't
just sell it on Ebay for $100. And it was raining... hard. Sure, the
TV was in a sturdy cardboard box, and tucked away all nicely inside
with lots of Styrofoam and a plastic blanket that kept the moisture
off it... but surely the weather had gotten to my find this time. I
couldn't be so lucky twice?

Long story short: I was that lucky twice. The damn thing works. Sure,
it's missing its remote and its stand, but the first is a cheap
replacement and the second I'm not sure I'd need anyway. It's so big,
I may need to wall-mount this sucker.

(Is this all sounding like I'm bragging, especially after my earlier
find? I hope it's not coming across like that. I'm just thrilled at my
good fortune, and want to share some of my happiness with others. Two
good finds in less than a month; thank you Lady Luck for smiling upon
me!)

The real problem, of course, is where do I put this thing? It's way
too big to be used as a drop-in replacement for my current 42"
TV/monitor. If I keep it, I'm going to, at the very least, move some
furniture around (alternately, I may need to visit Ikea for another
Kallax... which isn't as dreadful as it sounds. I love their Kallax
shelves and always need more room to store stuff).* Anyway, I think we
all could do with more 'problems' like this; it's a fair bit better
than the usual sort, right? May we all suffer from happy finds that
challenge us to find use for.

Maybe I'll just offer it to some of my family members, if I can't find
a place for it myself. But if they want it, they're gonna have to pick
it up themselves; it won't fit in my car ;-)

Anyway, I did what I always do with my new TVs; I watched "Star Wars"
on it. It's a rite-of-passage for all my new displays**. I sat four
feet away and pretended I was seeing it in a theater on a big screen.
It didn't take much imagination on my part. The thing is huge and
every detail was visible; I was counting Luke Skywalker's pores.

But now I know two things:

1) Some people have more money than sense, and toss out perfectly
working hardware for no good reason and,

2) I need to make sure to walk by that curb more often. I don't
consider myself a dumpster-diver, but damn if that curb ain't got some
phat lewt.

-----------------------------
* If I do go this route, this 'free' TV is going to cost me close to
$200 USD for the shelf, remote and stand. On the other hand, have I
mentioned how much I like the Kallax? ;-)

** Not that I own many 'new' displays. The last display I actually
purchased myself is about fifteen years old. I think only one of my
monitors was new-in-box when I got it. When it comes to displays,
almost all of them - be they computer monitors or TVs - have been
hand-me-downs, gifts, or rescues. None of them are top-of-the-line
featuring UHD, ultra-high refresh rates or gnarly curves, but they all
have good pictures and work well enough for my needs. Anyway, money
saved not buying displays is better spent on computer hardware, or
games... or even 'real life' stuff.

On 04/02/2022 07:02, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> Yup, I just snagged a new 70" flat-screen TV. How's that for luck?

Nice find, well sort of, as to me that's way to large. When we replaced
our old TV a couple of years ago myself and my better half compromised
on a 48" (my choice was 43", there's 55") T.V. as I don't like them to
dominate the room. There's also the problem of where do you put a T.V.
that is just that large.

On Fri, 4 Feb 2022 08:46:00 +0000, JAB <noway@co.uk> wrote:

>On 04/02/2022 07:02, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> Yup, I just snagged a new 70" flat-screen TV. How's that for luck?

>Nice find, well sort of, as to me that's way to large. When we replaced
>our old TV a couple of years ago myself and my better half compromised
>on a 48" (my choice was 43", there's 55") T.V. as I don't like them to
>dominate the room. There's also the problem of where do you put a T.V.
>that is just that large.

Yeah, the thing really is just waaaay too big, especially for my usage
scenario. Unfortunately, I don't get much choice in selection with my
methodology of acquiring displays; you take what's offered. This time,
it was 70 inches. Who knows how long I'd have to wait until I got a
more appropriately sized device?

And 70" is just so damn impressive, even if it makes absolutely no
sense.

Still, I'm sort of hoping I can find somebody to trade with; I'd be
happy with a 44" (112cm) to 48" (122cm), and it wouldn't require new
furniture.* It wouldn't even have to be new, just so long as it is in
good condition and has some longevity to it. Oh, and it has a bunch of
HDMI and other connectivity options. It would be worth the trade, even
if technically I was losing out on value.

The thing is heavy too. Even the manual says to use two people; I've
been mostly wrangling it single-handed. I may need to add the cost of
a hernia to my equations if this keeps up.

----------------------------
* "B-but my Kallax!" a part of me cries.

On Fri, 04 Feb 2022 02:02:59 -0500, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>Yup, I just snagged a new 70" flat-screen TV. How's that for luck?

It's really not that surprising, given its origins, but my lucky find
has turned out to be a bit of a dud. The darn thing died on me last
night, and it doesn't look like I'm going to be able to revive it.

Well, technically I probably could. It's likely a wiring harness
issue; some cable has slipped from its connector or is otherwise
faulty; I'm fairly sure I could diagnose and fix it. The problem is,
the TV is just too damn big; I have no room to lay it out and get to
its innards, especially since it might remain in its vivisected state
for a few days as I tinker with it.

I'm not entirely upset at the loss; frankly, the TV really was too
large for my needs. It's limited resolution (only up to 1920x1080)
also made it less effective as a computer monitor; even sitting five
feet away, it was too easy to see the pixels when watching movies or
staring at a desktop. Still, it shone with some games; I was literally
laughing with joy when playing "EuroTruck Simulator 2" on the 70-inch
screen. It may not have been crisp, but the sheer size of the image
was ridiculously fun.

What really gets me, though, is that the damn thing only broke AFTER I
invested so much time and money and effort into getting it set up. I
had to rearrange the entire room so its massive screen could sit in a
place of prominence. I bought it a new remote. I even visited Ikea* to
purchase another beloved Kallax** for it to rest upon. But the TV
literally up and died only a few minutes after I finished all the
work.*** Couldn't it have died BEFORE I put in all that work?

It's a good thing I didn't dispose of any of the older displays. I was
able to very quickly revert to the (now comparatively small) 42" TV
without much trouble. Plus, all that moving furniture did give the
place a much needed clean-out. And who knows, I might find another TV
in the near future****; stranger things have happened.

Anyway I had fun in the meantime; I got to play with a
ultra-big-screen TV - even if only for a little while - and now I get
to have meatballs for dinner. All around, it is still a win in my
book.

---------------------
* a very expensive proposition even at the best of times. You go in
for a $5 light bulb and end up with $200 worth of meatballs and
knick-knacks ;-)
** Not that I'm really complaining about this; I needed the extra
storage space and I really like those shelving units.
*** admittedly, the TV had shown some signs of flakiness prior to
that, but it always recovered. This time its 'death' was more
permanent.
**** Although preferably not quite as large. Trash gods, if you're
listening, I'm thinking something in the 55" range, thanks.

Dude, where do you live for these finds? :P

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, I'm out-and-about again, doin' my thang, when I see it on the
> curb. In fact, it's the exact same curb as where I saw my last lucky
> acquisition, the Coolermaster Cube PC. This time, though, they were
> tossing out something a little bit larger.

> Okay, a fair bit larger. Like, 70 inches (that's 177cm for people who
> use proper units of measurement) large.

> Yup, I just snagged a new 70" flat-screen TV. How's that for luck?

> Now, it's not the best TV; it's about 7 years old and has a maximum
> resolution of 1920x1080; no ultra-wide 4K monitor, this thing. It does
> have a 120Hz refresh, though, and a good number of connectivity
> options too (also a lot of out-of-date 'smart TV' options that I'll
> never use). Still, who am I to complain; it's seventy-freaking-inches!

> I didn't expect it to work, of course. Who the hell just throws out a
> 70" TV? At the very least you can offer it on FreeCycle, if you don't
> just sell it on Ebay for $100. And it was raining... hard. Sure, the
> TV was in a sturdy cardboard box, and tucked away all nicely inside
> with lots of Styrofoam and a plastic blanket that kept the moisture
> off it... but surely the weather had gotten to my find this time. I
> couldn't be so lucky twice?

> Long story short: I was that lucky twice. The damn thing works. Sure,
> it's missing its remote and its stand, but the first is a cheap
> replacement and the second I'm not sure I'd need anyway. It's so big,
> I may need to wall-mount this sucker.

> (Is this all sounding like I'm bragging, especially after my earlier
> find? I hope it's not coming across like that. I'm just thrilled at my
> good fortune, and want to share some of my happiness with others. Two
> good finds in less than a month; thank you Lady Luck for smiling upon
> me!)

> The real problem, of course, is where do I put this thing? It's way
> too big to be used as a drop-in replacement for my current 42"
> TV/monitor. If I keep it, I'm going to, at the very least, move some
> furniture around (alternately, I may need to visit Ikea for another
> Kallax... which isn't as dreadful as it sounds. I love their Kallax
> shelves and always need more room to store stuff).* Anyway, I think we
> all could do with more 'problems' like this; it's a fair bit better
> than the usual sort, right? May we all suffer from happy finds that
> challenge us to find use for.

> Maybe I'll just offer it to some of my family members, if I can't find
> a place for it myself. But if they want it, they're gonna have to pick
> it up themselves; it won't fit in my car ;-)

> Anyway, I did what I always do with my new TVs; I watched "Star Wars"
> on it. It's a rite-of-passage for all my new displays**. I sat four
> feet away and pretended I was seeing it in a theater on a big screen.
> It didn't take much imagination on my part. The thing is huge and
> every detail was visible; I was counting Luke Skywalker's pores.

> But now I know two things:

> 1) Some people have more money than sense, and toss out perfectly
> working hardware for no good reason and,

> 2) I need to make sure to walk by that curb more often. I don't
> consider myself a dumpster-diver, but damn if that curb ain't got some
> phat lewt.

> -----------------------------
> * If I do go this route, this 'free' TV is going to cost me close to
> $200 USD for the shelf, remote and stand. On the other hand, have I
> mentioned how much I like the Kallax? ;-)

> ** Not that I own many 'new' displays. The last display I actually
> purchased myself is about fifteen years old. I think only one of my
> monitors was new-in-box when I got it. When it comes to displays,
> almost all of them - be they computer monitors or TVs - have been
> hand-me-downs, gifts, or rescues. None of them are top-of-the-line
> featuring UHD, ultra-high refresh rates or gnarly curves, but they all
> have good pictures and work well enough for my needs. Anyway, money
> saved not buying displays is better spent on computer hardware, or
> games... or even 'real life' stuff.

--
It's summer again! Beijing's Olympics 2022 opening ceremony wasn't good as its 2008. (L/C)NY (h2o tiger) & Black History Mo. Dang tiredness, sickness, bodies, works, colony, nest, videos, tech, updates, life, junks, leaks, issues, etc. :(
Note: A fixed width font (Courier, Monospace, etc.) is required to see this signature correctly.
/\___/\ Ant(Dude) @ http://aqfl.net & http://antfarm.home.dhs.org.
/ /\ /\ \ Please nuke ANT if replying by e-mail.
| |o o| |
\ _ /
( )

>I was
>able to very quickly revert to the (now comparatively small) 42" TV

Now you know you can never go back. Most people I've talked to say a 65"
just doesn't cut the mustard once you've experienced a 77":
You can never go too big.

rms

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 08:52:37 -0700, "rms"
<rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:

>>I was
>>able to very quickly revert to the (now comparatively small) 42" TV

> Now you know you can never go back. Most people I've talked to say a 65"
>just doesn't cut the mustard once you've experienced a 77":
> You can never go too big.

I dunno, I think 70" was just past my level of tolerance. In all
honesty, I wasn't really that happy with the display; I kept it
because, well, how often does a 70" TV fall into your lap like that?
But since my primary goal was to use it as a monitor (and not a TV you
gaze up at from across the room), it really didn't work very well.
Limited to 'mere' HD resolutions, the pixels were too obvious when
looked at close-up, and the sheer width of the thing meant I had to
constantly turn my head if I wanted to see things on the left or right
edges.

Not to mention the thing was annoyingly bulky, which made man-handling
it more of a chore than I wanted. I like to tinker; I add new
components, change cables, stuff like that. On a smaller display, I'd
just give the thing a nudge to get it to move. The 70" took muscle and
I was always nervous the top-heavy thing would topple down on me.

If I had a huge home with lots of floor (and wall) space, 70"+ would
have made more sense; I'd stick it on a wall somewhere and gaze at it
from meters away, as was intended by the Gods of TV. But for my
use-case, I think 65" would be the maximum I would want, with 55"
being the 'sweet spot'.

That isn't to say I'd turn my nose up at a 77", if you're offering ;-)

On 2/12/2022 8:27 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 08:52:37 -0700, "rms"
> <rsquiresMOO@MOOflashMOO.net> wrote:
>
>>> I was
>>> able to very quickly revert to the (now comparatively small) 42" TV
>
>> Now you know you can never go back. Most people I've talked to say a 65"
>> just doesn't cut the mustard once you've experienced a 77":
>> You can never go too big.
>
> I dunno, I think 70" was just past my level of tolerance. In all
> honesty, I wasn't really that happy with the display; I kept it
> because, well, how often does a 70" TV fall into your lap like that?
> But since my primary goal was to use it as a monitor (and not a TV you
> gaze up at from across the room), it really didn't work very well.
> Limited to 'mere' HD resolutions, the pixels were too obvious when
> looked at close-up, and the sheer width of the thing meant I had to
> constantly turn my head if I wanted to see things on the left or right
> edges.
>
> Not to mention the thing was annoyingly bulky, which made man-handling
> it more of a chore than I wanted. I like to tinker; I add new
> components, change cables, stuff like that. On a smaller display, I'd
> just give the thing a nudge to get it to move. The 70" took muscle and
> I was always nervous the top-heavy thing would topple down on me.
>
> If I had a huge home with lots of floor (and wall) space, 70"+ would
> have made more sense; I'd stick it on a wall somewhere and gaze at it
> from meters away, as was intended by the Gods of TV. But for my
> use-case, I think 65" would be the maximum I would want, with 55"
> being the 'sweet spot'.
>
> That isn't to say I'd turn my nose up at a 77", if you're offering ;-)
>
Just to tinker with, of course.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 12/02/2022 15:52, rms wrote:
>> I was
>> able to very quickly revert to the (now comparatively small) 42" TV
>
>   Now you know you can never go back.  Most people I've talked to say a
> 65" just doesn't cut the mustard once you've experienced a 77":
>      You can never go too big.
>

Horses for courses and all that but there is no way I want I 77" TV.
It's just a device that sits in the corner and certainly not one that
should dominate the room.

On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 18:14:02 +0000, JAB <noway@co.uk> wrote:

>Horses for courses and all that but there is no way I want I 77" TV.
>It's just a device that sits in the corner and certainly not one that
>should dominate the room.

LOL!

I agree with you but try telling that to the average TV watching
American.

I don't remember what show it was from but I remember a character
mentioning to someone else that he did not have a TV at all. The
other character asked, 'but how do you know where to point the
furniture then?' or something to that affect.

On 12/02/2022 19:02, Mike S. wrote:
> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 18:14:02 +0000, JAB <noway@co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Horses for courses and all that but there is no way I want I 77" TV.
>> It's just a device that sits in the corner and certainly not one that
>> should dominate the room.
>
> LOL!
>
> I agree with you but try telling that to the average TV watching
> American.
>
> I don't remember what show it was from but I remember a character
> mentioning to someone else that he did not have a TV at all. The
> other character asked, 'but how do you know where to point the
> furniture then?' or something to that affect.

These big TV's are impressive but I think like graphics in games that
initial wow factor quickly fades and it's what you're watching that
counts. Saying that I do recognise that once you've got used to a
certain picture quality/size it can be hard going back to an inferior
one. One thing I did like though, was the introduction of smart TV's in
particular becomes it means I can watch YouTube.

Now 3D TV's, whatever happened to them!

On 2/13/2022 2:09 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 12/02/2022 19:02, Mike S. wrote:
>> On Sat, 12 Feb 2022 18:14:02 +0000, JAB <noway@co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Horses for courses and all that but there is no way I want I 77" TV.
>>> It's just a device that sits in the corner and certainly not one that
>>> should dominate the room.
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> I agree with you but try telling that to the average TV watching
>> American.
>>
>> I don't remember what show it was from but I remember a character
>> mentioning to someone else that he did not have a TV at all.  The
>> other character asked, 'but how do you know where to point the
>> furniture then?' or something to that affect.
>
> These big TV's are impressive but I think like graphics in games that
> initial wow factor quickly fades and it's what you're watching that
> counts. Saying that I do recognise that once you've got used to a
> certain picture quality/size it can be hard going back to an inferior
> one. One thing I did like though, was the introduction of smart TV's in
> particular becomes it means I can watch YouTube.
>
> Now 3D TV's, whatever happened to them!

Failed miserably and were discontinued. Expect another wave of attempts
to restart 3D TV a couple of years after the next 20 year cycle of
attempts to make 3D mainstream in movies. (Assuming, of course, that
movie theatres last another 20 years....)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 13/02/2022 16:45, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> Now 3D TV's, whatever happened to them!
>
> Failed miserably and were discontinued.  Expect another wave of attempts
> to restart 3D TV a couple of years after the next 20 year cycle of
> attempts to make 3D mainstream in movies.  (Assuming, of course, that
> movie theatres last another 20 years....)
>

I kinda remember the first attempts in computer games with a Crash
magazine having some 3d glasses and also, now this is getting really
hazy, the BBC's Tomorrow's World programme demonstrating it.

I did watch a Star Wars film in the cinema a few years ago in 3d and my
main feeling was that is this 3d or just a bunch of cardboard shapes at
different distances and aren't these glasses annoying to wear.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-8, JAB wrote:
> On 13/02/2022 16:45, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >> Now 3D TV's, whatever happened to them!
> >
> > Failed miserably and were discontinued. Expect another wave of attempts
> > to restart 3D TV a couple of years after the next 20 year cycle of
> > attempts to make 3D mainstream in movies. (Assuming, of course, that
> > movie theatres last another 20 years....)
> >
> I kinda remember the first attempts in computer games with a Crash
> magazine having some 3d glasses and also, now this is getting really
> hazy, the BBC's Tomorrow's World programme demonstrating it.
>
> I did watch a Star Wars film in the cinema a few years ago in 3d and my
> main feeling was that is this 3d or just a bunch of cardboard shapes at
> different distances and aren't these glasses annoying to wear.

Based on my experience with the Oculus VR seems like it's got more
of a future than 3D TV. There's a huge difference between sitting
in one spot and staring at 3D on a screen, and being able to look around
and possibly interact with things in 3D. It's obviously got a long way to go but
it's starting to feel like it's near hitting the turning point vs. how it's been
every time someone previously came out with VR. Infancy vs. false starts.

- Justisaur

On 14/02/2022 16:51, Justisaur wrote:
> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-8, JAB wrote:
>> On 13/02/2022 16:45, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>> Now 3D TV's, whatever happened to them!
>>>
>>> Failed miserably and were discontinued. Expect another wave of attempts
>>> to restart 3D TV a couple of years after the next 20 year cycle of
>>> attempts to make 3D mainstream in movies. (Assuming, of course, that
>>> movie theatres last another 20 years....)
>>>
>> I kinda remember the first attempts in computer games with a Crash
>> magazine having some 3d glasses and also, now this is getting really
>> hazy, the BBC's Tomorrow's World programme demonstrating it.
>>
>> I did watch a Star Wars film in the cinema a few years ago in 3d and my
>> main feeling was that is this 3d or just a bunch of cardboard shapes at
>> different distances and aren't these glasses annoying to wear.
>
> Based on my experience with the Oculus VR seems like it's got more
> of a future than 3D TV. There's a huge difference between sitting
> in one spot and staring at 3D on a screen, and being able to look around
> and possibly interact with things in 3D. It's obviously got a long way to go but
> it's starting to feel like it's near hitting the turning point vs. how it's been
> every time someone previously came out with VR. Infancy vs. false starts.
>

The problem I find with 3D TV/cinema is that I just don't think it adds
anything to the experience. VR I can see catching on as in games you're
an active, not passive, actor so another layer of immersion adds to that
I'm really in the world feel.

The problems I have with VR currently are, well the cost is top of the
list. They just aren't in the price range I currently feel is worth
while especially as it does feel as we are still in the early adopters
phase. The second, got to be the games. There's certainly some that look
interesting but it kinda comes across as when the first 16bit home
machines came out. What you got to start with was a lot of ports of 8bit
games and it took time before games started appearing that took the
power of the new machines.

Saying all of that, I do see it taking off enough sometime in the next
several years. Maybe it will be a bit like smartphones which companies
had pushed for quite a few years with no real success and then all of a
sudden everyone had one.

On Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 3:21:47 AM UTC-8, JAB wrote:
> On 14/02/2022 16:51, Justisaur wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 9:07:46 AM UTC-8, JAB wrote:
> >> On 13/02/2022 16:45, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> >>>> Now 3D TV's, whatever happened to them!
> >>>
> >>> Failed miserably and were discontinued. Expect another wave of attempts
> >>> to restart 3D TV a couple of years after the next 20 year cycle of
> >>> attempts to make 3D mainstream in movies. (Assuming, of course, that
> >>> movie theatres last another 20 years....)
> >>>
> >> I kinda remember the first attempts in computer games with a Crash
> >> magazine having some 3d glasses and also, now this is getting really
> >> hazy, the BBC's Tomorrow's World programme demonstrating it.
> >>
> >> I did watch a Star Wars film in the cinema a few years ago in 3d and my
> >> main feeling was that is this 3d or just a bunch of cardboard shapes at
> >> different distances and aren't these glasses annoying to wear.
> >
> > Based on my experience with the Oculus VR seems like it's got more
> > of a future than 3D TV. There's a huge difference between sitting
> > in one spot and staring at 3D on a screen, and being able to look around
> > and possibly interact with things in 3D. It's obviously got a long way to go but
> > it's starting to feel like it's near hitting the turning point vs. how it's been
> > every time someone previously came out with VR. Infancy vs. false starts.
> >
> The problem I find with 3D TV/cinema is that I just don't think it adds
> anything to the experience. VR I can see catching on as in games you're
> an active, not passive, actor so another layer of immersion adds to that
> I'm really in the world feel.
>
> The problems I have with VR currently are, well the cost is top of the
> list. They just aren't in the price range I currently feel is worth
> while especially as it does feel as we are still in the early adopters
> phase. The second, got to be the games. There's certainly some that look
> interesting but it kinda comes across as when the first 16bit home
> machines came out. What you got to start with was a lot of ports of 8bit
> games and it took time before games started appearing that took the
> power of the new machines.
>
> Saying all of that, I do see it taking off enough sometime in the next
> several years. Maybe it will be a bit like smartphones which companies
> had pushed for quite a few years with no real success and then all of a
> sudden everyone had one.

At least for the Oculus 2 the price is well within a reasonable range,
If they got a bit better/lighter hardware I'd put it up there with consoles.
Apparently Facebook sold a lot of them at Christmas (though they didn't
release numbers)

I agree about the games, they mostly feel like tech demos/toys for kids.
The better games on the PC are games that have been converted
to VR, which I understand leaves a lot to be desired, and can't be played
on the Oculus 2 natively due to HW requirements. If they could get
any major developers to make AAA games for it specifically (sort of
like with consoles) they might really have something. Of course
the Switch is more kids games/toys and it's wildly successful.

Maybe if Nintendo jumped on the VR bandwagon. They came partway
there with the 3ds which was pretty successful.

- Justisaur