Anyone who thinks it's a gimmick or is not going to go do well, obviously has no clue what they are talking about. You would have to be pretty crazy to think something this amazing is just no going to do well.
Something that is amazing does not automatically do well. It can fail on software support. It can fail on marketing. It can fail on small things like some people got dizzy.
Anyone who thinks it's a gimmick or is not going to go do well, obviously has no clue what they are talking about. You would have to be pretty crazy to think something this amazing is just no going to do well.
Something that is amazing does not automatically do well. It can fail on software support. It can fail on marketing. It can fail on small things like some people got dizzy.
This is assuming it does what you claim.
a very large theme with game posters both here and in other places is that they assume that unless a game or device is a huge massive industry changing success then it means its a failure.
Gaming Steering Wheels and Joysticks have been around for a long time so clearly there is a market for them. Could VR be somewhere in between a total failure and a smashing success?
Gaming Steering Wheels and Joysticks have been around for a long time so clearly there is a market for them. Could VR be somewhere in between a total failure and a smashing success?
It can .. but it is not guaranteed to be.
VR has been tried before, and previously are all failure (Virtual Boy, anyone?).
Whether this one will succeed or not remained to be seen. But it is as big a mistake to assume that it will succeed (or even stay alive) as to assume that it will fail.
Gaming Steering Wheels and Joysticks have been around for a long time so clearly there is a market for them. Could VR be somewhere in between a total failure and a smashing success?
It can .. but it is not guaranteed to be.
VR has been tried before, and previously are all failure (Virtual Boy, anyone?).
Whether this one will succeed or not remained to be seen. But it is as big a mistake to assume that it will succeed (or even stay alive) as to assume that it will fail.
so given we are specifically talking about technology you might be good to know that the specific reason VR works better now then it did 20 years ago is specfic technology that did not exist then.
I find it funny people comparing a technology subject of 2015 with one of 1995. If it was a non-technical thing we where talking about then find but with this most of the tech that makes VR work now didnt exist in 1995
Gaming Steering Wheels and Joysticks have been around for a long time so clearly there is a market for them. Could VR be somewhere in between a total failure and a smashing success?
It can .. but it is not guaranteed to be.
VR has been tried before, and previously are all failure (Virtual Boy, anyone?).
Whether this one will succeed or not remained to be seen. But it is as big a mistake to assume that it will succeed (or even stay alive) as to assume that it will fail.
so given we are specifically talking about technology you might be good to know that the specific reason VR works better now then it did 20 years ago is specfic technology that did not exist then.
I find it funny people comparing a technology subject of 2015 with one of 1995. If it was a non-technical thing we where talking about then find but with this most of the tech that makes VR work now didnt exist in 1995
So? New technology does not guarantee to be successful. Sure it works better now than 1995 but so what? Virtual Boy is better than what is available in the 1960s (i.e. nothing).
Dreamcast is better than what we have in the 1980s.
Having 10 years of more technology is not a guarantee to success (nor failure).
Gaming Steering Wheels and Joysticks have been around for a long time so clearly there is a market for them. Could VR be somewhere in between a total failure and a smashing success?
It can .. but it is not guaranteed to be.
VR has been tried before, and previously are all failure (Virtual Boy, anyone?).
Whether this one will succeed or not remained to be seen. But it is as big a mistake to assume that it will succeed (or even stay alive) as to assume that it will fail.
so given we are specifically talking about technology you might be good to know that the specific reason VR works better now then it did 20 years ago is specfic technology that did not exist then.
I find it funny people comparing a technology subject of 2015 with one of 1995. If it was a non-technical thing we where talking about then find but with this most of the tech that makes VR work now didnt exist in 1995
So? New technology does not guarantee to be successful. Sure it works better now than 1995 but so what? Virtual Boy is better than what is available in the 1960s (i.e. nothing).
Dreamcast is better than what we have in the 1980s.
Having 10 years of more technology is not a guarantee to success (nor failure).
I am not saying that it will be successful. I am saying two things.
1. comparing tech of 1995 to today is silly use for any arguement other than tech is better now.
2. Something (anything making an abstract point here) doesnt have to be the iPhone 1 to still be successful. Game steering wheels are successful but I doubt every gamer has one.
I am not saying that it will be successful. I am saying two things.
1. comparing tech of 1995 to today is silly use for any arguement other than tech is better now.
2. Something (anything making an abstract point here) doesnt have to be the iPhone 1 to still be successful. Game steering wheels are successful but I doubt every gamer has one.
1. No .. it is also a data point that new technology (in 1995, virtual boy is new technology) can flop. Just that it is new is not a guarantee of success.
2. Sure. But steering wheels are a lot cheaper to develop. Does VR requires lots of initial investment? If so, it needs to sell a lot more to be "successful" ... if we are talking about return on investment.
I am not saying that it will be successful. I am saying two things.
1. comparing tech of 1995 to today is silly use for any arguement other than tech is better now.
2. Something (anything making an abstract point here) doesnt have to be the iPhone 1 to still be successful. Game steering wheels are successful but I doubt every gamer has one.
1. No .. it is also a data point that new technology (in 1995, virtual boy is new technology) can flop. Just that it is new is not a guarantee of success.
2. Sure. But steering wheels are a lot cheaper to develop. Does VR requires lots of initial investment? If so, it needs to sell a lot more to be "successful" ... if we are talking about return on investment.
1. there are a lot of examples as to why VR might fail however comparing it to technology of 1995 is likely the worst example anyone could come up with. Literally ALL the technology in current VR did not exist then.
2. you dont know that. In fact, a simple conversion can be done in minutes.
I am not saying that it will be successful. I am saying two things.
1. comparing tech of 1995 to today is silly use for any arguement other than tech is better now.
2. Something (anything making an abstract point here) doesnt have to be the iPhone 1 to still be successful. Game steering wheels are successful but I doubt every gamer has one.
1. No .. it is also a data point that new technology (in 1995, virtual boy is new technology) can flop. Just that it is new is not a guarantee of success.
2. Sure. But steering wheels are a lot cheaper to develop. Does VR requires lots of initial investment? If so, it needs to sell a lot more to be "successful" ... if we are talking about return on investment.
1. there are a lot of examples as to why VR might fail however comparing it to technology of 1995 is likely the worst example anyone could come up with. Literally ALL the technology in current VR did not exist then.
2. you dont know that. In fact, a simple conversion can be done in minutes.
1. Who is comparing the tech ... you are missing the point. The point is that virtual boy tech is brand new in 1995 .. just like whatever VR tech is brand new now .. and brand new does not guarantee success. Replace "virtual boy" with dreamcast .. and you will see the point.
2. No i don't know for sure. But a system that consist of just a wheel, a potential-meter, with a standard interface for signal into a computer sounds a lot simpler, and cheaper than stereoscopic 3D with high resolution displays, and a complicated graphical system that have to interface with other software to make a game.
Simple conversion? You are only talking about game development. What about the TOOLS for that facilitate the simple conversion? That costs a lot to develop. That is investment needed to be recouped.
I am not saying that it will be successful. I am saying two things.
1. comparing tech of 1995 to today is silly use for any arguement other than tech is better now.
2. Something (anything making an abstract point here) doesnt have to be the iPhone 1 to still be successful. Game steering wheels are successful but I doubt every gamer has one.
1. No .. it is also a data point that new technology (in 1995, virtual boy is new technology) can flop. Just that it is new is not a guarantee of success.
2. Sure. But steering wheels are a lot cheaper to develop. Does VR requires lots of initial investment? If so, it needs to sell a lot more to be "successful" ... if we are talking about return on investment.
1. there are a lot of examples as to why VR might fail however comparing it to technology of 1995 is likely the worst example anyone could come up with. Literally ALL the technology in current VR did not exist then.
2. you dont know that. In fact, a simple conversion can be done in minutes.
1. Who is comparing the tech ... you are missing the point. The point is that virtual boy tech is brand new in 1995 .. just like whatever VR tech is brand new now .. and brand new does not guarantee success. Replace "virtual boy" with dreamcast .. and you will see the point.
2. No i don't know for sure. But a system that consist of just a wheel, a potential-meter, with a standard interface for signal into a computer sounds a lot simpler, and cheaper than stereoscopic 3D with high resolution displays, and a complicated graphical system that have to interface with other software to make a game.
Simple conversion? You are only talking about game development. What about the TOOLS for that facilitate the simple conversion? That costs a lot to develop. That is investment needed to be recouped.
1. The REASON it failed in 1995 is SPECIFICALLY because the technology that existed now didnt exist then. Again this is the worst example of why it might fail ever thought of by a long shot.
2. The simple conversion involves removing the camera from the game and replacing it with the Oculus Camera. Done. just a few minutes. In all fairness that is for a simple conversion which means it will only do movements possible with a mouse but its still a pretty nice conversion for a few minutes. Driving wheel? Habitic feedback which gives different feedback depending on what kind of road you are on. how much change does that take? I dont know. DO you?>
1. The REASON it failed in 1995 is SPECIFICALLY because the technology that existed now didnt exist then. Again this is the worst example of why it might fail ever thought of by a long shot.
2. The simple conversion involves removing the camera from the game and replacing it with the Oculus Camera. Done. just a few minutes. In all fairness that is for a simple conversion which means it will only do movements possible with a mouse but its still a pretty nice conversion for a few minutes. Driving wheel? Habitic feedback which gives different feedback depending on what kind of road you are on. how much change does that take? I dont know. DO you?>
1. You don't know that. May be today's tech is not enough.
2. The Oculus camera was developed with a big investment. That investment needs to be earned back. Don't tell me the Oculus camera was developed with zero investment.
1. The REASON it failed in 1995 is SPECIFICALLY because the technology that existed now didnt exist then. Again this is the worst example of why it might fail ever thought of by a long shot.
2. The simple conversion involves removing the camera from the game and replacing it with the Oculus Camera. Done. just a few minutes. In all fairness that is for a simple conversion which means it will only do movements possible with a mouse but its still a pretty nice conversion for a few minutes. Driving wheel? Habitic feedback which gives different feedback depending on what kind of road you are on. how much change does that take? I dont know. DO you?>
1. You don't know that. May be today's tech is not enough.
2. The Oculus camera was developed with a big investment. That investment needs to be earned back. Don't tell me the Oculus camera was developed with zero investment.
1. actually I DO know that.
2. How do you know Gaming Steering Wheels where not also made with a large investment?
additionally...keep in mind that gaming steering wheels has a MUCH smaller market then VR will have even in a worse case. Game Steering Wheels only work for very specific games and very few of them. VR however works for many games and even applications outside of gaming. So even in a horrible case situation, VR will have more coverage in the market then a game steering wheel could ever dream of. I was hoping that was infered by my example.
1. You don't know that. May be today's tech is not enough.
1. actually I DO know that.
How do you know that? You are guaranteeing its success? Did you put money on the line .. or are you just saying it because talk is cheap on the internet?
1. You don't know that. May be today's tech is not enough.
1. actually I DO know that.
How do you know that? You are guaranteeing its success? Did you put money on the line .. or are you just saying it because talk is cheap on the internet?
you might want to re-read the string. What I DO know is that the technology is different in a way that makes VR viable in ways that it was NOT viable in 1995.
I did NOT say or suggest successful I have no fucking idea if its going to be successful or not.
The question is can you even consider past VR attempts such as the Virtual Boy as VR.
It's like making a plastic box with a whole in it, then placing in slides one by one and calling it a TV, and then claiming because that failed, a real TV could fail as well.
The issue is you shouldn't even be talking about those poor attempts in the past, because they mean nothing at all. They tried something that was long long before it's time. Way before they even had the tech or understanding of how to accomplish it.
We now have the tech to accomplish a pretty successful VR experience for most people. Enough people that I am absolutely sure it will do perfectly fine. Even if only 50% of the people in the world could use it with out getting a little sick, that to me will still be pretty successful.
To say the tech might not be good enough yet means you obviously have yet to try it. It's essentially the closest we will get beyond simulating human senses directly to the brain. The only way to improve this specific type of VR is higher resolution, lower latency, and better input devices. All these things are being worked on. Most of which look very promising. Even if these things where not entirely figured out, it's good enough to create a pretty big splash in the industry.
Oculus Rift itself may not be the one that becomes extremely popular, but it will pave the way to future VR devices and in no way do I think it could even be considered a failure. When it comes to tech, it's already a success in my eyes. They caught plenty of developers attention with it. Even those who where skeptical changed their tune as soon as they tried it.
If that isn't a success so far, I don't know what is. If it's already that good and it's not a consumer product yet, I think that is a very good sign. I mean there literally is no evidence or hints floating about that it's going to be a gimmick in anyway. The only people who seem to think so, compare it to 3D glasses or very old VR attempts. Doom and gloom even when it doesn't make any sense.
you might want to re-read the string. What I DO know is that the technology is different in a way that makes VR viable in ways that it was NOT viable in 1995.
I did NOT say or suggest successful I have no fucking idea if its going to be successful or not.
Two completely different things.
well .. if all you are saying is that it has much better VR tech .... we all know that.
But that is not the main question. The main question is how it will do in the marketplace, and as a result whether it can get enough software support. For that question ... no one knows.
you might want to re-read the string. What I DO know is that the technology is different in a way that makes VR viable in ways that it was NOT viable in 1995.
I did NOT say or suggest successful I have no fucking idea if its going to be successful or not.
Two completely different things.
well .. if all you are saying is that it has much better VR tech .... we all know that.
But that is not the main question. The main question is how it will do in the marketplace, and as a result whether it can get enough software support. For that question ... no one knows.
so there are a TON of reasons why VR might fail this time however because its been tried in 1995 is likely one of the worst reasons ever thought of.
Its like saying 'flight will fail because michelangelo tried once and it didnt work. This subject is EXTREEMLY dependent on technology more so than pretty much any other product looked at so in the case of VR the current existing technology timeline is EXTREEMLY important in making your case.
Games that require peripheral devices such as steering wheels, guns, special controllers, etc., always seem to be gimmicks that never really take off. Personally I don't see VR becoming a big thing in video games, just like I dont see 3-D televisions gaining much more popularity than they have right now. And I myself have no desire to wear some big clunky headset when playing games. As it is, it's annoying when I have my Turtle Beach X-12 headset on while gaming.
Originally posted by Forgrimm Games that require peripheral devices such as steering wheels, guns, special controllers, etc., always seem to be gimmicks that never really take off. Personally I don't see VR becoming a big thing in video games, just like I dont see 3-D televisions gaining much more popularity than they have right now. And I myself have no desire to wear some big clunky headset when playing games. As it is, it's annoying when I have my Turtle Beach X-12 headset on while gaming.
I think that is a valid point however game steering wheels although gimmicky to you have been a viable product for a long time. I think at min. VR will be at least as viable as game steering wheels if not more, but not less so.
Having said that here is a list of some of the companies that are into VR but not into Game Steering Wheels
Originally posted by Takoo Everyone saying vr is a gimmick has not tried the new tech. Go try it and get back to us.
It's actually pretty rare to meet someone who has tried it and calls it a gimmick .. or better yet I have yet to meet anyone like that. Usually they will have criticism at most, but in no way have I heard anyone say it's not going to do well or it's just a gimmick. The only people I have heard say those things are people who have not tried it.
Heck I have even met people who has said it was a gimmick until they tried it. Now they don't. XD
For some reason VR is hard for some people to really fully understand and grasp with out actually trying it.
I have even heard some people say running and jumping around in a fps game would make you sick like as if they would be playing those specific games on it. What they need to realize is, you would play VR games in a more realistic manner. Hiding behind corners, peaking your head out and such. You obviously wouldn't be running around and jumping around in a VR game. lol you would be killed real quick that way, just like you would in real life if you tried the same thing.
Originally posted by Takoo Everyone saying vr is a gimmick has not tried the new tech. Go try it and get back to us.
I remember when this first came out in arcades.
And guess what, at the time it was the "new tech". That didn't change the fact that it was a gimmick and never caught on. Same thing with LaserDisc, Minidiscs, and countless other examples of "new tech" that never became popular.
Originally posted by Takoo Everyone saying vr is a gimmick has not tried the new tech. Go try it and get back to us.
I remember when this first came out in arcades.
And guess what, at the time it was the "new tech". That didn't change the fact that it was a gimmick and never caught on. Same thing with LaserDisc, Minidiscs, and countless other examples of "new tech" that never became popular.
SOOO.....Home video is a Gimmick because Beta and VHS went out of style..or...could..it be....we improved on the technology...?
Originally posted by Takoo Everyone saying vr is a gimmick has not tried the new tech. Go try it and get back to us.
I remember when this first came out in arcades.
And guess what, at the time it was the "new tech". That didn't change the fact that it was a gimmick and never caught on. Same thing with LaserDisc, Minidiscs, and countless other examples of "new tech" that never became popular.
Difference?
That was a screen literally right in front of your face with out it actually simulating the way your eyes perceive depth. As I said, you can't consider these failed old past attempt as even VR. They where all fake. They didn't even accomplish making you feel like you where in the game, which is the point of VR.
To even consider it VR tech in my opinion is like considering a papercup with a string a long distance telephone.
Comments
Something that is amazing does not automatically do well. It can fail on software support. It can fail on marketing. It can fail on small things like some people got dizzy.
This is assuming it does what you claim.
a very large theme with game posters both here and in other places is that they assume that unless a game or device is a huge massive industry changing success then it means its a failure.
Gaming Steering Wheels and Joysticks have been around for a long time so clearly there is a market for them. Could VR be somewhere in between a total failure and a smashing success?
It can .. but it is not guaranteed to be.
VR has been tried before, and previously are all failure (Virtual Boy, anyone?).
Whether this one will succeed or not remained to be seen. But it is as big a mistake to assume that it will succeed (or even stay alive) as to assume that it will fail.
so given we are specifically talking about technology you might be good to know that the specific reason VR works better now then it did 20 years ago is specfic technology that did not exist then.
I find it funny people comparing a technology subject of 2015 with one of 1995. If it was a non-technical thing we where talking about then find but with this most of the tech that makes VR work now didnt exist in 1995
So? New technology does not guarantee to be successful. Sure it works better now than 1995 but so what? Virtual Boy is better than what is available in the 1960s (i.e. nothing).
Dreamcast is better than what we have in the 1980s.
Having 10 years of more technology is not a guarantee to success (nor failure).
I am not saying that it will be successful. I am saying two things.
1. comparing tech of 1995 to today is silly use for any arguement other than tech is better now.
2. Something (anything making an abstract point here) doesnt have to be the iPhone 1 to still be successful. Game steering wheels are successful but I doubt every gamer has one.
1. No .. it is also a data point that new technology (in 1995, virtual boy is new technology) can flop. Just that it is new is not a guarantee of success.
2. Sure. But steering wheels are a lot cheaper to develop. Does VR requires lots of initial investment? If so, it needs to sell a lot more to be "successful" ... if we are talking about return on investment.
1. there are a lot of examples as to why VR might fail however comparing it to technology of 1995 is likely the worst example anyone could come up with. Literally ALL the technology in current VR did not exist then.
2. you dont know that. In fact, a simple conversion can be done in minutes.
1. Who is comparing the tech ... you are missing the point. The point is that virtual boy tech is brand new in 1995 .. just like whatever VR tech is brand new now .. and brand new does not guarantee success. Replace "virtual boy" with dreamcast .. and you will see the point.
2. No i don't know for sure. But a system that consist of just a wheel, a potential-meter, with a standard interface for signal into a computer sounds a lot simpler, and cheaper than stereoscopic 3D with high resolution displays, and a complicated graphical system that have to interface with other software to make a game.
Simple conversion? You are only talking about game development. What about the TOOLS for that facilitate the simple conversion? That costs a lot to develop. That is investment needed to be recouped.
1. The REASON it failed in 1995 is SPECIFICALLY because the technology that existed now didnt exist then. Again this is the worst example of why it might fail ever thought of by a long shot.
2. The simple conversion involves removing the camera from the game and replacing it with the Oculus Camera. Done. just a few minutes. In all fairness that is for a simple conversion which means it will only do movements possible with a mouse but its still a pretty nice conversion for a few minutes. Driving wheel? Habitic feedback which gives different feedback depending on what kind of road you are on. how much change does that take? I dont know. DO you?>
1. You don't know that. May be today's tech is not enough.
2. The Oculus camera was developed with a big investment. That investment needs to be earned back. Don't tell me the Oculus camera was developed with zero investment.
1. actually I DO know that.
2. How do you know Gaming Steering Wheels where not also made with a large investment?
additionally...keep in mind that gaming steering wheels has a MUCH smaller market then VR will have even in a worse case. Game Steering Wheels only work for very specific games and very few of them. VR however works for many games and even applications outside of gaming. So even in a horrible case situation, VR will have more coverage in the market then a game steering wheel could ever dream of. I was hoping that was infered by my example.
How do you know that? You are guaranteeing its success? Did you put money on the line .. or are you just saying it because talk is cheap on the internet?
you might want to re-read the string. What I DO know is that the technology is different in a way that makes VR viable in ways that it was NOT viable in 1995.
I did NOT say or suggest successful I have no fucking idea if its going to be successful or not.
Two completely different things.
The question is can you even consider past VR attempts such as the Virtual Boy as VR.
It's like making a plastic box with a whole in it, then placing in slides one by one and calling it a TV, and then claiming because that failed, a real TV could fail as well.
The issue is you shouldn't even be talking about those poor attempts in the past, because they mean nothing at all. They tried something that was long long before it's time. Way before they even had the tech or understanding of how to accomplish it.
We now have the tech to accomplish a pretty successful VR experience for most people. Enough people that I am absolutely sure it will do perfectly fine. Even if only 50% of the people in the world could use it with out getting a little sick, that to me will still be pretty successful.
To say the tech might not be good enough yet means you obviously have yet to try it. It's essentially the closest we will get beyond simulating human senses directly to the brain. The only way to improve this specific type of VR is higher resolution, lower latency, and better input devices. All these things are being worked on. Most of which look very promising. Even if these things where not entirely figured out, it's good enough to create a pretty big splash in the industry.
Oculus Rift itself may not be the one that becomes extremely popular, but it will pave the way to future VR devices and in no way do I think it could even be considered a failure. When it comes to tech, it's already a success in my eyes. They caught plenty of developers attention with it. Even those who where skeptical changed their tune as soon as they tried it.
If that isn't a success so far, I don't know what is. If it's already that good and it's not a consumer product yet, I think that is a very good sign. I mean there literally is no evidence or hints floating about that it's going to be a gimmick in anyway. The only people who seem to think so, compare it to 3D glasses or very old VR attempts. Doom and gloom even when it doesn't make any sense.
well .. if all you are saying is that it has much better VR tech .... we all know that.
But that is not the main question. The main question is how it will do in the marketplace, and as a result whether it can get enough software support. For that question ... no one knows.
so there are a TON of reasons why VR might fail this time however because its been tried in 1995 is likely one of the worst reasons ever thought of.
Its like saying 'flight will fail because michelangelo tried once and it didnt work. This subject is EXTREEMLY dependent on technology more so than pretty much any other product looked at so in the case of VR the current existing technology timeline is EXTREEMLY important in making your case.
I think that is a valid point however game steering wheels although gimmicky to you have been a viable product for a long time. I think at min. VR will be at least as viable as game steering wheels if not more, but not less so.
Having said that here is a list of some of the companies that are into VR but not into Game Steering Wheels
Sony
Facebook
Samsung
Marvel
and I think Universal
It's actually pretty rare to meet someone who has tried it and calls it a gimmick .. or better yet I have yet to meet anyone like that. Usually they will have criticism at most, but in no way have I heard anyone say it's not going to do well or it's just a gimmick. The only people I have heard say those things are people who have not tried it.
Heck I have even met people who has said it was a gimmick until they tried it. Now they don't. XD
For some reason VR is hard for some people to really fully understand and grasp with out actually trying it.
I have even heard some people say running and jumping around in a fps game would make you sick like as if they would be playing those specific games on it. What they need to realize is, you would play VR games in a more realistic manner. Hiding behind corners, peaking your head out and such. You obviously wouldn't be running around and jumping around in a VR game. lol you would be killed real quick that way, just like you would in real life if you tried the same thing.
I remember when this first came out in arcades.
And guess what, at the time it was the "new tech". That didn't change the fact that it was a gimmick and never caught on. Same thing with LaserDisc, Minidiscs, and countless other examples of "new tech" that never became popular.
SOOO.....Home video is a Gimmick because Beta and VHS went out of style..or...could..it be....we improved on the technology...?
oh hell no that is crazy talk..right?
Difference?
That was a screen literally right in front of your face with out it actually simulating the way your eyes perceive depth. As I said, you can't consider these failed old past attempt as even VR. They where all fake. They didn't even accomplish making you feel like you where in the game, which is the point of VR.
To even consider it VR tech in my opinion is like considering a papercup with a string a long distance telephone.