They had VR back in 1995, you can see an example of someone playing it in the old movie "Hackers". VR headset, VR walking platform and VR weapon all shown almost exactly as they are today and after 20 years it still has not caught on.
Still too expensive and no great titles to play that justify the cost.
light weight head tracking.
very high PPI
processing power,
graphics processing power
all that barely existed in 1995.
Some people here seem to think computers are like toasters, they never change over the generations which is why something that was tried during the era of the VHS and did not work then should not work now...its hysterical.
The point he was trying to make and others have made is this idea isn't new and has been around for a long long time. 20+ years to be exact and it still hasn't made a solid appearance. There's a ton of consoles who have tried new innovative control systems and they always seem to break down to simplicity. For example the cool joystick for the flight simulator, the Nintendo glove, the WII, and there's many other examples of really good ideas that never caught on. I think we all want VR to be a huge success but I think its just gonna take a few more years of development at this rate to actually be worth buying. Take the WII for example how it was very close to a VR control setup and yet it flopped right on its face.
Nothing and if it's the year for VR it's going to be a flop. Nintendo glove, Xbox Kinect, Google Glass, VR headsets. They have one thing in common. They're interfaces with extremely limited application and huge drawbacks.
You forgot Nintendo's Virtua Boy.
In War - Victory. In Peace - Vigilance. In Death - Sacrifice.
Some one or two people in this thread must be investors in VR technology, trying to advertise and convince people it's something great. It's not. Really, it doesn't matter how much better you make VR, unless you actually can program subliminals for education or incarceration. Until there's some practical actual mind interface, it's a PS4 you wear on your head.
AR is where it's at. Selling people VR when they can have AR for the cost of 2 or 3 VR units is like selling someone a console when they could have a nice PC. This will be the difference in 5 years, a bunch of people still arguing, refusing to admit from their buyers' remorse or just fundamental lack of conceptualization, AR can do everything VR does and more, as a PC can do everything a console does and more.
AR master race. Let's enslave the VR people, keep them as slaves in caves, eating fungus off each others' backs.
Some one or two people in this thread must be investors in VR technology, trying to advertise and convince people it's something great. It's not. Really, it doesn't matter how much better you make VR, unless you actually can program subliminals for education or incarceration. Until there's some practical actual mind interface, it's a PS4 you wear on your head.
AR is where it's at. Selling people VR when they can have AR for the cost of 2 or 3 VR units is like selling someone a console when they could have a nice PC. This will be the difference in 5 years, a bunch of people still arguing, refusing to admit from their buyers' remorse or just fundamental lack of conceptualization, AR can do everything VR does and more, as a PC can do everything a console does and more.
AR master race. Let's enslave the VR people, keep them as slaves in caves, eating fungus off each others' backs.
Yea idk about that. Don't sound so sure about something that is very idealistic. For AR to work properly you will have to be physically moving around and what if you step on the cat because it was overlayed with fake grass? VR at least keeps you in one place and allows for much more variety. AR won't work without the proper environment. Yea i'd love to see a bunch of nerds running through the woods shooting fake guns at AR targets.
well seeing how you have the cardboard unit and if you feel fancy the 99$ gear VR.
I don´t think anyone who want to get in to it have to feel any buyers remorse should all the naysayers come true.
Me i see so many ways of using it that there is no risk of it ever being a dustcollector... Well maybe in the same way that the XBox and PS1 is now. Not like betaMAX.
AR is where it's at. Selling people VR when they can have AR for the cost of 2 or 3 VR units is like selling someone a console when they could have a nice PC. ...
You clearly don't understand the difference between AR and VR.
AR augments reality. To augment does not mean to replace. You still see what's in front of you, there's just additional data or schematics, etc. displayed somewhere in your field of vision which enhances the REAL WORLD you see with your eyes.
The moment you start replacing real world objects with totally different ones, you are virtualizing reality. Your device is no longer "improving" reality, it is replacing it with something else entirely.
If you can make a really addictive game involving your livingroom furniture, then it is still in the realm of AR. But the moment that your coffee table starts looking like the bridge of the starship Enterprise, you have strayed into VR territory.
If you can make a really addictive game involving your livingroom furniture, then it is still in the realm of AR. But the moment that your coffee table starts looking like the bridge of the starship Enterprise, you have strayed into VR territory.
You're so close, right there. You know, someone will have been reading this, take the next two logical steps, and be a millionaire.
3. My current PC is actually preety low-spec, but anyway - Until I see VR set that matches my requirements, which won't happen for at least several years at minimum it is hard to speculate at cost at that time. Current occulus does not meet my requirements so...and theoretical Occulus and PC that would meet my requirements (taking aside nervous system safety from long-term usage for discussion sake) would cost in five digit at least if even technically possible at all atm.
the thing about your forumla is that its EXACTLY the same issue with latest gen games and its the EXACT forumula that has existed in PC gaming for 30 years.
Time passes, something comes out that your current PC cant handle, you upgrade. Its been true pretty much every 3 years for the past 30 years. This would be no different
SIDE NOTE: oh and as a side not PPI is display hardware specific. so the PPI problem is already taken care of in the head display regardless of what PC you run it on.
Yeah, that why I am saying that VR is expensive because to be able to fuel VR at high resolution & framerate you will need very expensive PC.
PPI - do you mean Pixel per Inch? If yes then 10 Megapixel display on 5 Inch screen will have higher PPI than 5 Megapixel on 5 Inch. So imho VR need higher resolutuon and thus higher PPI than PPI of current OR. Unless you speak about something diffrent.
PPI and resolution are not directly related.
Let me explain in more detail (PPI: Pixels Per Inch)
a 20" 1080p monitor vs a 5" 1080p both have the exact same resolution. Thus..the distance between each pixel on a 20" is larger than it is on a 5" screen.
If you take a 1080p monitor and start moving closer and close and closer to the screen it doesnt take long before you start to see the gaps and its starts to look 'sqaurey'
It isbest for you to physically do it so that you get a direct experience of what I am talking about. Then do the exact same thing to a phone of same resolution. Because the distance between the pixels is smaller you can get much closer to a phone screen without getting this effect.
NOW....PPI is not software, its the physical distance between each pixel on a screen thus its independent on of your computer needs.
This huge advancement in PPI is related to OELD screen technololgy (I think that is the source)
Why you are correcting me when you are saying same thing i say and then ? And not taking into account from what I've been saying from my first post in this topic? Do you have troubles in understanding of english or you are just trolling me?
4k 5" screen will have bigger PPI and smaller distance between pixels than 1080p 5" screen. This 4k 5" screen will have bigger resolution, more pixels and thus require much more horsepower from PC.
Remember me saying that in my opinion and for my expectations current resolution (and THUS PPI which is dependant on physical size of a screen and it's resolution like you said and I am saying since beggining as well) is not big enough.
Why you are correcting me when you are saying same thing i say and then ? And not taking into account from what I've been saying from my first post in this topic? Do you have troubles in understanding of english or you are just trolling me?
4k 5" screen will have bigger PPI and smaller distance between pixels than 1080p 5" screen. This 4k 5" screen will have bigger resolution, more pixels and thus require much more horsepower from PC.
Remember me saying that in my opinion and for my expectations current resolution (and THUS PPI which is dependant on physical size of a screen and it's resolution like you said and I am saying since beggining as well) is not big enough.
the 4k 5" screen will take LESS horsepower than a 4k 24" monitor.
Thus the PPI doesnt affect the horsepower your computer needs, the resolution will...yes...abosolutly...but not the PPI
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Why you are correcting me when you are saying same thing i say and then ? And not taking into account from what I've been saying from my first post in this topic? Do you have troubles in understanding of english or you are just trolling me?
4k 5" screen will have bigger PPI and smaller distance between pixels than 1080p 5" screen. This 4k 5" screen will have bigger resolution, more pixels and thus require much more horsepower from PC.
Remember me saying that in my opinion and for my expectations current resolution (and THUS PPI which is dependant on physical size of a screen and it's resolution like you said and I am saying since beggining as well) is not big enough.
the 4k 5" screen will take LESS horsepower than a 4k 24" monitor.
Okay. Explain me please how computing exactly same content on same amount pixels will require less computational power just because one screen have less inches than another.
Why you are correcting me when you are saying same thing i say and then ? And not taking into account from what I've been saying from my first post in this topic? Do you have troubles in understanding of english or you are just trolling me?
4k 5" screen will have bigger PPI and smaller distance between pixels than 1080p 5" screen. This 4k 5" screen will have bigger resolution, more pixels and thus require much more horsepower from PC.
Remember me saying that in my opinion and for my expectations current resolution (and THUS PPI which is dependant on physical size of a screen and it's resolution like you said and I am saying since beggining as well) is not big enough.
the 4k 5" screen will take LESS horsepower than a 4k 24" monitor.
Okay. Explain me please how computing exactly same content on same amount pixels will require less computational power just because one screen have less inches than another.
the smaller screens are more efficient.
it doesnt take a huge leap to think on it. There are friggin CELL PHONES that have 2k resolution now. Why does it require a video card several times larger than your entire phone to pump out the same resolution on a PC?
bigger car needs bigger engine. small car needs smalller engine.
Same reason a low cc motorcycle can often outrun a higher cc motorcycle engine.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What I want to know is....Of all of you who are bashing VR and saying it's stupid/silly/gimmick etc.....I want to know how many of you have actually TRIED the newer stuff. Not the stuff from the 90's, not VR for your phone and some cardboard. How many of you haters have actually used an Oculus Rift, PlayStation VR, or HTC Vive??
Serious question.
It's like 1900 or something, with people who are well accustomed to their horses, seeing a CAR for the first time and scoffing at it. lol
What I want to know is....Of all of you who are bashing VR and saying it's stupid/silly/gimmick etc.....I want to know how many of you have actually TRIED the newer stuff. Not the stuff from the 90's, not VR for your phone and some cardboard. How many of you haters have actually used an Oculus Rift, PlayStation VR, or HTC Vive??
Serious question.
It's like 1900 or something, with people who are well accustomed to their horses, seeing a CAR for the first time and scoffing at it. lol
I think this is called "masked man fallacy". It's also the same rationale drug pushers use.
What I want to know is....Of all of you who are bashing VR and saying it's stupid/silly/gimmick etc.....I want to know how many of you have actually TRIED the newer stuff. Not the stuff from the 90's, not VR for your phone and some cardboard. How many of you haters have actually used an Oculus Rift, PlayStation VR, or HTC Vive??
Serious question.
It's like 1900 or something, with people who are well accustomed to their horses, seeing a CAR for the first time and scoffing at it. lol
I think this is called "masked man fallacy". It's also the same rationale drug pushers use.
Lol, true. Of course, putting drugs in the same category as new technology is kindof funky. VR could hardly be called a drug.......yet.
A more likely comparison would be to rewind time to 2006 (or so) and ask all of those people who hated on smartphones before they tried it. Obviously we know how that turned out. Gone are the days of landlines, and having to remember phone numbers and use the phone books to look up numbers to businesses.
"No way am I going to carry a computer around in my pocket!" "How nerdy!"
We now have people who can't live without their phones. I'd say it's been a tech revolution in that category. Something we all had to get used to. It's completely changed how we live our lives. Good or bad.
People who are bashing the new VR tech are simply just ignorant (they just don't understand/know). I'll ask again....
Who here that is hating on VR have actually tried the new technology?
What I want to know is....Of all of you who are bashing VR and saying it's stupid/silly/gimmick etc.....I want to know how many of you have actually TRIED the newer stuff. Not the stuff from the 90's, not VR for your phone and some cardboard. How many of you haters have actually used an Oculus Rift, PlayStation VR, or HTC Vive??
Serious question.
It's like 1900 or something, with people who are well accustomed to their horses, seeing a CAR for the first time and scoffing at it. lol
Have you ever tried Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training? I mean, how do you know you won't like it if you haven't tried it?
Just because it's one persons cup of tea, doesn't mean it's another's. I've never tried smoking, but my best friend will never quit and loves to light up. Pretty sure I won't like smoking either.
I have another friend who works on a deep sea oil rig as a diver. He spends days at a time in a pressurized pod and his work environment is several hundred feet under the ocean with almost no light. He loves it and makes a ton of money, but seriously screeew that.
So the "you haven't tried it" argument can go die in a fire. There's lots of things I haven't tried, that I know I won't like. You also know that there are millions of people who still enjoy riding horses today, right? Are they wrong because they enjoy it? I mean, that's what you're intimating. Am I wrong because I'm perfectly fine with my triple monitor setup? Is that the mindset you're coming from?
That being said, I will try it when it comes out of the infancy stage and is a fully fleshed out product with lots of features. It will give VGA companies some time to catch up. It will give video game developers time to develop around them. It will give the VR developers time to unfuck those giant garbage cans that you have to strap to your face currently and come up with something better.
A more likely comparison would be to rewind time to 2006 (or so) and ask all of those people who hated on smartphones before they tried it. Obviously we know how that turned out. Gone are the days of landlines, and having to remember phone numbers and use the phone books to look up numbers to businesses.
"No way am I going to carry a computer around in my pocket!" "How nerdy!"
You have to be joking. I mean seriously this part has to be a joke, or either you're just making it up in an attempt to strengthen your point. I didn't know a single person that didn't want a smartphone when they came out. Not even one. My 70 year old grandmother stood in line for a couple hours to get hers even.
VR is nowhere near on that same level. It has 1/1000th of the functionality of a smartphone. It's a niche specialist item at this point. A smarthphone can do literally thousands of things that phones before it could not do and it can fit in your pocket. People went crazy over them.
I've never met a single luddite in my life that was like "hur hurr, I'll never carry one dem pocket nerd computers around, hurr hurr"
How many of you, use those new fangled 3D glasses with your 3DTVs ^_^. No wonder why some of you pay 1,000 to barely play unfinished games. Hold this L.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
No offense meant, but that's a nice bunch of nonsense you posted here.
Do you come here or on any forum and pretend you are an expert in navy seal training / smoking / oil rig diving? No, you don't. The people who do those jobs can do that.
Would you give any value to a movie review made by someone who never seen that movie?
Same thing for computer technology. If you come here talking about how VR sucks without ever having tried it, then don't be surprised if your opinion isn't taken very seriously by those who actually know first hand You sound just as believable as some guy going on navy seals forums pretending he's an expert when in reality he's a 40 years old fat virgin living in mom's basement playing call of duty
PS: people who enjoy riding horses nowadays don't scoff at cars... most of them actually use powerful trucks to transport their horses... another failed analogy in your post
So someone who has used a development kit is an expert at VR? Since you keep bringing up the "professional" and "expert" angle I'd just like to get your opinion that a couple people with DK's are now experts on VR and they have the right to tell us that it's better than any other form of experiencing gaming based upon this expert opinion.
Did I give any kind of example whatsoever of taking the advice of someone who hasn't experienced that thing? Nope, so throw the movie line out. I specifically mentioned that just because people who are experts at something, and love doing it, doesn't mean that I would. But you should really be a White House correspondent with the way you twisted my words there. Very nice.
An opinion is just that. The guy who has tried VR and his opinion is that it's great... well that's great for him. I went to a movie last year because, based on the opinions of many of my friends, it was spectacular. I, however, found it to be pretty standard Hollywood fare. But what you're trying to tell me is that the positive opinion from someone who has used it trumps my opinion that it's too early in the technologies lifecycle to bother with and that I should be jumping enthusiastically on the bandwagon because others have.
No offense meant, but that's a nice bunch of nonsense you posted here.
Do you come here or on any forum and pretend you are an expert in navy seal training / smoking / oil rig diving? No, you don't. The people who do those jobs can do that.
Would you give any value to a movie review made by someone who never seen that movie?
Same thing for computer technology. If you come here talking about how VR sucks without ever having tried it, then don't be surprised if your opinion isn't taken very seriously by those who actually know first hand You sound just as believable as some guy going on navy seals forums pretending he's an expert when in reality he's a 40 years old fat virgin living in mom's basement playing call of duty
PS: people who enjoy riding horses nowadays don't scoff at cars... most of them actually use powerful trucks to transport their horses... another failed analogy in your post
So someone who has used a development kit is an expert at VR? Since you keep bringing up the "professional" and "expert" angle I'd just like to get your opinion that a couple people with DK's are now experts on VR and they have the right to tell us that it's better than any other form of experiencing gaming based upon this expert opinion.
Did I give any kind of example whatsoever of taking the advice of someone who hasn't experienced that thing? Nope, so throw the movie line out. I specifically mentioned that just because people who are experts at something, and love doing it, doesn't mean that I would. But you should really be a White House correspondent with the way you twisted my words there. Very nice.
An opinion is just that. The guy who has tried VR and his opinion is that it's great... well that's great for him. I went to a movie last year because, based on the opinions of many of my friends, it was spectacular. I, however, found it to be pretty standard Hollywood fare. But what you're trying to tell me is that the positive opinion from someone who has used it trumps my opinion that it's too early in the technologies lifecycle to bother with and that I should be jumping enthusiastically on the bandwagon because others have.
That cliff is coming up pretty fast Mr. Lemming.
Nobody has asked you to "jump on the bandwagon" for VR lol. The point being here, is that throughout this thread, MANY posters have simply and totally bashed even the idea of headset VR. What I asked was that for those bashing it, have they actually tried it at all?
You went to see the movie based on reviews by your friends. You came away disappointed. That's totally fine! Now, if you had told your friends, "never, I'll never go watch that movie. It's going to be stupid as hell. And you all are idiots for even thinking it's a good movie." Then we'd have a more direct comparison to what's happening in this thread.
Since the introduction of the new generation of VR tech, TONS of people have been raving about it -- those that have actually used it. Refusing to be curious about whether their claims are true or not just shows people to be stubborn, and ignorant.
Lol, I understand people being skeptical if they haven't used it. That's totally fine! But damn, don't knock the flying car until you've actually had a chance to drive/pilot it.
Personally I don't much like the idea of wearing a heavy ski mask on my face to play a game. BUT having actually experienced it, I can see the possibilities and benefits tremendously! As I said before....when it comes to vision, it's all encompassing. Full visual immersion. The pros outweigh the cons, drastically.
Imagine playing Everquest and actually feeling like you are there, IN the world. Or WoW, or FFXIV, etc.
When I tried VR, I quickly saw that in due time, our monitors were going to be obsolete. Why would I want to look AT a game, when I could actually be IN the game?
Why you are correcting me when you are saying same thing i say and then ? And not taking into account from what I've been saying from my first post in this topic? Do you have troubles in understanding of english or you are just trolling me?
4k 5" screen will have bigger PPI and smaller distance between pixels than 1080p 5" screen. This 4k 5" screen will have bigger resolution, more pixels and thus require much more horsepower from PC.
Remember me saying that in my opinion and for my expectations current resolution (and THUS PPI which is dependant on physical size of a screen and it's resolution like you said and I am saying since beggining as well) is not big enough.
the 4k 5" screen will take LESS horsepower than a 4k 24" monitor.
Okay. Explain me please how computing exactly same content on same amount pixels will require less computational power just because one screen have less inches than another.
the smaller screens are more efficient.
it doesnt take a huge leap to think on it. There are friggin CELL PHONES that have 2k resolution now. Why does it require a video card several times larger than your entire phone to pump out the same resolution on a PC?
bigger car needs bigger engine. small car needs smalller engine.
Same reason a low cc motorcycle can often outrun a higher cc motorcycle engine.
Damn that has to be biggest trolling I've seen on any forum ever.
What I want to know is....Of all of you who are bashing VR and saying it's stupid/silly/gimmick etc.....I want to know how many of you have actually TRIED the newer stuff.
I don't need to try it to know I don't want a screen 2 centimeters from my eyeball.
I personally have a 90" TV that I watch movies on every night. As much as I love that TV, I can see where VR would be even better. Maybe it's not right now (I haven't watched any movies in VR), but the potential is definitely there. Basically having an IMAX in your home....or on your face lol.
Not sure if anyone has actually done this on this forum, but if you've even been shopping for a home and looked at the 360 walkthroughs, you can see some limitations. While it's neat to be able to do that, you still have issues with scale. Such as, "just how large is this room?" "How high is that counter?" It's just not something you can see in 2D on a screen. But with VR, since it has inherent 3D (not to be confused or compared to the 3D we have on TV's -- it's not even in the same league), you can actually SEE that scale.
Comments
In War - Victory.
In Peace - Vigilance.
In Death - Sacrifice.
AR is where it's at. Selling people VR when they can have AR for the cost of 2 or 3 VR units is like selling someone a console when they could have a nice PC. This will be the difference in 5 years, a bunch of people still arguing, refusing to admit from their buyers' remorse or just fundamental lack of conceptualization, AR can do everything VR does and more, as a PC can do everything a console does and more.
AR master race. Let's enslave the VR people, keep them as slaves in caves, eating fungus off each others' backs.
Yea idk about that. Don't sound so sure about something that is very idealistic. For AR to work properly you will have to be physically moving around and what if you step on the cat because it was overlayed with fake grass? VR at least keeps you in one place and allows for much more variety. AR won't work without the proper environment. Yea i'd love to see a bunch of nerds running through the woods shooting fake guns at AR targets.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
I don´t think anyone who want to get in to it have to feel any buyers remorse should all the naysayers come true.
Me i see so many ways of using it that there is no risk of it ever being a dustcollector... Well maybe in the same way that the XBox and PS1 is now. Not like betaMAX.
This have been a good conversation
AR augments reality. To augment does not mean to replace. You still see what's in front of you, there's just additional data or schematics, etc. displayed somewhere in your field of vision which enhances the REAL WORLD you see with your eyes.
The moment you start replacing real world objects with totally different ones, you are virtualizing reality. Your device is no longer "improving" reality, it is replacing it with something else entirely.
If you can make a really addictive game involving your livingroom furniture, then it is still in the realm of AR. But the moment that your coffee table starts looking like the bridge of the starship Enterprise, you have strayed into VR territory.
4k 5" screen will have bigger PPI and smaller distance between pixels than 1080p 5" screen. This 4k 5" screen will have bigger resolution, more pixels and thus require much more horsepower from PC.
Remember me saying that in my opinion and for my expectations current resolution (and THUS PPI which is dependant on physical size of a screen and it's resolution like you said and I am saying since beggining as well) is not big enough.
Thus the PPI doesnt affect the horsepower your computer needs, the resolution will...yes...abosolutly...but not the PPI
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
it doesnt take a huge leap to think on it. There are friggin CELL PHONES that have 2k resolution now. Why does it require a video card several times larger than your entire phone to pump out the same resolution on a PC?
bigger car needs bigger engine. small car needs smalller engine.
Same reason a low cc motorcycle can often outrun a higher cc motorcycle engine.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What I want to know is....Of all of you who are bashing VR and saying it's stupid/silly/gimmick etc.....I want to know how many of you have actually TRIED the newer stuff. Not the stuff from the 90's, not VR for your phone and some cardboard. How many of you haters have actually used an Oculus Rift, PlayStation VR, or HTC Vive??
Serious question.
It's like 1900 or something, with people who are well accustomed to their horses, seeing a CAR for the first time and scoffing at it. lol
Lol, true. Of course, putting drugs in the same category as new technology is kindof funky. VR could hardly be called a drug.......yet.
A more likely comparison would be to rewind time to 2006 (or so) and ask all of those people who hated on smartphones before they tried it. Obviously we know how that turned out. Gone are the days of landlines, and having to remember phone numbers and use the phone books to look up numbers to businesses.
"No way am I going to carry a computer around in my pocket!" "How nerdy!"
We now have people who can't live without their phones. I'd say it's been a tech revolution in that category. Something we all had to get used to. It's completely changed how we live our lives. Good or bad.
People who are bashing the new VR tech are simply just ignorant (they just don't understand/know). I'll ask again....
Who here that is hating on VR have actually tried the new technology?
Just because it's one persons cup of tea, doesn't mean it's another's. I've never tried smoking, but my best friend will never quit and loves to light up. Pretty sure I won't like smoking either.
I have another friend who works on a deep sea oil rig as a diver. He spends days at a time in a pressurized pod and his work environment is several hundred feet under the ocean with almost no light. He loves it and makes a ton of money, but seriously screeew that.
So the "you haven't tried it" argument can go die in a fire. There's lots of things I haven't tried, that I know I won't like. You also know that there are millions of people who still enjoy riding horses today, right? Are they wrong because they enjoy it? I mean, that's what you're intimating. Am I wrong because I'm perfectly fine with my triple monitor setup? Is that the mindset you're coming from?
That being said, I will try it when it comes out of the infancy stage and is a fully fleshed out product with lots of features. It will give VGA companies some time to catch up. It will give video game developers time to develop around them. It will give the VR developers time to unfuck those giant garbage cans that you have to strap to your face currently and come up with something better.
VR is nowhere near on that same level. It has 1/1000th of the functionality of a smartphone. It's a niche specialist item at this point. A smarthphone can do literally thousands of things that phones before it could not do and it can fit in your pocket. People went crazy over them.
I've never met a single luddite in my life that was like "hur hurr, I'll never carry one dem pocket nerd computers around, hurr hurr"
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Did I give any kind of example whatsoever of taking the advice of someone who hasn't experienced that thing? Nope, so throw the movie line out. I specifically mentioned that just because people who are experts at something, and love doing it, doesn't mean that I would. But you should really be a White House correspondent with the way you twisted my words there. Very nice.
An opinion is just that. The guy who has tried VR and his opinion is that it's great... well that's great for him. I went to a movie last year because, based on the opinions of many of my friends, it was spectacular. I, however, found it to be pretty standard Hollywood fare. But what you're trying to tell me is that the positive opinion from someone who has used it trumps my opinion that it's too early in the technologies lifecycle to bother with and that I should be jumping enthusiastically on the bandwagon because others have.
That cliff is coming up pretty fast Mr. Lemming.
Nobody has asked you to "jump on the bandwagon" for VR lol. The point being here, is that throughout this thread, MANY posters have simply and totally bashed even the idea of headset VR. What I asked was that for those bashing it, have they actually tried it at all?
You went to see the movie based on reviews by your friends. You came away disappointed. That's totally fine! Now, if you had told your friends, "never, I'll never go watch that movie. It's going to be stupid as hell. And you all are idiots for even thinking it's a good movie." Then we'd have a more direct comparison to what's happening in this thread.
Since the introduction of the new generation of VR tech, TONS of people have been raving about it -- those that have actually used it. Refusing to be curious about whether their claims are true or not just shows people to be stubborn, and ignorant.
Lol, I understand people being skeptical if they haven't used it. That's totally fine! But damn, don't knock the flying car until you've actually had a chance to drive/pilot it.
Personally I don't much like the idea of wearing a heavy ski mask on my face to play a game. BUT having actually experienced it, I can see the possibilities and benefits tremendously! As I said before....when it comes to vision, it's all encompassing. Full visual immersion. The pros outweigh the cons, drastically.
Imagine playing Everquest and actually feeling like you are there, IN the world. Or WoW, or FFXIV, etc.
When I tried VR, I quickly saw that in due time, our monitors were going to be obsolete. Why would I want to look AT a game, when I could actually be IN the game?
I personally have a 90" TV that I watch movies on every night. As much as I love that TV, I can see where VR would be even better. Maybe it's not right now (I haven't watched any movies in VR), but the potential is definitely there. Basically having an IMAX in your home....or on your face lol.
Not sure if anyone has actually done this on this forum, but if you've even been shopping for a home and looked at the 360 walkthroughs, you can see some limitations. While it's neat to be able to do that, you still have issues with scale. Such as, "just how large is this room?" "How high is that counter?" It's just not something you can see in 2D on a screen. But with VR, since it has inherent 3D (not to be confused or compared to the 3D we have on TV's -- it's not even in the same league), you can actually SEE that scale.