Look at Kinect. It provides way more than just head-tracking, and yet it's doomed to a niche of sports and dancing games. It's actually pretty successful within that niche (though it sort of appears to be in declining popularity,) but it's not successful enough to start to absorb any other genres.
So VR's head-tracking will be even less of a deal to the overall industry than Kinect was, and Kinect wasn't really that big a deal.
no head tracking has to make your head the pivot point of the world 6 degrees of freedom. kinect does not do that.
I hesitate to explain this but here goes. In 2016 VR you can reach out your hand, pickup an item, look under it, look on the backside of it by either moving it in your hand or my turning your head around to look at it.
Screens 5' away from your head can not do that, 3D glasses can not do that, Kinetict cant do that. Holograms might be able to do that howeve really? visuals with color and no view of the 'real world' and high polycount and shaders vs everything looking like this:
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Look at Kinect. It provides way more than just head-tracking, and yet it's doomed to a niche of sports and dancing games. It's actually pretty successful within that niche (though it sort of appears to be in declining popularity,) but it's not successful enough to start to absorb any other genres.
So VR's head-tracking will be even less of a deal to the overall industry than Kinect was, and Kinect wasn't really that big a deal.
Kinect is nowhere close to the tech behind VR or the execution of functionality for the user experience. I have experienced both. I know this. Can you say the same?
It seems to me like people are just so determined to see things fail. I don't really understand it.
Threads like these feel like a crusade against progress. Some people are still fighting against the steam engine. It's like the very thought of changing the status quo here just has either an enraging effect or terrifies people. I find it fascinating that half the people who are warring against it have never even tried the new tech. Kinect was the child's toy version of things like the Vive and such, at best.
Everyone is already turning their heads in snubbery. Whether it lasts indefinitely or not, the next few years is going to see a flood of VR-focused game design. So, the people who are so anti-VR are going to be in for some frustration.
Wasn't there an article just this last week about Sony saying there's over 1,000 titles in-development for the Morpheus already? I'm sure half of those won't ever see the light of day, but it's a good example of how focused and high on VR the game developers are(maybe there's a reason developers and testers/reviewers are so high on it?).
There will definitely be some gaps, since the tech is first-gen, but it's going to be a huge focus of the industry for a while.
The headsets themselves are pretty simple to implement into games, but it'll be interesting to see how cleverly devs are able to shift the established designs to implement the evolved body/motion-control tracking into regular games smoothly.
Whether you love it or hate it(doesn't seem to be much in-between with things these days), it's going to get alot of attention over the next couple years.
VR isn't new , but people will not let it fail . You know that nowadays people become harder to please with just graphic. That's why VR is necessary to wow people by making 3d world become more real .
You may not see it , but the VR can change gameplay design to new level . With the head tracking , many game will change , you can have free hand and mouse ability for console . Think wide , VR isn't just for PC . Do you ever though why Microsoft and Sony try to get it first ?
Though i can't deny the price problem and other problems , but i don't call it a scam .
head-tracking won't be a huge experience changeped in.
oh yes it is
its a MAJOR deal.
So... is this the thread where you defend VR in general or is this the one where you defend the Oculus but dis the Sony VR? I'm getting more confused about what exactly it is that you're promoting by the hour.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
VR isn't new , but people will not let it fail . You know that nowadays people become harder to please with just graphic. That's why VR is necessary to wow people by making 3d world become more real .
You may not see it , but the VR can change gameplay design to new level . With the head tracking , many game will change , you can have free hand and mouse ability for console . Think wide , VR isn't just for PC . Do you ever though why Microsoft and Sony try to get it first ?
Though i can't deny the price problem and other problems , but i don't call it a scam .
head-tracking won't be a huge experience changeped in.
oh yes it is
its a MAJOR deal.
So... is this the thread where you defend VR in general or is this the one where you defend the Oculus but dis the Sony VR? I'm getting more confused about what exactly it is that you're promoting by the hour.
So as a side note I somewhat predicted this sony reaction when I said last year.
'If Oculus was Sony people would be crawling over themselves with glee and there would be far less hate on the subject of VR.'
That aside, HTC Vive is the one I want. I dont think it will be as successful as Oculus only because Oculus is out there currently with so many games but I am more of a fan of HTC.
So why am I bashing on Sony? because to me looking at the specs its the bottom of the barrel. Does me not being excited about Sony by default make me an unevolved product loyalist of Oculus specially? no I cant imagine how one could even come to that conclusion
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
So... is this the thread where you defend VR in general or is this the one where you defend the Oculus but dis the Sony VR? I'm getting more confused about what exactly it is that you're promoting by the hour.
um. well the title is about VR in general, so I'm going to guess VR in general. The response he's talking about is the break thru tech of head tracking that Oculus and HTC have been working on. But of course all the detractors know all about that because they watched the keynotes, read the article reviews and experienced it for themselves. The tech is WAAAAAAAYYYYY still in its infancy, but there's absolutely something there. The detractors or opposition side of the VR argument, don't have one. All their claims is basing other tech or products using the same name of VR made twenty plus years ago.
What would be a more appropriate way of discussing VR and if it's a fad is to address the keynotes and what they're saying directly. Or talk about personal experiences and concerns they have based on that. Or maybe bring up some RECENT articles about said products.
So... is this the thread where you defend VR in general or is this the one where you defend the Oculus but dis the Sony VR? I'm getting more confused about what exactly it is that you're promoting by the hour.
um. well the title is about VR in general, so I'm going to guess VR in general. The response he's talking about is the break thru tech of head tracking that Oculus and HTC have been working on. But of course all the detractors know all about that because they watched the keynotes, read the article reviews and experienced it for themselves. The tech is WAAAAAAAYYYYY still in its infancy, but there's absolutely something there. The detractors or opposition side of the VR argument, don't have one. All their claims is basing other tech or products using the same name of VR made twenty plus years ago.
What would be a more appropriate way of discussing VR and if it's a fad is to address the keynotes and what they're saying directly. Or talk about personal experiences and concerns they have based on that. Or maybe bring up some RECENT articles about said products.
Nah... this is all still speculative faith-based BS at the moment. Give it a year and better data, links and hands-on reviews with real cross-platform games will be available.
I'm already on the record on this thread as saying the comparisons with what passed for VR 20 or 30 years ago are silly... it's just not the only type of silliness flooding these forums this week.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I hesitate to explain this but here goes. In 2016 VR you can reach out your hand, pickup an item, look under it, look on the backside of it by either moving it in your hand or my turning your head around to look at it.
The question is whether this ability will be used by devs, and make games a lot more fun.
I have no doubt 2016 VR can do a lot of new things ... but we are talking about fun here, aren't we?
So, Wii comes out with tracking and movement based programming for it's system. Then ever other console company copies that concept. Why would they add something to a system that wasn't original designed to use it? Think about it for a second.
Yet, we are sitting here today saying that it isn't a big deal. Weird.
Why? Incremental revenue.
There are a lot of things you can make the same argument for: at one point RTS games were very popular on PC and spread out onto RTSes with releases like Starcraft 64. But that spread didn't really fundamentally change how games were experienced.
Or perhaps the more telling truth: unless you're playing a motion-specific game on a console, do you still choose to use the motion controls with regular games? Or would you admit the motion controls were merely a gimmick and fundamentally a bit less reliable than a controller?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
no head tracking has to make your head the pivot point of the world 6 degrees of freedom. kinect does not do that.
I hesitate to explain this but here goes. In 2016 VR you can reach out your hand, pickup an item, look under it, look on the backside of it by either moving it in your hand or my turning your head around to look at it.
Screens 5' away from your head can not do that, 3D glasses can not do that, Kinetict cant do that. Holograms might be able to do that howeve really? visuals with color and no view of the 'real world' and high polycount and shaders vs everything looking like this:
Somewhere on the internet I'm sure someone made a similar bullet-point feature list of what the Virtual Boy does.
But the reality is these experiences simply aren't worth inconveniently strapping something to your head. Maybe at some point, but not yet.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
no head tracking has to make your head the pivot point of the world 6 degrees of freedom. kinect does not do that.
I hesitate to explain this but here goes. In 2016 VR you can reach out your hand, pickup an item, look under it, look on the backside of it by either moving it in your hand or my turning your head around to look at it.
Screens 5' away from your head can not do that, 3D glasses can not do that, Kinetict cant do that. Holograms might be able to do that howeve really? visuals with color and no view of the 'real world' and high polycount and shaders vs everything looking like this:
Somewhere on the internet I'm sure someone made a similar bullet-point feature list of what the Virtual Boy does.
But the reality is these experiences simply aren't worth inconveniently strapping something to your head. Maybe at some point, but not yet.
Ok I get that some people have Head Mounted Display Syndrome and they will likely need therapy to overcome the phobia however the problem is fundamental.
How do you enable a user to pick up an item 6" from them and turn it over with their hand and then look behind them at the wall that is 1' from them..without using a headmount, because you cant do that with video screens
do the geometry on THAT!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
But the reality is these experiences simply aren't worth inconveniently strapping something to your head. Maybe at some point, but not yet.
That is my biggest issue. Plus, is having this thing on my head comfortable, and do i need to take it off every time i want a drink or go to the bathroom.
We are talking about entertainment here, and i bet convenience is important.
But the reality is these experiences simply aren't worth inconveniently strapping something to your head. Maybe at some point, but not yet.
That is my biggest issue. Plus, is having this thing on my head comfortable, and do i need to take it off every time i want a drink or go to the bathroom.
We are talking about entertainment here, and i bet convenience is important.
unless we can learn how to bend space and time I really do not see how its possible to have a good kind of VR without headsets.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Ok I get that some people have Head Mounted Display Syndrome and they will likely need therapy to overcome the phobia however the problem is fundamental.
How do you enable a user to pick up an item 6" from them and turn it over with their hand and then look behind them at the wall that is 1' from them..without using a headmount, because you cant do that with video screens
do the geometry on THAT!
It's not a phobia, it's simply an inconvenience. It's about comfort.
It's the same deal as how the vast majority of computer setups are less comfortable than lounging on a couch for console gaming, and that difference in comfort is a significant factor in the popularity of each platform. Except this isn't just sitting in a slightly less comfortable chair, it's actually strapping something to your face.
Can you pick up items 6" away from you in Skyrim? Yes. Can you turn those items over? Yes, but 99% of the time it's pointless. Can you turn around and see a wall 1' from you? Yes!
So I'm not sure where you're going with that list of things you seem to think are impossible for typical games to do. I turn around and pick up items constantly in all manner of games nowadays, so you're not really telling me a game-changing functionality.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Ok I get that some people have Head Mounted Display Syndrome and they will likely need therapy to overcome the phobia however the problem is fundamental.
How do you enable a user to pick up an item 6" from them and turn it over with their hand and then look behind them at the wall that is 1' from them..without using a headmount, because you cant do that with video screens
do the geometry on THAT!
It's not a phobia, it's simply an inconvenience. It's about comfort.
It's the same deal as how the vast majority of computer setups are less comfortable than lounging on a couch for console gaming, and that difference in comfort is a significant factor in the popularity of each platform. Except this isn't just sitting in a slightly less comfortable chair, it's actually strapping something to your face.
Can you pick up items 6" away from you in Skyrim? Yes. Can you turn those items over? Yes, but 99% of the time it's pointless. Can you turn around and see a wall 1' from you? Yes!
So I'm not sure where you're going with that list of things you seem to think are impossible for typical games to do. I turn around and pick up items constantly in all manner of games nowadays, so you're not really telling me a game-changing functionality.
I dont think you are following me:
IF you want VR of good quality I do not see how its possible to do it without a Headset.
Why? Because of where the 'pivot point' would be without one. In your example 1. its not even VR to begin with and 2. the 'pivot point' is 1 foot from you and 3. I have in VR looked under a table without moving the table. Could you do that in conventional gaming? yeah kinda. I did it EXACTLY like I would look under a table in real life
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Occulus Rift and the like = Monitors Attached To Your Face
I think this is why a lot of people aren't that excited. It may enhance certain things similar to 3D, but it's still the same concept.
Not everyone wants to wear something on their head. Currently it has been said the millennials prefer comfort and practicality over looks and wow factor. Maybe that's why we don't see many MMOs where players have any kind of perceived inconvenience these days.
Occulus Rift and the like = Monitors Attached To Your Face
I think this is why a lot of people aren't that excited. It may enhance certain things similar to 3D, but it's still the same concept.
Not everyone wants to wear something on their head. Currently it has been said the millennials prefer comfort and practicality over looks and wow factor. Maybe that's why we don't see many MMOs where players have any kind of perceived inconvenience these days.
I resort back to the Pivot Point Problem (hey its PPP) and how there isnt any other way to do it that I can think of.
Having said that, lets talk about comfort for a second
1. When I play PC games I am upright in a chair not laying on a couch. When I play VR I can (provided its basic controls style game) I can play on the couch. 2. When I am watching a movie if I want to lay on my couch facing up I cant see the movie (I can in VR)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What can happen to your cervical vertebrae in the long run after prolonged use.
that is what I asked my doctor about my motorcycle riding with my helment and he said 'oh for the love of god grow a spine and at least some muscles in your shoulders for F sake!'
I tell true in lies!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This sort of thing has been around for decades. The limitations have always been having to put something the size of a pumpkin on your head, and it's murder on people who wear glasses.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
IF you want VR of good quality I do not see how its possible to do it without a Headset.
Why? Because of where the 'pivot point' would be without one. In your example 1. its not even VR to begin with and 2. the 'pivot point' is 1 foot from you and 3. I have in VR looked under a table without moving the table. Could you do that in conventional gaming? yeah kinda. I did it EXACTLY like I would look under a table in real life
I'm talking about the broader picture. Between Virtua Boy and 80s VR machines and other early VR attempts, we've never seen players value the VR experience more than they valued their comfort.
Your focus seems to involve an assumption that the VR experience is the end-all of gaming. I'm pointing out that it hasn't been, and probably still isn't.
VR has had some fantastic PR over the years with interesting movies and books about it, but here in reality there has yet to be compelling evidence that it's actually what players want out of their interactive entertainment.
I don't rule out the possibility that we may eventually cross a point where the value is worth the discomfort. I'm merely pointing out that so far we haven't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
IF you want VR of good quality I do not see how its possible to do it without a Headset.
Why? Because of where the 'pivot point' would be without one. In your example 1. its not even VR to begin with and 2. the 'pivot point' is 1 foot from you and 3. I have in VR looked under a table without moving the table. Could you do that in conventional gaming? yeah kinda. I did it EXACTLY like I would look under a table in real life
I'm talking about the broader picture. Between Virtua Boy and 80s VR machines and other early VR attempts, we've never seen players value the VR experience more than they valued their comfort.
Your focus seems to involve an assumption that the VR experience is the end-all of gaming. I'm pointing out that it hasn't been, and probably still isn't.
VR has had some fantastic PR over the years with interesting movies and books about it, but here in reality there has yet to be compelling evidence that it's actually what players want out of their interactive entertainment.
I don't rule out the possibility that we may eventually cross a point where the value is worth the discomfort. I'm merely pointing out that so far we haven't.
which is fair enough, I understand what you are saying (I dont agree but I understand)
However what you are just talking about something different than what I am talking about. Not that its not valid its just not what I am talking about. I am talking about the IF part of
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Look at Kinect. It provides way more than just head-tracking, and yet it's doomed to a niche of sports and dancing games. It's actually pretty successful within that niche (though it sort of appears to be in declining popularity,) but it's not successful enough to start to absorb any other genres.
So VR's head-tracking will be even less of a deal to the overall industry than Kinect was, and Kinect wasn't really that big a deal.
Kinect is nowhere close to the tech behind VR or the execution of functionality for the user experience. I have experienced both. I know this. Can you say the same?
It seems to me like people are just so determined to see things fail. I don't really understand it.
Threads like these feel like a crusade against progress. Some people are still fighting against the steam engine. It's like the very thought of changing the status quo here just has either an enraging effect or terrifies people. I find it fascinating that half the people who are warring against it have never even tried the new tech. Kinect was the child's toy version of things like the Vive and such, at best.
Everyone is already turning their heads in snubbery. Whether it lasts indefinitely or not, the next few years is going to see a flood of VR-focused game design. So, the people who are so anti-VR are going to be in for some frustration.
Wasn't there an article just this last week about Sony saying there's over 1,000 titles in-development for the Morpheus already? I'm sure half of those won't ever see the light of day, but it's a good example of how focused and high on VR the game developers are(maybe there's a reason developers and testers/reviewers are so high on it?).
There will definitely be some gaps, since the tech is first-gen, but it's going to be a huge focus of the industry for a while.
The headsets themselves are pretty simple to implement into games, but it'll be interesting to see how cleverly devs are able to shift the established designs to implement the evolved body/motion-control tracking into regular games smoothly.
Whether you love it or hate it(doesn't seem to be much in-between with things these days), it's going to get alot of attention over the next couple years.
For me, these headsets are not VR. You need to other senses and body motion to count imo.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
Comments
I hesitate to explain this but here goes. In 2016 VR you can reach out your hand, pickup an item, look under it, look on the backside of it by either moving it in your hand or my turning your head around to look at it.
Screens 5' away from your head can not do that, 3D glasses can not do that, Kinetict cant do that. Holograms might be able to do that howeve really? visuals with color and no view of the 'real world' and high polycount and shaders vs everything looking like this:
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It seems to me like people are just so determined to see things fail. I don't really understand it.
Threads like these feel like a crusade against progress. Some people are still fighting against the steam engine. It's like the very thought of changing the status quo here just has either an enraging effect or terrifies people.
I find it fascinating that half the people who are warring against it have never even tried the new tech. Kinect was the child's toy version of things like the Vive and such, at best.
Everyone is already turning their heads in snubbery. Whether it lasts indefinitely or not, the next few years is going to see a flood of VR-focused game design. So, the people who are so anti-VR are going to be in for some frustration.
Wasn't there an article just this last week about Sony saying there's over 1,000 titles in-development for the Morpheus already? I'm sure half of those won't ever see the light of day, but it's a good example of how focused and high on VR the game developers are(maybe there's a reason developers and testers/reviewers are so high on it?).
There will definitely be some gaps, since the tech is first-gen, but it's going to be a huge focus of the industry for a while.
The headsets themselves are pretty simple to implement into games, but it'll be interesting to see how cleverly devs are able to shift the established designs to implement the evolved body/motion-control tracking into regular games smoothly.
Whether you love it or hate it(doesn't seem to be much in-between with things these days), it's going to get alot of attention over the next couple years.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
'If Oculus was Sony people would be crawling over themselves with glee and there would be far less hate on the subject of VR.'
That aside, HTC Vive is the one I want. I dont think it will be as successful as Oculus only because Oculus is out there currently with so many games but I am more of a fan of HTC.
So why am I bashing on Sony? because to me looking at the specs its the bottom of the barrel. Does me not being excited about Sony by default make me an unevolved product loyalist of Oculus specially? no I cant imagine how one could even come to that conclusion
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What would be a more appropriate way of discussing VR and if it's a fad is to address the keynotes and what they're saying directly. Or talk about personal experiences and concerns they have based on that. Or maybe bring up some RECENT articles about said products.
I'm already on the record on this thread as saying the comparisons with what passed for VR 20 or 30 years ago are silly... it's just not the only type of silliness flooding these forums this week.
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
I have no doubt 2016 VR can do a lot of new things ... but we are talking about fun here, aren't we?
There are a lot of things you can make the same argument for: at one point RTS games were very popular on PC and spread out onto RTSes with releases like Starcraft 64. But that spread didn't really fundamentally change how games were experienced.
Or perhaps the more telling truth: unless you're playing a motion-specific game on a console, do you still choose to use the motion controls with regular games? Or would you admit the motion controls were merely a gimmick and fundamentally a bit less reliable than a controller?
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
But the reality is these experiences simply aren't worth inconveniently strapping something to your head. Maybe at some point, but not yet.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
How do you enable a user to pick up an item 6" from them and turn it over with their hand and then look behind them at the wall that is 1' from them..without using a headmount, because you cant do that with video screens
do the geometry on THAT!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
We are talking about entertainment here, and i bet convenience is important.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It's the same deal as how the vast majority of computer setups are less comfortable than lounging on a couch for console gaming, and that difference in comfort is a significant factor in the popularity of each platform. Except this isn't just sitting in a slightly less comfortable chair, it's actually strapping something to your face.
Can you pick up items 6" away from you in Skyrim? Yes. Can you turn those items over? Yes, but 99% of the time it's pointless. Can you turn around and see a wall 1' from you? Yes!
So I'm not sure where you're going with that list of things you seem to think are impossible for typical games to do. I turn around and pick up items constantly in all manner of games nowadays, so you're not really telling me a game-changing functionality.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
IF you want VR of good quality I do not see how its possible to do it without a Headset.
Why?Because of where the 'pivot point' would be without one.
In your example 1. its not even VR to begin with and 2. the 'pivot point' is 1 foot from you and 3. I have in VR looked under a table without moving the table. Could you do that in conventional gaming? yeah kinda. I did it EXACTLY like I would look under a table in real life
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Not everyone wants to wear something on their head. Currently it has been said the millennials prefer comfort and practicality over looks and wow factor. Maybe that's why we don't see many MMOs where players have any kind of perceived inconvenience these days.
Having said that, lets talk about comfort for a second
1. When I play PC games I am upright in a chair not laying on a couch. When I play VR I can (provided its basic controls style game) I can play on the couch.
2. When I am watching a movie if I want to lay on my couch facing up I cant see the movie (I can in VR)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I tell true in lies!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Your focus seems to involve an assumption that the VR experience is the end-all of gaming. I'm pointing out that it hasn't been, and probably still isn't.
VR has had some fantastic PR over the years with interesting movies and books about it, but here in reality there has yet to be compelling evidence that it's actually what players want out of their interactive entertainment.
I don't rule out the possibility that we may eventually cross a point where the value is worth the discomfort. I'm merely pointing out that so far we haven't.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
However what you are just talking about something different than what I am talking about. Not that its not valid its just not what I am talking about. I am talking about the IF part of
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I wonder which 2 are the most important for immersion.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me