This is why headsets like the Oculus will fail.

MrSnuffles

Carl Zeiss shows new smart glasses at CES



This is why headsets like Oculus will fail. They are too intrusive and impractical.

PottedPlant22

*slow exhale*

VR isn't competing with this.  This is something different.  Will the two eventually merge?  Probably.  The goal of VR companies is eventually to get to something like this as far as form factor goes.  But the goals for this vs the goal of VR is different.  Intrusive and Impractical depends on what you want from the device.  If you're looking for immersive ground breaking tech that we haven't seen before in the mass market, you may be interested in what's coming around the corner.  If you're looking for smart glasses (i.e. google glass) that is something that is refined from an already existing idea in the mass market, then VR will not be what you want.

As for the point your trying to make, the VR companies (Oculus) have acknowledged that this is only the first step.  They have said themselves the headset will get better and cheaper as the years go on, just like cell phones.

Phry

Well, its an interesting concept, but its not a thing yet, as they themselves have said its an unfinished product, from a technical standpoint at least, also this is more about AR, not VR, so i doubt that even when its finished, that people would be using it for games, which is a shame as the encumberance factor of current VR offerings is significant.
As a competitor for Google Glass, sure, but for VR, i'd have to say, no impact.

SEANMCAD

MrSnuffles said:

Carl Zeiss shows new smart glasses at CES



This is why headsets like Oculus will fail. They are too intrusive and impractical.

AR is amazing and I am looking forward to it.

Not sure why you bought DK1 and DK2 given how you feel about VR but I guess there are stranger things in this world

tawess

AR is not VR, 

Also those will most likely cost more the the OR. =P 

Nanfoodle

Muke

MrSnuffles said:

Carl Zeiss shows new smart glasses at CES



This is why headsets like Oculus will fail. They are too intrusive and impractical.

Oh cool!!


Let me buy this and hook it up to my pc to play VR...oh wait...








It can't.

Rusque

These are not even close to the same thing.

VR will fail if they can't get games people want on the platform. That's all.

Get a Call of Duty/HALO/Uncharted VR exclusive and people will fall over themselves to get it. Some games literally sell consoles, they'll do the same for VR headsets.

Will EVE Valkyrie be it? Maybe, but I wouldn't put money on it.

SEANMCAD

Rusque said:

These are not even close to the same thing.

VR will fail if they can't get games people want on the platform. That's all.

Get a Call of Duty/HALO/Uncharted VR exclusive and people will fall over themselves to get it. Some games literally sell consoles, they'll do the same for VR headsets.

Will EVE Valkyrie be it? Maybe, but I wouldn't put money on it.

I dont want any of those games.

regardless. Forums posters seem to think in this way.

Only 1 will 'win' everything else will fail.

Therefore the ENTIRE indie gaming industry 'fails'.

reality doesnt work that way

MrSnuffles

Muke said:

MrSnuffles said:

Carl Zeiss shows new smart glasses at CES



This is why headsets like Oculus will fail. They are too intrusive and impractical.

Oh cool!!
Let me buy this and hook it up to my pc to play VR...oh wait...

It can't.

The question is how many people really want to have VR and shut themselves out completely. I think we can both agree that this technology will be used by many more people than a VR headset. I would say that the difference is going to be hundreds of millions. Every smartphone user will want to have one of these eventually.

Does VR really add that much just one experience (gaming) or does a HUD you can wear everywhere add more to your whole life?

Will there be a few enthusiasts that want a VR headset? Sure, just like in the 90's, but it is not for the mass market even if the price goes down.

carotid

Anything that I need to wear on my head to experience VR is a fail in my book. Until there is a Holodeck, everything else is lame, just a stupid gimmick.

Jakobmiller

VR is definitely more for gaming, maybe even development purposes. The glasses are not. So yes, of course it aims for a different market and one will probably get more buyers than the other.

Phaserlight

OP, you've clearly shown your bias toward this product and seem to be clutching at straws.  Anyone that looks over your post history can be convinced of that.

As others have mentioned, AR and VR are not really competing products; they serve different purposes.  I have been predicting AR and VR to become the dominant gaming mediums as early as June 2013 (not really that hard to do if you've been paying attention).  If I were a developer, that's the realm I would want to be developing in.

You have your crystal ball, I have my ground vibrations, we'll see who is right.

SEANMCAD

carotid said:

Anything that I need to wear on my head to experience VR is a fail in my book. Until there is a Holodeck, everything else is lame, just a stupid gimmick.

you have a strange measurement of failure but ok I suppose companies should always check with your first on if they are 'failing' or not

carotid

SEANMCAD said:

carotid said:

Anything that I need to wear on my head to experience VR is a fail in my book. Until there is a Holodeck, everything else is lame, just a stupid gimmick.

you have a strange measurement of failure but ok I suppose companies should always check with your first on if they are 'failing' or not

Yeah, that's right! Anything else?

SEANMCAD

carotid said:

SEANMCAD said:

carotid said:

Anything that I need to wear on my head to experience VR is a fail in my book. Until there is a Holodeck, everything else is lame, just a stupid gimmick.

you have a strange measurement of failure but ok I suppose companies should always check with your first on if they are 'failing' or not

Yeah, that's right! Anything else?

yeah actually.

what does 'failure' mean?

R3d.Gallows

carotid said:

Anything that I need to wear on my head to experience VR is a fail in my book. Until there is a Holodeck, everything else is lame, just a stupid gimmick.

Wonder what will come first - holodeck-like tech or a neural interface allowing us to jack into a computer created simulation matrix-style. The latter would let us experience much more fantastical games than a holodeck. 

Rusque

SEANMCAD said:

Rusque said:

These are not even close to the same thing.

VR will fail if they can't get games people want on the platform. That's all.

Get a Call of Duty/HALO/Uncharted VR exclusive and people will fall over themselves to get it. Some games literally sell consoles, they'll do the same for VR headsets.

Will EVE Valkyrie be it? Maybe, but I wouldn't put money on it.

I dont want any of those games.

regardless. Forums posters seem to think in this way.

Only 1 will 'win' everything else will fail.

Therefore the ENTIRE indie gaming industry 'fails'.

reality doesnt work that way

Stop being Erillion of VR, it's annoying as crap and is only turning more people against VR for no good reason.

It does need an exclusive game of that type. Developers won't develop for a platform that doesn't have enough market to sell to. It costs a lot to make AAA games. As for indies, I'm sure VR will have some decent indie games, but unless something is a breakout hit and drives sales, it doesn't mean much.

1 will win what? I don't know what you're saying. VR is just a gaming peripheral, most peripherals are niche products aimed at small segments of the gaming community. I'm kinda hoping VR (at some point) ushers in a new generation of gaming, not just a thing to have in a drawer while real gaming is still done on a regular monitor/TV.

I also don't get your comment about indie gaming, I love indie games. That market is thriving these days thanks to stuff like Steam greenlight and kickstarter. But I wouldn't purchase any particular system or device in order to play indie games. PC probably has the most high end, "successful" indie games, but if I was without a gaming PC or console and I was making a decision right now, I'd probably buy a PS4 for Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3, Uncharted, Metal Gear, etc.

And yes, reality does work that way, it keeps repeating itself too, with each launch of any device. It doesn't matter how you think, because like you said, "Forum posters seem to think in this way" yeah, well guess what, if the 'herd' is thinking one way, chances are that's how the general public 'herd' will also think. Not to be too repetitive, history bears it out. Usually a killer app or two is what generates that interest.

carotid

SEANMCAD said:

carotid said:

SEANMCAD said:

carotid said:

Anything that I need to wear on my head to experience VR is a fail in my book. Until there is a Holodeck, everything else is lame, just a stupid gimmick.

you have a strange measurement of failure but ok I suppose companies should always check with your first on if they are 'failing' or not

Yeah, that's right! Anything else?

yeah actually.

what does 'failure' mean?

Here you go---> http://www.merriam-webster.com/

SEANMCAD

carotid said:

SEANMCAD said:

carotid said:

SEANMCAD said:

carotid said:

Anything that I need to wear on my head to experience VR is a fail in my book. Until there is a Holodeck, everything else is lame, just a stupid gimmick.

you have a strange measurement of failure but ok I suppose companies should always check with your first on if they are 'failing' or not

Yeah, that's right! Anything else?

yeah actually.

what does 'failure' mean?

Here you go---> http://www.merriam-webster.com/

your use of the word is incorrect then.

NExt!

carotid

SEANMCAD said:

carotid said:

SEANMCAD said:

carotid said:

SEANMCAD said:

carotid said:

Anything that I need to wear on my head to experience VR is a fail in my book. Until there is a Holodeck, everything else is lame, just a stupid gimmick.

you have a strange measurement of failure but ok I suppose companies should always check with your first on if they are 'failing' or not

Yeah, that's right! Anything else?

yeah actually.

what does 'failure' mean?

Here you go---> http://www.merriam-webster.com/

your use of the word is incorrect then.

NExt!

Your lack of reading comprehension is disturbing.

tawess

MrSnuffles said:

The question is how many people really want to have VR and shut themselves out completely. I think we can both agree that this technology will be used by many more people than a VR headset. I would say that the difference is going to be hundreds of millions. Every smartphone user will want to have one of these eventually.

Does VR really add that much just one experience (gaming) or does a HUD you can wear everywhere add more to your whole life?

Will there be a few enthusiasts that want a VR headset? Sure, just like in the 90's, but it is not for the mass market even if the price goes down.

Well "nobody" thought that "anybody" wanted to drag around half a kilo battery and that "mobile" phones was just a novelty item. 

I think we will see cheap AR units that replace the current AR units (smart phones/watches) in everyday use and VR will remain a console attachment for a bunch of years. 

VR is not designed to be a mobile unit, not any more than your PS4 or XB1. Even if GearVR shows us that it is in theory possible to get low level VR in a high mobility package these days. 

Phaserlight

carotid said:

Anything that I need to wear on my head to experience VR is a fail in my book. Until there is a Holodeck, everything else is lame, just a stupid gimmick.

Every time I see the many permutations of this argument pop up, I'm reminded of the following quote by Myron Krueger:

"Because of my liberal arts background, I had a much different idea about what computers were for, and so I imagined a more romantic search for a relationship between a human and a machine. I decided to try to find the essence of interactivity. Most people were either on the far end of theory — and I mean stuff that would never be practical in a thousand years — or on the other end, making arguments about what was practical at that minute, and there wasn’t much in between." (emphasis mine)

source: http://www.theverge.com/a/virtual-reality/oral_history

SEANMCAD

Rusque said:

Stop being Erillion of VR, it's annoying as crap and is only turning more people against VR for no good reason.

It does need an exclusive game of that type. Developers won't develop for a platform that doesn't have enough market to sell to. It costs a lot to make AAA games. As for indies, I'm sure VR will have some decent indie games, but unless something is a breakout hit and drives sales, it doesn't mean much.

1 will win what? I don't know what you're saying. VR is just a gaming peripheral, most peripherals are niche products aimed at small segments of the gaming community. I'm kinda hoping VR (at some point) ushers in a new generation of gaming, not just a thing to have in a drawer while real gaming is still done on a regular monitor/TV.

I also don't get your comment about indie gaming, I love indie games. That market is thriving these days thanks to stuff like Steam greenlight and kickstarter. But I wouldn't purchase any particular system or device in order to play indie games. PC probably has the most high end, "successful" indie games, but if I was without a gaming PC or console and I was making a decision right now, I'd probably buy a PS4 for Bloodborne, Dark Souls 3, Uncharted, Metal Gear, etc.

And yes, reality does work that way, it keeps repeating itself too, with each launch of any device. It doesn't matter how you think, because like you said, "Forum posters seem to think in this way" yeah, well guess what, if the 'herd' is thinking one way, chances are that's how the general public 'herd' will also think. Not to be too repetitive, history bears it out. Usually a killer app or two is what generates that interest.

what are you even talking about?!

did you even read a single word I said?

Rusque said it will fail BECAUSE there are no AAA games.

My response is does that then mean the entire indie market has failed?

I am not even talking about VR at the moment

udon

AR is the more interesting to me of the two technologies long term for sure but I don't know if that means VR will fail.  VR in it's current and probably foreseeable future form is a isolated experience that cuts you off from the real world.  Great for people who want to dive into a virtual world for a few hours to play but not so much for people who would prefer a interactive experience with those around them.  AR promises (that's all it can do at this point) to give people the ability to interact with both the virtual and real world at the same time and do things as physical groups that VR just doesn't support.

Both have their place and it will interesting to see how these two technologies move forward.

SEANMCAD

udon said:

AR is the more interesting to me of the two technologies long term for sure but I don't know if that means VR will fail.  VR in it's current and probably foreseeable future form is a isolated experience that cuts you off from the real world.  Great for people who want to dive into a virtual world for a few hours to play but not so much for people who would prefer a interactive experience with those around them.  AR promises (that's all it can do at this point) to give people the ability to interact with both the virtual and real world at the same time and do things as physical groups that VR just doesn't support.

Both have their place and it will interesting to see how these two technologies move forward.

I think AR is awesome and has far more uses than VR.

However...when it comes to gaming the problem AR presents itself is that you do see part of the real world. That is a problem and an advantage at the same time.

For example, Imagine playing a COD map in AR that is overlaced with real buildings...AWESOME!
however, what about map number 2, 3,4, 5,6, 7
are you going to go driving all over town for all those maps? well in VR you dont have to go anywhere