I posted this on another thread, but finally found a YouTube video. There are still some kinks to work out in VR gaming, not just cost, but yeah...
What's really sad is this will be me... I can see the VR helmets and padding being sold along with the glasses...
lol That would totally be me too. I would want one of those cool treadmill things where you're strapped in and safe.
dude..
1. there are not that I am aware of any VR game where you run. 2. the Vive shows you the room boundries before you get to it if you set it up right. 3. most like some trump loving jackass is just made the settings wrong so he could watch his girl slam into a wall which of course is why he was video taping it in the first place
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Agree 100% and I have said it before this technology has not been tested long enough for potential serious health risk. Cornea separation, Brain tumors, Seizures, to name a few. I have heard they ship with a pretty substantial liability waiver and heath risk warnings. Would you drive a car that came with a warning " May explode and burn you to death " we hold zero liability for your death or any injury that may result from anything that happens as a result of our exploding cars.
I find this to be a rather alarmist viewpoint. I'm not a doctor, but I do have some scientific background including health concerns; does any VR headset generate significant amounts of radiation? Any other known carcinogens involved in manufacturing? "Cancer" is definitely a buzz-word, but... just to put things in perspective... people used to think rifle scopes would cause eye cancer, enough so that studies were actually done on this. I don't think there is anything to be reasonably concerned about with HMDs in regards to cancer.
As far as radiation, has there been any uptick in cancer incidences with regards to cell phone use? Show me the study, please. Cell phones have been around for long enough.
Mobile phones include a radio transmitter that produces radio waves right besides your head, and that's a potential health hazard because some areas in your head get a lot more radio waves than they would naturally do. VR headsets that are wired don't have this issue.
The VR headset emits a lot of radiation in visible light spectrum, and tracking headsets position is done with weak infrared light, but both of these radiations occur naturally in so large amounts that radiation generated by VR headset isn't a concern.
Using a VR headset could potentially cause eye stress or other eye problems, and bright flashing lights can cause seizures no matter what monitor is used, but there's nothing in VR headset that should be able to cause cancer.
Thanks for the exposition, but, again, show me the peer-evaluated study where radio wave exposure has been shown to cause cancer.
Radios have been around for... 100 years? Has there been one documented case of cancer being caused by radio waves?
In regards to eye strain, I'd be concerned about having my eyeballs close to a bright source of non-natural light for extended periods too, but I think part of this is due to what was drilled into me as a kid back when CRT displays were the norm; even then I'm not sure how scientific such concerns actually were and we're talking OLEDs which is not at all the same. I know that keeping your sight at one focal distance for extended periods isn't good, but as these new VR displays are stereoscopic that shouldn't be a problem; it would be significantly *better* for your long-term vision not having to converge your eyes on a flat display surface for lengths of time.
People used to be concerned about sailing off the edge of the world, too.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
VR will do just fine for gaming, just because some people cant use or even afford something doesnt mean its dead and we should all call it quits. I thought i would never be able to use VR because i have a blind spot in the center of my left eye, but i got to try it and found out its just fine. I brought my GearVR over to my friends who has an astigmatism and he was just fine using it. That kind of thing will effect some people for sure, but i think far less than people here seem to think.
As for the sickness, it can happen and will be a reason why VR games that use artificial locomotion (aka: move your first person self using traditional controls) will have less of an audience. That wont however effect any games that are non first person (and they work just great in VR) games that dont have you move (puzzles/pointandclick/TCG..ect) or one that the HTC Vive promotes which are room scale since you do the moving and generally all use a teleport system that doesnt trigger it. It also likely wont hurt cockpit games either or at least from what i know of.
I also think the eye strain is sort of blown out of perportion too. Just about everyone i know who games plays almost daily and VERY close to their monitor/tv for extended amounts of time and have so for years. If this was going to be such a health issue we would have seen it effect gaming already and likely normal TV watching. The
So overall quite a few game types wont have to worry about the VR sickness and from what ive read of other VR owners most with astigmatisms are not really effected by it, so i think that percentage is way lower than what may be perceived. Will it hurt some sales...sure, but i think it will be far smaller than any other factor that effects it now...especially price which will only go down so far for non mobile stuff.
Side note: im not fully getting your 3DS thing, do you mean the 3D effect causing strain or just handhelds in general (which you also shove inches from your face). I'm not sure who you talk to who plays handhelds only in short bursts, no one ive ever known in my life really does all that often, most play it like its a normal console and often play for hours at a time. The games themselves are built like every other game on traditional systems and far less like most of whats on mobile.
I don t think they said it won t be fine, they said OPTIMAL. It wont period. I know more, actually WAY more who said if everything becomes VR with gaming, they ll quit gaming all together. I have to agree.
so .00000000009% of people get motion sickness playing VR also happen to be the same people who would not play a video game in the first place.
Or is it that .0000000000000009% of people are blind and thus monitors are a bad choice for gaming./
or do we have any fucking numbers at all ?????????
I think you're making a straw man argument, here. The percentage of people that get motion sick in present-day VR is much greater than... whatever your number works out to.
and you know this how? bias maybe or do you have any hint at all on how common place this is?
also...regarding the OP title. There is no difference between getting motion sickness playing American Truck Simulator then there is using a trucking simulator for training.
case in point the motion sickness is not related to gaming. it can happen in training, and productivity applications as well;
That would mean a total of one hundred trillion people had tried the Rift, nine of which reported motion sickness.
But hey, I guess that's "understanding and sense..." to you. To me, it's bizarro-world; I think I've read more than nine reports of motion sickness when using the Rift so far, and there are only... seven?... billion people on Earth (not to mention the Rift's market doesn't cover the entire Earth, and its market penetration is nowhere near 100%).
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
I don't completely get your point. A VERY small portion of the market can't or shouldn't use VR headsets so they shouldn't make VR games? I don't think so. If the market is overflowing with hardware devs, guess what the top ones will rise and the rest will fail.
Like a lot of statments, the argument is valid, but wrong at the same time.
To say that VR hardware isn't optimal to some because of physiological issues would be a much better and accurate statement. Absolute statements rarely tell a realistic picture. There is plenty of concrete evidence to support that there are issues for some because of the issues mentioned by the OP. It will never work for everyone. There is also a group of people who don't have enough finger control to be able to type. Doesn't mean keyboards aren't optimal for typing.
As far as software is concerned, optimal will depend on coding and making the most out of the tech.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
The first point the author makes is the one I personally agree with as to why VR is not optimal for gaming. I quoted only the 2nd and 3rd.
VR is the new trend. Absolutely everyone is trying to jump on the
bandwagon. Oculus is the big name, but then you have Sony, Samsung,
Valve, HTC; the list goes on. Everyone is trying to develop software for
VR, even if it’s not quality or up to standard. It’s an easy way to
make an easy buck, like a machine. It makes sense to do in the
short-term to make money, but people will grow disillusioned with it. It
all goes back to the pleasure principle; the more someone consumes
something, the less satisfying it will become. That’s actually what is
happening in the game industry right now and is why indie games are
thriving at the moment. The only reason why the gaming industry is safe
is because it’s been around for so long. VR, starting out as an
oversaturated market, is going to kill its business. So much goes back
to greed, and it’s a shame because the immersion is very cool. Simply
put, it’s one of the prime reasons why VR is not optimal for the gaming
industry. It’s becoming oversaturated to the point where consumers will
grow sick and tired of it.
This has nothing to do with whether or not VR is optimal for gaming. This has to do with how people are choosing to exploit the tech and not whether the tech is or isn't inherently optimal.
While motion sickness has become better with regards to VR, it still
affects certain people pretty profoundly. This is a major problem and is
why VR is not optimal for the gaming industry. It limits the user
base for people who can play VR games and people who will buy the
technology. While this may seem like a small percentage of the
population, it will still be enough to affect VR sales profoundly. Less
hardware sales and software sales means less market share. Limiting your
user base is a horrible business model.
There is also another reason why VR is not optimal for gaming, and
that is because there are so many people who either have severe eye
strain or they have an astigmatism. An astigmatism is when your eyes
cannot focus correctly and it requires either glasses or contacts. While
VR can be adjusted for people with glasses, there are also people who
have an astigmatism in just one eye. I will admit, I am one of those
people. My right eye is out of focus and half as strong as my left eye.
While you can wear glasses while playing VR, they have to be narrow, and
the adjustments never work for me; my eyes are always a mess. It
contributes to my horrible eye strain and because of the nature of VR,
you can only play games for maybe 2-3 hours at a time, due to eye
issues. The astigmatism issue has not been fixed and many people do not
even know they have one. Games have to be 10 hours, maximum, because if
the experience is too long, your eyes just cannot handle it. This is one
reason why VR is not optimal for gaming. It is almost similar to
Nintendo’s 3DS, considering the eye strain that that system can cause,
but the 3DS is a handheld gaming system. The whole point of it is you
can pick up a game and play it for a short period of time and then put
it down. Hardware like VR is different. It is meant to be a completely
immersive experience, but if it limits its user base because of eye
issues and eye strain, that further decreases their market.
Simply put, it’s one of the prime reasons why VR is not optimal for the
gaming industry. It’s becoming oversaturated to the point where
consumers will grow sick and tired of it.
VR is not optimal for gaming. It is great for the medical field and
various types of therapy, but the market is becoming oversaturated with
too much hardware and too many companies not optimizing games for the
system but rather making games on the cheap for a quick buck. Motion
sickness is another problem, even if it isn’t the majority of the
population. Eye problems like severe eye strain and astigmatisms, where
your eyes or one of your eyes is out of focus is also an issue. All of
these problems combined decrease VR’s user base and unfortunately,
instead of becoming an incredibly immersive experience, it will become a
gimmick that people will quickly forget. This is a shame, but it is
simply the direction that VR is heading towards. The technology isn’t
entirely suited for gaming, despite its complete immersion, especially
since the games can really only be played for a short period of time in
one sitting. While the technology is great, this just isn’t the time. VR
is not optimal for gaming, period.
so no troll, i work in optical lab and we are working on doing Rx lens for vr. right now only works on the razor osvr helmet since the eye plate and lens are removable somewhat easily. but if FB/occulus, htc, sony, samsung, would make it that the eye plates and lens could be removed . it is a simple process to actually get your RX, optimise it for a vr head set and pop them in. we already do this in house for computer glasses by adding prism and some "+" so the wearers eyes do not need to focus and can just "stare into space" and use thier pc. this is different then a PC pair of glasses that just basically give intermediate Rx. but since we do not have a universal formula down yet we only make these glasses and vr lens for ourselves.
Also no one ever talks about the pd/oc of the wearers. the target area seems to only be about 5mm for optimal viewing of VR. but peoples eyes can go from 50mm pupilary distance to as much as 80mm distance. and eyes are not symmetrical so they distance is actually independant of each other so a 60mm pd might actually be od 32 os 28. same for optical center hight for lens. some places that make glasses do not care for OC but vertical prism even in a single vision lens can cause huge eye strain and head aches. Just FYI to those looking into VR try it first before buying it. no matter what people are saying you should if properly fitted and lens adjusted correctly be able to wear it for 6 hours with no eye strain issues.
Ive been saying its not optimal for gaming for years. Also stop calling it virtual reality, its just fucking 3D glasses.
It's a bit more than that...
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
The first point the author makes is the one I personally agree with as to why VR is not optimal for gaming. I quoted only the 2nd and 3rd.
VR is the new trend. Absolutely everyone is trying to jump on the
bandwagon. Oculus is the big name, but then you have Sony, Samsung,
Valve, HTC; the list goes on. Everyone is trying to develop software for
VR, even if it’s not quality or up to standard. It’s an easy way to
make an easy buck, like a machine. It makes sense to do in the
short-term to make money, but people will grow disillusioned with it. It
all goes back to the pleasure principle; the more someone consumes
something, the less satisfying it will become. That’s actually what is
happening in the game industry right now and is why indie games are
thriving at the moment. The only reason why the gaming industry is safe
is because it’s been around for so long. VR, starting out as an
oversaturated market, is going to kill its business. So much goes back
to greed, and it’s a shame because the immersion is very cool. Simply
put, it’s one of the prime reasons why VR is not optimal for the gaming
industry. It’s becoming oversaturated to the point where consumers will
grow sick and tired of it.
indie industry is thriving because they offer diversify in gaming in ways that the AAA maket does not. I struggle to understand how more diveristy in a market which according to him is what people want is the thing that is the problem and will die becaue of it.
he contradicts himself because he doesnt understand WHY the indie market is popular
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Agree 100% and I have said it before this technology has not been tested long enough for potential serious health risk. Cornea separation, Brain tumors, Seizures, to name a few. I have heard they ship with a pretty substantial liability waiver and heath risk warnings. Would you drive a car that came with a warning " May explode and burn you to death " we hold zero liability for your death or any injury that may result from anything that happens as a result of our exploding cars.
I find this to be a rather alarmist viewpoint. I'm not a doctor, but I do have some scientific background including health concerns; does any VR headset generate significant amounts of radiation? Any other known carcinogens involved in manufacturing? "Cancer" is definitely a buzz-word, but... just to put things in perspective... people used to think rifle scopes would cause eye cancer, enough so that studies were actually done on this. I don't think there is anything to be reasonably concerned about with HMDs in regards to cancer.
As far as radiation, has there been any uptick in cancer incidences with regards to cell phone use? Show me the study, please. Cell phones have been around for long enough.
Mobile phones include a radio transmitter that produces radio waves right besides your head, and that's a potential health hazard because some areas in your head get a lot more radio waves than they would naturally do. VR headsets that are wired don't have this issue.
The VR headset emits a lot of radiation in visible light spectrum, and tracking headsets position is done with weak infrared light, but both of these radiations occur naturally in so large amounts that radiation generated by VR headset isn't a concern.
Using a VR headset could potentially cause eye stress or other eye problems, and bright flashing lights can cause seizures no matter what monitor is used, but there's nothing in VR headset that should be able to cause cancer.
Thanks for the exposition, but, again, show me the peer-evaluated study where radio wave exposure has been shown to cause cancer.
Radios have been around for... 100 years? Has there been one documented case of cancer being caused by radio waves?
In regards to eye strain, I'd be concerned about having my eyeballs close to a bright source of non-natural light for extended periods too, but I think part of this is due to what was drilled into me as a kid back when CRT displays were the norm; even then I'm not sure how scientific such concerns actually were and we're talking OLEDs which is not at all the same. I know that keeping your sight at one focal distance for extended periods isn't good, but as these new VR displays are stereoscopic that shouldn't be a problem; it would be significantly *better* for your long-term vision not having to converge your eyes on a flat display surface for lengths of time.
People used to be concerned about sailing off the edge of the world, too.
Actually there have been a small number of cases of radio waves causung cancer, just none, zero, nil, nada, from the use of mobile phones. Case in point in the early days of police radio cars the radio operators.sat in the back on thin cushion over the antenna, which was circular coil. Having their testicles in the 1000 watt field for hours at a time did lead to a cluster of testicular cancer cases.
That edge of the world thing is a furphy BTW, sailors for thousands of years have known the world is round.
It's no different than people with epilepsy. You see warning from movies and games as you boot them up. A small portion of people may suddenly have an epileptic fit playing this game, but has it put a significant dent in sales? No.
Should companies do everything to lessen the impact and improve the product to help those with various difficulties? Of course, but I don't see VR slowing down or becoming a gimmick because of a small portion of people with eye problems.
The number of people with astigmatism appears to be between 4% and 15% of the population depending on how you measure it. Add in the people who get motion sickness and my guess is you are looking at around 10% of people who are going to have problems with VR, from mild to severe.
However I don't think this is a VR killer. VR will succeed or fail based on its ability to deliver a mass experience that is unique and entertaining I don't think we have seen that yet, seanmcad excepted of course, but then he is a unique experience all by himself.
The first point the author makes is the one I personally agree with as to why VR is not optimal for gaming. I quoted only the 2nd and 3rd.
VR is the new trend. Absolutely everyone is trying to jump on the
bandwagon. Oculus is the big name, but then you have Sony, Samsung,
Valve, HTC; the list goes on. Everyone is trying to develop software for
VR, even if it’s not quality or up to standard. It’s an easy way to
make an easy buck, like a machine. It makes sense to do in the
short-term to make money, but people will grow disillusioned with it. It
all goes back to the pleasure principle; the more someone consumes
something, the less satisfying it will become. That’s actually what is
happening in the game industry right now and is why indie games are
thriving at the moment. The only reason why the gaming industry is safe
is because it’s been around for so long. VR, starting out as an
oversaturated market, is going to kill its business. So much goes back
to greed, and it’s a shame because the immersion is very cool. Simply
put, it’s one of the prime reasons why VR is not optimal for the gaming
industry. It’s becoming oversaturated to the point where consumers will
grow sick and tired of it.
This has nothing to do with whether or not VR is optimal for gaming. This has to do with how people are choosing to exploit the tech and not whether the tech is or isn't inherently optimal.
It actually does. It has everything to do with whether it is optimal. Is it optimal for gaming meaning does it find itself sitting next to conventional display devices or is it just a marketing and media pushed fad? Again. Optimal is defined by it being best or most favorable for gaming. With the industry all over it like they discovered the warp drive and every other developer crawling out of the woodwork to support the fad is the over saturation effect going to distance it from mainstream useage? If it was optimal for gaming it would not have an effect. Being optimal would trump over-saturation, eye strain and nausea. It does not. Therefore all three points are clearly supporting the author's claim it is not, indeed, optimal for gaming.
I agree with your definition of being optimal, I just disagree with your conclusion. Whether it is optimal is independent with what 5 or 50 companies choose to pounce on it. When someone says 'VR,' I'm reading technology. Not a particular flavor of implementation. For something to be well suited towards something doesn't mean it is suited for everything or everyone. Many can't watch TV because of eyesight, many can't drive cars because of handicaps. Does that mean that these things aren't well designed?
Contacts is a great technology for helping sight, yet a lot of people can't wear them (myself being one of them). Does that mean that it negates the tech from being optimal?
Over saturation? The market is hardly being flooded. In fact, if you read a good many of these threads, the industry is masterfully hiding the fact that they only produce 4 sets while hinting that they are selling millions. Justin Bieber is over saturation. Rachael Rey is over saturation. VR is not.
Agree 100% and I have said it before this technology has not been tested long enough for potential serious health risk. Cornea separation, Brain tumors, Seizures, to name a few. I have heard they ship with a pretty substantial liability waiver and heath risk warnings. Would you drive a car that came with a warning " May explode and burn you to death " we hold zero liability for your death or any injury that may result from anything that happens as a result of our exploding cars.
I find this to be a rather alarmist viewpoint. I'm not a doctor, but I do have some scientific background including health concerns; does any VR headset generate significant amounts of radiation? Any other known carcinogens involved in manufacturing? "Cancer" is definitely a buzz-word, but... just to put things in perspective... people used to think rifle scopes would cause eye cancer, enough so that studies were actually done on this. I don't think there is anything to be reasonably concerned about with HMDs in regards to cancer.
As far as radiation, has there been any uptick in cancer incidences with regards to cell phone use? Show me the study, please. Cell phones have been around for long enough.
Mobile phones include a radio transmitter that produces radio waves right besides your head, and that's a potential health hazard because some areas in your head get a lot more radio waves than they would naturally do. VR headsets that are wired don't have this issue.
The VR headset emits a lot of radiation in visible light spectrum, and tracking headsets position is done with weak infrared light, but both of these radiations occur naturally in so large amounts that radiation generated by VR headset isn't a concern.
Using a VR headset could potentially cause eye stress or other eye problems, and bright flashing lights can cause seizures no matter what monitor is used, but there's nothing in VR headset that should be able to cause cancer.
Thanks for the exposition, but, again, show me the peer-evaluated study where radio wave exposure has been shown to cause cancer.
Radios have been around for... 100 years? Has there been one documented case of cancer being caused by radio waves?
In regards to eye strain, I'd be concerned about having my eyeballs close to a bright source of non-natural light for extended periods too, but I think part of this is due to what was drilled into me as a kid back when CRT displays were the norm; even then I'm not sure how scientific such concerns actually were and we're talking OLEDs which is not at all the same. I know that keeping your sight at one focal distance for extended periods isn't good, but as these new VR displays are stereoscopic that shouldn't be a problem; it would be significantly *better* for your long-term vision not having to converge your eyes on a flat display surface for lengths of time.
People used to be concerned about sailing off the edge of the world, too.
Actually there have been a small number of cases of radio waves causung cancer, just none, zero, nil, nada, from the use of mobile phones. Case in point in the early days of police radio cars the radio operators.sat in the back on thin cushion over the antenna, which was circular coil. Having their testicles in the 1000 watt field for hours at a time did lead to a cluster of testicular cancer cases.
That edge of the world thing is a furphy BTW, sailors for thousands of years have known the world is round.
I'd really like to see a link to where you got this information. Case in point.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I dont think over-saturation is happening. The fact that in multiple polls done the large majority of people dont even know what VR is. Right now you are seeing a ton of it at shows because for once there actually is a good "peripheral" that has people and devs intrested. Its brand new tech and a way of playing that is being thrown into a pretty big lull in gaming as of late. Gaming has become so stale with yearly sequels, no middle ground/priced games anymore and big studios rarely wanting to risk money on anything that isnt proven or guaranteed to get them tons of sequels (hence the yearly updates and multiple games in their 4's/5's and beyond)
There hasnt been a big new "aww" moment in traditional games for a long time now, a big reason why we had 8+ year cycle last gen and this gen is mostly the same but slightly better...there is not much left to do. We had the 2d > 3d sd>hd and the online gaming boom, but since then its only been temporary gimmicks that you could tell were really limited and boring right after having it for a short time (mainly poor motion controls/3d tv/kinect) I personally owned all of them and i could tell right away that it was not going to be much there and was the reason i felt like VR might be the same...then i tried it...and its not even close to those things.
Agree 100% and I have said it before this technology has not been tested long enough for potential serious health risk. Cornea separation, Brain tumors, Seizures, to name a few. I have heard they ship with a pretty substantial liability waiver and heath risk warnings. Would you drive a car that came with a warning " May explode and burn you to death " we hold zero liability for your death or any injury that may result from anything that happens as a result of our exploding cars.
I find this to be a rather alarmist viewpoint. I'm not a doctor, but I do have some scientific background including health concerns; does any VR headset generate significant amounts of radiation? Any other known carcinogens involved in manufacturing? "Cancer" is definitely a buzz-word, but... just to put things in perspective... people used to think rifle scopes would cause eye cancer, enough so that studies were actually done on this. I don't think there is anything to be reasonably concerned about with HMDs in regards to cancer.
As far as radiation, has there been any uptick in cancer incidences with regards to cell phone use? Show me the study, please. Cell phones have been around for long enough.
Mobile phones include a radio transmitter that produces radio waves right besides your head, and that's a potential health hazard because some areas in your head get a lot more radio waves than they would naturally do. VR headsets that are wired don't have this issue.
The VR headset emits a lot of radiation in visible light spectrum, and tracking headsets position is done with weak infrared light, but both of these radiations occur naturally in so large amounts that radiation generated by VR headset isn't a concern.
Using a VR headset could potentially cause eye stress or other eye problems, and bright flashing lights can cause seizures no matter what monitor is used, but there's nothing in VR headset that should be able to cause cancer.
Thanks for the exposition, but, again, show me the peer-evaluated study where radio wave exposure has been shown to cause cancer.
Radios have been around for... 100 years? Has there been one documented case of cancer being caused by radio waves?
In regards to eye strain, I'd be concerned about having my eyeballs close to a bright source of non-natural light for extended periods too, but I think part of this is due to what was drilled into me as a kid back when CRT displays were the norm; even then I'm not sure how scientific such concerns actually were and we're talking OLEDs which is not at all the same. I know that keeping your sight at one focal distance for extended periods isn't good, but as these new VR displays are stereoscopic that shouldn't be a problem; it would be significantly *better* for your long-term vision not having to converge your eyes on a flat display surface for lengths of time.
People used to be concerned about sailing off the edge of the world, too.
Actually there have been a small number of cases of radio waves causung cancer, just none, zero, nil, nada, from the use of mobile phones. Case in point in the early days of police radio cars the radio operators.sat in the back on thin cushion over the antenna, which was circular coil. Having their testicles in the 1000 watt field for hours at a time did lead to a cluster of testicular cancer cases.
That edge of the world thing is a furphy BTW, sailors for thousands of years have known the world is round.
I'd really like to see a link to where you got this information. Case in point.
Sadly I cannot provide you with a link or with the title of the academic paper detailing it. I got my information during a discussion with a number of research engineers back in the 1980's. The engineer that had the specific information died shortly after his retirement in 91 or 92. There was also discussion of the lack of cases in military radio operators in similar circumstances (FFR Land Rovers and the U.S. equivalent with 1kW radios and short mast antennas). The discussion was informal but everyone involved was working at an Australian Defence Research Establishment. So treat it as anecdotal if you like. The main point remains, RF transmitters have to be high energy to do any damage and mobile phones, VR goggles and display panels are very low energy.
P.s. the cluster of cases I was talking about was less than a dozen perhaps as few as six, it occurred in the 1940's and early 1950's in Sydney Australia
Comments
dude..
1. there are not that I am aware of any VR game where you run.
2. the Vive shows you the room boundries before you get to it if you set it up right.
3. most like some trump loving jackass is just made the settings wrong so he could watch his girl slam into a wall which of course is why he was video taping it in the first place
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Radios have been around for... 100 years? Has there been one documented case of cancer being caused by radio waves?
In regards to eye strain, I'd be concerned about having my eyeballs close to a bright source of non-natural light for extended periods too, but I think part of this is due to what was drilled into me as a kid back when CRT displays were the norm; even then I'm not sure how scientific such concerns actually were and we're talking OLEDs which is not at all the same. I know that keeping your sight at one focal distance for extended periods isn't good, but as these new VR displays are stereoscopic that shouldn't be a problem; it would be significantly *better* for your long-term vision not having to converge your eyes on a flat display surface for lengths of time.
People used to be concerned about sailing off the edge of the world, too.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
As for the sickness, it can happen and will be a reason why VR games that use artificial locomotion (aka: move your first person self using traditional controls) will have less of an audience. That wont however effect any games that are non first person (and they work just great in VR) games that dont have you move (puzzles/pointandclick/TCG..ect) or one that the HTC Vive promotes which are room scale since you do the moving and generally all use a teleport system that doesnt trigger it. It also likely wont hurt cockpit games either or at least from what i know of.
I also think the eye strain is sort of blown out of perportion too. Just about everyone i know who games plays almost daily and VERY close to their monitor/tv for extended amounts of time and have so for years. If this was going to be such a health issue we would have seen it effect gaming already and likely normal TV watching. The
So overall quite a few game types wont have to worry about the VR sickness and from what ive read of other VR owners most with astigmatisms are not really effected by it, so i think that percentage is way lower than what may be perceived. Will it hurt some sales...sure, but i think it will be far smaller than any other factor that effects it now...especially price which will only go down so far for non mobile stuff.
Side note: im not fully getting your 3DS thing, do you mean the 3D effect causing strain or just handhelds in general (which you also shove inches from your face). I'm not sure who you talk to who plays handhelds only in short bursts, no one ive ever known in my life really does all that often, most play it like its a normal console and often play for hours at a time. The games themselves are built like every other game on traditional systems and far less like most of whats on mobile.
I don t think they said it won t be fine, they said OPTIMAL. It wont period. I know more, actually WAY more who said if everything becomes VR with gaming, they ll quit gaming all together. I have to agree.
@SEANMCAD quoted a figure of .00000000009%.
That would mean a total of one hundred trillion people had tried the Rift, nine of which reported motion sickness.
But hey, I guess that's "understanding and sense..." to you. To me, it's bizarro-world; I think I've read more than nine reports of motion sickness when using the Rift so far, and there are only... seven?... billion people on Earth (not to mention the Rift's market doesn't cover the entire Earth, and its market penetration is nowhere near 100%).
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
To say that VR hardware isn't optimal to some because of physiological issues would be a much better and accurate statement. Absolute statements rarely tell a realistic picture. There is plenty of concrete evidence to support that there are issues for some because of the issues mentioned by the OP. It will never work for everyone. There is also a group of people who don't have enough finger control to be able to type. Doesn't mean keyboards aren't optimal for typing.
As far as software is concerned, optimal will depend on coding and making the most out of the tech.
I self identify as a monkey.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
I self identify as a monkey.
Also no one ever talks about the pd/oc of the wearers. the target area seems to only be about 5mm for optimal viewing of VR. but peoples eyes can go from 50mm pupilary distance to as much as 80mm distance. and eyes are not symmetrical so they distance is actually independant of each other so a 60mm pd might actually be od 32 os 28. same for optical center hight for lens. some places that make glasses do not care for OC but vertical prism even in a single vision lens can cause huge eye strain and head aches. Just FYI to those looking into VR try it first before buying it. no matter what people are saying you should if properly fitted and lens adjusted correctly be able to wear it for 6 hours with no eye strain issues.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
he contradicts himself because he doesnt understand WHY the indie market is popular
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
That edge of the world thing is a furphy BTW, sailors for thousands of years have known the world is round.
However I don't think this is a VR killer. VR will succeed or fail based on its ability to deliver a mass experience that is unique and entertaining I don't think we have seen that yet, seanmcad excepted of course, but then he is a unique experience all by himself.
Contacts is a great technology for helping sight, yet a lot of people can't wear them (myself being one of them). Does that mean that it negates the tech from being optimal?
Over saturation? The market is hardly being flooded. In fact, if you read a good many of these threads, the industry is masterfully hiding the fact that they only produce 4 sets while hinting that they are selling millions. Justin Bieber is over saturation. Rachael Rey is over saturation. VR is not.
I self identify as a monkey.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
There hasnt been a big new "aww" moment in traditional games for a long time now, a big reason why we had 8+ year cycle last gen and this gen is mostly the same but slightly better...there is not much left to do. We had the 2d > 3d sd>hd and the online gaming boom, but since then its only been temporary gimmicks that you could tell were really limited and boring right after having it for a short time (mainly poor motion controls/3d tv/kinect) I personally owned all of them and i could tell right away that it was not going to be much there and was the reason i felt like VR might be the same...then i tried it...and its not even close to those things.
P.s. the cluster of cases I was talking about was less than a dozen perhaps as few as six, it occurred in the 1940's and early 1950's in Sydney Australia