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?
It's not shown that exposure to radio waves would cause cancer, but there's some doubt that it might cause cancer so it's treated as potentially carcinogenic until further studies are made.
In my opinion it's not something people should care about. In daily life people should pay attention to all the things that we already know for fact will cause health issues or will be beneficial for one's health. Worrying about slight possibilities like mobile phone radiation quickly turns into distracting yourself from real health issues.
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
The 'surge' in the indie market is exaggerated. Indie games have always done well on the PC. Doom was an indie game that was installed on more PCs than Windows 95. Indie has always had a place in PC gaming, that is one of the backbones of PC gaming to begin with. Name a time in PC gaming history where Indie games did not have a place or sell?
the 'surge' in the indie market is referenced in the article you posted. Does that mean you do not agree with everything the poster said?
The article quote you gave is suggesting that non-diversification of games is bad for gaming which is why the Oculus will fall to the weigh side. In no matter of logic does that make any sense. VR ADDS to the diversification of gaming not take diversification away
quote:: t all goes back to the pleasure principle; the more someone consumes something, the less satisfying it will become.
so does that mean then that we need to go back to LESS diversification in the gaming industry?
he is nearly saying literally that because of the pleasure prinicple we should be going back to doing less in gaming rather than more. total contradiction
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
Fair Enough. Though over saturation is happening. It just has not been spewed forth onto the masses as it will. Notice the useage of the author's choice of words: (becoming oversaturated) Not (is) OR or VIVE can not ship their preorders much less anyone off the street going to a store buying one. Once production hits so that these peripherals are commonplace the over saturation on the consumer front will begin. I went to PAX East and that is almost all I saw. E3 will be the same. Over saturation is already beginning. It is just being spread like a virus by media,publishers, graphic card companies and VR Peripheral makers at this stage. Just wait. You will see. VR is becoming over saturated and they have barely even started. Once everyone has the ability to just go to the store or shop online to buy one? Fad fades. Why? Over saturation and physical restrictions. VR's real value is in academia and government.
I'm not sure it will ever achieve over saturation. At this point, I'm definitely not in the group that thinks this is only a fad. I do think it is here to stay. However, I'm also not in the group that says everyone will be sporting them either. I think it will be mainstream within the next few years. I'll have to see at that time and re-evaluate.
However, I think it has value in much more than academia and government. There are a lot of applications in healthcare that are being tested and used. Ironically, tourisim is a growth industry for VR (Think people who can't afford to, but want to walk the Louvre), Entertainment (think outside of just gaming.... think porn, etc).
It's too new yet (not the tech in and of itself, but the current sophistication and it's place/time), so it will take a bit to see where various little hooks will get bites. Exiting times I think.
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.
Fair Enough. Though over saturation is happening. It just has not been spewed forth onto the masses as it will. Notice the useage of the author's choice of words: (becoming oversaturated) Not (is) OR or VIVE can not ship their preorders much less anyone off the street going to a store buying one. Once production hits so that these peripherals are commonplace the over saturation on the consumer front will begin. I went to PAX East and that is almost all I saw. E3 will be the same. Over saturation is already beginning. It is just being spread like a virus by media,publishers, graphic card companies and VR Peripheral makers at this stage. Just wait. You will see. VR is becoming over saturated and they have barely even started. Once everyone has the ability to just go to the store or shop online to buy one? Fad fades. Why? Over saturation and physical restrictions. VR's real value is in academia and government.
..... However, I'm also not in the group that says everyone will be sporting them either. ...
thing is...nobody that I know of here is saying that, certianly not me, So I fear this group you are refering to doesnt exist, except for John Carmack who is the only person I have seen or heard suggest most people will have one.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
Fair Enough. Though over saturation is happening. It just has not been spewed forth onto the masses as it will. Notice the useage of the author's choice of words: (becoming oversaturated) Not (is) OR or VIVE can not ship their preorders much less anyone off the street going to a store buying one. Once production hits so that these peripherals are commonplace the over saturation on the consumer front will begin. I went to PAX East and that is almost all I saw. E3 will be the same. Over saturation is already beginning. It is just being spread like a virus by media,publishers, graphic card companies and VR Peripheral makers at this stage. Just wait. You will see. VR is becoming over saturated and they have barely even started. Once everyone has the ability to just go to the store or shop online to buy one? Fad fades. Why? Over saturation and physical restrictions. VR's real value is in academia and government.
..... However, I'm also not in the group that says everyone will be sporting them either. ...
thing is...nobody that I know of here is saying that, certianly not me, So I fear this group you are refering to doesnt exist, except for John Carmack who is the only person I have seen or heard suggest most people will have one.
I look at stories, forums, opinions, etc from a lot of different places, so sometimes I'm not necessarily just referring to this specific community. Even so, I don't mean to imply that it is a large group, but there is always a diametrically opposed group to any position however small it may be.
The big point I guess I was trying to make is that the reality usually resides somewhere in the middle, and IMO, VR will fit nicely somewhere there. Where in the middle it will be? I don't know. I'm a kind of make a prediction based on what I see, but go back and re-evaluate regularly. Particularly for something as chaotic as this.
A lot of people on these forums make predictions which is always fun. Sadly, a lot don't seem to do the re-evaluate step, which I think is important. Instead, many ride their prediction/opinion to deaths door.
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.
Fair Enough. Though over saturation is happening. It just has not been spewed forth onto the masses as it will. Notice the useage of the author's choice of words: (becoming oversaturated) Not (is) OR or VIVE can not ship their preorders much less anyone off the street going to a store buying one. Once production hits so that these peripherals are commonplace the over saturation on the consumer front will begin. I went to PAX East and that is almost all I saw. E3 will be the same. Over saturation is already beginning. It is just being spread like a virus by media,publishers, graphic card companies and VR Peripheral makers at this stage. Just wait. You will see. VR is becoming over saturated and they have barely even started. Once everyone has the ability to just go to the store or shop online to buy one? Fad fades. Why? Over saturation and physical restrictions. VR's real value is in academia and government.
..... However, I'm also not in the group that says everyone will be sporting them either. ...
thing is...nobody that I know of here is saying that, certianly not me, So I fear this group you are refering to doesnt exist, except for John Carmack who is the only person I have seen or heard suggest most people will have one.
I look at stories, forums, opinions, etc from a lot of different places, so sometimes I'm not necessarily just referring to this specific community. Even so, I don't mean to imply that it is a large group, but there is always a diametrically opposed group to any position however small it may be.
The big point I guess I was trying to make is that the reality usually resides somewhere in the middle, and IMO, VR will fit nicely somewhere there. Where in the middle it will be? I don't know. I'm a kind of make a prediction based on what I see, but go back and re-evaluate regularly. Particularly for something as chaotic as this.
A lot of people on these forums make predictions which is always fun. Sadly, a lot don't seem to do the re-evaluate step, which I think is important. Instead, many ride their prediction/opinion to deaths door.
I am sticking to my view which is this view and community that you are refering to does not exist.
basically people, like myself, who suggest VR will not be a failure is being interpreted as a community of people who think it will be in everyones hand which is incorrect.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am sticking to my view which is this view and community that you are refering to does not exist.
basically people, like myself, who suggest VR will not be a failure is being interpreted as a community of people who think it will be in everyones hand which is incorrect.
I am sticking to my view which is this view and community that you are refering to does not exist.
basically people, like myself, who suggest VR will not be a failure is being interpreted as a community of people who think it will be in everyones hand which is incorrect.
Speaking of skewed views...
like I said.
people, like myself, who claim VR will not fail are being interpreted as meaning we think VR will be in everyones hand and that is not the case.
I believe VR will not fail I also believe VR will NOT be as common as a cell phone. those two views can co-exist together.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
What? People get motion sickness in cars and boats and they do just fine. Those susceptible to motion sickness arent a big enough population to really affect it and even so many articles have come out already saying the motion sickness is lessened or gone after getting used to the entire experience.
Also, the 3DS is kicking ass. It gave players motion sickness too. Hell, even the new 3DS which tracks your face for optimal 3D display, is far from perfect yet still successful. Who the hell plays any game straight for 10 hours? ... thats ridiculous and completely made up on your part. Sure, some will play it for 10 or even more hours on a single sitting, but thats up to the individual at their own risk. Every console I have had since the SNES (at least) recommends everyone to take a 15 minute break every hour or so. VR isnt any different.
As for astigmatism, thats a problem with people eyes, not VR. They already fit most frames, and theyll probably improve everything as time goes by. VR, or 3D in general, has always been an inconvenience to me back when I wore corrective lenses... didnt stop me from buying tickets to 3D movies. Putting on those cheap frames on top of my glasses was a pain, but well worth it in the end.
The only thing that really has a chance of holding VR back is the crazy room-wide set ups, fragmented developer support, and the heavy price tag. The rest is just envy (haterade) by those who cant adjust and enjoy it.
What? People get motion sickness in cars and boats and they do just fine. Those susceptible to motion sickness arent a big enough population to really affect it and even so many articles have come out already saying the motion sickness is lessened or gone after getting used to the entire experience.
Also, the 3DS is kicking ass. It gave players motion sickness too. Hell, even the new 3DS which tracks your face for optimal 3D display, is far from perfect yet still successful. Who the hell plays any game straight for 10 hours? ... thats ridiculous and completely made up on your part. Sure, some will play it for 10 or even more hours on a single sitting, but thats up to the individual at their own risk. Every console I have had since the SNES (at least) recommends everyone to take a 15 minute break every hour or so. VR isnt any different.
As for astigmatism, thats a problem with people eyes, not VR. They already fit most frames, and theyll probably improve everything as time goes by. VR, or 3D in general, has always been an inconvenience to me back when I wore corrective lenses... didnt stop me from buying tickets to 3D movies. Putting on those cheap frames on top of my glasses was a pain, but well worth it in the end.
The only thing that really has a chance of holding VR back is the crazy room-wide set ups, fragmented developer support, and the heavy price tag. The rest is just envy (haterade) by those who cant adjust and enjoy it.
This is an article written by a gaming journalist, not me. Calm down hero
lets diset this is a bit:
quote: 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.
In that quote he is saying that if you do something to much it looses its quality because its being done too much.
I agree.
Quote: That’s actually what is happening in the game industry right now and is why indie games are thriving at the moment.
why is indie market thriving at the moment by his suggestion? well the implied is because people find DIFFERNT things to do rather than the same thing over and over and over and over again which then is the 'pleasure prinicple'
Now: Is removing VR from a gaming industry and resorting people back to how gaming was a way to avoid repetition of the pleasure principle or does dont that INCREASE the problem of repetition.
to put it simply he is saying that by adding variety to the gaming industry (VR) it increases repetition and the pleasure principle becomes in effect and what should happen is a life before VR where there was less variety and more repetition.
I know its complex but try to follow because he is fucking hoodwinking you
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I don't give a fuck about some twat who gets motion sickness or any other problem with VR, stuff luck. Will be getting the PS4 version as soon as it comes out.
VR in its current iterations is a failure. Most companies aren't releasing statistics on what has been sold, or how popular it actually is aside from Samsung releasing its "amount of hours viewed" which doesn't really count considering the majority probably comes from Demos running in loops at several thousand stores across the US. That was their best marketing statistic, not what was sold.
So many proponents for VR say "You just have to try it" but anything that is "new" has a "wow" factor. That is why 3D TVs were "popular" at one point -- and relatively cheaper in many cases than what VR is selling for today with the necessary hardware included.
Currently, the longer you spend in VR the more disorienting it becomes. I can personally attest to that, as can dozens of others. If VR is to grow, you'll only hear increased issues, not decreased. The more people you add, the more problems you have, simple as that.
VR isn't going to go away, just like how the Kinect didn't just "go away"
PSVR will be undoubtedly the most successful of the bunch.
The HTC Vive will become marginalized and phase itself out within a couple years time.
Samsung will continue to put out phones and VR sets in line with their mobile capabilities as an "in addition to" their cell phone hardware.
Rift will throw money at the issue until they will ultimately turn into the SEGA of the VR world and become a software development company. They were the "First big name" in home based VR, bought by a large successful company. In less than a years time they will be outsold and forgotten by a System that will be available on a console.
Eventually VR will just merge with smarter, stronger mobile hardware with the capability for AR. Hololens, or some variations in between. The Vives pass through camera is a smart addition, it's a much more capable system than the Rift, but in truth, you'll never be able to have true motion and real world visuals on the fly with a pass through camera -- it's been well documented up to this point.
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
Would have been a good read. Thanks for the info though.
"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
Only because you don't like to hear differing opinions.
mostly because he is stating an opinion as a fact and given the current evidence out there now there is nothing whatsoever to suggest his stated fact..I mean opinion...is even close to be true.
More over, he considers any opposition to his theory that its a failure and a meaning that the opponent then thinks its an overwintering success which is not true and makes conversations near imposisble. I say all this assume your are not just his other account
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Its funny when people get to tell others what I consider. I already knew he wasn't going to "read" it... he doesn't read much, his process is take a one liner, quote and respond. I could post articles for days, he wouldn't bother clicking the link much less understanding the purpose.
The FACT is... my points are predictions. They don't have to be true at this point or ever and they're based on trends and my opinion of those trends. Trends are viewed on a factual basis when one considers the information we have today.
We have the metrics of the popularity on each system. We know what each system is spending their money on. Educated guesses are the best we can do. Wishful thinking as ...ahem.. some forum posters .... base their VR information on (and post baseless "facts" about .00000009% of people get motion sickness from them lol) is just that -- wishful thinking and fairydust.
I'm not against VR, as I said, I own a device that I can use for VR anytime I want. I just know what I will be using it for.. and what I won't -- and based on current metrics, it looks like much of the population feels either nothing towards VR.. or very similar to myself.
.....and post baseless "facts" about .00000009% of people get motion sickness from them lol)....
really? that post was made as a sarcastic joke the number is completley random. now you want to take jokes as stated facts? OR you actually are bright enough to think it was a stated fact and not a joke OR you think I dont know what your up to.
which is it?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
OmaliMMO Business CorrespondentMemberUncommonPosts: 1,177
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.
.....and post baseless "facts" about .00000009% of people get motion sickness from them lol)....
really? that post was made as a sarcastic joke the number is completley random. now you want to take jokes as stated facts? OR you actually are bright enough to think it was a stated fact and not a joke OR you think I dont know what your up to.
which is it?
Oh I know it was completely random. Most of your information is based on whatever fairytale you want to create that day. Today it was "sarcastic jokes" about people getting motion sickness and attacking those that have played VR and end up hurting themselves because VR in its current iterations are poorly implemented. The best set on the market has the smallest following and it's truly the only one apart from a cell phone that is worth anything. Rifts are just a waste.
It is not complex and do not condescend me. I have asked you nicely before to not do that yet you continue to do it. In fact anytime anyone ever says anything or posts anything you do not agree with you resort to condescension. That is one of the lowest forms of intellectual rebuttal. Use your grown up words and be an adult.
OT: Adding VR, in my opinion, is not adding variety. Software does that. VR in and of itself is not variety in gaming. If the current crop of 'games' out for VR are any indication of what to expect from the gaming side of VR then it does not bode well for the future of VR in gaming. Is it immersive? Yes. Is it optimal for gaming? No. That is the whole point of the article, though I have different opinions as to why it is not optimal, I felt the article was worth posting because most media falls all over itself in love with an 'idea' of VR. This is a post pointing the other way. Ying and Yang. The reality is, the state of VR as it is now, is nowhere close to being an optimal way to play a computer game.
The fact remains.
1. The author is stating that in his opinion the reason indie market is doing well is because the gaming industry as a whole has reached a 'pleasure principle' problem in that its becoming redutant.
do you not see him stating that point?
2. extrapolate on that point he is somehow suggesting that VR is a problem similar to that of pre-indie market saturation in which there was not a lot of variety
3. VR (or the software) DOES increase gaming variety it increases the number of inputs and the number of things you can do and that is mostly (to be frank) the hardware but hardware of software is not even the point.
how can you not see that this is what he is saying? and the BLINLDLY obvious contradiction. its not a matter of agreeing or disagree frankly its that obvious that its what he is saying.
and frankly I DO think its complex but I think you are smart enough to see it, why you dont is beyond me.
oh and NEVERMIND the whole issue of how playing American Truck Simulator in VR is going to make someone more prone to sickness then using a Truck Simulator in VR for training.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. VR sickness is relevant to ALL uses of VR, not just video games. Playing American Truck Simulator in VR is not radically different from using a VR training for Trucking. The context of the game/application matter as well as how its designed, its color choices, its framerate and its game context (trucking vs gymnastics as an example).
2. Its very hard to push for a 'pleasure principle' theory on a product in which even those who want the product dont even have it yet. One can only realistically argue about an 'over saturated market' at least 12 months if not more after the product is widely aviable. to say this is a problem before most people who want the devices can even get it is far too early (i know i repeated myself sorry)
3. The indie market came about mostly out of disillusionment of a lack of variety in content that the AAA market offers. Is this debatable? well in my opinion not anymore than anything else is. Regardless of that side point adding VR to a 'toolbox' of gamer actually makes the 'pleasure principle' problem go DOWN...not UP.
3. what is the hard data on people who get sick? is it 1% of the users? is 0.0009% is it 10%? how long did they play? WHAT did they play? where they getting 90FPS as suggested?
4. How short is unreasonable? a lot of TV shows are famous among multiple generations and yet the content was served out in 20 mins parts.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
In my opinion it's not something people should care about. In daily life people should pay attention to all the things that we already know for fact will cause health issues or will be beneficial for one's health. Worrying about slight possibilities like mobile phone radiation quickly turns into distracting yourself from real health issues.
The article quote you gave is suggesting that non-diversification of games is bad for gaming which is why the Oculus will fall to the weigh side.
In no matter of logic does that make any sense. VR ADDS to the diversification of gaming not take diversification away
quote::
t all goes back to the pleasure principle; the more someone consumes something, the less satisfying it will become.
so does that mean then that we need to go back to LESS diversification in the gaming industry?
he is nearly saying literally that because of the pleasure prinicple we should be going back to doing less in gaming rather than more. total contradiction
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
However, I think it has value in much more than academia and government. There are a lot of applications in healthcare that are being tested and used. Ironically, tourisim is a growth industry for VR (Think people who can't afford to, but want to walk the Louvre), Entertainment (think outside of just gaming.... think porn, etc).
It's too new yet (not the tech in and of itself, but the current sophistication and it's place/time), so it will take a bit to see where various little hooks will get bites. Exiting times I think.
I self identify as a monkey.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The big point I guess I was trying to make is that the reality usually resides somewhere in the middle, and IMO, VR will fit nicely somewhere there. Where in the middle it will be? I don't know. I'm a kind of make a prediction based on what I see, but go back and re-evaluate regularly. Particularly for something as chaotic as this.
A lot of people on these forums make predictions which is always fun. Sadly, a lot don't seem to do the re-evaluate step, which I think is important. Instead, many ride their prediction/opinion to deaths door.
I self identify as a monkey.
basically people, like myself, who suggest VR will not be a failure is being interpreted as a community of people who think it will be in everyones hand which is incorrect.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
people, like myself, who claim VR will not fail are being interpreted as meaning we think VR will be in everyones hand and that is not the case.
I believe VR will not fail I also believe VR will NOT be as common as a cell phone. those two views can co-exist together.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Also, the 3DS is kicking ass. It gave players motion sickness too. Hell, even the new 3DS which tracks your face for optimal 3D display, is far from perfect yet still successful. Who the hell plays any game straight for 10 hours? ... thats ridiculous and completely made up on your part. Sure, some will play it for 10 or even more hours on a single sitting, but thats up to the individual at their own risk. Every console I have had since the SNES (at least) recommends everyone to take a 15 minute break every hour or so. VR isnt any different.
As for astigmatism, thats a problem with people eyes, not VR. They already fit most frames, and theyll probably improve everything as time goes by. VR, or 3D in general, has always been an inconvenience to me back when I wore corrective lenses... didnt stop me from buying tickets to 3D movies. Putting on those cheap frames on top of my glasses was a pain, but well worth it in the end.
The only thing that really has a chance of holding VR back is the crazy room-wide set ups, fragmented developer support, and the heavy price tag. The rest is just envy (haterade) by those who cant adjust and enjoy it.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
quote:
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.
In that quote he is saying that if you do something to much it looses its quality because its being done too much.
I agree.
Quote:
That’s actually what is happening in the game industry right now and is why indie games are thriving at the moment.
why is indie market thriving at the moment by his suggestion? well the implied is because people find DIFFERNT things to do rather than the same thing over and over and over and over again which then is the 'pleasure prinicple'
Now:
Is removing VR from a gaming industry and resorting people back to how gaming was a way to avoid repetition of the pleasure principle or does dont that INCREASE the problem of repetition.
to put it simply he is saying that by adding variety to the gaming industry (VR) it increases repetition and the pleasure principle becomes in effect and what should happen is a life before VR where there was less variety and more repetition.
I know its complex but try to follow because he is fucking hoodwinking you
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Fuck em!
So many proponents for VR say "You just have to try it" but anything that is "new" has a "wow" factor. That is why 3D TVs were "popular" at one point -- and relatively cheaper in many cases than what VR is selling for today with the necessary hardware included.
Currently, the longer you spend in VR the more disorienting it becomes. I can personally attest to that, as can dozens of others. If VR is to grow, you'll only hear increased issues, not decreased. The more people you add, the more problems you have, simple as that.
VR isn't going to go away, just like how the Kinect didn't just "go away"
PSVR will be undoubtedly the most successful of the bunch.
The HTC Vive will become marginalized and phase itself out within a couple years time.
Samsung will continue to put out phones and VR sets in line with their mobile capabilities as an "in addition to" their cell phone hardware.
Rift will throw money at the issue until they will ultimately turn into the SEGA of the VR world and become a software development company. They were the "First big name" in home based VR, bought by a large successful company. In less than a years time they will be outsold and forgotten by a System that will be available on a console.
Eventually VR will just merge with smarter, stronger mobile hardware with the capability for AR. Hololens, or some variations in between. The Vives pass through camera is a smart addition, it's a much more capable system than the Rift, but in truth, you'll never be able to have true motion and real world visuals on the fly with a pass through camera -- it's been well documented up to this point.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"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
More over, he considers any opposition to his theory that its a failure and a meaning that the opponent then thinks its an overwintering success which is not true and makes conversations near imposisble. I say all this assume your are not just his other account
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The FACT is... my points are predictions. They don't have to be true at this point or ever and they're based on trends and my opinion of those trends. Trends are viewed on a factual basis when one considers the information we have today.
We have the metrics of the popularity on each system. We know what each system is spending their money on. Educated guesses are the best we can do. Wishful thinking as ...ahem.. some forum posters .... base their VR information on (and post baseless "facts" about .00000009% of people get motion sickness from them lol) is just that -- wishful thinking and fairydust.
I'm not against VR, as I said, I own a device that I can use for VR anytime I want. I just know what I will be using it for.. and what I won't -- and based on current metrics, it looks like much of the population feels either nothing towards VR.. or very similar to myself.
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
1. The author is stating that in his opinion the reason indie market is doing well is because the gaming industry as a whole has reached a 'pleasure principle' problem in that its becoming redutant.
do you not see him stating that point?
2. extrapolate on that point he is somehow suggesting that VR is a problem similar to that of pre-indie market saturation in which there was not a lot of variety
3. VR (or the software) DOES increase gaming variety it increases the number of inputs and the number of things you can do and that is mostly (to be frank) the hardware but hardware of software is not even the point.
how can you not see that this is what he is saying? and the BLINLDLY obvious contradiction. its not a matter of agreeing or disagree frankly its that obvious that its what he is saying.
and frankly I DO think its complex but I think you are smart enough to see it, why you dont is beyond me.
oh and NEVERMIND the whole issue of how playing American Truck Simulator in VR is going to make someone more prone to sickness then using a Truck Simulator in VR for training.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1. VR sickness is relevant to ALL uses of VR, not just video games. Playing American Truck Simulator in VR is not radically different from using a VR training for Trucking. The context of the game/application matter as well as how its designed, its color choices, its framerate and its game context (trucking vs gymnastics as an example).
2. Its very hard to push for a 'pleasure principle' theory on a product in which even those who want the product dont even have it yet. One can only realistically argue about an 'over saturated market' at least 12 months if not more after the product is widely aviable. to say this is a problem before most people who want the devices can even get it is far too early (i know i repeated myself sorry)
3. The indie market came about mostly out of disillusionment of a lack of variety in content that the AAA market offers. Is this debatable? well in my opinion not anymore than anything else is. Regardless of that side point adding VR to a 'toolbox' of gamer actually makes the 'pleasure principle' problem go DOWN...not UP.
3. what is the hard data on people who get sick? is it 1% of the users? is 0.0009% is it 10%? how long did they play? WHAT did they play? where they getting 90FPS as suggested?
4. How short is unreasonable? a lot of TV shows are famous among multiple generations and yet the content was served out in 20 mins parts.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me