Big Name VR Games Not "Games" ?

maskedweasel

http://www.cnet.com/news/playstation-vr-batman-final-fantasy-resident-evil-e3-2016/

I was excited to hear about the E3 Demos for the PSVR system,  but then, the day after, reading through some reviews... I found an article that refutes that these experiences aren't really games at all.

"What's wrong with Final Fantasy and Batman in VR? They're what we like to call VR experiences -- not actual games you'll play more than once."

And it seems a number or people got sick on some of the other games.....

"Resident Evil looks great in VR, and it's incredibly immersive. You can actually peek around corners before you walk into a room, or quickly look behind you to see if you're being stalked. And the developers, knowing this, take full advantage.

But then, I started to sweat. I got a little dizzy. Suddenly, a huge headache came out of nowhere."

"Batman: Arkham VR is a bit better -- you get to don the Batsuit, throw Batarangs, fire grapple guns and descend into the Batcave for target practice, then analyze a crime scene with other cool tools -- but developer Rocksteady describes it as an hour-long experience with another hour of replay value. If you were expecting a whole new Batman: Arkham game where you traverse Gotham City in VR, you're out of luck."

That counts out my hopes for Batman Arkham VR as I was hoping to actually feel a little more badass like batman in a VR brawler.

".... If you were hoping traditional big-name game developers would just stroll onto PlayStation with the killer apps for VR, you should probably know they're still in the experimentation phase right now."

And I feel we're back to square one almost.  It really narrows down the games that they showed that I'd be interested int.  Farpoint being really the only other one that gave me any hope for Launch VR Titles drawing people to the system.  Most of these sound like nothing more than interactive Videos.

Tiller

Yeah I've been arguing for weeks with these shills on steam trying to push the VIVE VR as the next best thing. They claim that it's where it needs to be now and well worth spending the $800 on. They really have no valid arguments other than "it's so cool" and we are all stupid because we refuse to get on board or compare it to the 90's VR flop. I posted your link in that thread lol.

Cleffy

The problem with Playstation vr is the frame rates. The games designed for PS typically target 30 fps for 1 monitor, not 90 fps for 2 monitors. Fluctuations below 90 fps will produce headaches. So it doesn't work right for games not designed around the headset.

Gazimoff

Here's the thing.

There's some utter tripe on VR, and some 'oh pretty' stuff that reminds me of those graphics card tests that pump out every few years. In both instances it's there for ideas and candy, but it doesn't represent a game.

That's not to say that there aren't games. Valkyrie is one, and it's a damn impressive experience. Chronos is another - a third-person RPG that has ten hours or so of gameplay.

And then there's Gunjack and Fruit Ninja. Smaller pocket experiences that are like an iPhone game, just set in VR. They're cool the first few times, but they get repetitive.

Lots of VR developers are experimenting with the medium, trying to work out how to deliver something cool. And like when commodity 3D came out with 3DFX Voodoo or PowerVR graphics cards, a lot of it is demo or proof-of-concept stuff. While there are games that use it, or games that support it, we're looking at a few years before we really see the potential.

As for the cost of the headset, it's like any other PC upgrade. If you can't see the benefit of a GTX1080, don't buy one. If a 1TB SSD is too much, trim back. If a VR headset doesn't interest you right now, don't buy one. Wait and see, and maybe pick up a 2nd generation one next year or so.

Personally, I think it's cool. But I don't think it's for everyone, and I don't think there's any killer apps for either headset. And while I'm excited for what's coming up, other stuff like Horizon: Zero Dawn and the new Zelda has me hyped more.

SpottyGekko

VR game development is in its infancy. Nobody really knows what to do or how to do it yet.

It will probably be a few years yet before we see a game designed to fully take advantage of what VR allows you to do (and not do) in a game. There's a huge learning curve ahead, both from the developer's side and from the player's.

maskedweasel

Gazimoff said:

Personally, I think it's cool. But I don't think it's for everyone, and I don't think there's any killer apps for either headset. And while I'm excited for what's coming up, other stuff like Horizon: Zero Dawn and the new Zelda has me hyped more.

I think it's a very even handed way to look at it and I agree with most of this.

What is interesting is that at E3 there were a lot of VR games showcased, but none of them were on any of the best of show lists for either PC or Console.  

While there are some games, and as I stated, it seems Farpoint might be the best option -- BIG launch titles are usually what drive players TO the system.   Analysts predicted 6M headset sales by next year for the PSVR system,  and I was contemplating picking one up too if the lineup was there.

But, unfortunately, it isn't quite there yet. 

MAYBE as launch gets closer more games will be set to release, or maybe expanded gameplay will surface.

I'm also hoping that the simulation sickness isn't that bad... I never really had much of an issue with Gear VR,  and the one time I tried the Rift (but I used an XB controller)  but most of what I've experienced are just movies.... I think it's very different when you're controlling your movement.

Gazimoff

maskedweasel said:

I'm also hoping that the simulation sickness isn't that bad... I never really had much of an issue with Gear VR,  and the one time I tried the Rift (but I used an XB controller)  but most of what I've experienced are just movies.... I think it's very different when you're controlling your movement.

Honestly, it depends on the experience.

Static games like Portal's robot repair thing, Chronos and most movies are absolutely fine. Valkyrie gives me problems on my PC, but that's because the GTX 780 can struggle with it sometimes. Even so, I start to get motion sick after my 3rd or 4th match.

Then again, I'm still using a DK2. The CV1 and HTC Vive are much better, and much more comfortable for longer gaming sessions.

SEANMCAD

I tihnk there is a good chance that VR will be a large hit for film and tv.
having said that, I feel the same way about the hardware as I do the software. we really need to wait at least 12 months after Sony VR is in the stores or widely aviable for purchase online.

why? average game development is 3 years. If you were a game company would you have started making at VR game 2-3 years ago before most of the hardware is even baked? I wouldnt

maskedweasel

SEANMCAD said:

I tihnk there is a good chance that VR will be a large hit for film and tv.
having said that, I feel the same way about the hardware as I do the software. we really need to wait at least 12 months after Sony VR is in the stores or widely aviable for purchase online.

why? average game development is 3 years. If you were a game company would you have started making at VR game 2-3 years ago before most of the hardware is even baked? I wouldnt

Launch titles are the selling point of hardware... all console developers know this, which is why PS4 had a large release schedule by the end of 2016.  Without adequate launch titles, hardware sales falter. 

I can't speak for everybody, but from the releases they've shown this turned my PSVR theory from something most VR hopefuls could look forward to, to another instance of waiting until there is an actual game worthy of playing on the device.

Fallout 4, Resident Evil, and Farpoint are the only  games thus far that have a shot at attracting people to these systems in terms of 1) name recognition (fallout) (resident Evil)  and 2) Actual games that aren't gimmicky ports to VR (far point)

And usually developers at E3 throw a TON of games out there as to "what to expect"  usually within a 2 to 3 year window... VR was extremely light in that regard.

SEANMCAD

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

I tihnk there is a good chance that VR will be a large hit for film and tv.
having said that, I feel the same way about the hardware as I do the software. we really need to wait at least 12 months after Sony VR is in the stores or widely aviable for purchase online.

why? average game development is 3 years. If you were a game company would you have started making at VR game 2-3 years ago before most of the hardware is even baked? I wouldnt

Launch titles are the selling point of hardware... all console developers know this, which is why PS4 had a large release schedule by the end of 2016.  Without adequate launch titles, hardware sales falter. 

...

that can be true however what you dont understand is that developers are full aware of the hardware 'baked' status of consoles long before we are. That realtionship between game companies and hardware in the console space is a pipeline that is strong and was developed from the very start. That is not the case with VR.

Now, should it have been? perhaps.
will it not being so be an indicator of a massive failure? maybe. 

but regardless of that if one wants to know why these 'games' are demo that is the answer. There is not, in this case, a well contructed pipeline between pre-release hardware and the developers. its really that simple. 

So for right or wrong I would not expect a flood of full games on VR for another 2 years.

I will say however AAA companies already making VR games caught me my surprise. I was not expecting to see that for many years...like 5 years

Octagon7711

It is kinda backwards.  It has long been said to get the hardware based on the software you use.  That's also why people upgrade because a great game comes out and you need to upgrade your hardware or buy a new machine in order to run it.  People who have PC's, PS4's, and Xbox'es will even buy the same game for each machine just to experience the game that way.  VR is saying buy our hardware now and later the killer software will come later.

I also remember Oculus telling Sony they needed to improve their hardware to avoid negative physical reactions.  Sony is into making hardware as cheat as possible and charging the most they can to maximize profits to extreme degrees. 

H0urg1ass

SEANMCAD said:

I tihnk there is a good chance that VR will be a large hit for film and tv.

Ummm, no.  Sorry, but that's not gonna be the case.  First off, the whole VR experience is predicated on the ability to turn your head around and see things that you could only see previously by turning your whole character or viewpoint around.

TV isn't filmed that way.  Then there's the case of individual units.  At any given time in my house there are usually 3 people watching the same TV.  I'll be goddamned if I'm spending $4,000 on individual VR headsets for the whole family just to watch the same straight-on experience I would get out of my 60" 4k TV that also has 120Hz refresh rate and only cost me $850 during a great Amazon sale.

SEANMCAD said:

why? average game development is 3 years. If you were a game company would you have started making at VR game 2-3 years ago before most of the hardware is even baked? I wouldnt

I'm going to be honest here, if game developers started this year on a 3 year cycle game for VR technology, then the technology will disappear by the time it releases.  Games, real playable games, with features that make VR more than a gimmick, need to start releasing no later than 4th quarter 2016.  Christmas sales will either support or dispose of VR technology in short order.  This Christmas had better have some good VR games packaged right along with popular headsets in order to push units.

waynejr2

maskedweasel said:

http://www.cnet.com/news/playstation-vr-batman-final-fantasy-resident-evil-e3-2016/

I was excited to hear about the E3 Demos for the PSVR system,  but then, the day after, reading through some reviews... I found an article that refutes that these experiences aren't really games at all.

"What's wrong with Final Fantasy and Batman in VR? They're what we like to call VR experiences -- not actual games you'll play more than once."

And it seems a number or people got sick on some of the other games.....

"Resident Evil looks great in VR, and it's incredibly immersive. You can actually peek around corners before you walk into a room, or quickly look behind you to see if you're being stalked. And the developers, knowing this, take full advantage.

But then, I started to sweat. I got a little dizzy. Suddenly, a huge headache came out of nowhere."

"Batman: Arkham VR is a bit better -- you get to don the Batsuit, throw Batarangs, fire grapple guns and descend into the Batcave for target practice, then analyze a crime scene with other cool tools -- but developer Rocksteady describes it as an hour-long experience with another hour of replay value. If you were expecting a whole new Batman: Arkham game where you traverse Gotham City in VR, you're out of luck."

That counts out my hopes for Batman Arkham VR as I was hoping to actually feel a little more badass like batman in a VR brawler.

".... If you were hoping traditional big-name game developers would just stroll onto PlayStation with the killer apps for VR, you should probably know they're still in the experimentation phase right now."

And I feel we're back to square one almost.  It really narrows down the games that they showed that I'd be interested int.  Farpoint being really the only other one that gave me any hope for Launch VR Titles drawing people to the system.  Most of these sound like nothing more than interactive Videos.

Experiences might be the best thing you could call them to distinguish them from games.

maskedweasel

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

I tihnk there is a good chance that VR will be a large hit for film and tv.
having said that, I feel the same way about the hardware as I do the software. we really need to wait at least 12 months after Sony VR is in the stores or widely aviable for purchase online.

why? average game development is 3 years. If you were a game company would you have started making at VR game 2-3 years ago before most of the hardware is even baked? I wouldnt

Launch titles are the selling point of hardware... all console developers know this, which is why PS4 had a large release schedule by the end of 2016.  Without adequate launch titles, hardware sales falter. 

...

that can be true however what you dont understand is that developers are full aware of the hardware 'baked' status of consoles long before we are. That realtionship between game companies and hardware in the console space is a pipeline that is strong and was developed from the very start. That is not the case with VR.

Now, should it have been? perhaps.
will it not being so be an indicator of a massive failure? maybe. 

but regardless of that if one wants to know why these 'games' are demo that is the answer. There is not, in this case, a well contructed pipeline between pre-release hardware and the developers. its really that simple. 

So for right or wrong I would not expect a flood of full games on VR for another 2 years.

I will say however AAA companies already making VR games caught me my surprise. I was not expecting to see that for many years...like 5 years

Again, I think you're wrong on that,  the Rift has been in development and available to the public via development kits for 4 years.  They've had ample time to get a decent gaming library together.

The first news stories developed for headsets started around 2013, by 2014 google cardboard was a thing,  and by the end of 2014 gear VR was announced, with development kits out in 2015 with their lead up to launch.

Companies had the opportunity to create with specific hardware in mind.  Sony has been in this business a long time now,  they know the flow of the hardware space.  You present the hardware and garner support,  it's the support that sells it.

If people are going to wait 2 years just for something noteworthy to release... why would people bother with early adoption?

With all of the sets releasing, they're shooting themselves in the foot when you might have ONE or TWO sets that could benefit from the entirety of the current library... but because there are several sets.. each one trying to pigeon hole consumers into their set...  you end up with corporate greed and sub par VR experiences.

SEANMCAD

H0urg1ass said:

SEANMCAD said:

I tihnk there is a good chance that VR will be a large hit for film and tv.

Ummm, no.  Sorry, but that's not gonna be the case.  First off, the whole VR experience is predicated on the ability to turn your head around and see things that you could only see previously by turning your whole character or viewpoint around.

TV isn't filmed that way.  Then there's the case of individual units.  At any given time in my house there are usually 3 people watching the same TV.  I'll be goddamned if I'm spending $4,000 on individual VR headsets for the whole family just to watch the same straight-on experience I would get out of my 60" 4k TV that also has 120Hz refresh rate and only cost me $850 during a great Amazon sale.

SEANMCAD said:

why? average game development is 3 years. If you were a game company would you have started making at VR game 2-3 years ago before most of the hardware is even baked? I wouldnt

I'm going to be honest here, if game developers started this year on a 3 year cycle game for VR technology, then the technology will disappear by the time it releases.  Games, real playable games, with features that make VR more than a gimmick, need to start releasing no later than 4th quarter 2016.  Christmas sales will either support or dispose of VR technology in short order.  This Christmas had better have some good VR games packaged right along with popular headsets in order to push units.

1. Regarding Film. The reason I think there is a chance it will be more popular is because of its simplicity. No cables, no motion controllers nothing in your hand. just kick back on the bed look in any direction your back feels comfortable and watch a movie on a screen larger than anything you have ever experienced before or with more depth while doing it at your friends house who doesnt even own a PC.

2. games take an average of 3 years to develop. that is average for all games, not VR specific but all games end of story. Are developers going to start creating deep content for a device that isnt 'baked' yet? I doubt it. Will that spell the end of VR? maybe. I personally dont think so but regardless of what we think facts are facts and if one asks why is there not any deep content for VR, this is the answer...peroid end of story.

3. VR adoption already has gone MUCH further then I had thought. I did not think AAA companies would touch it for at least 4 years, let alone starting out of the gate. I personally think people predicting the end of VR before its even started are being a bit silly frankly.

SEANMCAD

maskedweasel said:

Again, I think you're wrong on that,  the Rift has been in development and available to the public via development kits for 4 years.  They've had ample time to get a decent gaming library together.

The first news stories developed for headsets started around 2013, by 2014 google cardboard was a thing,  and by the end of 2014 gear VR was announced, with development kits out in 2015 with their lead up to launch.

Companies had the opportunity to create with specific hardware in mind.  Sony has been in this business a long time now,  they know the flow of the hardware space.  You present the hardware and garner support,  it's the support that sells it.

If people are going to wait 2 years just for something noteworthy to release... why would people bother with early adoption?

With all of the sets releasing, they're shooting themselves in the foot when you might have ONE or TWO sets that could benefit from the entirety of the current library... but because there are several sets.. each one trying to pigeon hole consumers into their set...  you end up with corporate greed and sub par VR experiences.

the key word you choose to ignore in my statement is 'baked'

The software, the hardware all need to be BAKED before a developer can continue with large projects without a great deal of risk. Did the first dev kits have hand controls? no. Did the first version have a motion detection camera? no did the second? yes. is the final version completely different then the second? yes (the motion control camera).
Was the backend software done? on DK2? no in fact it was a horrible mess at that time.

so yeah..

keyword is 

baked.


Here is example that might help you understand.
person asks 'why isnt there any VR content that runs at the full resolution of the CV1?'

because none of the dev kits had that resolution.

If you are going to create a super hit game that takes 3 years to make its kinda nice to know what resolution you have at your disposal

maskedweasel

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

Again, I think you're wrong on that,  the Rift has been in development and available to the public via development kits for 4 years.  They've had ample time to get a decent gaming library together.

The first news stories developed for headsets started around 2013, by 2014 google cardboard was a thing,  and by the end of 2014 gear VR was announced, with development kits out in 2015 with their lead up to launch.

Companies had the opportunity to create with specific hardware in mind.  Sony has been in this business a long time now,  they know the flow of the hardware space.  You present the hardware and garner support,  it's the support that sells it.

If people are going to wait 2 years just for something noteworthy to release... why would people bother with early adoption?

With all of the sets releasing, they're shooting themselves in the foot when you might have ONE or TWO sets that could benefit from the entirety of the current library... but because there are several sets.. each one trying to pigeon hole consumers into their set...  you end up with corporate greed and sub par VR experiences.

the key word you choose to ignore in my statement is 'baked'

The software, the hardware all need to be BAKED before a developer can continue with large projects without a great deal of risk. Did the first dev kits have hand controls? no. Did the first version have a motion detection camera? no did the second? yes. is the final version completely different then the second? yes (the motion control camera).
Was the backend software done? on DK2? no in fact it was a horrible mess at that time.

so yeah..

keyword is 

baked.


Here is example that might help you understand.
person asks 'why isnt there any VR content that runs at the full resolution of the CV1?'

because none of the dev kits had that resolution.

If you are going to create a super hit game that takes 3 years to make its kinda nice to know what resolution you have at your disposal

Baked is an erroneous term that means nothing.   You might as well have said "Boozled"

Hardware needs to be "Boozled" before a developer can continue with large projects without a great deal of risk.

It means nothing.  Point to consoles over the last 30 years... development ramping up to any release either 1) Had Support, or 2) Didn't have support.

Development kits are sent out specifically to garner support.  

You can have hardware boozled all you want, it doesn't change the fact that if they didn't think VR was "ready"  we wouldn't have all of these sets launching  THIS YEAR.   First on the market isn't always the best on the market.

Resolution doesn't account for much either, that's just one more way that VR has failed to address their own pitfalls.  Not all VR sets have the same resolution... NOT EVERY MONITOR HAS THE SAME RESOLUTION EITHER!  Does that mean they can't create a game because one set might differ from another?

And for controls.. motion controls don't matter... CV1's are shipping with XB controllers...  so where's the issue?  

They chose their launch status...  they could have chosen a STRONG launch.. or this weak willed, half assed launch where there are no games,  the Rift has no motion controller support,  they're backordered because they made poor decisions,  the Vive was banking on utilizing Rifts store that has been officially pastured....  And thus far the people that haven't gotten sick playing the games at E3 were more or less unimpressed with the majority of VR "games".

What's really holding developers back?  All the analysts say this is big money.  All the hardware manufacturers are saying it's big money.  Yet we see software is scarce... developers are treating VR devices like a secondhand console.  You MIGHT get a port, if you're lucky.  

I agree.. 2.. maybe 3 years down the line.. VR might finally find that niche.... but right now, they really screwed up each launch royally across the current MAJOR hardware players in the industry today.  

Octagon7711

The masses are more likely to buy the cell VR headsets at this point.  They already have a smartphone and $10 to $40 for the headset.  Log into YouTube and watch the 360 and VR videos.  That's a really low investment for a plug and play VR experience.  

SEANMCAD

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

Again, I think you're wrong on that,  the Rift has been in development and available to the public via development kits for 4 years.  They've had ample time to get a decent gaming library together.

The first news stories developed for headsets started around 2013, by 2014 google cardboard was a thing,  and by the end of 2014 gear VR was announced, with development kits out in 2015 with their lead up to launch.

Companies had the opportunity to create with specific hardware in mind.  Sony has been in this business a long time now,  they know the flow of the hardware space.  You present the hardware and garner support,  it's the support that sells it.

If people are going to wait 2 years just for something noteworthy to release... why would people bother with early adoption?

With all of the sets releasing, they're shooting themselves in the foot when you might have ONE or TWO sets that could benefit from the entirety of the current library... but because there are several sets.. each one trying to pigeon hole consumers into their set...  you end up with corporate greed and sub par VR experiences.

the key word you choose to ignore in my statement is 'baked'

The software, the hardware all need to be BAKED before a developer can continue with large projects without a great deal of risk. Did the first dev kits have hand controls? no. Did the first version have a motion detection camera? no did the second? yes. is the final version completely different then the second? yes (the motion control camera).
Was the backend software done? on DK2? no in fact it was a horrible mess at that time.

so yeah..

keyword is 

baked.


Here is example that might help you understand.
person asks 'why isnt there any VR content that runs at the full resolution of the CV1?'

because none of the dev kits had that resolution.

If you are going to create a super hit game that takes 3 years to make its kinda nice to know what resolution you have at your disposal

Baked is an erroneous term that means nothing.   You might as well have said "Boozled"...

absolutely wrong in all contexts and even more so in this context, pretty much everything after that statement you just made is useless.


take care maybe monday we talk again

and as I have stated before the adoption and number of VR projects that are currently in the pipeline has FAR exceded my predictions.

Then again, no offense, its hard to explain these things to someone who literally thinks the VR experience of a Gear VR is the same as a Sony VR headset.

maskedweasel

SEANMCAD said:

absolutely wrong in all contexts and even more so in this context, pretty much everything after that statement you just made is useless.


take care maybe monday we talk again

No, it's just information you choose to neglect.  Pretty much every statement you've made thus far I could determine as useless...   because if you're expecting everyone to understand how hardware has to be "baked"  you're delusional.  It's just more of your erroneous rules like "WAIT 12 MONTHS!" or.. " IT HAS TO BE RETAIL RELEASED"  or ...  "THEY CAN'T BUILD GAMES WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THE RESOLUTION!"   lololololol 

SEANMCAD

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

absolutely wrong in all contexts and even more so in this context, pretty much everything after that statement you just made is useless.


take care maybe monday we talk again

No, it's just information you choose to neglect.  Pretty much every statement you've made thus far I could determine as useless...   because if you're expecting everyone to understand how hardware has to be "baked"  you're delusional.  It's just more of your erroneous rules like "WAIT 12 MONTHS!" or.. " IT HAS TO BE RETAIL RELEASED"  or ...  "THEY CAN'T BUILD GAMES WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THE RESOLUTION!"   lololololol 

Here is something else to keep you up at night worried.

In the late 90s it was time for me to buy a new TV so I bought one of the first 1080p TVs. There was literally nearly zero content for me to watch on it. About a year ago one channel was dedicated to showing HD 'demos' of scenes all day. that was it, no content. It was not for several years later did HD content start to come around.

When CD audio first came around it was the same story, very limited selections because artist where not recording in the new format yet, customers had to wait even though they had CD players.

Now I have no doubt that you will conjure up in your mind some clever response to shoot this all down but I think you are smart enough to know I am actually right on this.

good day

Muke

Tiller said:

Yeah I've been arguing for weeks with these shills on steam trying to push the VIVE VR as the next best thing. They claim that it's where it needs to be now and well worth spending the $800 on. They really have no valid arguments other than "it's so cool" and we are all stupid because we refuse to get on board or compare it to the 90's VR flop. I posted your link in that thread lol.

They do have a point with Oculus sinds the takeover by FB trying to make exclusive software only usable by Oculus and cornering the market.

Distopia

SEANMCAD said:

When CD audio first came around it was the same story, very limited selections because artist where not recording in the new format yet, customers had to wait even though they had CD players.

"Weren't recording in the new format yet" what? Did you mean printing in that format? 

craftseeker

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

absolutely wrong in all contexts and even more so in this context, pretty much everything after that statement you just made is useless.


take care maybe monday we talk again

No, it's just information you choose to neglect.  Pretty much every statement you've made thus far I could determine as useless...   because if you're expecting everyone to understand how hardware has to be "baked"  you're delusional.  It's just more of your erroneous rules like "WAIT 12 MONTHS!" or.. " IT HAS TO BE RETAIL RELEASED"  or ...  "THEY CAN'T BUILD GAMES WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THE RESOLUTION!"   lololololol 

Here is something else to keep you up at night worried.

In the late 90s it was time for me to buy a new TV so I bought one of the first 1080p TVs. There was literally nearly zero content for me to watch on it. About a year ago one channel was dedicated to showing HD 'demos' of scenes all day. that was it, no content. It was not for several years later did HD content start to come around.

When CD audio first came around it was the same story, very limited selections because artist where not recording in the new format yet, customers had to wait even though they had CD players.

Now I have no doubt that you will conjure up in your mind some clever response to shoot this all down but I think you are smart enough to know I am actually right on this.

good day

What a load of rubbish. Your 1080p had loads of content as you could watch standard definition TV on it. When CD players became generally available the context was released on CD, any delay was weeks not years.

You are rewriting history to suit your VR fantasy.

Hyperpsycrow

All this VR is just a money graper stunt to make you spend all your money on something new...its sucks ass for ages ago and it still does...stop reinventing the wheel and call it potato or tomato !

maskedweasel

craftseeker said:

SEANMCAD said:

maskedweasel said:

SEANMCAD said:

absolutely wrong in all contexts and even more so in this context, pretty much everything after that statement you just made is useless.


take care maybe monday we talk again

No, it's just information you choose to neglect.  Pretty much every statement you've made thus far I could determine as useless...   because if you're expecting everyone to understand how hardware has to be "baked"  you're delusional.  It's just more of your erroneous rules like "WAIT 12 MONTHS!" or.. " IT HAS TO BE RETAIL RELEASED"  or ...  "THEY CAN'T BUILD GAMES WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW THE RESOLUTION!"   lololololol 

Here is something else to keep you up at night worried.

In the late 90s it was time for me to buy a new TV so I bought one of the first 1080p TVs. There was literally nearly zero content for me to watch on it. About a year ago one channel was dedicated to showing HD 'demos' of scenes all day. that was it, no content. It was not for several years later did HD content start to come around.

When CD audio first came around it was the same story, very limited selections because artist where not recording in the new format yet, customers had to wait even though they had CD players.

Now I have no doubt that you will conjure up in your mind some clever response to shoot this all down but I think you are smart enough to know I am actually right on this.

good day

What a load of rubbish. Your 1080p had loads of content as you could watch standard definition TV on it. When CD players became generally available the context was released on CD, any delay was weeks not years.

You are rewriting history to suit your VR fantasy.

@Craftseeker pretty much nailed it.   @SEANMCAD You couldn't watch any standard definition TV on your HD TV?  They sold you a paperweight with zero content?  LOL  Who are you trying to fool?   Here's something CRAAAZZZYYYYY  4K TV's are a big thing now.. BUT WHAAAAA how many stations transmit in 4K?  OOHHH NOOOO that must mean that 4K TV's can't display ANYTHING EVERRR cause it wasn't created for 4K

This is reaching to it's greatest degree... so... much... wrong..