AR is certainly much more interesting as it brings gaming out into the real world.
VR does exactly the opposite, closing you off from reality more than ever before.
Both offer different experiences.
For a true immersive experience into another environment, VR would be the logical choice. It would be kind of silly trying to play a medieval fantasy game within the real world, where there's billboards, hipsters, and skyscrapers all around you. How would a space game work with AR anyway? You'll be restricted to the environment around you, and not in space.
I just don't understand these competitive comparisons. It makes no sense.
AR is certainly much more interesting as it brings gaming out into the real world.
VR does exactly the opposite, closing you off from reality more than ever before.
I don't think either of those approaches is better or worse than the other. Just different. Both have their unique strengths and can lead to very fun experiences. Being closed off from reality can be a good thing if you want an otherworldly/fantastic immersive experience. I wouldn't want my epic fantasy battlle to play out on the local parking lot. For other games, AR is better suited. I see all these things as additional ways to have fun. It's good to have choices.
different? agreed not better or worse? agreed amount of game contexts? RADICALLY different. AR small, VR very large
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
AR is certainly much more interesting as it brings gaming out into the real world.
VR does exactly the opposite, closing you off from reality more than ever before.
Both offer different experiences.
For a true immersive experience into another environment, VR would be the logical choice. It would be kind of silly trying to play a medieval fantasy game within the real world, where there's billboards, hipsters, and skyscrapers all around you. How would a space game work with AR anyway? You'll be restricted to the environment around you, and not in space.
I just don't understand these competitive comparisons. It makes no sense.
VR could produce some really fun games. But the potential is not nearly as interesting as meshing gaming with the real world.
People have been gaming in their darkened rooms for decades now. VR isn't going to change that, it's actually going to accentuate the isolation.
Look at pokemon: go. You have people everywhere enjoying reality in a new way, going to unknown places and possibly discovering new things, and interacting with people they probably would not have otherwise.
What's the latest VR game doing? People are sitting in their darkened rooms playing games, same as always. Nothing wrong with that- I do it on a daily and surely would like to play a well-done VR game. It's just not really what I would call very new or interesting.
only reason it this big is pokemon, you guys simple forget this simple thing, pokemon is well around for over a decade, and have a lot of people who used to play plus the new ones who still watch the cartoon and the new games. plus its a phone app, with makes anyone good to use it
other then that, nope its not AR its not VR who did make the sell it was pokemon, that solelly did it
AR is certainly much more interesting as it brings gaming out into the real world.
VR does exactly the opposite, closing you off from reality more than ever before.
Both offer different experiences.
For a true immersive experience into another environment, VR would be the logical choice. It would be kind of silly trying to play a medieval fantasy game within the real world, where there's billboards, hipsters, and skyscrapers all around you. How would a space game work with AR anyway? You'll be restricted to the environment around you, and not in space.
I just don't understand these competitive comparisons. It makes no sense.
VR could produce some really fun games. But the potential is not nearly as interesting as meshing gaming with the real world.
People have been gaming in their darkened rooms for decades now. VR isn't going to change that, it's actually going to accentuate the isolation.
Look at pokemon: go. You have people everywhere enjoying reality in a new way, going to unknown places and possibly discovering new things, and interacting with people they probably would not have otherwise.
What's the latest VR game doing? People are sitting in their darkened rooms playing games, same as always. Nothing wrong with that- I do it on a daily and surely would like to play a well-done VR game. It's just not really what I would call very new or interesting.
It will all be about as successful and engaging as this:
which for me is interesting as a social study but not really that immersive for my interests. However to be fair pretty much 99.99999% of what I like is not mainstream so AR very well might become more popular but its not as compelling to me.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
AR is certainly much more interesting as it brings gaming out into the real world.
VR does exactly the opposite, closing you off from reality more than ever before.
Both offer different experiences.
For a true immersive experience into another environment, VR would be the logical choice. It would be kind of silly trying to play a medieval fantasy game within the real world, where there's billboards, hipsters, and skyscrapers all around you. How would a space game work with AR anyway? You'll be restricted to the environment around you, and not in space.
I just don't understand these competitive comparisons. It makes no sense.
VR could produce some really fun games. But the potential is not nearly as interesting as meshing gaming with the real world.
People have been gaming in their darkened rooms for decades now. VR isn't going to change that, it's actually going to accentuate the isolation.
Look at pokemon: go. You have people everywhere enjoying reality in a new way, going to unknown places and possibly discovering new things, and interacting with people they probably would not have otherwise.
What's the latest VR game doing? People are sitting in their darkened rooms playing games, same as always. Nothing wrong with that- I do it on a daily and surely would like to play a well-done VR game. It's just not really what I would call very new or interesting.
It will all be about as successful and engaging as this:
which for me is interesting as a social study but not really that immersive for my interests. However to be fair pretty much 99.99999% of what I like is not mainstream so AR very well might become more popular but its not as compelling to me.
Yeah see I'm not talking about your personal interests, or mine even. I'm talking about what's going to be more interesting for the future of gaming and human interaction.
AR is certainly much more interesting as it brings gaming out into the real world.
VR does exactly the opposite, closing you off from reality more than ever before.
Both offer different experiences.
For a true immersive experience into another environment, VR would be the logical choice. It would be kind of silly trying to play a medieval fantasy game within the real world, where there's billboards, hipsters, and skyscrapers all around you. How would a space game work with AR anyway? You'll be restricted to the environment around you, and not in space.
I just don't understand these competitive comparisons. It makes no sense.
VR could produce some really fun games. But the potential is not nearly as interesting as meshing gaming with the real world.
People have been gaming in their darkened rooms for decades now. VR isn't going to change that, it's actually going to accentuate the isolation.
Look at pokemon: go. You have people everywhere enjoying reality in a new way, going to unknown places and possibly discovering new things, and interacting with people they probably would not have otherwise.
What's the latest VR game doing? People are sitting in their darkened rooms playing games, same as always. Nothing wrong with that- I do it on a daily and surely would like to play a well-done VR game. It's just not really what I would call very new or interesting.
It depends on people's interests. There isn't one uniform interest that people need to be restricted to.
Again, AR uses the real-world environment around you, so how does that work for someone who wants to play an MMO based in medieval fantasy, or someone who's interested in a space simulator? It'll be impossible and the immersion will always be broken.
I'm not hating on AR. I actually think it's best suited for different purposes besides gaming. It could be used for designing, building projects, real estate, construction, and marketing.
As for Pokemon: Go, being restricted to your phone isn't that immersive. Google glass and Microsoft's Holo-Lens would provide better immersion, in my opinion.
AR is certainly much more interesting as it brings gaming out into the real world.
VR does exactly the opposite, closing you off from reality more than ever before.
Both offer different experiences.
For a true immersive experience into another environment, VR would be the logical choice. It would be kind of silly trying to play a medieval fantasy game within the real world, where there's billboards, hipsters, and skyscrapers all around you. How would a space game work with AR anyway? You'll be restricted to the environment around you, and not in space.
I just don't understand these competitive comparisons. It makes no sense.
VR could produce some really fun games. But the potential is not nearly as interesting as meshing gaming with the real world.
People have been gaming in their darkened rooms for decades now. VR isn't going to change that, it's actually going to accentuate the isolation.
Look at pokemon: go. You have people everywhere enjoying reality in a new way, going to unknown places and possibly discovering new things, and interacting with people they probably would not have otherwise.
What's the latest VR game doing? People are sitting in their darkened rooms playing games, same as always. Nothing wrong with that- I do it on a daily and surely would like to play a well-done VR game. It's just not really what I would call very new or interesting.
It will all be about as successful and engaging as this:
which for me is interesting as a social study but not really that immersive for my interests. However to be fair pretty much 99.99999% of what I like is not mainstream so AR very well might become more popular but its not as compelling to me.
Yeah see I'm not talking about your personal interests, or mine even. I'm talking about what's going to be more interesting for the future of gaming and human interaction.
Statement: 'AR is a very compelling experience that is better than VR and will be very succesfful'
1st part: 'AR is a very compelling experience that is better than VR ' 2nd Part:'will be very successful'
I care about 1st part and I do not care about the 2nd part. The two parts (despite what people think) are NOT I repeat NOT linked or a requirement for the other
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
AR is certainly much more interesting as it brings gaming out into the real world.
VR does exactly the opposite, closing you off from reality more than ever before.
Both offer different experiences.
For a true immersive experience into another environment, VR would be the logical choice. It would be kind of silly trying to play a medieval fantasy game within the real world, where there's billboards, hipsters, and skyscrapers all around you. How would a space game work with AR anyway? You'll be restricted to the environment around you, and not in space.
I just don't understand these competitive comparisons. It makes no sense.
VR could produce some really fun games. But the potential is not nearly as interesting as meshing gaming with the real world.
People have been gaming in their darkened rooms for decades now. VR isn't going to change that, it's actually going to accentuate the isolation.
Look at pokemon: go. You have people everywhere enjoying reality in a new way, going to unknown places and possibly discovering new things, and interacting with people they probably would not have otherwise.
What's the latest VR game doing? People are sitting in their darkened rooms playing games, same as always. Nothing wrong with that- I do it on a daily and surely would like to play a well-done VR game. It's just not really what I would call very new or interesting.
It will all be about as successful and engaging as this:
which for me is interesting as a social study but not really that immersive for my interests. However to be fair pretty much 99.99999% of what I like is not mainstream so AR very well might become more popular but its not as compelling to me.
Yeah see I'm not talking about your personal interests, or mine even. I'm talking about what's going to be more interesting for the future of gaming and human interaction.
which is something I could not care less about.
here let me help explain why I say that and why it matters here
Statement: 'AR is a very compelling experience that is better than VR and will be very succesfful'
I do not agree with the first part of the statement, I could not care less with the last
First part of statement: 'AR is a very compelling experience that is better than VR ' Second part of the statement: 'will be very succesfful'
despite what most people think 'successful and of compelling and better experience are NOT the same thing
understand?
As usual your ridiculous ego prevents you from having a dialogue.
AR is certainly much more interesting as it brings gaming out into the real world.
VR does exactly the opposite, closing you off from reality more than ever before.
Both offer different experiences.
For a true immersive experience into another environment, VR would be the logical choice. It would be kind of silly trying to play a medieval fantasy game within the real world, where there's billboards, hipsters, and skyscrapers all around you. How would a space game work with AR anyway? You'll be restricted to the environment around you, and not in space.
I just don't understand these competitive comparisons. It makes no sense.
VR could produce some really fun games. But the potential is not nearly as interesting as meshing gaming with the real world.
People have been gaming in their darkened rooms for decades now. VR isn't going to change that, it's actually going to accentuate the isolation.
Look at pokemon: go. You have people everywhere enjoying reality in a new way, going to unknown places and possibly discovering new things, and interacting with people they probably would not have otherwise.
What's the latest VR game doing? People are sitting in their darkened rooms playing games, same as always. Nothing wrong with that- I do it on a daily and surely would like to play a well-done VR game. It's just not really what I would call very new or interesting.
It will all be about as successful and engaging as this:
which for me is interesting as a social study but not really that immersive for my interests. However to be fair pretty much 99.99999% of what I like is not mainstream so AR very well might become more popular but its not as compelling to me.
Yeah see I'm not talking about your personal interests, or mine even. I'm talking about what's going to be more interesting for the future of gaming and human interaction.
which is something I could not care less about.
here let me help explain why I say that and why it matters here
Statement: 'AR is a very compelling experience that is better than VR and will be very succesfful'
I do not agree with the first part of the statement, I could not care less with the last
First part of statement: 'AR is a very compelling experience that is better than VR ' Second part of the statement: 'will be very succesfful'
despite what most people think 'successful and of compelling and better experience are NOT the same thing
understand?
As usual your ridiculous ego prevents you from having a dialogue.
again
Discussions of Quality of experience and discussions of popularity are two DIFFERENT conversations that are NOT dependent on each other
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
AR is certainly much more interesting as it brings gaming out into the real world.
VR does exactly the opposite, closing you off from reality more than ever before.
Both offer different experiences.
For a true immersive experience into another environment, VR would be the logical choice. It would be kind of silly trying to play a medieval fantasy game within the real world, where there's billboards, hipsters, and skyscrapers all around you. How would a space game work with AR anyway? You'll be restricted to the environment around you, and not in space.
I just don't understand these competitive comparisons. It makes no sense.
VR could produce some really fun games. But the potential is not nearly as interesting as meshing gaming with the real world.
People have been gaming in their darkened rooms for decades now. VR isn't going to change that, it's actually going to accentuate the isolation.
Look at pokemon: go. You have people everywhere enjoying reality in a new way, going to unknown places and possibly discovering new things, and interacting with people they probably would not have otherwise.
What's the latest VR game doing? People are sitting in their darkened rooms playing games, same as always. Nothing wrong with that- I do it on a daily and surely would like to play a well-done VR game. It's just not really what I would call very new or interesting.
It will all be about as successful and engaging as this:
which for me is interesting as a social study but not really that immersive for my interests. However to be fair pretty much 99.99999% of what I like is not mainstream so AR very well might become more popular but its not as compelling to me.
Yeah see I'm not talking about your personal interests, or mine even. I'm talking about what's going to be more interesting for the future of gaming and human interaction.
which is something I could not care less about.
here let me help explain why I say that and why it matters here
Statement: 'AR is a very compelling experience that is better than VR and will be very succesfful'
I do not agree with the first part of the statement, I could not care less with the last
First part of statement: 'AR is a very compelling experience that is better than VR ' Second part of the statement: 'will be very succesfful'
despite what most people think 'successful and of compelling and better experience are NOT the same thing
understand?
As usual your ridiculous ego prevents you from having a dialogue.
again
Discussions of Quality of experience and discussions of popularity are two DIFFERENT conversations that are NOT dependent on each other
I stated my point and even clarified it. You're arguing with a statement I never made.
Depending on the quality of the tech, I can think of several interesting gaming applications in AR.
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop. Or a wargame using miniatures. Or a model railway system. Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
Depending on the quality of the tech, I can think of several interesting gaming applications in AR.
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop. Or a wargame using miniatures. Or a model railway system. Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
thing is VR can do a table top board game extremely well in addition to driving a rally car.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Depending on the quality of the tech, I can think of several interesting gaming applications in AR.
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop. Or a wargame using miniatures. Or a model railway system. Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
thing is VR can do a table top board game extremely well in addition to driving a rally car.
I'm betting most people will prefer to play the boardgame without the VR goggles strapped to their faces.
Where appropriate, I prefer the goggles, but only where appropriate.
Depending on the quality of the tech, I can think of several interesting gaming applications in AR.
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop. Or a wargame using miniatures. Or a model railway system. Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
thing is VR can do a table top board game extremely well in addition to driving a rally car.
I'm betting most people will prefer to play the boardgame without the VR goggles strapped to their faces.
Where appropriate, I prefer the goggles, but only where appropriate.
To be fair this entire AR discussion is a bit silly. There is a slot on the front of the Oculus that is for putting a camera on so you can switch to camera mode. This is an aspect that isnt touched on much and needs improvement but there is no reason to think a device that is more powerful can not create a AR (like) experience by just using a camera on the headset.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Depending on the quality of the tech, I can think of several interesting gaming applications in AR.
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop. Or a wargame using miniatures. Or a model railway system. Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
thing is VR can do a table top board game extremely well in addition to driving a rally car.
I'm betting most people will prefer to play the boardgame without the VR goggles strapped to their faces.
Where appropriate, I prefer the goggles, but only where appropriate.
To be fair this entire AR discussion is a bit silly. There is a slot on the front of the Oculus that is for putting a camera on so you can switch to camera mode. This is an aspect that isnt touched on much and needs improvement but there is no reason to think a device that is more powerful can not create a AR (like) experience by just using a camera on the headset.
Quite so.
However, VR goggles will never be as light, unobtrusive and easy to wear as a pair of glasses. Even the "clunky" current iteration of AR devices are not too different from eyeglasses.
Depending on the quality of the tech, I can think of several interesting gaming applications in AR.
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop. Or a wargame using miniatures. Or a model railway system. Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
thing is VR can do a table top board game extremely well in addition to driving a rally car.
I'm betting most people will prefer to play the boardgame without the VR goggles strapped to their faces.
Where appropriate, I prefer the goggles, but only where appropriate.
To be fair this entire AR discussion is a bit silly. There is a slot on the front of the Oculus that is for putting a camera on so you can switch to camera mode. This is an aspect that isnt touched on much and needs improvement but there is no reason to think a device that is more powerful can not create a AR (like) experience by just using a camera on the headset.
Quite so.
However, VR goggles will never be as light, unobtrusive and easy to wear as a pair of glasses. Even the "clunky" current iteration of AR devices are not too different from eyeglasses.
agreed
I see true AR as mostly a real life functional win with light gaming. Case Study would be motorcycle helmets.
I see true VR as mostly VR with AR 'light' because of the reasons of mobility
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Depending on the quality of the tech, I can think of several interesting gaming applications in AR.
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop. Or a wargame using miniatures. Or a model railway system. Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
thing is VR can do a table top board game extremely well in addition to driving a rally car.
I'm betting most people will prefer to play the boardgame without the VR goggles strapped to their faces.
Where appropriate, I prefer the goggles, but only where appropriate.
To be fair this entire AR discussion is a bit silly. There is a slot on the front of the Oculus that is for putting a camera on so you can switch to camera mode. This is an aspect that isnt touched on much and needs improvement but there is no reason to think a device that is more powerful can not create a AR (like) experience by just using a camera on the headset.
Quite so.
However, VR goggles will never be as light, unobtrusive and easy to wear as a pair of glasses. Even the "clunky" current iteration of AR devices are not too different from eyeglasses.
agreed
I see true AR as mostly a real life functional win with light gaming. Case Study would be motorcycle helmets.
I see true VR as mostly VR with AR 'light' because of the reasons of mobility
What might your definition of light gaming be? I'm confused with your reference to "motorcycle helmets" The visual technology has existed since the 80's in the military. What the heck does a HUD in a motorcycle helmet have to do with gaming?
Depending on the quality of the tech, I can think of several interesting gaming applications in AR.
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop. Or a wargame using miniatures. Or a model railway system. Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
thing is VR can do a table top board game extremely well in addition to driving a rally car.
I'm betting most people will prefer to play the boardgame without the VR goggles strapped to their faces.
Where appropriate, I prefer the goggles, but only where appropriate.
To be fair this entire AR discussion is a bit silly. There is a slot on the front of the Oculus that is for putting a camera on so you can switch to camera mode. This is an aspect that isnt touched on much and needs improvement but there is no reason to think a device that is more powerful can not create a AR (like) experience by just using a camera on the headset.
Of course you could create an AR game with VR.. but again, the technology of a camera will never compete with your actual eyesight. It's easier to overlay graphics on a blank canvas than it is to create technology with the equivalence of a humans actual eyes. That's why AR over an internal headset screen could produce VR in a way that adding a camera to a VR set to create AR can't do.
But that doesn't really matter. MR in general is quite compelling. People forget that MR is more than just another way to experience games MR is also a way to experience CURRENT games ANYWHERE.
Consider sitting on a bus with an AR headset. In a few swipes of your hand you can have a 32 inch screen in front of your eyes, on the wall across from you, the floor or the ceiling, playing Counter Strike, or Street Fighter, or a 3D version of chess. You can still look around to others around you, you can still take note of the person next to you, or someone standing next to you waiting for you to move aside so they could take a seat.
If you used a VR headset, you'd be completely closed off, you wouldn't know who is next to you.. or what they were doing.
It's like carrying a big screen TV everywhere with you, a full page web browser.. a headset for audio and video, and a complete motion capture machine.
You could potentially set your headset up to project a ceiling that looks like the stars or a sunshine and clouds in your living room, have a "sunny picnic" indoors on a rainy day.
You could play "Laser tag" using only your hands and your headsets in a field and run around "shooting" your friends.
You could play a medieval game where you swing a sword in an actual forest where there is no immersion breaking "blink" feature because the AR system adapts to your surrounding.
Just watch the Hololens video in the mall, I can only imagine how it would improve with the consumer version.
Depending on the quality of the tech, I can think of several interesting gaming applications in AR.
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop. Or a wargame using miniatures. Or a model railway system. Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
thing is VR can do a table top board game extremely well in addition to driving a rally car.
I'm betting most people will prefer to play the boardgame without the VR goggles strapped to their faces.
Where appropriate, I prefer the goggles, but only where appropriate.
To be fair this entire AR discussion is a bit silly. There is a slot on the front of the Oculus that is for putting a camera on so you can switch to camera mode. This is an aspect that isnt touched on much and needs improvement but there is no reason to think a device that is more powerful can not create a AR (like) experience by just using a camera on the headset.
Quite so.
However, VR goggles will never be as light, unobtrusive and easy to wear as a pair of glasses. Even the "clunky" current iteration of AR devices are not too different from eyeglasses.
agreed
I see true AR as mostly a real life functional win with light gaming. Case Study would be motorcycle helmets.
I see true VR as mostly VR with AR 'light' because of the reasons of mobility
What might your definition of light gaming be? I'm confused with your reference to "motorcycle helmets" The visual technology has existed since the 80's in the military. What the heck does a HUD in a motorcycle helmet have to do with gaming?
1. Military having HUDs since the 80s doesnt help me and my friends buy a Motorcycle Helmet with a HUD which is something we have wanted for a very long time. (and yes I know they have just come on the market..as in not been around the consumer market 'since the 80s')
2. HUD is NOT an example of light gaming. I was trying to say (admittetly didnt say it well) that AR is good for TWO things 1. applications such as HUD and 2. Light gaminging (as in novelity that wears off other than for the dedicated minority...like...ingress (the game))
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
"You could play a medieval game where you swing a sword in an actual forest where there is no immersion breaking "blink" feature because the AR system adapts to your surrounding."
Not necessarily. At what point does it stop being AR then, if your real environment is 100% blocked out? In that case, it's basically a virtual environment, not really augmented. It would defeat the original purpose of being augmented.
"You could play a medieval game where you swing a sword in an actual forest where there is no immersion breaking "blink" feature because the AR system adapts to your surrounding."
Not necessarily. At what point does it stop being AR then, if your real environment is 100% blocked out? In that case, it's basically a virtual environment, not really augmented. It would defeat the original purpose of being augmented.
I meant like.. in an ACTUAL forest. Like walk into a state park or something.
You could of course have them build a complete environment. Magic Leap has a pretty cool video where they entertain some interactive charts.. the solar system and things like that, that really do make it.. distracting.
One thing to take note of that would be important, is the amount of opacity between the holograms. Microsofts Hololens has a lighter opacity, when its light outside you can see through it fairly easily.
Magic leap on the other hand, they make their Mixed Reality very solid.. it would be tough to see through that.
That would be more of a developmental standpoint though.
Depending on the quality of the tech, I can think of several interesting gaming applications in AR.
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop. Or a wargame using miniatures. Or a model railway system. Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
thing is VR can do a table top board game extremely well in addition to driving a rally car.
I'm betting most people will prefer to play the boardgame without the VR goggles strapped to their faces.
Where appropriate, I prefer the goggles, but only where appropriate.
To be fair this entire AR discussion is a bit silly. There is a slot on the front of the Oculus that is for putting a camera on so you can switch to camera mode. This is an aspect that isnt touched on much and needs improvement but there is no reason to think a device that is more powerful can not create a AR (like) experience by just using a camera on the headset.
Quite so.
However, VR goggles will never be as light, unobtrusive and easy to wear as a pair of glasses. Even the "clunky" current iteration of AR devices are not too different from eyeglasses.
agreed
I see true AR as mostly a real life functional win with light gaming. Case Study would be motorcycle helmets.
I see true VR as mostly VR with AR 'light' because of the reasons of mobility
What might your definition of light gaming be? I'm confused with your reference to "motorcycle helmets" The visual technology has existed since the 80's in the military. What the heck does a HUD in a motorcycle helmet have to do with gaming?
1. Military having HUDs since the 80s doesnt help me and my friends buy a Motorcycle Helmet with a HUD which is something we have wanted for a very long time. (and yes I know they have just come on the market..as in not been around the consumer market 'since the 80s')
2. HUD is NOT an example of light gaming. I was trying to say (admittetly didnt say it well) that AR is good for TWO things 1. applications such as HUD and 2. Light gaminging (as in novelity that wears off other than for the dedicated minority...like...ingress (the game))
1. The Military having HUD's since the 80's most definitely did help you and your friends to have HUD's in your motorcycle helmets today.
2. Every game and type of gaming ever created is a novelty that wears off, other than for the dedicated minority. If it were any other way... we'd all be in serious doo doo
1. Military having HUDs since the 80s doesnt help me and my friends buy a Motorcycle Helmet with a HUD which is something we have wanted for a very long time. (and yes I know they have just come on the market..as in not been around the consumer market 'since the 80s')
2. HUD is NOT an example of light gaming. I was trying to say (admittetly didnt say it well) that AR is good for TWO things 1. applications such as HUD and 2. Light gaminging (as in novelity that wears off other than for the dedicated minority...like...ingress (the game))
1. The Military having HUD's since the 80's most definitely did help you and your friends to have HUD's in your motorcycle helmets today.
2. Every game and type of gaming ever created is a novelty that wears off, other than for the dedicated minority. If it were any other way... we'd all be in serious doo doo
1. I was and we were talking about the impact of consumer products. as in in 1985 I could not buy a HUD motorcycle helment, nor could I in 81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96,97,98,99,00,01,02,03,04,05,06,07,08,09,10,11,12,13,14,15,16. So lets try to keep it to products we can buy rather than randomly and without context pontificating about technology that has existed for decades outside of the consumer market. Lets do that for no other reason then to not confuse our audience. ok?
2. AR games are more more so. Unless of course you think novelity is a bitwise statement and not a matter of degrees in which case I would have to explain it to you. Never the less, its safe to say that AR games will not be anywhere close to quality of VR games in any respect, from playablity, to immerision. That doesnt mean however that they will not be more poular. on that I dont know. But I cant take AR gaming seriously for obvious reasons
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Of course you could create an AR game with VR.. but again, the technology of a camera will never compete with your actual eyesight......
nor will an image projected with an abudance of natural light in the way.
What many people do not understand is that the latency problems of control vs display reaction is actually HARDER in AR but the problem still exist in both AR and VR. Latency is an issue, natural light is an issue, control mechanics is an issue. Its an issue in BOTH AR and VR and one has to ask. What is it about AR that technically makes it less of a barrier? is it the natural light interfering with the image? is it unpredictable objects in real life interfering with the experience?, is the the device trying to read your eye movement while you are outside on a bright sunny day? or is some quantum computing that exists no where other than on AR devices?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
For a true immersive experience into another environment, VR would be the logical choice. It would be kind of silly trying to play a medieval fantasy game within the real world, where there's billboards, hipsters, and skyscrapers all around you. How would a space game work with AR anyway? You'll be restricted to the environment around you, and not in space.
I just don't understand these competitive comparisons. It makes no sense.
not better or worse? agreed
amount of game contexts? RADICALLY different. AR small, VR very large
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
People have been gaming in their darkened rooms for decades now. VR isn't going to change that, it's actually going to accentuate the isolation.
Look at pokemon: go. You have people everywhere enjoying reality in a new way, going to unknown places and possibly discovering new things, and interacting with people they probably would not have otherwise.
What's the latest VR game doing? People are sitting in their darkened rooms playing games, same as always. Nothing wrong with that- I do it on a daily and surely would like to play a well-done VR game. It's just not really what I would call very new or interesting.
plus its a phone app, with makes anyone good to use it
other then that, nope its not AR its not VR who did make the sell it was pokemon, that solelly did it
Ingress
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nianticproject.ingress&hl=en
which for me is interesting as a social study but not really that immersive for my interests. However to be fair pretty much 99.99999% of what I like is not mainstream so AR very well might become more popular but its not as compelling to me.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Again, AR uses the real-world environment around you, so how does that work for someone who wants to play an MMO based in medieval fantasy, or someone who's interested in a space simulator? It'll be impossible and the immersion will always be broken.
I'm not hating on AR. I actually think it's best suited for different purposes besides gaming. It could be used for designing, building projects, real estate, construction, and marketing.
As for Pokemon: Go, being restricted to your phone isn't that immersive. Google glass and Microsoft's Holo-Lens would provide better immersion, in my opinion.
1st part: 'AR is a very compelling experience that is better than VR '
2nd Part:'will be very successful'
I care about 1st part and I do not care about the 2nd part. The two parts (despite what people think) are NOT I repeat NOT linked or a requirement for the other
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Discussions of Quality of experience and discussions of popularity are two DIFFERENT conversations that are NOT dependent on each other
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If the resolution is good enough, any boardgame can be rendered in AR on any tabletop.
Or a wargame using miniatures.
Or a model railway system.
Or even a RTS game map...
But AR is not going to give me a compelling feeling of sitting in a airplane cockpit or of driving a rally car. That is the preserve of VR systems.
The tech enabling both AR and VR will improve continuously, which will open up more and more uses for both.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Where appropriate, I prefer the goggles, but only where appropriate.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
However, VR goggles will never be as light, unobtrusive and easy to wear as a pair of glasses.
Even the "clunky" current iteration of AR devices are not too different from eyeglasses.
I see true AR as mostly a real life functional win with light gaming. Case Study would be motorcycle helmets.
I see true VR as mostly VR with AR 'light' because of the reasons of mobility
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
But that doesn't really matter. MR in general is quite compelling. People forget that MR is more than just another way to experience games MR is also a way to experience CURRENT games ANYWHERE.
Consider sitting on a bus with an AR headset. In a few swipes of your hand you can have a 32 inch screen in front of your eyes, on the wall across from you, the floor or the ceiling, playing Counter Strike, or Street Fighter, or a 3D version of chess. You can still look around to others around you, you can still take note of the person next to you, or someone standing next to you waiting for you to move aside so they could take a seat.
If you used a VR headset, you'd be completely closed off, you wouldn't know who is next to you.. or what they were doing.
It's like carrying a big screen TV everywhere with you, a full page web browser.. a headset for audio and video, and a complete motion capture machine.
You could potentially set your headset up to project a ceiling that looks like the stars or a sunshine and clouds in your living room, have a "sunny picnic" indoors on a rainy day.
You could play "Laser tag" using only your hands and your headsets in a field and run around "shooting" your friends.
You could play a medieval game where you swing a sword in an actual forest where there is no immersion breaking "blink" feature because the AR system adapts to your surrounding.
Just watch the Hololens video in the mall, I can only imagine how it would improve with the consumer version.
2. HUD is NOT an example of light gaming. I was trying to say (admittetly didnt say it well) that AR is good for TWO things 1. applications such as HUD and 2. Light gaminging (as in novelity that wears off other than for the dedicated minority...like...ingress (the game))
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Not necessarily. At what point does it stop being AR then, if your real environment is 100% blocked out? In that case, it's basically a virtual environment, not really augmented. It would defeat the original purpose of being augmented.
You could of course have them build a complete environment. Magic Leap has a pretty cool video where they entertain some interactive charts.. the solar system and things like that, that really do make it.. distracting.
One thing to take note of that would be important, is the amount of opacity between the holograms. Microsofts Hololens has a lighter opacity, when its light outside you can see through it fairly easily.
Magic leap on the other hand, they make their Mixed Reality very solid.. it would be tough to see through that.
That would be more of a developmental standpoint though.
2. Every game and type of gaming ever created is a novelty that wears off, other than for the dedicated minority. If it were any other way... we'd all be in serious doo doo
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
2. AR games are more more so. Unless of course you think novelity is a bitwise statement and not a matter of degrees in which case I would have to explain it to you. Never the less, its safe to say that AR games will not be anywhere close to quality of VR games in any respect, from playablity, to immerision. That doesnt mean however that they will not be more poular. on that I dont know. But I cant take AR gaming seriously for obvious reasons
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What many people do not understand is that the latency problems of control vs display reaction is actually HARDER in AR but the problem still exist in both AR and VR. Latency is an issue, natural light is an issue, control mechanics is an issue. Its an issue in BOTH AR and VR and one has to ask. What is it about AR that technically makes it less of a barrier? is it the natural light interfering with the image? is it unpredictable objects in real life interfering with the experience?, is the the device trying to read your eye movement while you are outside on a bright sunny day? or is some quantum computing that exists no where other than on AR devices?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me