Do you think when the Playstation 1 came out there was more playable game hours aviable to it then there is for VR.
Well, obviously not. On launch day, most consoles only have a handful of games available for them. Even the latest round of consoles (xbone / ps4) only had 15-20 games available on launch day.
PC is a completely different ballpark, especially comparing it to consoles that launched before the internet took off. First, cost of distribution has dropped dramatically. Second, conversion of existing games into VR-compatible games is much easier than creating the game from scratch. Third, we're in the era of indie games, something that just didn't exist in the PS1 era (and is still extremely limited on any console).
Finally, underlying technology - creating games for bespoke console hardware, especially in PS1 days, was far more difficult than creating a game for PC that uses VR headsets.
so let me see if i get this logic right.
even though consoles are obviously extreemly successful and have been for years and they started with few games that same forumla can not work with PC peripheral simply because when the PC started it had a lot of games BUT VR needs to have AAA titles like consoles because that is clearly what made consoles successful.
Either we compare VR to the expectated forumla or consoles or we do not we cant keep flipping back and forth as we wish
Wrong as usual. What games released on consoles when they launched? Most of the time they were flagship games, many times they were FULL games released by the developer of the hardware such as Nintendo, Xbox or Sony.
What FULL GAMES have released that people really want to play for VR? After over a year too? Demo Kits released years ago... YEARS.
You'd imagine at least one game out there would be viable enough to be considered a major draw, but one doesn't exist for VR. Meanwhile launch titles for other consoles since the Nintendo 64 have all released several major titles that carry the system through for at least a couple months until more third party games release. VR, again, has had years.
There's a reason why, as well, I believe. It's because developers are still trying to figure out how one can create a full game that isn't a hindrance or annoyance after a half hour.
Directly from Oculus, every 30 minutes you're supposed to take a 10 minute break. People won't do that though, they never do, but there are good reasons for that.
These are recommendations with little consequence on traditional consoles. Therein lies the difference.
Do you think when the Playstation 1 came out there was more playable game hours aviable to it then there is for VR.
Well, obviously not. On launch day, most consoles only have a handful of games available for them. Even the latest round of consoles (xbone / ps4) only had 15-20 games available on launch day.
PC is a completely different ballpark, especially comparing it to consoles that launched before the internet took off. First, cost of distribution has dropped dramatically. Second, conversion of existing games into VR-compatible games is much easier than creating the game from scratch. Third, we're in the era of indie games, something that just didn't exist in the PS1 era (and is still extremely limited on any console).
Finally, underlying technology - creating games for bespoke console hardware, especially in PS1 days, was far more difficult than creating a game for PC that uses VR headsets.
so let me see if i get this logic right.
even though consoles are obviously extreemly successful and have been for years and they started with few games that same forumla can not work with PC peripheral simply because when the PC started it had a lot of games BUT VR needs to have AAA titles like consoles because that is clearly what made consoles successful.
Either we compare VR to the expectated forumla or consoles or we do not we cant keep flipping back and forth as we wish
Consoles are a platform
VR headsets are a peripheral device sitting on the PC platform
I mean, we can do a comparison if we want
Playstation 1 Games already available on platform before release - 0 Years platform available for development before release - 1-2 Games Available at Launch - 8 (EU)
XBox One Games already available on platform before release - 0 Years platform available for development before release - 1-2 Games available at launch - 22
VR Games already available on platform before release - 10k+ Years platform available for development before release - 30+ Games available at launch - 30 (Oculus) / 72 (Vive)
So, VR doesn't really come out too well. Yes, it has more games (though, not as many as I expected on launch) but given the long history of developing games on the PC, far fewer than I would have thought. But, as I said, its still a false comparison when looking at a platform vs a periphery.
The only modern comparison would be the Microsoft Kinect device (in terms of brand new type of peripheral device) which had about 15 launch titles plus a largish back catalogue of 360 games which it could have converted if appropriate. The kinect had a much smaller potential userbase (~50m vs PCs 200m+) and the kinect likely had a lot less investment compared to oculus and vive so kinda balances out.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
"Sean (Murray) saying MP will be in the game is not remotely close to evidence that at the point of purchase people thought there was MP in the game." - SEANMCAD
Do you think when the Playstation 1 came out there was more playable game hours aviable to it then there is for VR.
Well, obviously not. On launch day, most consoles only have a handful of games available for them. Even the latest round of consoles (xbone / ps4) only had 15-20 games available on launch day.
PC is a completely different ballpark, especially comparing it to consoles that launched before the internet took off. First, cost of distribution has dropped dramatically. Second, conversion of existing games into VR-compatible games is much easier than creating the game from scratch. Third, we're in the era of indie games, something that just didn't exist in the PS1 era (and is still extremely limited on any console).
Finally, underlying technology - creating games for bespoke console hardware, especially in PS1 days, was far more difficult than creating a game for PC that uses VR headsets.
so let me see if i get this logic right.
even though consoles are obviously extreemly successful and have been for years and they started with few games that same forumla can not work with PC peripheral simply because when the PC started it had a lot of games BUT VR needs to have AAA titles like consoles because that is clearly what made consoles successful.
Either we compare VR to the expectated forumla or consoles or we do not we cant keep flipping back and forth as we wish
Consoles are a platform
VR headsets are a peripheral device sitting on the PC platform
[...]
It's really not a peripheral, though. I don't think I can call something that changes the experience as drastically as a VR headset a peripheral.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Do you think when the Playstation 1 came out there was more playable game hours aviable to it then there is for VR.
Well, obviously not. On launch day, most consoles only have a handful of games available for them. Even the latest round of consoles (xbone / ps4) only had 15-20 games available on launch day.
PC is a completely different ballpark, especially comparing it to consoles that launched before the internet took off. First, cost of distribution has dropped dramatically. Second, conversion of existing games into VR-compatible games is much easier than creating the game from scratch. Third, we're in the era of indie games, something that just didn't exist in the PS1 era (and is still extremely limited on any console).
Finally, underlying technology - creating games for bespoke console hardware, especially in PS1 days, was far more difficult than creating a game for PC that uses VR headsets.
so let me see if i get this logic right.
even though consoles are obviously extreemly successful and have been for years and they started with few games that same forumla can not work with PC peripheral simply because when the PC started it had a lot of games BUT VR needs to have AAA titles like consoles because that is clearly what made consoles successful.
Either we compare VR to the expectated forumla or consoles or we do not we cant keep flipping back and forth as we wish
Consoles are a platform
VR headsets are a peripheral device sitting on the PC platform
[...]
It's really not a peripheral, though. I don't think I can call something that changes the experience as drastically as a VR headset a peripheral.
Its okay to not call it one, but that is what it is. The same as Kinect was one, or the playstation eye or the move controllers. Except in the case of gear VR.. it is an accessory.
Do you think when the Playstation 1 came out there was more playable game hours aviable to it then there is for VR.
Well, obviously not. On launch day, most consoles only have a handful of games available for them. Even the latest round of consoles (xbone / ps4) only had 15-20 games available on launch day.
PC is a completely different ballpark, especially comparing it to consoles that launched before the internet took off. First, cost of distribution has dropped dramatically. Second, conversion of existing games into VR-compatible games is much easier than creating the game from scratch. Third, we're in the era of indie games, something that just didn't exist in the PS1 era (and is still extremely limited on any console).
Finally, underlying technology - creating games for bespoke console hardware, especially in PS1 days, was far more difficult than creating a game for PC that uses VR headsets.
so let me see if i get this logic right.
even though consoles are obviously extreemly successful and have been for years and they started with few games that same forumla can not work with PC peripheral simply because when the PC started it had a lot of games BUT VR needs to have AAA titles like consoles because that is clearly what made consoles successful.
Either we compare VR to the expectated forumla or consoles or we do not we cant keep flipping back and forth as we wish
Consoles are a platform
VR headsets are a peripheral device sitting on the PC platform
I mean, we can do a comparison if we want
Playstation 1 Games already available on platform before release - 0 Years platform available for development before release - 1-2 Games Available at Launch - 8 (EU)
XBox One Games already available on platform before release - 0 Years platform available for development before release - 1-2 Games available at launch - 22
VR Games already available on platform before release - 10k+ Years platform available for development before release - 30+ Games available at launch - 30 (Oculus) / 72 (Vive)
So, VR doesn't really come out too well. Yes, it has more games (though, not as many as I expected on launch) but given the long history of developing games on the PC, far fewer than I would have thought. But, as I said, its still a false comparison when looking at a platform vs a periphery.
The only modern comparison would be the Microsoft Kinect device (in terms of brand new type of peripheral device) which had about 15 launch titles plus a largish back catalogue of 360 games which it could have converted if appropriate. The kinect had a much smaller potential userbase (~50m vs PCs 200m+) and the kinect likely had a lot less investment compared to oculus and vive so kinda balances out.
let me help you out there
you cant flip back and forth between 'VR needs to be like consoles not like PCs' (exclusives and AAA titles) 'VR needs to be like PC not like consoles' (lots of titles)
nevermind the fact that 1. past forumlas for success are rarely a requirement for future successes 2. PC gaming was not made popular BECAUSE of large library of indies games
your not even in the same universe as understanding this.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Do you think when the Playstation 1 came out there was more playable game hours aviable to it then there is for VR.
Well, obviously not. On launch day, most consoles only have a handful of games available for them. Even the latest round of consoles (xbone / ps4) only had 15-20 games available on launch day.
PC is a completely different ballpark, especially comparing it to consoles that launched before the internet took off. First, cost of distribution has dropped dramatically. Second, conversion of existing games into VR-compatible games is much easier than creating the game from scratch. Third, we're in the era of indie games, something that just didn't exist in the PS1 era (and is still extremely limited on any console).
Finally, underlying technology - creating games for bespoke console hardware, especially in PS1 days, was far more difficult than creating a game for PC that uses VR headsets.
so let me see if i get this logic right.
even though consoles are obviously extreemly successful and have been for years and they started with few games that same forumla can not work with PC peripheral simply because when the PC started it had a lot of games BUT VR needs to have AAA titles like consoles because that is clearly what made consoles successful.
Either we compare VR to the expectated forumla or consoles or we do not we cant keep flipping back and forth as we wish
Consoles are a platform
VR headsets are a peripheral device sitting on the PC platform
I mean, we can do a comparison if we want
Playstation 1 Games already available on platform before release - 0 Years platform available for development before release - 1-2 Games Available at Launch - 8 (EU)
XBox One Games already available on platform before release - 0 Years platform available for development before release - 1-2 Games available at launch - 22
VR Games already available on platform before release - 10k+ Years platform available for development before release - 30+ Games available at launch - 30 (Oculus) / 72 (Vive)
So, VR doesn't really come out too well. Yes, it has more games (though, not as many as I expected on launch) but given the long history of developing games on the PC, far fewer than I would have thought. But, as I said, its still a false comparison when looking at a platform vs a periphery.
The only modern comparison would be the Microsoft Kinect device (in terms of brand new type of peripheral device) which had about 15 launch titles plus a largish back catalogue of 360 games which it could have converted if appropriate. The kinect had a much smaller potential userbase (~50m vs PCs 200m+) and the kinect likely had a lot less investment compared to oculus and vive so kinda balances out.
let me help you out there
you cant flip back and forth between 'VR needs to be like consoles not like PCs' (exclusives and AAA titles) 'VR needs to be like PC not like consoles' (lots of titles)
These things aren't mutually exclusive. It's foolish to think otherwise.
Gamer 1: 'VR needs more content in order to survive!, in particular heavy major games' Gamer 2: 'VR has more content in its first year then the playstation 1 did' Gamer 1: 'VR is not like consoles they are like PCs' Gamer 2: 'Then VR has a lot of content like PCs did when it came out (actually more)' Game 1: 'yeah but VR needs AAA titles like consoles that is what makes console popular' Gamer 2: 'but you just....ah fuck it I am out of here'
This sounds like a very desperate conversation.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Gamer 1: 'VR needs more content in order to survive!, in particular heavy major games' Gamer 2: 'VR has more content in its first year then the playstation 1 did' Gamer 1: 'VR is not like consoles they are like PCs' Gamer 2: 'Then VR has a lot of content like PCs did when it came out (actually more)' Game 1: 'yeah but VR needs AAA titles like consoles that is what makes console popular' Gamer 2: 'but you just....ah fuck it I am out of here'
This sounds like a very desperate conversation.
It sounds like a fabricated conversation from somebody that doesn't understand their own argument.
your argument seems to be 'because new tech has failed in the past its likely to happen with VR'
I think your standing on a really weak position. Amazon started as a small online book seller, Microsoft started as a small company, Apple started as a small company. why do you focus on the bad examples and not the good examples?
Not at all.
You said: biggest consumer investments (with a caveat about cable, internet and highways.) And then implied that: because the investment is so huge it can't fail.
And my response was directed towards what you said. That VR is not the biggest consumer product expense (check out planes, trains and automobile costs just by way of an example) or that big investment in and of itself guarantee success.
Which is not the same as saying this iteration of VR will fail. This iteration. Not necessarily in the form of the Rift or Vive as we know them today. And yes the investment is real.
My view only - sure. But EA have decided to hedge their bets - not to develop VR for PC but to support Sony. And even then - well games were developed for the Balance Board and the Kinect.
I see positives for VR - phones are getting more powerful for example. I see this iteration of VR having a chance of getting a niche.
What I don't see is a rapid take-up or wide spread adoption in the near future. To many examples of take up being slow. Smart Watches were big news a few years ago - flopped but then Smart Fitness bands took off. And now they have been redesigned to tell the time (and some watches redesigned to count steps). They are going mainstream. Takes time though. Out of curiosity I just checked when the first step counter was introduced - I knew Garmin have been involved for years. Silly me. Wiki says the first modern pedometer dates from 1965, actively marketed from 1985 (in Japan). And here was I thinking early 2000s.
your argument seems to be 'because new tech has failed in the past its likely to happen with VR'
I think your standing on a really weak position. Amazon started as a small online book seller, Microsoft started as a small company, Apple started as a small company. why do you focus on the bad examples and not the good examples?
Not at all.
You said: biggest consumer investments (with a caveat about cable, internet and highways.) And then implied that: because the investment is so huge it can't fail.
And my response was directed towards what you said. That VR is not the biggest consumer product expense (check out planes, trains and automobile costs just by way of an example) or that big investment in and of itself guarantee success.
Which is not the same as saying this iteration of VR will fail. This iteration. Not necessarily in the form of the Rift or Vive as we know them today. And yes the investment is real.
My view only - sure. But EA have decided to hedge their bets - not to develop VR for PC but to support Sony. And even then - well games were developed for the Balance Board and the Kinect.
I see positives for VR - phones are getting more powerful for example. I see this iteration of VR having a chance of getting a niche.
What I don't see is a rapid take-up or wide spread adoption in the near future. To many examples of take up being slow. Smart Watches were big news a few years ago - flopped but then Smart Fitness bands took off. And now they have been redesigned to tell the time (and some watches redesigned to count steps). They are going mainstream. Takes time though. Out of curiosity I just checked when the first step counter was introduced - I knew Garmin have been involved for years. Silly me. Wiki says the first modern pedometer dates from 1965, actively marketed from 1985 (in Japan). And here was I thinking early 2000s.
VR - in some form - will come. Eventually.
there are a few things you have missed
1. I do not suggest that 'therefore it cant fail' I do however suggest that its evidence that its less likely to. HUGE difference between 'cant' and 'less likely'.
2. What I was trying to paint is that the investment in this product is unusually high. The only way to trump my core point with that is not to illustrate a few examples of where I am mistaken but instead to paint a picture that its not UNUSALLY high. Airplanes is a cute example but its not enough to change my core point.
3. People who are clearly terrified that VR might succeed (why I dont know but its clear to me that some are) have to be sure that they pull only examples of tech that failed in the past and be sure to completely ignore examples of tech with dramatically less funding and dramatically less attention succeed. Amazon being a perfect example.
I put the most important part of my entire arguement in bold, its in item 3
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
your argument seems to be 'because new tech has failed in the past its likely to happen with VR'
I think your standing on a really weak position. Amazon started as a small online book seller, Microsoft started as a small company, Apple started as a small company. why do you focus on the bad examples and not the good examples?
Not at all.
You said: biggest consumer investments (with a caveat about cable, internet and highways.) And then implied that: because the investment is so huge it can't fail.
And my response was directed towards what you said. That VR is not the biggest consumer product expense (check out planes, trains and automobile costs just by way of an example) or that big investment in and of itself guarantee success.
Which is not the same as saying this iteration of VR will fail. This iteration. Not necessarily in the form of the Rift or Vive as we know them today. And yes the investment is real.
My view only - sure. But EA have decided to hedge their bets - not to develop VR for PC but to support Sony. And even then - well games were developed for the Balance Board and the Kinect.
I see positives for VR - phones are getting more powerful for example. I see this iteration of VR having a chance of getting a niche.
What I don't see is a rapid take-up or wide spread adoption in the near future. To many examples of take up being slow. Smart Watches were big news a few years ago - flopped but then Smart Fitness bands took off. And now they have been redesigned to tell the time (and some watches redesigned to count steps). They are going mainstream. Takes time though. Out of curiosity I just checked when the first step counter was introduced - I knew Garmin have been involved for years. Silly me. Wiki says the first modern pedometer dates from 1965, actively marketed from 1985 (in Japan). And here was I thinking early 2000s.
VR - in some form - will come. Eventually.
there are a few things you have missed
1. I do not suggest that 'therefore it cant fail' I do however suggest that its evidence that its less likely to. HUGE difference between 'cant' and 'less likely'.
2. What I was trying to paint is that the investment in this product is unusually high. The only way to trump my core point with that is not to illustrate a few examples of where I am mistaken but instead to paint a picture that its not UNUSALLY high. Airplanes is a cute example but its not enough to change my core point.
3. People who are clearly terrified that VR might succeed (why I dont know but its clear to me that some are) have to be sure that they pull only examples of tech that failed in the past and be sure to completely ignore examples of tech with dramatically less funding and dramatically less attention succeed. Amazon being a perfect example.
I put the most important part of my entire arguement in bold, its in item 3
Amazon is not a tech company. Amazon is as much a Tech company as Walmart is.
Nice find. I recommend watching it if you have any interest in the business side of VR at all...
That stated, I found the video to be overly pessimistic. That's not a bad thing, especially when dealing with new technology. A modicum of caution is warranted.
However, the experience itself is transformative. I'm more than 2 weeks in and it still hasn't lost the "Wow!" factor every time I put the headset on. Will this story change 2 weeks from now? I don't know, but I doubt it will. I feel like one of the first explorers experimenting with the medium of 2-way radio, wondering what sort of artistic, informative, narrative capacities the future will hold. It's that different.
I'm also disappointed the video didn't bring up mobile VR which I feel has one key advantage over PC-based headsets that may be keeping them in the 100,000 user order of magnitude; lower barrier to entry. This certainly seems like it would be relevant to their story, especially because they mentioned price as a key factor, but maybe they ran out of time.
100,000-ish users per PC brand of headset sounds bad, and might certainly spell a death sentence in many cases. There are exceptions: one of these is when the technology brings something new and useful that can't be replicated otherwise. In other words, there are no 'substitute products' for VR. I'm not 100% certain that this is the case, but from what little I've seen I wouldn't be surprised if the tech follows a growth profile similar to the modern day cell phone as mentioned, or even (I had to smile at this) electricity.
I found it odd that The Know had no problems comparing VR to revolutionary innovations like smart phones or electricity, yet stood in total disbelief of a multi-billion dollar industry by 2020.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Vomit Reality is going to one of the funniest things to happen in retail technology when it hits mainstream. I just had a hilarious conversation with some folks at the local game shop.
Any company betting the farm on it right now and planning on playing catch-me-if-you-can with the public fallout deserves all the misfortune and recourse.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Vomit Reality is going to one of the funniest things to happen in retail technology when it hits mainstream. I just had a hilarious conversation with some folks at the local game shop.
Any company betting the farm on it right now and planning on playing catch-me-if-you-can with the public fallout deserves all the misfortune and recourse.
Interesting that you call it that, because although I experienced some odd inner-ear buzzing during my first experience, and some dizzyness on the more adventurous rides, there was nothing that made me feel like I had to stop and take off the set due to nausea nor did I get nauseous in the slightest. Further, this effect seemed to diminish the more I used VR; it is possible to become acclimated, and this happened relatively quickly for me.
As for the "folks at the local game shop" I'm sure they were looking for something to talk about at the end of the day's shift, if you catch my drift. The story as presented depends a lot on setting, social cues, and... well, intent.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
yeah ill try VR once its 1440 resolution with a lot of MMO games to play
IMPORTANT: Please keep all replies to my posts about GAMING. Please no negative or backhanded comments directed at me personally. If you are going to post a reply that includes how you feel about me, please don't bother replying & just ignore my post instead. I'm on this forum to talk about GAMING. Thank you.
Vomit Reality is going to one of the funniest things to happen in retail technology when it hits mainstream. I just had a hilarious conversation with some folks at the local game shop.
Any company betting the farm on it right now and planning on playing catch-me-if-you-can with the public fallout deserves all the misfortune and recourse.
Interesting that you call it that, because although I experienced some odd inner-ear buzzing during my first experience, and some dizzyness on the more adventurous rides, there was nothing that made me feel like I had to stop and take off the set due to nausea nor did I get nauseous in the slightest. Further, this effect seemed to diminish the more I used VR; it is possible to become acclimated, and this happened relatively quickly for me.
As for the "folks at the local game shop" I'm sure they were looking for something to talk about at the end of the day's shift, if you catch my drift. The story as presented depends a lot on setting, social cues, and... well, intent.
Well the actual conversation was more a saleswoman stumbling into some floor display, dumping the headset, then running to the back with her hand over her mouth (I'm assuming this all wasn't in awe of the graphic fidelity). I guess it was her first encounter as well, because why do that again right?
Either way this isn't the first time I've heard about or saw this. and at NAB this year one of floor reps for HTC kept it 100 about the readiness of VR as a whole and the inner ear problem.
I'm sure there's a bunch of people who will wear the headsets like champs but way too many can't in their current state. That's why all these folks talk around the subject or act subjectively dumb when questioned about it.
These companies are pushing these to market regardless of all this and THAT's where the ensuing hilarity will happen.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
Nice find. I recommend watching it if you have any interest in the business side of VR at all...
That stated, I found the video to be overly pessimistic. That's not a bad thing, especially when dealing with new technology. A modicum of caution is warranted.
However, the experience itself is transformative. I'm more than 2 weeks in and it still hasn't lost the "Wow!" factor every time I put the headset on. Will this story change 2 weeks from now? I don't know, but I doubt it will. I feel like one of the first explorers experimenting with the medium of 2-way radio, wondering what sort of artistic, informative, narrative capacities the future will hold. It's that different.
I'm also disappointed the video didn't bring up mobile VR which I feel has one key advantage over PC-based headsets that may be keeping them in the 100,000 user order of magnitude; lower barrier to entry. This certainly seems like it would be relevant to their story, especially because they mentioned price as a key factor, but maybe they ran out of time.
100,000-ish users per PC brand of headset sounds bad, and might certainly spell a death sentence in many cases. There are exceptions: one of these is when the technology brings something new and useful that can't be replicated otherwise. In other words, there are no 'substitute products' for VR. I'm not 100% certain that this is the case, but from what little I've seen I wouldn't be surprised if the tech follows a growth profile similar to the modern day cell phone as mentioned, or even (I had to smile at this) electricity.
I found it odd that The Know had no problems comparing VR to revolutionary innovations like smart phones or electricity, yet stood in total disbelief of a multi-billion dollar industry by 2020.
I don't believe they compared it to revolutionary innovations as a basis of comparison to mean VR is an innovation of any kind. It might have been considered so back in the 80s but not today.
The major difference here too - is the point of growth between VR and every other industry. Look at smartphone sales growth over the span of 10 years. YEARLY sales growth.. not quarterly but YEARLY growth was consistent minus this past year with demand slowing. But look at this in perspective that smartphone sales are expected to decrease to 2008 earnings -- which -- is poor if you consider what happened in 2008 to the global economy.
Still, through all of that, smart phone growth increased - all the way to the extent of oversaturation and declination. VR would be so lucky to get to that point even in a mobile capacity, which undoubtedly will be the closest they will ever get to that kind of saturation.
If you have to consider VR close to any kind of "revolution" it would be the wearables revolution. Why? Because 1) It is a wearable in most cases. 2) Its supplementary and frivolous. 3) The wearable market invested between 1.5 and 2.5 Billion over it's first 5 years (in comparison there has been about 2Billion in investements between VR AND AR which is a complementary AND competing technology over it's first 4 years)
Wearables are a largely niche market, few require them, they have little function in daily life, and most are less expensive fitness trackers -- but by 2020 some estimates expect Wearables to be worth 34 Billion while VR specifically will be worth 32 Billion.
All that being said wearables are on the decline and VR has stalled. It doesn't mean they won't recover as estimates haven't been revised and likely won't be for a 2020 analysis until next year, but we're looking at two very similar emerging technologies that were set to be revolutionary - that have yet to fully perform to their estimates.. or... even marginally perform.
Played with the Vive for about fifteen minutes, got bored. The games were less like a tech demo than what I'd seen over the last few years, so it's an improvement, but they're not far off (fairly limited, not much to do, relatively short). Definitely not the sort of platform I'd be willing to support at the moment, though I can appreciate the early adopters for funding all the garbage that may, one day, lead to something actually worth playing for extended periods of time.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
Do you think when the Playstation 1 came out there was more playable game hours aviable to it then there is for VR.
Well, obviously not. On launch day, most consoles only have a handful of games available for them. Even the latest round of consoles (xbone / ps4) only had 15-20 games available on launch day.
PC is a completely different ballpark, especially comparing it to consoles that launched before the internet took off. First, cost of distribution has dropped dramatically. Second, conversion of existing games into VR-compatible games is much easier than creating the game from scratch. Third, we're in the era of indie games, something that just didn't exist in the PS1 era (and is still extremely limited on any console).
Finally, underlying technology - creating games for bespoke console hardware, especially in PS1 days, was far more difficult than creating a game for PC that uses VR headsets.
so let me see if i get this logic right.
even though consoles are obviously extreemly successful and have been for years and they started with few games that same forumla can not work with PC peripheral simply because when the PC started it had a lot of games BUT VR needs to have AAA titles like consoles because that is clearly what made consoles successful.
Either we compare VR to the expectated forumla or consoles or we do not we cant keep flipping back and forth as we wish
Consoles are a platform
VR headsets are a peripheral device sitting on the PC platform
I mean, we can do a comparison if we want
Playstation 1 Games already available on platform before release - 0 Years platform available for development before release - 1-2 Games Available at Launch - 8 (EU)
XBox One Games already available on platform before release - 0 Years platform available for development before release - 1-2 Games available at launch - 22
VR Games already available on platform before release - 10k+ Years platform available for development before release - 30+ Games available at launch - 30 (Oculus) / 72 (Vive)
So, VR doesn't really come out too well. Yes, it has more games (though, not as many as I expected on launch) but given the long history of developing games on the PC, far fewer than I would have thought. But, as I said, its still a false comparison when looking at a platform vs a periphery.
The only modern comparison would be the Microsoft Kinect device (in terms of brand new type of peripheral device) which had about 15 launch titles plus a largish back catalogue of 360 games which it could have converted if appropriate. The kinect had a much smaller potential userbase (~50m vs PCs 200m+) and the kinect likely had a lot less investment compared to oculus and vive so kinda balances out.
let me help you out there
you cant flip back and forth between 'VR needs to be like consoles not like PCs' (exclusives and AAA titles) 'VR needs to be like PC not like consoles' (lots of titles)
nevermind the fact that 1. past forumlas for success are rarely a requirement for future successes 2. PC gaming was not made popular BECAUSE of large library of indies games
your not even in the same universe as understanding this.
You're the one comparing consoles to VR and stating that because VR had more launch titles, it must be doing well.
I'm disagreeing. I have always stated that VR headsets are a peripheral device (because they are, thats the truth) and you know I feel they are a gimmick (for many logical reasons) and I've stated on many occasions the reasons why I think VR will not take off / fail.
So, I'm not flipping back and forth, you are. I even stated in my post that "VR headsets are a peripheral device" and "its still a false comparison when looking at a platform vs a periphery."
The only comparable product to release within the last 10 years has been the XBox Kinect device (which bombed) but you aren't willing to make that comparison - you keep insisting that VR will succeed because other technologies have succeeded. You've compared VR to playstations, other consoles and PCs searching out tenuous arguments to try and support your case. Thats fine, you're welcome to do so if you want, but I'll keep replying to your false logic. Finally, I'm willing to be proven wrong. I want innovation within gaming, I want new devices to revolutionise the industry, I want better games and more immersive experiences. I try out most technologies, including VR, in the hopes of finding a better overall experience. As I've said previously, at the moment VR only provides a better gaming experience with full HOTAS setups - so racing games and space games. I've yet to see, read about or experience any other situations where VR improves the overall experience.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr80 Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr5X Shaman
You're the one comparing consoles to VR and stating that because VR had more launch titles, it must be doing well.
I'm disagreeing. I have always stated that VR headsets are a peripheral device (because they are, thats the truth) and you know I feel they are a gimmick (for many logical reasons) and I've stated on many occasions the reasons why I think VR will not take off / fail.
So, I'm not flipping back and forth, you are. I even stated in my post that "VR headsets are a peripheral device" and "its still a false comparison when looking at a platform vs a periphery."
The only comparable product to release within the last 10 years has been the XBox Kinect device (which bombed) but you aren't willing to make that comparison - you keep insisting that VR will succeed because other technologies have succeeded. You've compared VR to playstations, other consoles and PCs searching out tenuous arguments to try and support your case. Thats fine, you're welcome to do so if you want, but I'll keep replying to your false logic. Finally, I'm willing to be proven wrong. I want innovation within gaming, I want new devices to revolutionise the industry, I want better games and more immersive experiences. I try out most technologies, including VR, in the hopes of finding a better overall experience. As I've said previously, at the moment VR only provides a better gaming experience with full HOTAS setups - so racing games and space games. I've yet to see, read about or experience any other situations where VR improves the overall experience.
"The only comparable product to release within the last 10 years has been the XBox Kinect device (which bombed) but you aren't willing to make that comparison"
I wouldn't be willing to make this comparison either; it isn't a good one. I've used both a Kinect and a Virtual Reality headset, the analogy is weak.
With the Kinect, your motions in real life translate to what a character is doing on screen, or in some way affects the game state on screen.
The whole idea behind VR gaming is to do away with the screen altogether and put you directly in the game space. It changes the experience by an utterly different degree.
Having used both it's just not a very good analogy, and I don't see many others that have used VR technology making that comparison either. Conceptually, yes, I can see how physically they are both pieces of hardware that might be considered peripherals. However, the way they affect the play experience is completely different, and it's not just because one is more recent. With a Kinect, you are still playing a game on a screen, with a VR headset you are there.
"Finally, I'm willing to be proven wrong."
Glad to see it!
"at the moment VR only provides a better gaming experience with full HOTAS setups"
Not my experience at all. As I've stated elsewhere, being in a virtual space is compelling enough with current hardware as to nearly obviate the need for complex setups like HOTAS. There are plenty of great VR experiences that do not require a controller at all (see, for example, Annie Amber or Land's End) let alone Hands-On-Throttle-And-Stick.
"I've yet to see, read about or experience any other situations where VR improves the overall experience."
You must have missed many of my posts on the subject over the past 2 weeks. I've written very favorably on Minecraft, Eve Gunjack, Dreadhalls, Jump, Bait!, and other non-game experiences like "America's National Parks". I've done the best I can to describe what the experience is like, yet you continue to be an expert on the subject without having tried it.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
1. I do not suggest that 'therefore it cant fail' I do however suggest that its evidence that its less likely to. HUGE difference between 'cant' and 'less likely'.
2. What I was trying to paint is that the investment in this product is unusually high. The only way to trump my core point with that is not to illustrate a few examples of where I am mistaken but instead to paint a picture that its not UNUSALLY high. Airplanes is a cute example but its not enough to change my core point.
3. People who are clearly terrified that VR might succeed (why I dont know but its clear to me that some are) have to be sure that they pull only examples of tech that failed in the past and be sure to completely ignore examples of tech with dramatically less funding and dramatically less attention succeed. Amazon being a perfect example.
I put the most important part of my entire arguement in bold, its in item 3
As you point out money is not necessarily needed for success. More likely to succeed but not guaranteed. I agree.
Now personally I don't see the investment in VR as "unusually high" - and before you post links I know what the reported numbers are its just that there are lots of big numbers out there. Its non-trivial I agree.
And I am have no argument with your last bolded point. Same as the first point really just in reverse. You can succeed with "less money". We agree again!
You do know that Amazon is over 20 years old though? And that - I think? - is where our thoughts diverge: on the when and how long. How long will it be before VR has carved out a sustainable "niche" and from there gone on to become "mainstream".
Adoption has never been quick. I saw my first 3D "film" - actually a composite of shorts - in the mid-80s. And done well 3D films are amazing. Have they "made it" yet? (And adapting tens of thousands of cinema screens globally to show 3D films is another example of huge consumer product investment btw. There are lots).
The conditions have to be right. And a confluence of developments are coming together: smaller and more power efficient cpu and gpu solutions; the potential market that Pokemon Go demonstrated; developments aimed at getting AR into the workplace; improvements in battery life and wireless tech; new phones coming - Google Pixel, MS Surface Phone; projection technology - I want holodecks and Dream Parks!; wearables in general. Are we there yet though? I think we are on the cusp of headset VR but not there yet.
(And stop trying to deflect with your people are clearly terrified line!
VR in its current form is a joke and is nothing like what VR should be in my eyes. VR in Disney, that I tried back in the early 90's, was better than what you are getting with current occulus and other VR tech. /shrug
"The King and the Pawn return to the same box at the end of the game"
Comments
What FULL GAMES have released that people really want to play for VR? After over a year too? Demo Kits released years ago... YEARS.
You'd imagine at least one game out there would be viable enough to be considered a major draw, but one doesn't exist for VR. Meanwhile launch titles for other consoles since the Nintendo 64 have all released several major titles that carry the system through for at least a couple months until more third party games release. VR, again, has had years.
There's a reason why, as well, I believe. It's because developers are still trying to figure out how one can create a full game that isn't a hindrance or annoyance after a half hour.
Directly from Oculus, every 30 minutes you're supposed to take a 10 minute break. People won't do that though, they never do, but there are good reasons for that.
These are recommendations with little consequence on traditional consoles. Therein lies the difference.
Consoles are a platform
VR headsets are a peripheral device sitting on the PC platform
I mean, we can do a comparison if we want
Playstation 1
Games already available on platform before release - 0
Years platform available for development before release - 1-2
Games Available at Launch - 8 (EU)
XBox One
Games already available on platform before release - 0
Years platform available for development before release - 1-2
Games available at launch - 22
VR
Games already available on platform before release - 10k+
Years platform available for development before release - 30+
Games available at launch - 30 (Oculus) / 72 (Vive)
So, VR doesn't really come out too well. Yes, it has more games (though, not as many as I expected on launch) but given the long history of developing games on the PC, far fewer than I would have thought. But, as I said, its still a false comparison when looking at a platform vs a periphery.
The only modern comparison would be the Microsoft Kinect device (in terms of brand new type of peripheral device) which had about 15 launch titles plus a largish back catalogue of 360 games which it could have converted if appropriate. The kinect had a much smaller potential userbase (~50m vs PCs 200m+) and the kinect likely had a lot less investment compared to oculus and vive so kinda balances out.
https://youtu.be/fNQvLrfYnv8
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
you cant flip back and forth between
'VR needs to be like consoles not like PCs' (exclusives and AAA titles)
'VR needs to be like PC not like consoles' (lots of titles)
nevermind the fact that
1. past forumlas for success are rarely a requirement for future successes
2. PC gaming was not made popular BECAUSE of large library of indies games
your not even in the same universe as understanding this.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Gamer 2: 'VR has more content in its first year then the playstation 1 did'
Gamer 1: 'VR is not like consoles they are like PCs'
Gamer 2: 'Then VR has a lot of content like PCs did when it came out (actually more)'
Game 1: 'yeah but VR needs AAA titles like consoles that is what makes console popular'
Gamer 2: 'but you just....ah fuck it I am out of here'
This sounds like a very desperate conversation.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You said: biggest consumer investments (with a caveat about cable, internet and highways.) And then implied that: because the investment is so huge it can't fail.
And my response was directed towards what you said. That VR is not the biggest consumer product expense (check out planes, trains and automobile costs just by way of an example) or that big investment in and of itself guarantee success.
Which is not the same as saying this iteration of VR will fail. This iteration. Not necessarily in the form of the Rift or Vive as we know them today. And yes the investment is real.
My view only - sure. But EA have decided to hedge their bets - not to develop VR for PC but to support Sony. And even then - well games were developed for the Balance Board and the Kinect.
I see positives for VR - phones are getting more powerful for example. I see this iteration of VR having a chance of getting a niche.
What I don't see is a rapid take-up or wide spread adoption in the near future. To many examples of take up being slow. Smart Watches were big news a few years ago - flopped but then Smart Fitness bands took off. And now they have been redesigned to tell the time (and some watches redesigned to count steps). They are going mainstream. Takes time though. Out of curiosity I just checked when the first step counter was introduced - I knew Garmin have been involved for years. Silly me. Wiki says the first modern pedometer dates from 1965, actively marketed from 1985 (in Japan). And here was I thinking early 2000s.
VR - in some form - will come. Eventually.
1. I do not suggest that 'therefore it cant fail' I do however suggest that its evidence that its less likely to. HUGE difference between 'cant' and 'less likely'.
2. What I was trying to paint is that the investment in this product is unusually high. The only way to trump my core point with that is not to illustrate a few examples of where I am mistaken but instead to paint a picture that its not UNUSALLY high. Airplanes is a cute example but its not enough to change my core point.
3. People who are clearly terrified that VR might succeed (why I dont know but its clear to me that some are) have to be sure that they pull only examples of tech that failed in the past and be sure to completely ignore examples of tech with dramatically less funding and dramatically less attention succeed. Amazon being a perfect example.
I put the most important part of my entire arguement in bold, its in item 3
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
That stated, I found the video to be overly pessimistic. That's not a bad thing, especially when dealing with new technology. A modicum of caution is warranted.
However, the experience itself is transformative. I'm more than 2 weeks in and it still hasn't lost the "Wow!" factor every time I put the headset on. Will this story change 2 weeks from now? I don't know, but I doubt it will. I feel like one of the first explorers experimenting with the medium of 2-way radio, wondering what sort of artistic, informative, narrative capacities the future will hold. It's that different.
I'm also disappointed the video didn't bring up mobile VR which I feel has one key advantage over PC-based headsets that may be keeping them in the 100,000 user order of magnitude; lower barrier to entry. This certainly seems like it would be relevant to their story, especially because they mentioned price as a key factor, but maybe they ran out of time.
100,000-ish users per PC brand of headset sounds bad, and might certainly spell a death sentence in many cases. There are exceptions: one of these is when the technology brings something new and useful that can't be replicated otherwise. In other words, there are no 'substitute products' for VR. I'm not 100% certain that this is the case, but from what little I've seen I wouldn't be surprised if the tech follows a growth profile similar to the modern day cell phone as mentioned, or even (I had to smile at this) electricity.
I found it odd that The Know had no problems comparing VR to revolutionary innovations like smart phones or electricity, yet stood in total disbelief of a multi-billion dollar industry by 2020.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Any company betting the farm on it right now and planning on playing catch-me-if-you-can with the public fallout deserves all the misfortune and recourse.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
As for the "folks at the local game shop" I'm sure they were looking for something to talk about at the end of the day's shift, if you catch my drift. The story as presented depends a lot on setting, social cues, and... well, intent.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Well the actual conversation was more a saleswoman stumbling into some floor display, dumping the headset, then running to the back with her hand over her mouth (I'm assuming this all wasn't in awe of the graphic fidelity). I guess it was her first encounter as well, because why do that again right?
Either way this isn't the first time I've heard about or saw this. and at NAB this year one of floor reps for HTC kept it 100 about the readiness of VR as a whole and the inner ear problem.
I'm sure there's a bunch of people who will wear the headsets like champs but way too many can't in their current state. That's why all these folks talk around the subject or act subjectively dumb when questioned about it.
These companies are pushing these to market regardless of all this and THAT's where the ensuing hilarity will happen.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The major difference here too - is the point of growth between VR and every other industry. Look at smartphone sales growth over the span of 10 years. YEARLY sales growth.. not quarterly but YEARLY growth was consistent minus this past year with demand slowing. But look at this in perspective that smartphone sales are expected to decrease to 2008 earnings -- which -- is poor if you consider what happened in 2008 to the global economy.
Still, through all of that, smart phone growth increased - all the way to the extent of oversaturation and declination. VR would be so lucky to get to that point even in a mobile capacity, which undoubtedly will be the closest they will ever get to that kind of saturation.
If you have to consider VR close to any kind of "revolution" it would be the wearables revolution. Why? Because 1) It is a wearable in most cases. 2) Its supplementary and frivolous. 3) The wearable market invested between 1.5 and 2.5 Billion over it's first 5 years (in comparison there has been about 2Billion in investements between VR AND AR which is a complementary AND competing technology over it's first 4 years)
Wearables are a largely niche market, few require them, they have little function in daily life, and most are less expensive fitness trackers -- but by 2020 some estimates expect Wearables to be worth 34 Billion while VR specifically will be worth 32 Billion.
All that being said wearables are on the decline and VR has stalled. It doesn't mean they won't recover as estimates haven't been revised and likely won't be for a 2020 analysis until next year, but we're looking at two very similar emerging technologies that were set to be revolutionary - that have yet to fully perform to their estimates.. or... even marginally perform.
"This is life! We suffer and slave and expire. That's it!" -Bernard Black (Dylan Moran)
I'm disagreeing. I have always stated that VR headsets are a peripheral device (because they are, thats the truth) and you know I feel they are a gimmick (for many logical reasons) and I've stated on many occasions the reasons why I think VR will not take off / fail.
So, I'm not flipping back and forth, you are. I even stated in my post that "VR headsets are a peripheral device" and "its still a false comparison when looking at a platform vs a periphery."
The only comparable product to release within the last 10 years has been the XBox Kinect device (which bombed) but you aren't willing to make that comparison - you keep insisting that VR will succeed because other technologies have succeeded. You've compared VR to playstations, other consoles and PCs searching out tenuous arguments to try and support your case. Thats fine, you're welcome to do so if you want, but I'll keep replying to your false logic.
Finally, I'm willing to be proven wrong. I want innovation within gaming, I want new devices to revolutionise the industry, I want better games and more immersive experiences. I try out most technologies, including VR, in the hopes of finding a better overall experience. As I've said previously, at the moment VR only provides a better gaming experience with full HOTAS setups - so racing games and space games. I've yet to see, read about or experience any other situations where VR improves the overall experience.
I wouldn't be willing to make this comparison either; it isn't a good one. I've used both a Kinect and a Virtual Reality headset, the analogy is weak.
With the Kinect, your motions in real life translate to what a character is doing on screen, or in some way affects the game state on screen.
The whole idea behind VR gaming is to do away with the screen altogether and put you directly in the game space. It changes the experience by an utterly different degree.
Having used both it's just not a very good analogy, and I don't see many others that have used VR technology making that comparison either. Conceptually, yes, I can see how physically they are both pieces of hardware that might be considered peripherals. However, the way they affect the play experience is completely different, and it's not just because one is more recent. With a Kinect, you are still playing a game on a screen, with a VR headset you are there.
"Finally, I'm willing to be proven wrong."
Glad to see it!
"at the moment VR only provides a better gaming experience with full HOTAS setups"
Not my experience at all. As I've stated elsewhere, being in a virtual space is compelling enough with current hardware as to nearly obviate the need for complex setups like HOTAS. There are plenty of great VR experiences that do not require a controller at all (see, for example, Annie Amber or Land's End) let alone Hands-On-Throttle-And-Stick.
"I've yet to see, read about or experience any other situations where VR improves the overall experience."
You must have missed many of my posts on the subject over the past 2 weeks. I've written very favorably on Minecraft, Eve Gunjack, Dreadhalls, Jump, Bait!, and other non-game experiences like "America's National Parks". I've done the best I can to describe what the experience is like, yet you continue to be an expert on the subject without having tried it.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Now personally I don't see the investment in VR as "unusually high" - and before you post links I know what the reported numbers are its just that there are lots of big numbers out there. Its non-trivial I agree.
And I am have no argument with your last bolded point. Same as the first point really just in reverse. You can succeed with "less money". We agree again!
You do know that Amazon is over 20 years old though? And that - I think? - is where our thoughts diverge: on the when and how long. How long will it be before VR has carved out a sustainable "niche" and from there gone on to become "mainstream".
Adoption has never been quick. I saw my first 3D "film" - actually a composite of shorts - in the mid-80s. And done well 3D films are amazing. Have they "made it" yet? (And adapting tens of thousands of cinema screens globally to show 3D films is another example of huge consumer product investment btw. There are lots).
The conditions have to be right. And a confluence of developments are coming together: smaller and more power efficient cpu and gpu solutions; the potential market that Pokemon Go demonstrated; developments aimed at getting AR into the workplace; improvements in battery life and wireless tech; new phones coming - Google Pixel, MS Surface Phone; projection technology - I want holodecks and Dream Parks!; wearables in general. Are we there yet though? I think we are on the cusp of headset VR but not there yet.
(And stop trying to deflect with your people are clearly terrified line!