Selling VR sets is one thing. Providing meaningful and fun games for those VR headsets is another. I am still waiting for that ONE VR game that really make me want to get into VR. Don't get me wrong, I have tried VR and I am convinced VR could be really great. However, I have not seen much more the tech demos of what VR can do and nothing more.
it will take awhile.
some here do not believe me when I say this but its very true. I had purchased into HDTV early (I think around 2000) (as in my HDTV was tube based not LCD) and at the time cable TV didnt do HDTV except for one channel at the time and the airwaves were not broadcasting yet.
It took more than year before I got to content I care about (which was not sports so that was out anyway).
With this its not just recording HD content and getting a better network backbone to support the new bandwidth. Its coming up with creative ways to make content fun. VR is awesome in it 4x4' space but if you want to explore a castle or a world. Your back to joysticks or that dumb warping feature no one likes. IMO I think Augmented Reality is going to beat out VR because of this. All of a sudden your house becomes a play space not walls that hinder your gaming and can cause harm/damage. But we will see how creative people get. Could end up being awesome.
I am really not in agreement with your logic.
Follow me along closely because this can get complicated.
1. Current games For multiple decades now we have been playing games in which our character moves, shoots, runs, swims, exists in large worlds, travels faster and covers more ground then we as humans can do in the same time by a large margin.
2. Now lets talk about VR. In order for what we are wrongly calling VR to work and not completely fail does it HAVE to resemble reality 100%? well no. If one wants to get into a debate over systematics and suggest it should not be called VR then that is fine it likely should not but at the end of the day what it really is is nothing more than a gradual improvement to your existing gaming experience which involves you using WSAD to move. So does it have to be better than WSAD? yes. Does it HAVE TO resemble reality? no
in other words, just because you can run 100 miles in 10 seconds in a game doesnt mean in VR you physically HAVE to in order for the platform to not fail completely.
For once I agree with you.
My idea of using VR for gaming involves me still sitting comfortably in my chair and simulating movement through the conventional gaming means.
Anything else beyond that is a gimmick that will hurt, not help, VR adoption by the general public.
That works on some level but now how do you keep something as complex as say WoW with 50+ options for skills+movement+inventory. How do you boil that down to a few buttons you cant see? Or do we need to dumb it down?
I think the biggest issues with so many different types of games is the amount of time people can keep these units on their heads before they need a break.
It's going to require a different style of game design. It's naturally well suited for driving/piloting style games. Its going to takes some experimentation and experience for RPGs and other genre's
I appreciate thought out replies such as this one.
I would like to drill down on the question of this some more however in more concrete terms. In a traditional game when my RPG character wants to move closer to the NPC tradepost down the block I do it with a keyboard and a mouse, nothing in my vision other than a small part of it (what I see on my screen) is actually moving, everything else is not.
How, specifically, is this natural and clearly not a problem in traditional gaming but is a problem in VR. I am not suggesting its not, but I am asking what are the specifics as to why it is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Selling VR sets is one thing. Providing meaningful and fun games for those VR headsets is another. I am still waiting for that ONE VR game that really make me want to get into VR. Don't get me wrong, I have tried VR and I am convinced VR could be really great. However, I have not seen much more the tech demos of what VR can do and nothing more.
it will take awhile.
some here do not believe me when I say this but its very true. I had purchased into HDTV early (I think around 2000) (as in my HDTV was tube based not LCD) and at the time cable TV didnt do HDTV except for one channel at the time and the airwaves were not broadcasting yet.
It took more than year before I got to content I care about (which was not sports so that was out anyway).
With this its not just recording HD content and getting a better network backbone to support the new bandwidth. Its coming up with creative ways to make content fun. VR is awesome in it 4x4' space but if you want to explore a castle or a world. Your back to joysticks or that dumb warping feature no one likes. IMO I think Augmented Reality is going to beat out VR because of this. All of a sudden your house becomes a play space not walls that hinder your gaming and can cause harm/damage. But we will see how creative people get. Could end up being awesome.
I am really not in agreement with your logic.
Follow me along closely because this can get complicated.
1. Current games For multiple decades now we have been playing games in which our character moves, shoots, runs, swims, exists in large worlds, travels faster and covers more ground then we as humans can do in the same time by a large margin.
2. Now lets talk about VR. In order for what we are wrongly calling VR to work and not completely fail does it HAVE to resemble reality 100%? well no. If one wants to get into a debate over systematics and suggest it should not be called VR then that is fine it likely should not but at the end of the day what it really is is nothing more than a gradual improvement to your existing gaming experience which involves you using WSAD to move. So does it have to be better than WSAD? yes. Does it HAVE TO resemble reality? no
in other words, just because you can run 100 miles in 10 seconds in a game doesnt mean in VR you physically HAVE to in order for the platform to not fail completely.
For once I agree with you.
My idea of using VR for gaming involves me still sitting comfortably in my chair and simulating movement through the conventional gaming means.
Anything else beyond that is a gimmick that will hurt, not help, VR adoption by the general public.
That works on some level but now how do you keep something as complex as say WoW with 50+ options for skills+movement+inventory. How do you boil that down to a few buttons you cant see? Or do we need to dumb it down?
No... it doesn't need to be 'dumbed down'.
To address horizontal complexity (interesting to note that this is not the same thing as depth) there are ways without sacrificing any functionality. One of these is voice recognition: this is already a feature in many VR experiences. Do you have any idea how many different human phonemes there are? Another is to have nested menus. Gesture commands.
We've been working at this for a while, especially on the mobile platform. Some of these lessons will no doubt translate to VR.
"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
Selling VR sets is one thing. Providing meaningful and fun games for those VR headsets is another. I am still waiting for that ONE VR game that really make me want to get into VR. Don't get me wrong, I have tried VR and I am convinced VR could be really great. However, I have not seen much more the tech demos of what VR can do and nothing more.
it will take awhile.
some here do not believe me when I say this but its very true. I had purchased into HDTV early (I think around 2000) (as in my HDTV was tube based not LCD) and at the time cable TV didnt do HDTV except for one channel at the time and the airwaves were not broadcasting yet.
It took more than year before I got to content I care about (which was not sports so that was out anyway).
With this its not just recording HD content and getting a better network backbone to support the new bandwidth. Its coming up with creative ways to make content fun. VR is awesome in it 4x4' space but if you want to explore a castle or a world. Your back to joysticks or that dumb warping feature no one likes. IMO I think Augmented Reality is going to beat out VR because of this. All of a sudden your house becomes a play space not walls that hinder your gaming and can cause harm/damage. But we will see how creative people get. Could end up being awesome.
I am really not in agreement with your logic.
Follow me along closely because this can get complicated.
1. Current games For multiple decades now we have been playing games in which our character moves, shoots, runs, swims, exists in large worlds, travels faster and covers more ground then we as humans can do in the same time by a large margin.
2. Now lets talk about VR. In order for what we are wrongly calling VR to work and not completely fail does it HAVE to resemble reality 100%? well no. If one wants to get into a debate over systematics and suggest it should not be called VR then that is fine it likely should not but at the end of the day what it really is is nothing more than a gradual improvement to your existing gaming experience which involves you using WSAD to move. So does it have to be better than WSAD? yes. Does it HAVE TO resemble reality? no
in other words, just because you can run 100 miles in 10 seconds in a game doesnt mean in VR you physically HAVE to in order for the platform to not fail completely.
For once I agree with you.
My idea of using VR for gaming involves me still sitting comfortably in my chair and simulating movement through the conventional gaming means.
Anything else beyond that is a gimmick that will hurt, not help, VR adoption by the general public.
That works on some level but now how do you keep something as complex as say WoW with 50+ options for skills+movement+inventory. How do you boil that down to a few buttons you cant see? Or do we need to dumb it down?
No... it doesn't need to be 'dumbed down'.
To address horizontal complexity (interesting to note that this is not the same thing as depth) there are ways without sacrificing any functionality. One of these is voice recognition: this is already a feature in many VR experiences. Do you have any idea how many different human phonemes there are? Another is to have nested menus. Gesture commands.
We've been working at this for a while, especially on the mobile platform. Some of these lessons will no doubt translate to VR.
if we step back we can see that a lot of the 'hows we do something' in VR represents how we do the same thing in real life more so then how existing games do. In real life I dont drill down several menus in order to greet someone with a handsake (for example) but in real life we do this.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Selling VR sets is one thing. Providing meaningful and fun games for those VR headsets is another. I am still waiting for that ONE VR game that really make me want to get into VR. Don't get me wrong, I have tried VR and I am convinced VR could be really great. However, I have not seen much more the tech demos of what VR can do and nothing more.
it will take awhile.
some here do not believe me when I say this but its very true. I had purchased into HDTV early (I think around 2000) (as in my HDTV was tube based not LCD) and at the time cable TV didnt do HDTV except for one channel at the time and the airwaves were not broadcasting yet.
It took more than year before I got to content I care about (which was not sports so that was out anyway).
With this its not just recording HD content and getting a better network backbone to support the new bandwidth. Its coming up with creative ways to make content fun. VR is awesome in it 4x4' space but if you want to explore a castle or a world. Your back to joysticks or that dumb warping feature no one likes. IMO I think Augmented Reality is going to beat out VR because of this. All of a sudden your house becomes a play space not walls that hinder your gaming and can cause harm/damage. But we will see how creative people get. Could end up being awesome.
I am really not in agreement with your logic.
Follow me along closely because this can get complicated.
1. Current games For multiple decades now we have been playing games in which our character moves, shoots, runs, swims, exists in large worlds, travels faster and covers more ground then we as humans can do in the same time by a large margin.
2. Now lets talk about VR. In order for what we are wrongly calling VR to work and not completely fail does it HAVE to resemble reality 100%? well no. If one wants to get into a debate over systematics and suggest it should not be called VR then that is fine it likely should not but at the end of the day what it really is is nothing more than a gradual improvement to your existing gaming experience which involves you using WSAD to move. So does it have to be better than WSAD? yes. Does it HAVE TO resemble reality? no
in other words, just because you can run 100 miles in 10 seconds in a game doesnt mean in VR you physically HAVE to in order for the platform to not fail completely.
For once I agree with you.
My idea of using VR for gaming involves me still sitting comfortably in my chair and simulating movement through the conventional gaming means.
Anything else beyond that is a gimmick that will hurt, not help, VR adoption by the general public.
That works on some level but now how do you keep something as complex as say WoW with 50+ options for skills+movement+inventory. How do you boil that down to a few buttons you cant see? Or do we need to dumb it down?
I think the biggest issues with so many different types of games is the amount of time people can keep these units on their heads before they need a break.
It's going to require a different style of game design. It's naturally well suited for driving/piloting style games. Its going to takes some experimentation and experience for RPGs and other genre's
I appreciate thought out replies such as this one.
I would like to drill down on the question of this some more however in more concrete terms. In a traditional game when my RPG character wants to move closer to the NPC tradepost down the block I do it with a keyboard and a mouse, nothing in my vision other than a small part of it (what I see on my screen) is actually moving, everything else is not.
How, specifically, is this natural and clearly not a problem in traditional gaming but is a problem in VR. I am not suggesting its not, but I am asking what are the specifics as to why it is.
I think your missing my main point. I'm not really concerned with control peripherals. I think that controls are not a real issue.
When I play games like RPG's, I usually spend a couple hours or more in a play session. I'm very comfortable physically.
My experience with VR is that I personally can take about 15 minutes comfortably. After that time I start getting uncomfortable and feel the need for a break. This I feel, is one of the things that game developers are going to have to learn how to work around. It won't be traditional game design.
I think your missing my main point. I'm not really concerned with control peripherals. I think that controls are not a real issue.
When I play games like RPG's, I usually spend a couple hours or more in a play session. I'm very comfortable physically.
My experience with VR is that I personally can take about 15 minutes comfortably. After that time I start getting uncomfortable and feel the need for a break. This I feel, is one of the things that game developers are going to have to learn how to work around. It won't be traditional game design.
ah yes and I agree 100%.
how this all pans out I dont know, it is however one of the reasons why I think VR might become more successful for TV and Film then for games
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I think your missing my main point. I'm not really concerned with control peripherals. I think that controls are not a real issue.
When I play games like RPG's, I usually spend a couple hours or more in a play session. I'm very comfortable physically.
My experience with VR is that I personally can take about 15 minutes comfortably. After that time I start getting uncomfortable and feel the need for a break. This I feel, is one of the things that game developers are going to have to learn how to work around. It won't be traditional game design.
ah yes and I agree 100%.
how this all pans out I dont know, it is however one of the reasons why I think VR might become more successful for TV and Film then for games
Porn man. It's all about the porn
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
What you're going to end up with will be exactly like what mobile games are dealing with currently.
On screen controls.
You see this similar in the Blink mechanism, and that's one thing people dislike, is a click to port mentality.
It doesn't have to be this way.. controllers do have analog sticks on them, to move with an analog stick throughout a terrain, but what you're going to see for skill activation will likely be a chosen soft menu within the game.
I've seen this a few times in current VR games, and I'm sure @Phaserlight has seen it to if he's been utilizing his gear set.
You can select based on gaze, you can select based on motion, and you can see everything on the on screen HUD -- which some might also say kills immersion, but all of this is afterall, a game.
True hand gesture type commands are not too far off, especially since Hololens already utilizes them, and their set that releases within the next few months will also have motion tracking and everything built in, it's conducive to a more natural selection process.
On top of that MagicLeap has a patent on a visual glove. Not a control as much as an actual glove with points built into it to better determine positioning, as video detection in all aspects of gesture will always be slower than direct input from a peripheral.
Thats why the Magic Leap gloves, I think, will eventually be the new standard for VR and AR interactivity. Not only do you have the ability to grab and twist and pull and gesture in a more real-time environment, but you also have haptic feedback when you grab something, or touch type on an air keyboard to ensure that your fingers are adequately hitting the keys.
@SEANMCAD I wasn't "knocking" VR in any way. However whenever I have checked publisher's numbers - when they give them out - against Superdata's "estimates" I have found that they were not simply "not right" - you'd expect that - but that they were "badly not right". Often very badly "not right".
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
Selling VR sets is one thing. Providing meaningful and fun games for those VR headsets is another. I am still waiting for that ONE VR game that really make me want to get into VR. Don't get me wrong, I have tried VR and I am convinced VR could be really great. However, I have not seen much more the tech demos of what VR can do and nothing more.
it will take awhile.
some here do not believe me when I say this but its very true. I had purchased into HDTV early (I think around 2000) (as in my HDTV was tube based not LCD) and at the time cable TV didnt do HDTV except for one channel at the time and the airwaves were not broadcasting yet.
It took more than year before I got to content I care about (which was not sports so that was out anyway).
With this its not just recording HD content and getting a better network backbone to support the new bandwidth. Its coming up with creative ways to make content fun. VR is awesome in it 4x4' space but if you want to explore a castle or a world. Your back to joysticks or that dumb warping feature no one likes. IMO I think Augmented Reality is going to beat out VR because of this. All of a sudden your house becomes a play space not walls that hinder your gaming and can cause harm/damage. But we will see how creative people get. Could end up being awesome.
I am really not in agreement with your logic.
Follow me along closely because this can get complicated.
1. Current games For multiple decades now we have been playing games in which our character moves, shoots, runs, swims, exists in large worlds, travels faster and covers more ground then we as humans can do in the same time by a large margin.
2. Now lets talk about VR. In order for what we are wrongly calling VR to work and not completely fail does it HAVE to resemble reality 100%? well no. If one wants to get into a debate over systematics and suggest it should not be called VR then that is fine it likely should not but at the end of the day what it really is is nothing more than a gradual improvement to your existing gaming experience which involves you using WSAD to move. So does it have to be better than WSAD? yes. Does it HAVE TO resemble reality? no
in other words, just because you can run 100 miles in 10 seconds in a game doesnt mean in VR you physically HAVE to in order for the platform to not fail completely.
For once I agree with you.
My idea of using VR for gaming involves me still sitting comfortably in my chair and simulating movement through the conventional gaming means.
Anything else beyond that is a gimmick that will hurt, not help, VR adoption by the general public.
That works on some level but now how do you keep something as complex as say WoW with 50+ options for skills+movement+inventory. How do you boil that down to a few buttons you cant see? Or do we need to dumb it down?
It's been so long since the last time I played an MMO without a gaming mouse that I've forgotten that some people do look at their KB while playing for things other than typing messages in chat
I would envision playing WOW with a VR headset pretty well the same I play it now: my left-hand WASD+ keys I just do by touch. My most used abilities are programmed to one of my gaming mouse buttons. Anything not programmed to a button (long term buffs, seldom used skills, etc.) I would hope that I can move the mouse pointer and click on the interface same as I do with a monitor.
Ya I use a gaming mouse, my wife and most of my friends dont. Thats one of my problems with VR. Will gaming need to be dumbed down enough that the main draw will be the visuals. For me, thats not anything I am really interested in. Again another reason I think AR will beat VR.
Selling VR sets is one thing. Providing meaningful and fun games for those VR headsets is another. I am still waiting for that ONE VR game that really make me want to get into VR. Don't get me wrong, I have tried VR and I am convinced VR could be really great. However, I have not seen much more the tech demos of what VR can do and nothing more.
it will take awhile.
some here do not believe me when I say this but its very true. I had purchased into HDTV early (I think around 2000) (as in my HDTV was tube based not LCD) and at the time cable TV didnt do HDTV except for one channel at the time and the airwaves were not broadcasting yet.
It took more than year before I got to content I care about (which was not sports so that was out anyway).
With this its not just recording HD content and getting a better network backbone to support the new bandwidth. Its coming up with creative ways to make content fun. VR is awesome in it 4x4' space but if you want to explore a castle or a world. Your back to joysticks or that dumb warping feature no one likes. IMO I think Augmented Reality is going to beat out VR because of this. All of a sudden your house becomes a play space not walls that hinder your gaming and can cause harm/damage. But we will see how creative people get. Could end up being awesome.
I am really not in agreement with your logic.
Follow me along closely because this can get complicated.
1. Current games For multiple decades now we have been playing games in which our character moves, shoots, runs, swims, exists in large worlds, travels faster and covers more ground then we as humans can do in the same time by a large margin.
2. Now lets talk about VR. In order for what we are wrongly calling VR to work and not completely fail does it HAVE to resemble reality 100%? well no. If one wants to get into a debate over systematics and suggest it should not be called VR then that is fine it likely should not but at the end of the day what it really is is nothing more than a gradual improvement to your existing gaming experience which involves you using WSAD to move. So does it have to be better than WSAD? yes. Does it HAVE TO resemble reality? no
in other words, just because you can run 100 miles in 10 seconds in a game doesnt mean in VR you physically HAVE to in order for the platform to not fail completely.
For once I agree with you.
My idea of using VR for gaming involves me still sitting comfortably in my chair and simulating movement through the conventional gaming means.
Anything else beyond that is a gimmick that will hurt, not help, VR adoption by the general public.
That works on some level but now how do you keep something as complex as say WoW with 50+ options for skills+movement+inventory. How do you boil that down to a few buttons you cant see? Or do we need to dumb it down?
It's been so long since the last time I played an MMO without a gaming mouse that I've forgotten that some people do look at their KB while playing for things other than typing messages in chat
I would envision playing WOW with a VR headset pretty well the same I play it now: my left-hand WASD+ keys I just do by touch. My most used abilities are programmed to one of my gaming mouse buttons. Anything not programmed to a button (long term buffs, seldom used skills, etc.) I would hope that I can move the mouse pointer and click on the interface same as I do with a monitor.
Ya I use a gaming mouse, my wife and most of my friends dont. Thats one of my problems with VR. Will gaming need to be dumbed down enough that the main draw will be the visuals. For me, thats not anything I am really interested in. Again another reason I think AR will beat VR.
think about it in the context of real life.
is doing something more similar to how you would do it in real life rather than over compllicating it by using a mouse 'dumbing down'?
example: How do you greet someone in Sims? well its buried in about three levels of icons, how do you do it in real life? which is more 'dumbed down'?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@SEANMCAD I wasn't "knocking" VR in any way. However whenever I have checked publisher's numbers - when they give them out - against Superdata's "estimates" I have found that they were not simply "not right" - you'd expect that - but that they were "badly not right". Often very badly "not right".
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
the point I am trying to get across is this. follow along this one bit really close.
IF the numbers where that wrong as you suggested dont you think at least one journalistic site or article would have numbers that strongly suggest these numbers are incorrect?
the problem is here that one side has articles, the other has not. that is highly questionable and makes a person wonder why.
I am looking for articles that are drawing the same conclusion or very similar conclusion as you are. not a string of articles that in total added with your insight draw a conclusion because if your conclusion was strong then another site would have come to your same conclusion and written about it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@SEANMCAD I wasn't "knocking" VR in any way. However whenever I have checked publisher's numbers - when they give them out - against Superdata's "estimates" I have found that they were not simply "not right" - you'd expect that - but that they were "badly not right". Often very badly "not right".
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
the point I am trying to get across is this. follow along this one bit really close.
IF the numbers where that wrong as you suggested dont you think at least one journalistic site or article would have numbers that strongly suggest these numbers are incorrect?
the problem is here that one side has articles, the other has not. that is highly questionable and makes a person wonder why.
I am looking for articles that are drawing the same conclusion or very similar conclusion as you are. not a string of articles that in total added with your insight draw a conclusion because if your conclusion was strong then another site would have come to your same conclusion and written about it.
This is reaching in the most obtuse manner. Go back and find articles that suggested superdata was originally incorrect at the time? How about you go do that? There aren't any... SuperData took it upon themselves to state that they themselves were wrong again, and again.
Just go back to the original article @gervaise posted. "superdata decreased their VR estimates AGAIN"
dissect that. That means 1) they had an original estimate. 2) they reduced that estimate once before. 3) they reduced it AGAIN. and then 4) you posted another estimate... that's a total of 4 TOTAL estimates made, all contradicting one another.
You are looking for something that doesn't exist. Nobody needs to prove wrong the article that consistently contradicts itself.
@SEANMCAD I wasn't "knocking" VR in any way. However whenever I have checked publisher's numbers - when they give them out - against Superdata's "estimates" I have found that they were not simply "not right" - you'd expect that - but that they were "badly not right". Often very badly "not right".
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
the point I am trying to get across is this. follow along this one bit really close.
IF the numbers where that wrong as you suggested dont you think at least one journalistic site or article would have numbers that strongly suggest these numbers are incorrect?
the problem is here that one side has articles, the other has not. that is highly questionable and makes a person wonder why.
I am looking for articles that are drawing the same conclusion or very similar conclusion as you are. not a string of articles that in total added with your insight draw a conclusion because if your conclusion was strong then another site would have come to your same conclusion and written about it.
This is reaching in the most obtuse manner. G....
there is nothing remotely 'obtuse' about it.
If in the news you have several articles that suggest there are WMDs in Iraq and no articles that shows that there are not, yet one has a good theory as to why there isnt any then a fair question is to ask...why hasnt any news story covered that perspective?
It doesnt mean the proposition is wrong, it just makes the fact that no author of any article has came to the same conclusion is extremely suspicious.
at the moment somewhere around 95% to 99% of ALL articles that have come out prior to this month suggest that VR is gang busters and the only people complaining are posters on gaming websites who cant find any strong articles that support their theory DIRECTLY.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@SEANMCAD I wasn't "knocking" VR in any way. However whenever I have checked publisher's numbers - when they give them out - against Superdata's "estimates" I have found that they were not simply "not right" - you'd expect that - but that they were "badly not right". Often very badly "not right".
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
the point I am trying to get across is this. follow along this one bit really close.
IF the numbers where that wrong as you suggested dont you think at least one journalistic site or article would have numbers that strongly suggest these numbers are incorrect?
the problem is here that one side has articles, the other has not. that is highly questionable and makes a person wonder why.
I am looking for articles that are drawing the same conclusion or very similar conclusion as you are. not a string of articles that in total added with your insight draw a conclusion because if your conclusion was strong then another site would have come to your same conclusion and written about it.
This is reaching in the most obtuse manner. G....
there is nothing remotely 'obtuse' about it.
If in the news you have several articles that suggest there are WMDs in Iraq and no articles that shows that there are not, yet one has a good theory as to why there isnt any then a fair question is to ask...why hasnt any news story covered that perspective?
It doesnt mean the proposition is wrong, it just makes the fact that no author of any article has came to the same conclusion is extremely suspicious.
at the moment somewhere around 95% to 99% of ALL articles that have come out prior to this month suggest that VR is gang busters and the only people complaining are posters on gaming websites who cant find any strong articles that support their theory DIRECTLY.
I always thought that Superdata was a market analysis company that sold significantly priced reports to the video game industry so they could plan their business's around current market trends
I had no idea that they were a member of the news and/or entertainment media
@SEANMCAD I wasn't "knocking" VR in any way. However whenever I have checked publisher's numbers - when they give them out - against Superdata's "estimates" I have found that they were not simply "not right" - you'd expect that - but that they were "badly not right". Often very badly "not right".
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
the point I am trying to get across is this. follow along this one bit really close.
IF the numbers where that wrong as you suggested dont you think at least one journalistic site or article would have numbers that strongly suggest these numbers are incorrect?
the problem is here that one side has articles, the other has not. that is highly questionable and makes a person wonder why.
I am looking for articles that are drawing the same conclusion or very similar conclusion as you are. not a string of articles that in total added with your insight draw a conclusion because if your conclusion was strong then another site would have come to your same conclusion and written about it.
This is reaching in the most obtuse manner. G....
there is nothing remotely 'obtuse' about it.
If in the news you have several articles that suggest there are WMDs in Iraq and no articles that shows that there are not, yet one has a good theory as to why there isnt any then a fair question is to ask...why hasnt any news story covered that perspective?
It doesnt mean the proposition is wrong, it just makes the fact that no author of any article has came to the same conclusion is extremely suspicious.
at the moment somewhere around 95% to 99% of ALL articles that have come out prior to this month suggest that VR is gang busters and the only people complaining are posters on gaming websites who cant find any strong articles that support their theory DIRECTLY.
I always thought that Superdata was a market analysis company that sold significantly priced reports to the video game industry so they could plan their business's around current market trends
I had no idea that they were a member of the news and/or entertainment media
your post would be what is called a strawman.
you illustration matters how in my point? in fact it actually kind of helps my point more than damage it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@SEANMCAD I wasn't "knocking" VR in any way. However whenever I have checked publisher's numbers - when they give them out - against Superdata's "estimates" I have found that they were not simply "not right" - you'd expect that - but that they were "badly not right". Often very badly "not right".
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
the point I am trying to get across is this. follow along this one bit really close.
IF the numbers where that wrong as you suggested dont you think at least one journalistic site or article would have numbers that strongly suggest these numbers are incorrect?
the problem is here that one side has articles, the other has not. that is highly questionable and makes a person wonder why.
I am looking for articles that are drawing the same conclusion or very similar conclusion as you are. not a string of articles that in total added with your insight draw a conclusion because if your conclusion was strong then another site would have come to your same conclusion and written about it.
This is reaching in the most obtuse manner. G....
there is nothing remotely 'obtuse' about it.
If in the news you have several articles that suggest there are WMDs in Iraq and no articles that shows that there are not, yet one has a good theory as to why there isnt any then a fair question is to ask...why hasnt any news story covered that perspective?
It doesnt mean the proposition is wrong, it just makes the fact that no author of any article has came to the same conclusion is extremely suspicious.
at the moment somewhere around 95% to 99% of ALL articles that have come out prior to this month suggest that VR is gang busters and the only people complaining are posters on gaming websites who cant find any strong articles that support their theory DIRECTLY.
see here's the thing, you try to obfuscate what these articles are by using other industries, but that isn't the case. Stop talking abotu "news" talk about what these articles ARE .. don't try to push this off on analogies that make sense to you but have no bearing on what this actually is.
Not to mention, that most of the articles that have been posted aside from PSVR articles and Gear VR articles show PC VR is abysmal, not selling well, and even the data YOU POSTED shows it.. as they decrease estimates time after time after time.
@SEANMCAD I wasn't "knocking" VR in any way. However whenever I have checked publisher's numbers - when they give them out - against Superdata's "estimates" I have found that they were not simply "not right" - you'd expect that - but that they were "badly not right". Often very badly "not right".
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
the point I am trying to get across is this. follow along this one bit really close.
IF the numbers where that wrong as you suggested dont you think at least one journalistic site or article would have numbers that strongly suggest these numbers are incorrect?
the problem is here that one side has articles, the other has not. that is highly questionable and makes a person wonder why.
I am looking for articles that are drawing the same conclusion or very similar conclusion as you are. not a string of articles that in total added with your insight draw a conclusion because if your conclusion was strong then another site would have come to your same conclusion and written about it.
This is reaching in the most obtuse manner. G....
there is nothing remotely 'obtuse' about it.
If in the news you have several articles that suggest there are WMDs in Iraq and no articles that shows that there are not, yet one has a good theory as to why there isnt any then a fair question is to ask...why hasnt any news story covered that perspective?
It doesnt mean the proposition is wrong, it just makes the fact that no author of any article has came to the same conclusion is extremely suspicious.
at the moment somewhere around 95% to 99% of ALL articles that have come out prior to this month suggest that VR is gang busters and the only people complaining are posters on gaming websites who cant find any strong articles that support their theory DIRECTLY.
see here's the thing, you try to obfuscate what these articles are by using other industries, but that isn't the case. Stop talking abotu "news" talk about what these articles ARE .. don't try to push this off on analogies that make sense to you but have no bearing on what this actually is.
Not to mention, that most of the articles that have been posted aside from PSVR articles and Gear VR articles show PC VR is abysmal, not selling well, and even the data YOU POSTED shows it.. as they decrease estimates time after time after time.
well I have to say thank you and laserit for illustrating that the data in question is far more important and has much larger impact and is far more serious then just a news article. because it does in fact involve millions if not billions of dollars being invested based on the data and the company in question has its intergrity on the line.
so yeah, that helps me...thanks.
so yeah. one side has data, the other side does not or at best only personal extrapolation threaded together using various unrelated data points.
and this has been going on on these forums for this topic for months if not a year. When are you guys going to get some data that even come close to resembling something serious?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
well I have to say thank you and laserit for illustrating that the data in question is far more important and has much larger impact and is far more serious then just a news article. because it does in fact involve millions if not billions of dollars being invested based on the data and the company in question has its intergrity on the line.
so yeah, that helps me...thanks.
so yeah. one side has data, the other side does not.
well I have to say thank you and laserit for illustrating that the data in question is far more important and has much larger impact and is far more serious then just a news article. because it does in fact involve millions if not billions of dollars being invested based on the data and the company in question has its intergrity on the line.
so yeah, that helps me...thanks.
so yeah. one side has data, the other side does not.
What happened to you?
just rockin with data to show people all the claims from a year ago of 'VR will fail miserably before it even gets started' is a bit wrong.
Although I have not said it, pretty much every single exchange and readjustments of what 'failure' means that has happened on this board I predicted over the course of 12 months.
The only one I got wrong is that AAA titles are getting made faster then I thought.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
see here's the thing, you try to obfuscate what these articles are by using other industries, but that isn't the case. Stop talking abotu "news" talk about what these articles ARE .. don't try to push this off on analogies that make sense to you but have no bearing on what this actually is.
Not to mention, that most of the articles that have been posted aside from PSVR articles and Gear VR articles show PC VR is abysmal, not selling well, and even the data YOU POSTED shows it.. as they decrease estimates time after time after time.
well I have to say thank you and laserit for illustrating that the data in question is far more important and has much larger impact and is far more serious then just a news article. because it does in fact involve millions if not billions of dollars being invested based on the data and the company in question has its intergrity on the line.
so yeah, that helps me...thanks.
so yeah. one side has data, the other side does not or at best only personal extrapolation threaded together using various unrelated data points.
and this has been going on on these forums for this topic for months if not a year. When are you guys going to get some data that even come close to resembling something serious?
Must be nice living in your world.
You take this data as fact where it is only best guessing.
it very much has a lot of benefits however there are pain points. namely almost never being listen to
sample 'it will never get out of kickstarter' 'it will fail because its not on console' 'it will fail because there are not any titles' 'it will fail because there arent any high end titles' 'it will never be advertised in a mainstream way' 'it will fail before it even gets started' 'the 'sell out' was 'clearly' a low number of headsets' 'VR arcades? yeah right!'
I knew all those items were going to fall flat a long time ago
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
well I have to say thank you and laserit for illustrating that the data in question is far more important and has much larger impact and is far more serious then just a news article. because it does in fact involve millions if not billions of dollars being invested based on the data and the company in question has its intergrity on the line.
so yeah, that helps me...thanks.
so yeah. one side has data, the other side does not.
What happened to you?
just rockin with data to show people all the claims from a year ago of 'VR will fail miserably before it even gets started' is a bit wrong.
Although I have not said it, pretty much every single exchange and readjustments of what 'failure' means that has happened on this board I predicted over the course of 12 months.
The only one I got wrong is that AAA titles are getting made faster then I thought.
It has not been a success as well. Sure a few million people out of 7 billion bought into VR. We have yet to have a groundbreaking game we can point to, to sell systems. Right now people are buying into an idea. Your pointing at a snowflake and yelling blizzard. The blizzard still may or maynot come.
well I have to say thank you and laserit for illustrating that the data in question is far more important and has much larger impact and is far more serious then just a news article. because it does in fact involve millions if not billions of dollars being invested based on the data and the company in question has its intergrity on the line.
so yeah, that helps me...thanks.
so yeah. one side has data, the other side does not.
What happened to you?
just rockin with data to show people all the claims from a year ago of 'VR will fail miserably before it even gets started' is a bit wrong.
Although I have not said it, pretty much every single exchange and readjustments of what 'failure' means that has happened on this board I predicted over the course of 12 months.
The only one I got wrong is that AAA titles are getting made faster then I thought.
It has not been a success as well. Sure a few million people out of 7 billion bought into VR. We have yet to have a groundbreaking game we can point to, to sell systems. Right now people are buying into an idea. Your pointing at a snowflake and yelling blizzard. The blizzard still may or maynot come.
He also refuses to acknowledge that the year ago that was predicted, didn't have PSVR on the list.. it was announced in early 2016, PC VR is still widely a failure by industry estimates and company projections.
Remember facebooks 100Million needed to break even? They aren't even estimating 1 million will be sold after a YEAR on the market. Not even 500K
well I have to say thank you and laserit for illustrating that the data in question is far more important and has much larger impact and is far more serious then just a news article. because it does in fact involve millions if not billions of dollars being invested based on the data and the company in question has its intergrity on the line.
so yeah, that helps me...thanks.
so yeah. one side has data, the other side does not.
What happened to you?
just rockin with data to show people all the claims from a year ago of 'VR will fail miserably before it even gets started' is a bit wrong.
Although I have not said it, pretty much every single exchange and readjustments of what 'failure' means that has happened on this board I predicted over the course of 12 months.
The only one I got wrong is that AAA titles are getting made faster then I thought.
It has not been a success as well. Sure a few million people out of 7 billion bought into VR. We have yet to have a groundbreaking game we can point to, to sell systems. Right now people are buying into an idea. Your pointing at a snowflake and yelling blizzard. The blizzard still may or maynot come.
He also refuses to acknowledge that the year ago that was predicted, didn't have PSVR on the list.. it was announced in early 2016, PC VR is still widely a failure by industry estimates and company projections.
Remember facebooks 100Million needed to break even? They aren't even estimating 1 million will be sold after a YEAR on the market. Not even 500K
1. the PSVR coming into existence just helped me with my prediction is all 2. I know you dont want to hear this because you have told me explictly but you are reading the facebooks statements ENTIRELY wrong. EVERYTHING needs to break even point and EVERYTHING doesnt get that back on day one (ok well maybe not everything) so shocker! say it aint so! no way! you mean VR has to break even? get the F out! impossible!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
@SEANMCAD I wasn't "knocking" VR in any way. However whenever I have checked publisher's numbers - when they give them out - against Superdata's "estimates" I have found that they were not simply "not right" - you'd expect that - but that they were "badly not right". Often very badly "not right".
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
the point I am trying to get across is this. follow along this one bit really close.
IF the numbers where that wrong as you suggested dont you think at least one journalistic site or article would have numbers that strongly suggest these numbers are incorrect?
the problem is here that one side has articles, the other has not. that is highly questionable and makes a person wonder why.
I am looking for articles that are drawing the same conclusion or very similar conclusion as you are. not a string of articles that in total added with your insight draw a conclusion because if your conclusion was strong then another site would have come to your same conclusion and written about it.
This is reaching in the most obtuse manner. G....
there is nothing remotely 'obtuse' about it.
If in the news you have several articles that suggest there are WMDs in Iraq and no articles that shows that there are not, yet one has a good theory as to why there isnt any then a fair question is to ask...why hasnt any news story covered that perspective?
It doesnt mean the proposition is wrong, it just makes the fact that no author of any article has came to the same conclusion is extremely suspicious.
at the moment somewhere around 95% to 99% of ALL articles that have come out prior to this month suggest that VR is gang busters and the only people complaining are posters on gaming websites who cant find any strong articles that support their theory DIRECTLY.
I always thought that Superdata was a market analysis company that sold significantly priced reports to the video game industry so they could plan their business's around current market trends
I had no idea that they were a member of the news and/or entertainment media
your post would be what is called a strawman.
you illustration matters how in my point? in fact it actually kind of helps my point more than damage it.
Helps with what?
Your always on this "people say it will fail" kick
How do we define failure?
VR is here to stay, anyone who doesn't believe so is foolish. I'm just not as optimistic as you are. In its current iteration the novelty wears thin pretty quickly. VR is really cool but it has some big hurdles to overcome to make it more than a novelty item.
I believe it will take quite a few years for Oculus and HTC to recoup costs and turn a profit if they ever do. Later adopters like Sony and Microsoft will make profitability for Oculus much more difficult. HTC from a manufacturing experience point of view is in a better position.
That $300 price point is huge. That is where the winners and the losers will be made.
@SEANMCAD I wasn't "knocking" VR in any way. However whenever I have checked publisher's numbers - when they give them out - against Superdata's "estimates" I have found that they were not simply "not right" - you'd expect that - but that they were "badly not right". Often very badly "not right".
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
the point I am trying to get across is this. follow along this one bit really close.
IF the numbers where that wrong as you suggested dont you think at least one journalistic site or article would have numbers that strongly suggest these numbers are incorrect?
the problem is here that one side has articles, the other has not. that is highly questionable and makes a person wonder why.
I am looking for articles that are drawing the same conclusion or very similar conclusion as you are. not a string of articles that in total added with your insight draw a conclusion because if your conclusion was strong then another site would have come to your same conclusion and written about it.
This is reaching in the most obtuse manner. G....
there is nothing remotely 'obtuse' about it.
If in the news you have several articles that suggest there are WMDs in Iraq and no articles that shows that there are not, yet one has a good theory as to why there isnt any then a fair question is to ask...why hasnt any news story covered that perspective?
It doesnt mean the proposition is wrong, it just makes the fact that no author of any article has came to the same conclusion is extremely suspicious.
at the moment somewhere around 95% to 99% of ALL articles that have come out prior to this month suggest that VR is gang busters and the only people complaining are posters on gaming websites who cant find any strong articles that support their theory DIRECTLY.
I always thought that Superdata was a market analysis company that sold significantly priced reports to the video game industry so they could plan their business's around current market trends
I had no idea that they were a member of the news and/or entertainment media
your post would be what is called a strawman.
you illustration matters how in my point? in fact it actually kind of helps my point more than damage it.
.. How do we define failure?
VR is here to stay, anyone who doesn't believe so is foolish. I...
absolute unabashed horeshit and redefininig (which I predicted people would do) what was said 6 months ago.
'fail flat on its face before it even gets to the public' is not 'VR is here to stay' what a pile of crap
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
I would like to drill down on the question of this some more however in more concrete terms. In a traditional game when my RPG character wants to move closer to the NPC tradepost down the block I do it with a keyboard and a mouse, nothing in my vision other than a small part of it (what I see on my screen) is actually moving, everything else is not.
How, specifically, is this natural and clearly not a problem in traditional gaming but is a problem in VR. I am not suggesting its not, but I am asking what are the specifics as to why it is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
To address horizontal complexity (interesting to note that this is not the same thing as depth) there are ways without sacrificing any functionality. One of these is voice recognition: this is already a feature in many VR experiences. Do you have any idea how many different human phonemes there are? Another is to have nested menus. Gesture commands.
We've been working at this for a while, especially on the mobile platform. Some of these lessons will no doubt translate to VR.
"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
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
When I play games like RPG's, I usually spend a couple hours or more in a play session. I'm very comfortable physically.
My experience with VR is that I personally can take about 15 minutes comfortably. After that time I start getting uncomfortable and feel the need for a break. This I feel, is one of the things that game developers are going to have to learn how to work around. It won't be traditional game design.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
how this all pans out I dont know, it is however one of the reasons why I think VR might become more successful for TV and Film then for games
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
On screen controls.
You see this similar in the Blink mechanism, and that's one thing people dislike, is a click to port mentality.
It doesn't have to be this way.. controllers do have analog sticks on them, to move with an analog stick throughout a terrain, but what you're going to see for skill activation will likely be a chosen soft menu within the game.
I've seen this a few times in current VR games, and I'm sure @Phaserlight has seen it to if he's been utilizing his gear set.
You can select based on gaze, you can select based on motion, and you can see everything on the on screen HUD -- which some might also say kills immersion, but all of this is afterall, a game.
True hand gesture type commands are not too far off, especially since Hololens already utilizes them, and their set that releases within the next few months will also have motion tracking and everything built in, it's conducive to a more natural selection process.
On top of that MagicLeap has a patent on a visual glove. Not a control as much as an actual glove with points built into it to better determine positioning, as video detection in all aspects of gesture will always be slower than direct input from a peripheral.
Thats why the Magic Leap gloves, I think, will eventually be the new standard for VR and AR interactivity. Not only do you have the ability to grab and twist and pull and gesture in a more real-time environment, but you also have haptic feedback when you grab something, or touch type on an air keyboard to ensure that your fingers are adequately hitting the keys.
And its no different with their VR stuff - according to Superdata themselves. They had a number of "notes" out in 2015 with "projections" that changed etc. If we stick to 2016 however:
They kicked off with a January 5th note. https://www.superdataresearch.com/market-data/virtual-reality-industry-report/ Estimate for 2016 revenue $5.1 billion.
Another note in February followed by a March note that reduced their January estimate by 30% - down to $3.6 billion. (-30%).
In April they reduced their estimate by another 22% - down to $2.9 billion. https://www.superdataresearch.com/virtual-realitys-hardware-hurdles-hurt-forecast/ (-22%).
This type of estimating is "piss poor". A company that was investing heavily in VR wouldn't give something that changed so drastically so quickly the time of day.
More "serious" reports are not as headline grabbing. For Superdata do produce a regular stream of "eyewatering drivel estimates" for VR, PC, WoW, Playstation, XB1, Hearthstone, Witcher, mobile, etc. etc.
Wouldn't be as easy for a "journalist" to copy and paste something like /http://thefarm51.com/ripress/VR_market_report_2015_The_Farm51.pdf
however.
(Note: not saying what is in that link is right either. And at the end of the day just like the stuff Superdata produce its essentially a sales pitch. I just find it a more considered article and more grounded in reality - I know bad pun. There are others out there as well. Lots of guesstimates.
is doing something more similar to how you would do it in real life rather than over compllicating it by using a mouse 'dumbing down'?
example: How do you greet someone in Sims? well its buried in about three levels of icons, how do you do it in real life? which is more 'dumbed down'?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
IF the numbers where that wrong as you suggested dont you think at least one journalistic site or article would have numbers that strongly suggest these numbers are incorrect?
the problem is here that one side has articles, the other has not. that is highly questionable and makes a person wonder why.
I am looking for articles that are drawing the same conclusion or very similar conclusion as you are. not a string of articles that in total added with your insight draw a conclusion because if your conclusion was strong then another site would have come to your same conclusion and written about it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Just go back to the original article @gervaise posted. "superdata decreased their VR estimates AGAIN"
dissect that. That means 1) they had an original estimate. 2) they reduced that estimate once before. 3) they reduced it AGAIN. and then 4) you posted another estimate... that's a total of 4 TOTAL estimates made, all contradicting one another.
You are looking for something that doesn't exist. Nobody needs to prove wrong the article that consistently contradicts itself.
If in the news you have several articles that suggest there are WMDs in Iraq and no articles that shows that there are not, yet one has a good theory as to why there isnt any then a fair question is to ask...why hasnt any news story covered that perspective?
It doesnt mean the proposition is wrong, it just makes the fact that no author of any article has came to the same conclusion is extremely suspicious.
at the moment somewhere around 95% to 99% of ALL articles that have come out prior to this month suggest that VR is gang busters and the only people complaining are posters on gaming websites who cant find any strong articles that support their theory DIRECTLY.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I had no idea that they were a member of the news and/or entertainment media
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Not to mention, that most of the articles that have been posted aside from PSVR articles and Gear VR articles show PC VR is abysmal, not selling well, and even the data YOU POSTED shows it.. as they decrease estimates time after time after time.
so yeah, that helps me...thanks.
so yeah. one side has data, the other side does not or at best only personal extrapolation threaded together using various unrelated data points.
and this has been going on on these forums for this topic for months if not a year. When are you guys going to get some data that even come close to resembling something serious?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Although I have not said it, pretty much every single exchange and readjustments of what 'failure' means that has happened on this board I predicted over the course of 12 months.
The only one I got wrong is that AAA titles are getting made faster then I thought.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
sample
'it will never get out of kickstarter'
'it will fail because its not on console'
'it will fail because there are not any titles'
'it will fail because there arent any high end titles'
'it will never be advertised in a mainstream way'
'it will fail before it even gets started'
'the 'sell out' was 'clearly' a low number of headsets'
'VR arcades? yeah right!'
I knew all those items were going to fall flat a long time ago
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Remember facebooks 100Million needed to break even? They aren't even estimating 1 million will be sold after a YEAR on the market. Not even 500K
2. I know you dont want to hear this because you have told me explictly but you are reading the facebooks statements ENTIRELY wrong. EVERYTHING needs to break even point and EVERYTHING doesnt get that back on day one (ok well maybe not everything) so shocker! say it aint so! no way! you mean VR has to break even? get the F out! impossible!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Your always on this "people say it will fail" kick
How do we define failure?
VR is here to stay, anyone who doesn't believe so is foolish. I'm just not as optimistic as you are. In its current iteration the novelty wears thin pretty quickly. VR is really cool but it has some big hurdles to overcome to make it more than a novelty item.
I believe it will take quite a few years for Oculus and HTC to recoup costs and turn a profit if they ever do. Later adopters like Sony and Microsoft will make profitability for Oculus much more difficult. HTC from a manufacturing experience point of view is in a better position.
That $300 price point is huge. That is where the winners and the losers will be made.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
'fail flat on its face before it even gets to the public' is not 'VR is here to stay' what a pile of crap
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me