Sean it sounds like you're pissed AR can be done on a phone app with a camera. ...
I literally laughed out loud.
yeah thats it I am pissed the people think camera phone apps are outselling VR, which of course they likely are but who cares
also, I am greatly assumed that the only person who has been able to actualy mention the game in question is me. You know you have them running when they cant even say 'Free to Play Pokemon Go'
I'm not sure what you're even talking about. You posted the original article in the first place outlining everything you've been railing against. I've stated several times that Pokemon Go is the specific game in question. Not really sure what you think people are "hiding" from...
There are no illusions here.. Pokemon Go and it's Inclusion of AR used a Free to Play business model to outperform the VR industry. I think we're all very cognizant of that and the only one that seems to not understand or wants to argue it is you.
Sean it sounds like you're pissed AR can be done on a phone app with a camera. ...
I literally laughed out loud.
yeah thats it I am pissed the people think camera phone apps are outselling VR, which of course they likely are but who cares
also, I am greatly assumed that the only person who has been able to actualy mention the game in question is me. You know you have them running when they cant even say 'Free to Play Pokemon Go'
I'm not sure what you're even talking about. You posted the original article in the first place outlining everything you've been railing against. I've stated several times that Pokemon Go is the specific game in question. Not really sure what you think people are "hiding" from...
There are no illusions here.. Pokemon Go and it's Inclusion of AR used a Free to Play business model to outperform the VR industry. I think we're all very cognizant of that and the only one that seems to not understand or wants to argue it is you.
the 'Free to Play' game Pokemon GO which is a camera phone app is what is used to illustrate that AR is 'selling' more than VR only if you make an explict point to not count VR hardware of which you have very regularly point to for reference of success or failure within the VR market place.
Any idea how insane that sounds?
read that about 10 times slowly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Also everyone knows F2P is just another way to take people's money. Not to mention the money they got paid to make locations in the real world into PGO locations to generate foot traffic. Only a fool would think that money they made with this game means little impact on the future of VR and AR.
Sean it sounds like you're pissed AR can be done on a phone app with a camera. ...
I literally laughed out loud.
yeah thats it I am pissed the people think camera phone apps are outselling VR, which of course they likely are but who cares
also, I am greatly assumed that the only person who has been able to actualy mention the game in question is me. You know you have them running when they cant even say 'Free to Play Pokemon Go'
I'm not sure what you're even talking about. You posted the original article in the first place outlining everything you've been railing against. I've stated several times that Pokemon Go is the specific game in question. Not really sure what you think people are "hiding" from...
There are no illusions here.. Pokemon Go and it's Inclusion of AR used a Free to Play business model to outperform the VR industry. I think we're all very cognizant of that and the only one that seems to not understand or wants to argue it is you.
the 'Free to Play' game Pokemon GO which is a camera phone app is what is used to illustrate that AR is 'selling' more than VR only if you make an explict point to not count VR hardware of which you have very regularly point to for reference of success or failure within the VR market place.
Any idea how insane that sounds?
read that about 10 times slowly
VR and AR at the end of the day is only based on REVENUE. it doesn't matter how revenue is generated.
Why did Samsung give away so many VR headsets? Why are they basically giving away cell phone VR sets like Google Cardboard with NEWS SUBSCRIPTIONS? What happened to these "free headsets" and how are they different than "Free games" if they are doing it to generate revenue?
I don't see how you can't understand this, you've been around long enough that you should be able to simply understand that this isn't a "AR wins, VR fails" situation. It's an "AR game did better than VR as a whole" situation.
It doesn't matter if it's a camera phone app - there are a ton of VR phone apps - many even on the oculus store - and those phone apps are counted as part of VR revenue are they not? So why all the hate for the AR "apps"? I think I know one reason....
Also everyone knows F2P is just another way to take people's money. Not to mention the money they got paid to make locations in the real world into PGO locations to generate foot traffic. Only a fool would think that money they made with this game means little impact on the future of VR and AR.
I cant believe I have to explain this.
The numbers of 'sells' appear to be related to the 'number of people playing Pokemon Go'
That is NOT a 'sell' you have to look at how much MONEY the app has generated.
wow!
additionally.
its comparing literally a camera phone app with VR. yeah so what?
The tennis shoe market is also doing better what the fuck does a phone app with a camera have to do with VR?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. Pokemon Go is not AR. Its a camera phone app of which (such an app) I used 5 years ago. its not new, its not radical. comparing a phone app with a camera to AR is silly and in my view an insult to real AR.
2. number of players jumping into a Free to Play game is not number of 'sells'. the money they actually spend is 'sells' of which is not the majority according to the statistics.
3. For about a year now we have been debating over VR hardware sells, now all of the sudden its off the table for conversation and now we just have to talk about applications because of the number of people jumping into a F2P camera phone app? is that because AR is not even a harddware technology or something? its just an improvement on HTML5 or something? seriously?
weak on multiple levels.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If AR is just another app on a mobile phone, then is that a good thing? i am not sure how it makes it a success either, pokemon go did well, but its just one game that is very much 'yesterday' now, if AR is tied to the success of pokemon go, does that not also mean that AR is also history? at least until the next gimmicky mobile phone game, it makes AR's success more than somewhat fragile in nature, for AR to be called a success, then it needs to progress beyond being just an adjunct to a mobile phone game, it needs to leave behind the entire mobile phone platform.
If AR is just another app on a mobile phone, then is that a good thing? i am not sure how it makes it a success either, pokemon go did well, but its just one game that is very much 'yesterday' now, if AR is tied to the success of pokemon go, does that not also mean that AR is also history? at least until the next gimmicky mobile phone game, it makes AR's success more than somewhat fragile in nature, for AR to be called a success, then it needs to progress beyond being just an adjunct to a mobile phone game, it needs to leave behind the entire mobile phone platform.
yeah if I was an honest fan of AR I would be insulted to try and suggest to people Pokemon GO is a golden symbol of AR success.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. Pokemon Go is not AR. Its a camera phone app of which (such an app) I used 5 years ago. its not new, its not radical. comparing a phone app with a camera to AR is silly and in my view an insult to real AR.
2. number of players jumping into a Free to Play game is not number of 'sells'. the money they actually spend is 'sells' of which is not the majority according to the statistics.
3. For about a year now we have been debating over VR hardware sells, now all of the sudden its off the table for conversation and now we just have to talk about applications because of the number of people jumping into a F2P camera phone app? is that because AR is not even a harddware technology or something? its just an improvement on HTML5 or something? seriously?
weak on multiple levels.
This is the first post of yours I have read since I have put you on ignore. Other than ones I read by mistake because someone quoted you but here we go. Applications is what drives hardware. Halo made the Xbox a console worth buying. Before that PS was the only real option. Sega Genesis made a better hardware than the NES. NES won the war with better games. If a F2P game like PGO can out perform anything VR has had to give us and do so on a level that has taken notice of the developers that make applications. This means nothing good for VR.
You can make huge money with AR as almost everyone has a smart phone. VR headsets now thats a really small market and its not growing as it should be. If I had money to drop on a game and had a skilled team to work on that game. I would be doing AR and taking the next step from what PGO made. You call it weak but have you seen the watered down bull $#!t VR has given us? And at what cost to the consumer?
If AR is just another app on a mobile phone, then is that a good thing? i am not sure how it makes it a success either, pokemon go did well, but its just one game that is very much 'yesterday' now, if AR is tied to the success of pokemon go, does that not also mean that AR is also history? at least until the next gimmicky mobile phone game, it makes AR's success more than somewhat fragile in nature, for AR to be called a success, then it needs to progress beyond being just an adjunct to a mobile phone game, it needs to leave behind the entire mobile phone platform.
AR or MR is somewhat in its infancy -- but MR is and always will be an extension of SOFTWARE - NOT HARDWARE.
So as a cell phone APP - it can be considered AR simply by placing holographic or virtual images within ones actual LOS. This can be done with cell phones inasmuch as it can be done with VR sets that utilize a camera.
Idealistically, removal of the surrounding virtual space is preferred and this is what Hololens and MagicLeap strive to accomplish - as this cuts down substantially on latency, light issues, visual accuracy, etc. that does NOT mean that it is necessary to become an AR app.
That being said Pokemon Go is STILL a thing, it didn't just disappear. The article also mentions Snapchat photofilters as being a form of AR - and it's also an extremely popular one. Take a look at facebook and instagram and so on - people use these snapchat videos and images with those "AR" photo filters for TONS of stuff.
The premise is that AR as a whole will continue to expand and MR hardware will release to expand on everything we currently know of it at this point.
That being said the focus here on the article that was posted was that ONE game is sometimes all it takes to make something successful. It accomplished in ONE game what VR couldn't accomplish ALL YEAR. That is really the takeaway here.
is this
'The reality of VR has not met its speculation however the AR is doing better because of its
speculation
hype or 'speculation' of AR is being compared to the 'actuals' of VR. That in of itself is silly
never mind the whole 'a phone app with a camera is the pillar of AR' or 'all people who sign up to a Free to PLay game is counted as a 'sell'
It's about revenue. Not downloads. Pokemon Go had more revenue than VR hardware and Software.
You even alluded to that fact earlier in another post. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less true. Just like how the mobile markets gaming revenue has overtaken the PC markets gaming revenue. You don't have to like it for it to be true.
1. Pokemon Go is not AR. Its a camera phone app of which (such an app) I used 5 years ago. its not new, its not radical. comparing a phone app with a camera to AR is silly and in my view an insult to real AR.
2. number of players jumping into a Free to Play game is not number of 'sells'. the money they actually spend is 'sells' of which is not the majority according to the statistics.
3. For about a year now we have been debating over VR hardware sells, now all of the sudden its off the table for conversation and now we just have to talk about applications because of the number of people jumping into a F2P camera phone app? is that because AR is not even a harddware technology or something? its just an improvement on HTML5 or something? seriously?
weak on multiple levels.
.... If a F2P game like PGO can out perform anything VR ....
let me try to explain this again.
1. people signing up to a free to play game is NOT evidence of out performing. the money they spend is that measurement.
2. there are a LOT of Free to Play, free to download apps out there of all kinds that have more people using them then VR. but what does that mean? Pokeman go and its Free to Play users is about as relvant to VR or AR as a facebook app.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
is this
'The reality of VR has not met its speculation however the AR is doing better because of its
speculation
hype or 'speculation' of AR is being compared to the 'actuals' of VR. That in of itself is silly
never mind the whole 'a phone app with a camera is the pillar of AR' or 'all people who sign up to a Free to PLay game is counted as a 'sell'
It's about revenue. Not downloads. Pokemon Go had more revenue than VR hardware and Software.
You even alluded to that fact earlier in another post. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less true. Just like how the mobile markets gaming revenue has overtaken the PC markets gaming revenue. You don't have to like it for it to be true.
1. I must have missed it because I do not see that in the article. 2. why did it take me saying this about 20 times before you noticed the point and addressed it?
3. Pokemon Go is about as relevant to AR or VR as a Facebook app is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Virtual Reality will exist in some fun ways. Training will be a big one, but the actual fun one will be home entertainment. From movie experiences to news experiences, being able to see what happened or whats going on 'over there' will be cool for those two types of media, to what I'm hoping will be ready before I die in the form of a simulated life mmorpg. What's that anime where people play a VR MMORPG and the one kid somehow gets stuck inside of it and he can die for real? Minus that crazy last part, that would be a great MMORPG type of experience, the social aspect potential alone is fascinating.
Augmented reality is going to be around forever at this point for sure. The potential to be implemented in every facet of our daily lives is nearly unlimited, and considering the profit potential, this form of tech will be capitalized on and widely available in pretty much any way someone can think of. It will be especially fun to see what they come up with for our private lives.
A truly exciting horizon, now finally confirmed to be approaching.
Currently Playing:
Fallout 4 (Xbox One)
Puzzle Pirates (PC) Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean
"Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"
If AR is just another app on a mobile phone, then is that a good thing? i am not sure how it makes it a success either, pokemon go did well, but its just one game that is very much 'yesterday' now, if AR is tied to the success of pokemon go, does that not also mean that AR is also history? at least until the next gimmicky mobile phone game, it makes AR's success more than somewhat fragile in nature, for AR to be called a success, then it needs to progress beyond being just an adjunct to a mobile phone game, it needs to leave behind the entire mobile phone platform.
Maskedweasel posted earlier in the thread that it will generate $17Bn before advert revenue....
we should hold the horses here and be clear.
'it will' and 'it actually is' are two radically different things.
Lets not try and match speculation (meaning predictions made by super data etc) for AR to actuals of VR.
if that is what is being done here
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
is this
'The reality of VR has not met its speculation however the AR is doing better because of its
speculation
hype or 'speculation' of AR is being compared to the 'actuals' of VR. That in of itself is silly
never mind the whole 'a phone app with a camera is the pillar of AR' or 'all people who sign up to a Free to PLay game is counted as a 'sell'
It's about revenue. Not downloads. Pokemon Go had more revenue than VR hardware and Software.
You even alluded to that fact earlier in another post. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less true. Just like how the mobile markets gaming revenue has overtaken the PC markets gaming revenue. You don't have to like it for it to be true.
1. I must have missed it because I do not see that in the article. 2. why did it take me saying this about 20 times before you noticed the point and addressed it?
3. Pokemon Go is about as relevant to AR or VR as a Facebook app is
This goes to show how little you read of my posts. I explained all this in my first response.
I also explained in depth based on several other articles how much Pokemon Go did make (actual realities in comparison to VR) as well as analyst speculation of EOY projections (for both AR and VR). It was very comprehensive and in my first post in this thread.
I don't see any correlation of how Pokemon Go is "relevant" to AR or VR as a facebook "app". Facebook "Apps" drive revenue for facebook (and companies that build facebook apps)... Pokemon Go drives revenue for "ar" games (and companies that build AR games). So with that I can only conclude that you're saying that Pokemon Go is very relevant to the success of AR.
If AR is just another app on a mobile phone, then is that a good thing? i am not sure how it makes it a success either, pokemon go did well, but its just one game that is very much 'yesterday' now, if AR is tied to the success of pokemon go, does that not also mean that AR is also history? at least until the next gimmicky mobile phone game, it makes AR's success more than somewhat fragile in nature, for AR to be called a success, then it needs to progress beyond being just an adjunct to a mobile phone game, it needs to leave behind the entire mobile phone platform.
yeah if I was an honest fan of AR I would be insulted to try and suggest to people Pokemon GO is a golden symbol of AR success.
Depends on what you consider a success for Augmented Reality. From a commercial standpoint there is no denying the success Pokemon Go has had and the people it brought into the arena of AR that otherwise would not have thought they had an interesting in it. From an educational standpoint, Archaeological Phenomenology has seen Augmented Reality translated into a valuable tool to study and better understand the past. From a business perspective we can look at what L'Oreal Paris has done with their Augmented Reality App Makeup Genius. I believe the golden symbol of Augmented Reality is different depending on which direction and perspective you are viewing it from.
no that is not what I am saying.
I am saying for one to consider the technology of Pokemon Go to be an icon of what AR is I would be embarrassed.
I want to stress this point a lot Pokemon Go is a Phone app with a camera.
is that what AR is supposed to be? is a phone app with a camera supposed to be the technological revolution of AR?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. Pokemon Go is not AR. Its a camera phone app of which (such an app) I used 5 years ago. its not new, its not radical. comparing a phone app with a camera to AR is silly and in my view an insult to real AR.
2. number of players jumping into a Free to Play game is not number of 'sells'. the money they actually spend is 'sells' of which is not the majority according to the statistics.
3. For about a year now we have been debating over VR hardware sells, now all of the sudden its off the table for conversation and now we just have to talk about applications because of the number of people jumping into a F2P camera phone app? is that because AR is not even a harddware technology or something? its just an improvement on HTML5 or something? seriously?
weak on multiple levels.
.... If a F2P game like PGO can out perform anything VR ....
let me try to explain this again.
1. people signing up to a free to play game is NOT evidence of out performing. the money they spend is that measurement.
2. there are a LOT of Free to Play, free to download apps out there of all kinds that have more people using them then VR. but what does that mean? Pokeman go and its Free to Play users is about as relvant to VR or AR as a facebook app.
Ya going back to not reading your posts. Your like talking to a very rude wall. With the comprehension level that makes me cry for you.
1. Pokemon Go is not AR. Its a camera phone app of which (such an app) I used 5 years ago. its not new, its not radical. comparing a phone app with a camera to AR is silly and in my view an insult to real AR.
2. number of players jumping into a Free to Play game is not number of 'sells'. the money they actually spend is 'sells' of which is not the majority according to the statistics.
3. For about a year now we have been debating over VR hardware sells, now all of the sudden its off the table for conversation and now we just have to talk about applications because of the number of people jumping into a F2P camera phone app? is that because AR is not even a harddware technology or something? its just an improvement on HTML5 or something? seriously?
weak on multiple levels.
.... If a F2P game like PGO can out perform anything VR ....
let me try to explain this again.
1. people signing up to a free to play game is NOT evidence of out performing. the money they spend is that measurement.
2. there are a LOT of Free to Play, free to download apps out there of all kinds that have more people using them then VR. but what does that mean? Pokeman go and its Free to Play users is about as relvant to VR or AR as a facebook app.
Ya going back to not reading your posts. Your like talking to a very rude wall. With the comprehension level that makes me cry for you.
you actually consider what I wrote to be 'rude'? really? yeah I agree you should ignore me.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
If AR is just another app on a mobile phone, then is that a good thing? i am not sure how it makes it a success either, pokemon go did well, but its just one game that is very much 'yesterday' now, if AR is tied to the success of pokemon go, does that not also mean that AR is also history? at least until the next gimmicky mobile phone game, it makes AR's success more than somewhat fragile in nature, for AR to be called a success, then it needs to progress beyond being just an adjunct to a mobile phone game, it needs to leave behind the entire mobile phone platform.
yeah if I was an honest fan of AR I would be insulted to try and suggest to people Pokemon GO is a golden symbol of AR success.
Depends on what you consider a success for Augmented Reality. From a commercial standpoint there is no denying the success Pokemon Go has had and the people it brought into the arena of AR that otherwise would not have thought they had an interesting in it. From an educational standpoint, Archaeological Phenomenology has seen Augmented Reality translated into a valuable tool to study and better understand the past. From a business perspective we can look at what L'Oreal Paris has done with their Augmented Reality App Makeup Genius. I believe the golden symbol of Augmented Reality is different depending on which direction and perspective you are viewing it from.
no that is not what I am saying.
I am saying for one to consider the technology of Pokemon Go to be an icon of what AR is I would be embarrassed.
I want to stress this point a lot Pokemon Go is a Phone app with a camera.
is that what AR is supposed to be? is a phone app with a camera supposed to be the technological revolution of AR?
And VR is a cell phone in a piece of cardboard... whats your point?
If AR is just another app on a mobile phone, then is that a good thing? i am not sure how it makes it a success either, pokemon go did well, but its just one game that is very much 'yesterday' now, if AR is tied to the success of pokemon go, does that not also mean that AR is also history? at least until the next gimmicky mobile phone game, it makes AR's success more than somewhat fragile in nature, for AR to be called a success, then it needs to progress beyond being just an adjunct to a mobile phone game, it needs to leave behind the entire mobile phone platform.
yeah if I was an honest fan of AR I would be insulted to try and suggest to people Pokemon GO is a golden symbol of AR success.
Depends on what you consider a success for Augmented Reality. From a commercial standpoint there is no denying the success Pokemon Go has had and the people it brought into the arena of AR that otherwise would not have thought they had an interesting in it. From an educational standpoint, Archaeological Phenomenology has seen Augmented Reality translated into a valuable tool to study and better understand the past. From a business perspective we can look at what L'Oreal Paris has done with their Augmented Reality App Makeup Genius. I believe the golden symbol of Augmented Reality is different depending on which direction and perspective you are viewing it from.
no that is not what I am saying.
I am saying for one to consider the technology of Pokemon Go to be an icon of what AR is I would be embarrassed.
I want to stress this point a lot Pokemon Go is a Phone app with a camera.
is that what AR is supposed to be? is a phone app with a camera supposed to be the technological revolution of AR?
And VR is a cell phone in a piece of cardboard... whats your point?
so you are saying yes to my question?
I am sorry but I find that to be a fail.
Based on that there are thousands of free apps out there from Facebook to Yelp that maybe outselling VR but I find that data point to be about as intresting as compared Nike Sells to VR sells
as a side note, I would like to know how you know the following: 1. how much money Pokemon Go made 2. how much VR industry has made
otherwise how can you say either has 'outsold' the other?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. Pokemon Go is not AR. Its a camera phone app of which (such an app) I used 5 years ago. its not new, its not radical. comparing a phone app with a camera to AR is silly and in my view an insult to real AR.
2. number of players jumping into a Free to Play game is not number of 'sells'. the money they actually spend is 'sells' of which is not the majority according to the statistics.
3. For about a year now we have been debating over VR hardware sells, now all of the sudden its off the table for conversation and now we just have to talk about applications because of the number of people jumping into a F2P camera phone app? is that because AR is not even a harddware technology or something? its just an improvement on HTML5 or something? seriously?
weak on multiple levels.
.... If a F2P game like PGO can out perform anything VR ....
let me try to explain this again.
1. people signing up to a free to play game is NOT evidence of out performing. the money they spend is that measurement.
2. there are a LOT of Free to Play, free to download apps out there of all kinds that have more people using them then VR. but what does that mean? Pokeman go and its Free to Play users is about as relvant to VR or AR as a facebook app.
Ya going back to not reading your posts. Your like talking to a very rude wall. With the comprehension level that makes me cry for you.
you actually consider what I wrote to be 'rude'? really? yeah I agree you should ignore me.
Yes, they way you butcher peoples posts to a shell of their meaning. Ignore what was said and reply without addressing anything about the meat of the post. Ya its rude.
If AR is just another app on a mobile phone, then is that a good thing? i am not sure how it makes it a success either, pokemon go did well, but its just one game that is very much 'yesterday' now, if AR is tied to the success of pokemon go, does that not also mean that AR is also history? at least until the next gimmicky mobile phone game, it makes AR's success more than somewhat fragile in nature, for AR to be called a success, then it needs to progress beyond being just an adjunct to a mobile phone game, it needs to leave behind the entire mobile phone platform.
yeah if I was an honest fan of AR I would be insulted to try and suggest to people Pokemon GO is a golden symbol of AR success.
Depends on what you consider a success for Augmented Reality. From a commercial standpoint there is no denying the success Pokemon Go has had and the people it brought into the arena of AR that otherwise would not have thought they had an interesting in it. From an educational standpoint, Archaeological Phenomenology has seen Augmented Reality translated into a valuable tool to study and better understand the past. From a business perspective we can look at what L'Oreal Paris has done with their Augmented Reality App Makeup Genius. I believe the golden symbol of Augmented Reality is different depending on which direction and perspective you are viewing it from.
no that is not what I am saying.
I am saying for one to consider the technology of Pokemon Go to be an icon of what AR is I would be embarrassed.
I want to stress this point a lot Pokemon Go is a Phone app with a camera.
is that what AR is supposed to be? is a phone app with a camera supposed to be the technological revolution of AR?
And VR is a cell phone in a piece of cardboard... whats your point?
so you are saying yes to my question?
Absolutely. AR is an app that utilizes cell phone hardware like VR does with a piece of cardboard. An app that outsold the entirety of the VR industry before a consumer set was even released.
AR is a photo filter that reads your motions and overlays interesting features based on your movement. AR is one of the reasons SnapChat has grown in popularity.
Comments
There are no illusions here.. Pokemon Go and it's Inclusion of AR used a Free to Play business model to outperform the VR industry. I think we're all very cognizant of that and the only one that seems to not understand or wants to argue it is you.
Any idea how insane that sounds?
read that about 10 times slowly
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Why did Samsung give away so many VR headsets? Why are they basically giving away cell phone VR sets like Google Cardboard with NEWS SUBSCRIPTIONS? What happened to these "free headsets" and how are they different than "Free games" if they are doing it to generate revenue?
I don't see how you can't understand this, you've been around long enough that you should be able to simply understand that this isn't a "AR wins, VR fails" situation. It's an "AR game did better than VR as a whole" situation.
It doesn't matter if it's a camera phone app - there are a ton of VR phone apps - many even on the oculus store - and those phone apps are counted as part of VR revenue are they not? So why all the hate for the AR "apps"? I think I know one reason....
The numbers of 'sells' appear to be related to the 'number of people playing Pokemon Go'
That is NOT a 'sell' you have to look at how much MONEY the app has generated. wow! additionally. its comparing literally a camera phone app with VR. yeah so what? The tennis shoe market is also doing better what the fuck does a phone app with a camera have to do with VR?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
1. Pokemon Go is not AR. Its a camera phone app of which (such an app) I used 5 years ago. its not new, its not radical. comparing a phone app with a camera to AR is silly and in my view an insult to real AR.
2. number of players jumping into a Free to Play game is not number of 'sells'. the money they actually spend is 'sells' of which is not the majority according to the statistics.
3. For about a year now we have been debating over VR hardware sells, now all of the sudden its off the table for conversation and now we just have to talk about applications because of the number of people jumping into a F2P camera phone app? is that because AR is not even a harddware technology or something? its just an improvement on HTML5 or something? seriously?
weak on multiple levels.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You can make huge money with AR as almost everyone has a smart phone. VR headsets now thats a really small market and its not growing as it should be. If I had money to drop on a game and had a skilled team to work on that game. I would be doing AR and taking the next step from what PGO made. You call it weak but have you seen the watered down bull $#!t VR has given us? And at what cost to the consumer?
So as a cell phone APP - it can be considered AR simply by placing holographic or virtual images within ones actual LOS. This can be done with cell phones inasmuch as it can be done with VR sets that utilize a camera.
Idealistically, removal of the surrounding virtual space is preferred and this is what Hololens and MagicLeap strive to accomplish - as this cuts down substantially on latency, light issues, visual accuracy, etc. that does NOT mean that it is necessary to become an AR app.
That being said Pokemon Go is STILL a thing, it didn't just disappear. The article also mentions Snapchat photofilters as being a form of AR - and it's also an extremely popular one. Take a look at facebook and instagram and so on - people use these snapchat videos and images with those "AR" photo filters for TONS of stuff.
The premise is that AR as a whole will continue to expand and MR hardware will release to expand on everything we currently know of it at this point.
That being said the focus here on the article that was posted was that ONE game is sometimes all it takes to make something successful. It accomplished in ONE game what VR couldn't accomplish ALL YEAR. That is really the takeaway here.
speculation
hype or 'speculation' of AR is being compared to the 'actuals' of VR. That in of itself is silly
never mind the whole 'a phone app with a camera is the pillar of AR' or 'all people who sign up to a Free to PLay game is counted as a 'sell'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You even alluded to that fact earlier in another post. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it less true. Just like how the mobile markets gaming revenue has overtaken the PC markets gaming revenue. You don't have to like it for it to be true.
1. people signing up to a free to play game is NOT evidence of out performing. the money they spend is that measurement.
2. there are a LOT of Free to Play, free to download apps out there of all kinds that have more people using them then VR. but what does that mean? Pokeman go and its Free to Play users is about as relvant to VR or AR as a facebook app.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. why did it take me saying this about 20 times before you noticed the point and addressed it?
3. Pokemon Go is about as relevant to AR or VR as a Facebook app is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
LOL...
Both will have a permanent place in society.
Virtual Reality will exist in some fun ways. Training will be a big one, but the actual fun one will be home entertainment. From movie experiences to news experiences, being able to see what happened or whats going on 'over there' will be cool for those two types of media, to what I'm hoping will be ready before I die in the form of a simulated life mmorpg. What's that anime where people play a VR MMORPG and the one kid somehow gets stuck inside of it and he can die for real? Minus that crazy last part, that would be a great MMORPG type of experience, the social aspect potential alone is fascinating.
Augmented reality is going to be around forever at this point for sure. The potential to be implemented in every facet of our daily lives is nearly unlimited, and considering the profit potential, this form of tech will be capitalized on and widely available in pretty much any way someone can think of. It will be especially fun to see what they come up with for our private lives.
A truly exciting horizon, now finally confirmed to be approaching.
Currently Playing:
Fallout 4 (Xbox One)
Puzzle Pirates (PC)
Dreadtooth on Emerald Ocean
"Dying's the easy way out. You won't catch me dying. They'll have to kill me before I die!"
'it will' and 'it actually is' are two radically different things. Lets not try and match speculation (meaning predictions made by super data etc) for AR to actuals of VR. if that is what is being done here
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I also explained in depth based on several other articles how much Pokemon Go did make (actual realities in comparison to VR) as well as analyst speculation of EOY projections (for both AR and VR). It was very comprehensive and in my first post in this thread.
I don't see any correlation of how Pokemon Go is "relevant" to AR or VR as a facebook "app". Facebook "Apps" drive revenue for facebook (and companies that build facebook apps)... Pokemon Go drives revenue for "ar" games (and companies that build AR games). So with that I can only conclude that you're saying that Pokemon Go is very relevant to the success of AR.
I am saying for one to consider the technology of Pokemon Go to be an icon of what AR is I would be embarrassed.
I want to stress this point a lot Pokemon Go is a Phone app with a camera.
is that what AR is supposed to be? is a phone app with a camera supposed to be the technological revolution of AR?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I am sorry but I find that to be a fail.
Based on that there are thousands of free apps out there from Facebook to Yelp that maybe outselling VR but I find that data point to be about as intresting as compared Nike Sells to VR sells
as a side note, I would like to know how you know the following:
1. how much money Pokemon Go made
2. how much VR industry has made
otherwise how can you say either has 'outsold' the other?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
AR is a photo filter that reads your motions and overlays interesting features based on your movement. AR is one of the reasons SnapChat has grown in popularity.