@MrSnuffles i think we need to see if the games coming out are worth the price first.
The games coming out will be playable with and without the OR. No developer is crazy enough to develop for the OR only. (except some indie developers).
What we can expect are:
1. A ton of slender-man-haunted-house-jump-scare-youtube-pewdiepie-screaming-horror-shit-games. 2. A ton of demo like playground games with little mini games, moving objects, doing boring stuff in a VR room simulation. 3. A ton of regular games enabled through VorpX to work with the OR and hooking mouse-look into head movement which is neat but ultimately nothing special. 4. A handful of AAA games with distinct OR support but also limited to head movement since that is pretty much the only thing OR adds to the experience. People will still be able to play these AAA titles without an OR.
For me that is simple not enough to put up with the inconvenience and price of this gadget.
2 years and this fad is dead.
Can I bookmark this quote?
You are pretty much "all in" with this post.
I said this the whole time in multiple threads (i have to add that it might survive a little longer in porn or dating/second life crap simulations). I also said there won't be 50 games at the end of the year made for the OR. VorpX don't count, i mean real games that are different and add something to the experience compared to non OR version of the game. Head movement for me is not a significant enough addition.
You can bookmark and quote me.
PS: Forgot about the power of SONY and consoles. Not sure about consoles. If SONY really takes a massive hit on the initial price it might survive this console generation.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
High end will be under $200 in a year or very few VR games will be made for it. It's the software that will make or break the peripheral.
If they were smart about it they would make the games slightly more expensive and collect royalties to offset the losses on selling the sets. But I imagine at this point this type of arrangement is unlikely.
Their other hope is that the porn industry latches on to this, porn nuts will pay anything.
@MrSnuffles i think we need to see if the games coming out are worth the price first.
The games coming out will be playable with and without the OR. No developer is crazy enough to develop for the OR only. (except some indie developers).
What we can expect are:
1. A ton of slender-man-haunted-house-jump-scare-youtube-pewdiepie-screaming-horror-shit-games. 2. A ton of demo like playground games with little mini games, moving objects, doing boring stuff in a VR room simulation. 3. A ton of regular games enabled through VorpX to work with the OR and hooking mouse-look into head movement which is neat but ultimately nothing special. 4. A handful of AAA games with distinct OR support but also limited to head movement since that is pretty much the only thing OR adds to the experience. People will still be able to play these AAA titles without an OR.
For me that is simple not enough to put up with the inconvenience and price of this gadget.
2 years and this fad is dead.
Can I bookmark this quote?
You are pretty much "all in" with this post.
I said this the whole time in multiple threads (i have to add that it might survive a little longer in porn or dating/second life crap simulations). I also said there won't be 50 games at the end of the year made for the OR. VorpX don't count, i mean real games that are different and add something to the experience compared to non OR version of the game. Head movement for me is not a significant enough addition.
You can bookmark and quote me.
PS: Forgot about the power of SONY and consoles. Not sure about consoles. If SONY really takes a massive hit on the initial price it might survive this console generation.
A sense of presence.
Depth perception.
A wider field of view.
The ability to 'look up while strafing up' et cetera.
...and that's just for games.
If you can't see how any of these things add something to the experience "compared to the non OR version", then VR is probably not for you.
"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
High end will be under $200 in a year or very few VR games will be made for it. It's the software that will make or break the peripheral.
If they were smart about it they would make the games slightly more expensive and collect royalties to offset the losses on selling the sets. But I imagine at this point this type of arrangement is unlikely.
Their other hope is that the porn industry latches on to this, porn nuts will pay anything.
No way. High end prices more then likely will go up. The Oculus has cut some corners to come out when they did. No front camera to to pass through. So you cant interact with your surroundings. This will be needed to make VR a real standard.
I think VR needs to find a $100-300 option with pass through tech. Wont matter if they need to lower the res to 720p to do it. Maybe even 480p with FPS around 24-48. Also lower specs for the type of PC it uses. If they want this tech to fly, the average home needs to be able to plug it into the average computer.
That will get game developers making real games for this. Thats when VR will take off. Till then, this tech is for the rare and the few.
@MrSnuffles i think we need to see if the games coming out are worth the price first.
The games coming out will be playable with and without the OR. No developer is crazy enough to develop for the OR only. (except some indie developers).
What we can expect are:
1. A ton of slender-man-haunted-house-jump-scare-youtube-pewdiepie-screaming-horror-shit-games. 2. A ton of demo like playground games with little mini games, moving objects, doing boring stuff in a VR room simulation. 3. A ton of regular games enabled through VorpX to work with the OR and hooking mouse-look into head movement which is neat but ultimately nothing special. 4. A handful of AAA games with distinct OR support but also limited to head movement since that is pretty much the only thing OR adds to the experience. People will still be able to play these AAA titles without an OR.
For me that is simple not enough to put up with the inconvenience and price of this gadget.
2 years and this fad is dead.
Can I bookmark this quote?
You are pretty much "all in" with this post.
I said this the whole time in multiple threads (i have to add that it might survive a little longer in porn or dating/second life crap simulations). I also said there won't be 50 games at the end of the year made for the OR. VorpX don't count, i mean real games that are different and add something to the experience compared to non OR version of the game. Head movement for me is not a significant enough addition.
You can bookmark and quote me.
PS: Forgot about the power of SONY and consoles. Not sure about consoles. If SONY really takes a massive hit on the initial price it might survive this console generation.
A sense of presence. Depth perception. A wider field of view. The ability to 'look up while strafing up' et cetera. ...and that's just for games.
If you can't see how any of these things add something to the experience "compared to the non OR version", then VR is probably not for you.
Those are all the same thing. What really new experience does it add and what kind of new and amazing games can it bring?
For me the inconvenience of wearing this thing is not worth the minimal difference to a really good 4K screen which is better any ways than the low resolution displays in the current gen VR headsets.
I know it is an amazing experience and it does blow your mind the first couple of times you use it but for me it got boring really fast. Novelty wears off, my DK1/2 are now on the shelf and i probably will never use them again other than at some point sell them as a rarity.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
High end will be under $200 in a year or very few VR games will be made for it. It's the software that will make or break the peripheral.
If they were smart about it they would make the games slightly more expensive and collect royalties to offset the losses on selling the sets. But I imagine at this point this type of arrangement is unlikely.
Their other hope is that the porn industry latches on to this, porn nuts will pay anything.
No way. High end prices more then likely will go up. The Oculus has cut some corners to come out when they did. No front camera to to pass through. So you cant interact with your surroundings. This will be needed to make VR a real standard.
I think VR needs to find a $100-300 option with pass through tech. Wont matter if they need to lower the res to 720p to do it. Maybe even 480p with FPS around 24-48. Also lower specs for the type of PC it uses. If they want this tech to fly, the average home needs to be able to plug it into the average computer.
That will get game developers making real games for this. Thats when VR will take off. Till then, this tech is for the rare and the few.
that is in the plans.
An article said that Oculus plans to come out with 'cheaper' versions.
Basically the DK1 kit is 720p so its not hard for them to do.
Also...'technically' the cheaper solution is the GearVR
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Regarding luxury items I think people forget that there are a lot of very successful companies that sell to luxury markets, from porsche's to high end speakers (which I might add the later can go up to $200,000 and ALL the do is play sound)
But what you don't see is music produced in a form that can only be played on $200,000 speakers, and therein lies the problem.
actually no.
The plan is to have the majority of VR games work without VR which incidentally is fairly easy to do. also you STILL have to account for the massively mega huge large price difference between example of 1. one item that costs as a high end video card vs 2. the other item which is as much as my retirement plan
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Regarding luxury items I think people forget that there are a lot of very successful companies that sell to luxury markets, from porsche's to high end speakers (which I might add the later can go up to $200,000 and ALL the do is play sound)
But what you don't see is music produced in a form that can only be played on $200,000 speakers, and therein lies the problem.
actually no.
The plan is to have the majority of VR games work without VR which incidentally is fairly easy to do. also you STILL have to account for the massively mega huge large price difference between example of 1. one item that costs as a high end video card vs 2. the other item which is as much as my retirement plan
I have seen movies that went the 3D path (Meh) and I have seen movies that in production, designed their movie to be seen in 3D. The difference was flooring. Im guessing this will be the same with VR games.
Regarding luxury items I think people forget that there are a lot of very successful companies that sell to luxury markets, from porsche's to high end speakers (which I might add the later can go up to $200,000 and ALL the do is play sound)
But what you don't see is music produced in a form that can only be played on $200,000 speakers, and therein lies the problem.
actually no.
The plan is to have the majority of VR games work without VR which incidentally is fairly easy to do. also you STILL have to account for the massively mega huge large price difference between example of 1. one item that costs as a high end video card vs 2. the other item which is as much as my retirement plan
I have seen movies that went the 3D path (Meh) and I have seen movies that in production, designed their movie to be seen in 3D. The difference was flooring. Im guessing this will be the same with VR games.
3d movies and TV are radically different in a whole host of different ways and I am NOT talking technical I am talking radical differences in how you personally as the user experiences it. In fact, any reasonable level of VR that allows you to pick up an item in front of you is 10000% impossible to do without a headset or without very expensive projectors. At least as far as I can think of
would you like me to list the differences that you as a user would experience in VR that you would NOT ever experience in 3d
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Regarding luxury items I think people forget that there are a lot of very successful companies that sell to luxury markets, from porsche's to high end speakers (which I might add the later can go up to $200,000 and ALL the do is play sound)
But what you don't see is music produced in a form that can only be played on $200,000 speakers, and therein lies the problem.
actually no.
The plan is to have the majority of VR games work without VR which incidentally is fairly easy to do. also you STILL have to account for the massively mega huge large price difference between example of 1. one item that costs as a high end video card vs 2. the other item which is as much as my retirement plan
I have seen movies that went the 3D path (Meh) and I have seen movies that in production, designed their movie to be seen in 3D. The difference was flooring. Im guessing this will be the same with VR games.
3d movies and TV are radically different in a whole host of different ways and I am NOT talking technical I am talking radical differences in how you personally as the user experiences it. In fact, any reasonable level of VR that allows you to pick up an item in front of you is 10000% impossible to do without a headset or without very expensive projectors. At least as far as I can think of
would you like me to list the differences that you as a user would experience in VR that you would NOT ever experience in 3d
I know them but you are missing my simple illustration. Games designed for just VR will be better games for VR then games designed with VR that also support monitors. I will make it more simple, Swiss Army Knife is awesome, its ok at a bunch of jobs but you want a scalpel in your surgeons hands. Tools focused to do one job always do them better.
What you talk about games support both is ok to get started and can help in a way but to really sell the product, you need games that are designed for VR and do things you can only do with a VR headset. So ground breaking people will want to be part of it.
@MrSnuffles i think we need to see if the games coming out are worth the price first.
The games coming out will be playable with and without the OR. No developer is crazy enough to develop for the OR only. (except some indie developers).
What we can expect are:
1. A ton of slender-man-haunted-house-jump-scare-youtube-pewdiepie-screaming-horror-shit-games. 2. A ton of demo like playground games with little mini games, moving objects, doing boring stuff in a VR room simulation. 3. A ton of regular games enabled through VorpX to work with the OR and hooking mouse-look into head movement which is neat but ultimately nothing special. 4. A handful of AAA games with distinct OR support but also limited to head movement since that is pretty much the only thing OR adds to the experience. People will still be able to play these AAA titles without an OR.
For me that is simple not enough to put up with the inconvenience and price of this gadget.
2 years and this fad is dead.
Can I bookmark this quote?
You are pretty much "all in" with this post.
I said this the whole time in multiple threads (i have to add that it might survive a little longer in porn or dating/second life crap simulations). I also said there won't be 50 games at the end of the year made for the OR. VorpX don't count, i mean real games that are different and add something to the experience compared to non OR version of the game. Head movement for me is not a significant enough addition.
You can bookmark and quote me.
PS: Forgot about the power of SONY and consoles. Not sure about consoles. If SONY really takes a massive hit on the initial price it might survive this console generation.
A sense of presence. Depth perception. A wider field of view. The ability to 'look up while strafing up' et cetera. ...and that's just for games.
If you can't see how any of these things add something to the experience "compared to the non OR version", then VR is probably not for you.
Those are all the same thing. What really new experience does it add and what kind of new and amazing games can it bring?
For me the inconvenience of wearing this thing is not worth the minimal difference to a really good 4K screen which is better any ways than the low resolution displays in the current gen VR headsets.
I know it is an amazing experience and it does blow your mind the first couple of times you use it but for me it got boring really fast. Novelty wears off, my DK1/2 are now on the shelf and i probably will never use them again other than at some point sell them as a rarity.
Just my personal opinion.
I respect your opinion, and maybe we have a bit of a language barrier going here, but the four things I listed are not at all the same?
1. Presence - The feeling of "being somewhere". This can happen with current non-VR technology, but pretty much everything Oculus has done up to this point has been around enhancing a sense of presence. It's the same feeling you get when reading an engrossing paragraph in a book, or perhaps watching an intense movie shot from a first-person perspective. People often report experiencing a sense of euphoria in being somewhere they know isn't real. I think this is a side-effect of experiencing 'presence' in a new way.
2. Depth perception - a.k.a. stereoscopy. None of your posts seem to indicate that you understand what this is, although apparently you own a DK1 and DK2. When you look at a screen, it's flat. 3D images may be rendered on the screen, but you are still viewing a 3D image on a 2D plane. When each eye is shown a slightly different image, this creates the illusion of viewing an object in real, physical space. Magic Eye Inc. made random dot stereograms famous in the 90's; look at this picture, can you see the dolphin? That's stereoscopy. This effect will of course will happen naturally without any sort of 'magic eye' trick in the Rift.
3. A wider field of view - this should be pretty self-explanatory, but the more closely the rendered world matches your natural field of view the better the experience becomes. Including peripheral vision, I think some people have up to 270 degrees. The Rift is somewhere around 110 IIRC; obviously we're nowhere near 270 yet, but even 110 is much better than what most monitors will give you, and far, far better than previous headsets.
4. Head tracking - a natural human gesture which you seem for reasons obscure to be dismissing wholesale. I can't for the life of me figure out why you would argue that this adds nothing of value to a gaming experience. Being able to track a bogey by craning your neck around while in a F-16 fighter jet is something I think anyone that has played a flight sim would want to experience.
I can understand wanting to set realistic expectations; I'll buy that for you the novelty has worn off from using (apparently) the first two development prototypes of the Rift. What I'm having a hard time with is why you feel the need to go on this crusade against the Rift, comparing it to using a flat screen monitor strapped to your face and saying it will add "nothing" in every.... single.... thread....
Why not let the market decide, and save your opinions at least until the end of March until after the first wave of consumers get their hands on one? You are going to seem pretty foolish if two years from now this really takes off and the VR industry is thriving well into the next decade.
The irony in all this is I'm not even planning on spending on VR until ~2020, and you've already declared it dead in 2 years!
"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
Regarding luxury items I think people forget that there are a lot of very successful companies that sell to luxury markets, from porsche's to high end speakers (which I might add the later can go up to $200,000 and ALL the do is play sound)
But what you don't see is music produced in a form that can only be played on $200,000 speakers, and therein lies the problem.
actually no.
The plan is to have the majority of VR games work without VR which incidentally is fairly easy to do. also you STILL have to account for the massively mega huge large price difference between example of 1. one item that costs as a high end video card vs 2. the other item which is as much as my retirement plan
I have seen movies that went the 3D path (Meh) and I have seen movies that in production, designed their movie to be seen in 3D. The difference was flooring. Im guessing this will be the same with VR games.
3d movies and TV are radically different in a whole host of different ways and I am NOT talking technical I am talking radical differences in how you personally as the user experiences it. In fact, any reasonable level of VR that allows you to pick up an item in front of you is 10000% impossible to do without a headset or without very expensive projectors. At least as far as I can think of
would you like me to list the differences that you as a user would experience in VR that you would NOT ever experience in 3d
I know them but you are missing my simple illustration. Games designed for just VR will be better games for VR then games designed with VR that also support monitors. I will make it more simple, Swiss Army Knife is awesome, its ok at a bunch of jobs but you want a scalpel in your surgeons hands. Tools focused to do one job always do them better.
What you talk about games support both is ok to get started and can help in a way but to really sell the product, you need games that are designed for VR and do things you can only do with a VR headset. So ground breaking people will want to be part of it.
Ah my bad that is what I get for jumping in mid stream and you are right however in my example I used a successful $200,000 speaker that ONLY does music compared to a $600 device that does more.
you touched on one point which brings those two closer but its still WAY off at the moment
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I respect your opinion, and maybe we have a bit of a language barrier going here, but the four things I listed are not at all the same?
I can understand wanting to set realistic expectations; I'll buy that for you the novelty has worn off from using (apparently) the first two development prototypes of the Rift. What I'm having a hard time with is why you feel the need to go on this crusade against the Rift, comparing it to using a flat screen monitor strapped to your face and saying it will add "nothing" in every.... single.... thread....
Why not let the market decide, and save your opinions at least until the end of March until after the first wave of consumers get their hands on one? You are going to seem pretty foolish if two years from now this really takes off and the VR industry is thriving well into the next decade.
The irony in all this is I'm not even planning on spending on VR until ~2020, and you've already declared it dead in 2 years!
No need to throw definitions at me, i know what they mean. They are all the same in the sense that they are only minor visual changes. Minor changes not worth wearing a inconvenient headset that locks me out of the real world.
I will say it adds nothing new until someone can convince me it does. So far no one could do that. It's still the same games and i can have the same experience without the VR. For me personally a much more relaxed, comfortable, convenient and social experience.
It's an alternative display device, that is all it is. I have to repeat my question:
What really new experience does it add and what kind of new and amazing games can it bring?
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
I respect your opinion, and maybe we have a bit of a language barrier going here, but the four things I listed are not at all the same?
I can understand wanting to set realistic expectations; I'll buy that for you the novelty has worn off from using (apparently) the first two development prototypes of the Rift. What I'm having a hard time with is why you feel the need to go on this crusade against the Rift, comparing it to using a flat screen monitor strapped to your face and saying it will add "nothing" in every.... single.... thread....
Why not let the market decide, and save your opinions at least until the end of March until after the first wave of consumers get their hands on one? You are going to seem pretty foolish if two years from now this really takes off and the VR industry is thriving well into the next decade.
The irony in all this is I'm not even planning on spending on VR until ~2020, and you've already declared it dead in 2 years!
No need to throw definitions at me, i know what they mean. They are all the same in the sense that they are only minor visual changes. Minor changes not worth wearing a inconvenient headset that locks me out of the real world.
I will say it adds nothing new until someone can convince me it does. So far no one could do that. It's still the same games and i can have the same experience without the VR. For me personally a much more relaxed, comfortable, convenient and social experience.
It's an alternative display device, that is all it is. I have to repeat my question:
What really new experience does it add and what kind of new and amazing games can it bring?
You can probably answer that question better than most here, having used both development kits. As far as what it's "meant" to add, there are probably almost as many definitions as there are potential customers. What it does add has been discussed at length by Oculus; if you are willing to take it with a grain of salt there are tomes of knowledge out there, all anyone has to do is a bit of research.
As for what you in particular think it adds; if you haven't understood my point this far, I will just have to accept that you're not going to.
"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
I know them but you are missing my simple illustration. Games designed for just VR will be better games for VR then games designed with VR that also support monitors. I will make it more simple, Swiss Army Knife is awesome, its ok at a bunch of jobs but you want a scalpel in your surgeons hands. Tools focused to do one job always do them better.
What you talk about games support both is ok to get started and can help in a way but to really sell the product, you need games that are designed for VR and do things you can only do with a VR headset. So ground breaking people will want to be part of it.
So there I was at lunch and it hit me like a rock.
What gaming device came out that could only play a handful of games at first, costed around $600, backed by a multibillion dollar company, sold at a loss and was 100% restricted to just games made specifically for its platform?
PlayStation 1
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I respect your opinion, and maybe we have a bit of a language barrier going here, but the four things I listed are not at all the same?
I can understand wanting to set realistic expectations; I'll buy that for you the novelty has worn off from using (apparently) the first two development prototypes of the Rift. What I'm having a hard time with is why you feel the need to go on this crusade against the Rift, comparing it to using a flat screen monitor strapped to your face and saying it will add "nothing" in every.... single.... thread....
Why not let the market decide, and save your opinions at least until the end of March until after the first wave of consumers get their hands on one? You are going to seem pretty foolish if two years from now this really takes off and the VR industry is thriving well into the next decade.
The irony in all this is I'm not even planning on spending on VR until ~2020, and you've already declared it dead in 2 years!
No need to throw definitions at me, i know what they mean. They are all the same in the sense that they are only minor visual changes. Minor changes not worth wearing a inconvenient headset that locks me out of the real world.
I will say it adds nothing new until someone can convince me it does. So far no one could do that. It's still the same games and i can have the same experience without the VR. For me personally a much more relaxed, comfortable, convenient and social experience.
It's an alternative display device, that is all it is. I have to repeat my question:
What really new experience does it add and what kind of new and amazing games can it bring?
You can probably answer that question better than most here, having used both development kits. As far as what it's "meant" to add, there are probably almost as many definitions as there are potential customers. What it does add has been discussed at length by Oculus; if you are willing to take it with a grain of salt there are tomes of knowledge out there, all anyone has to do is a bit of research.
As for what you in particular think it adds; if you haven't understood my point this far, I will just have to accept that you're not going to.
Indeed i can. It's biggest advantage is also it's biggest downfall. It's a device for one person, only one person can use at a time totally shut out from the rest of the world.
It will never become a household item because i just can't see families buying 3 of these to sit in their rooms and then meet in a VR simulation. It's ridiculous.
Parents will not buy this for their kids because they don't want their kid to become a potato. They already think kids are distracted too much with their mobile phones, you think this shit is going to fly?
If your point is that it is foolish of me to think VR has longevity then sure, that is your opinion. I respect that and i bet the majority here thinks that VR will be a big hit. If i am wrong then we all have great games and fantastic VR headsets at home playing with each other in cyberspace. I am not though.
__.__
I tested VR and decided my money is going into AR, a technology that in my opinion has a future and thousands of real, life changing applications. Just as i invested into lithium in 2008 when the mobile device boom went into full swing and electric cars became a real possibility. Since then i tripled my investment. With the increasing rarity of lithium and the amount needed by the battery industry i can see this triple again in the next 5-10 years. I take serious amount of time to decide on these things as they are part of my retirement, just so you know i don't make these opinions on a whim.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
Comments
You can bookmark and quote me.
PS: Forgot about the power of SONY and consoles. Not sure about consoles. If SONY really takes a massive hit on the initial price it might survive this console generation.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
If they were smart about it they would make the games slightly more expensive and collect royalties to offset the losses on selling the sets. But I imagine at this point this type of arrangement is unlikely.
Their other hope is that the porn industry latches on to this, porn nuts will pay anything.
Depth perception.
A wider field of view.
The ability to 'look up while strafing up' et cetera.
...and that's just for games.
If you can't see how any of these things add something to the experience "compared to the non OR version", then VR is probably not for you.
"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
No way. High end prices more then likely will go up. The Oculus has cut some corners to come out when they did. No front camera to to pass through. So you cant interact with your surroundings. This will be needed to make VR a real standard.
I think VR needs to find a $100-300 option with pass through tech. Wont matter if they need to lower the res to 720p to do it. Maybe even 480p with FPS around 24-48. Also lower specs for the type of PC it uses. If they want this tech to fly, the average home needs to be able to plug it into the average computer.
That will get game developers making real games for this. Thats when VR will take off. Till then, this tech is for the rare and the few.
For me the inconvenience of wearing this thing is not worth the minimal difference to a really good 4K screen which is better any ways than the low resolution displays in the current gen VR headsets.
I know it is an amazing experience and it does blow your mind the first couple of times you use it but for me it got boring really fast. Novelty wears off, my DK1/2 are now on the shelf and i probably will never use them again other than at some point sell them as a rarity.
Just my personal opinion.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
An article said that Oculus plans to come out with 'cheaper' versions.
Basically the DK1 kit is 720p so its not hard for them to do.
Also...'technically' the cheaper solution is the GearVR
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
actually no.
The plan is to have the majority of VR games work without VR which incidentally is fairly easy to do.
also you STILL have to account for the massively mega huge large price difference between example of 1. one item that costs as a high end video card vs 2. the other item which is as much as my retirement plan
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
would you like me to list the differences that you as a user would experience in VR that you would NOT ever experience in 3d
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
What you talk about games support both is ok to get started and can help in a way but to really sell the product, you need games that are designed for VR and do things you can only do with a VR headset. So ground breaking people will want to be part of it.
1. Presence - The feeling of "being somewhere". This can happen with current non-VR technology, but pretty much everything Oculus has done up to this point has been around enhancing a sense of presence. It's the same feeling you get when reading an engrossing paragraph in a book, or perhaps watching an intense movie shot from a first-person perspective. People often report experiencing a sense of euphoria in being somewhere they know isn't real. I think this is a side-effect of experiencing 'presence' in a new way.
2. Depth perception - a.k.a. stereoscopy. None of your posts seem to indicate that you understand what this is, although apparently you own a DK1 and DK2. When you look at a screen, it's flat. 3D images may be rendered on the screen, but you are still viewing a 3D image on a 2D plane. When each eye is shown a slightly different image, this creates the illusion of viewing an object in real, physical space. Magic Eye Inc. made random dot stereograms famous in the 90's; look at this picture, can you see the dolphin? That's stereoscopy. This effect will of course will happen naturally without any sort of 'magic eye' trick in the Rift.
3. A wider field of view - this should be pretty self-explanatory, but the more closely the rendered world matches your natural field of view the better the experience becomes. Including peripheral vision, I think some people have up to 270 degrees. The Rift is somewhere around 110 IIRC; obviously we're nowhere near 270 yet, but even 110 is much better than what most monitors will give you, and far, far better than previous headsets.
4. Head tracking - a natural human gesture which you seem for reasons obscure to be dismissing wholesale. I can't for the life of me figure out why you would argue that this adds nothing of value to a gaming experience. Being able to track a bogey by craning your neck around while in a F-16 fighter jet is something I think anyone that has played a flight sim would want to experience.
I can understand wanting to set realistic expectations; I'll buy that for you the novelty has worn off from using (apparently) the first two development prototypes of the Rift. What I'm having a hard time with is why you feel the need to go on this crusade against the Rift, comparing it to using a flat screen monitor strapped to your face and saying it will add "nothing" in every.... single.... thread....
One can only assume you have some sort of agenda, perhaps a different horse in the race?
Why not let the market decide, and save your opinions at least until the end of March until after the first wave of consumers get their hands on one? You are going to seem pretty foolish if two years from now this really takes off and the VR industry is thriving well into the next decade.
The irony in all this is I'm not even planning on spending on VR until ~2020, and you've already declared it dead in 2 years!
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
you touched on one point which brings those two closer but its still WAY off at the moment
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I will say it adds nothing new until someone can convince me it does. So far no one could do that. It's still the same games and i can have the same experience without the VR. For me personally a much more relaxed, comfortable, convenient and social experience.
It's an alternative display device, that is all it is. I have to repeat my question:
What really new experience does it add and what kind of new and amazing games can it bring?
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
As for what you in particular think it adds; if you haven't understood my point this far, I will just have to accept that you're not going to.
"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
What gaming device came out that could only play a handful of games at first, costed around $600, backed by a multibillion dollar company, sold at a loss and was 100% restricted to just games made specifically for its platform?
PlayStation 1
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
*edit*
It also had Gran Turismo and FFVII as exclusives.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It will never become a household item because i just can't see families buying 3 of these to sit in their rooms and then meet in a VR simulation. It's ridiculous.
Parents will not buy this for their kids because they don't want their kid to become a potato. They already think kids are distracted too much with their mobile phones, you think this shit is going to fly?
If your point is that it is foolish of me to think VR has longevity then sure, that is your opinion. I respect that and i bet the majority here thinks that VR will be a big hit. If i am wrong then we all have great games and fantastic VR headsets at home playing with each other in cyberspace. I am not though.
__.__
I tested VR and decided my money is going into AR, a technology that in my opinion has a future and thousands of real, life changing applications. Just as i invested into lithium in 2008 when the mobile device boom went into full swing and electric cars became a real possibility. Since then i tripled my investment. With the increasing rarity of lithium and the amount needed by the battery industry i can see this triple again in the next 5-10 years. I take serious amount of time to decide on these things as they are part of my retirement, just so you know i don't make these opinions on a whim.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
although I do agree my statement was a horrible example and I wish to retract it I do find something very ironic about the 'exclusive' logic.
it appears 'exclusives' for PS is a good thing but 'exclusives' for VR is a bad thing.
not sure how that gets twisted that way but whateverz
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