1. You: 'VR isn't that cool... companies are putting money in it because they don't want to be left out. ' complete and total contradiction. Not to mention as I say again, most of the GDC floorspace last year was dedicated to VR. Over the past 2 years Oculus everytime Oculus has a public access to a demo the lines have been the longest around and 3 times now an Oculus product has sold out once it was for sale.
displaying a compelling image overlayed to a white light environment is going to require more processing power than displaying the EXACT same image on a black light environment.
You're obfuscating it, you are still rendering an entire viewspace with poor pixelation and delay. You also completely disregarded everything else.
And VR isn't that cool... people want to try it because its new.. there's a demand to find out what its about... but now that mcdonalds can let kids strap a phone to their face.... and it will pretty much be available on this generations cell phones, its unlikely VR is going to rapidly pickup adoption aside from the cell market.
I even posted the growth of VR, and estimated by 2020, AR drastically outpaces VR in revenue by 4 times. I won't bother reposting it, you're totally welcome to go back through this conversation and find it.
sorry I am talking about the rendering quality of an Image in VR vs OR (hence 'black light' vs 'white light') I wasnt clear.
So in OR the processing power required to produce the same quality of a virtual image will be MORE than it is for VR. So unless Microsoft has some super secret black hole magic that headset will either need to be theared OR will not have as good of an image REGARDLESS of all those PR BS shows they demostrate which rarely turn out to be how it really is
VR is 'cool' almost annoyingly so and evidence of this fact is all over the place
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. You: 'VR isn't that cool... companies are putting money in it because they don't want to be left out. ' complete and total contradiction. Not to mention as I say again, most of the GDC floorspace last year was dedicated to VR. Over the past 2 years Oculus everytime Oculus has a public access to a demo the lines have been the longest around and 3 times now an Oculus product has sold out once it was for sale.
displaying a compelling image overlayed to a white light environment is going to require more processing power than displaying the EXACT same image on a black light environment.
You're obfuscating it, you are still rendering an entire viewspace with poor pixelation and delay. You also completely disregarded everything else.
And VR isn't that cool... people want to try it because its new.. there's a demand to find out what its about... but now that mcdonalds can let kids strap a phone to their face.... and it will pretty much be available on this generations cell phones, its unlikely VR is going to rapidly pickup adoption aside from the cell market.
I even posted the growth of VR, and estimated by 2020, AR drastically outpaces VR in revenue by 4 times. I won't bother reposting it, you're totally welcome to go back through this conversation and find it.
sorry I am talking about the rendering quality of an Image in VR vs OR (hence 'black light' vs 'white light') I wasnt clear.
So in OR the processing power required to produce the same quality of a virtual image will be MORE than it is for VR. So unless Microsoft has some super secret black hole magic that headset will either need to be theared OR will not have as good of an image REGARDLESS of all those PR BS shows they demostrate which rarely turn out to be how it really is
VR is 'cool' almost annoyingly so and evidence of this fact is all over the place
There's no evidence that its cool.. its been around already even in cell phones since the note 5, hell even before that. I literally spent an hour the other day looking over the top VR games, some of them looked interesting to try, but like every other gimmick that ever existed, it will lose its luster after the disorientation factor wears off.
The Wii was so amazing everyone was into it, but then.. after a while, they went back to regular controllers for games. The Kinect was also widely bought since the 360 and on, but despite its support issues, it eventually just never got to where it was a mainstream device. VR headsets aren't a new thing.. they've been upgraded substantially, but now the entire VR saving grace will hinge on its adoption through cell phones... the OR is way too expensive and restrictive that most people won't bother with it. Little niche gamers probably will, but the majority of gamers will still be using their M&K and a conventional monitor to play with.
There's no evidence that its cool.. its been around already even in cell phones since the note 5, hell even before that. I literally spent an hour the other day looking over the top VR games, some of them looked interesting to try, but like every other gimmick that ever existed, it will lose its luster after the disorientation factor wears off.
The Wii was so amazing everyone was into it, but then.. after a while, they went back to regular controllers for games. The Kinect was also widely bought since the 360 and on, but despite its support issues, it eventually just never got to where it was a mainstream device. VR headsets aren't a new thing.. they've been upgraded substantially, but now the entire VR saving grace will hinge on its adoption through cell phones... the OR is way too expensive and restrictive that most people won't bother with it. Little niche gamers probably will, but the majority of gamers will still be using their M&K and a conventional monitor to play with.
ok we should just drop this. I think your definition of cool might be different then mine. I just think having the most floor space in the most important gaming convention of the year is kinda making a statement but whatever moving on.
wii and the majority of floor space at GDC isnt even remotely close to the same thing. Never mind Disney, google, facebook, Apple, Valve, Samsung, HTC, Marvel Comics?! (yes), friggin McDonalds? and the list goes on and on and on
I dont think you guys have any understanding how 'mainstreamism' having a product push be McDonalds really is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There's no evidence that its cool.. its been around already even in cell phones since the note 5, hell even before that. I literally spent an hour the other day looking over the top VR games, some of them looked interesting to try, but like every other gimmick that ever existed, it will lose its luster after the disorientation factor wears off.
The Wii was so amazing everyone was into it, but then.. after a while, they went back to regular controllers for games. The Kinect was also widely bought since the 360 and on, but despite its support issues, it eventually just never got to where it was a mainstream device. VR headsets aren't a new thing.. they've been upgraded substantially, but now the entire VR saving grace will hinge on its adoption through cell phones... the OR is way too expensive and restrictive that most people won't bother with it. Little niche gamers probably will, but the majority of gamers will still be using their M&K and a conventional monitor to play with.
ok we should just drop this. I think your definition of cool might be different then mine. I just think having the most floor space in the most important gaming convention of the year is kinda making a statement but whatever moving on.
wii and the majority of floor space at GDC isnt even remotely close to the same thing. Never mind Disney, google, facebook, Apple, Valve, Samsung, HTC, Marvel Comics?! (yes), friggin McDonalds? and the list goes on and on and on
I dont think you guys have any understanding how 'mainstreamism' having a product push be McDonalds really is.
Look back at what "floor space" was taken up by before, and its usually just the newest thing, not the best thing. Wii U had a huge floor space when it launched. VR is big news right now because people don't know what it is and people are paying for that space hoping to get support for it... once everyone knows... it won't be nearly as popular. Its much preferable to not be closed off from your surroundings. Most people don't want to be in a VR environment around other people, hell they barely want to wear devices like a smart watch. After these products launch and slowly decline, things will go back to normal.
I literally spent an hour the other day looking over the top VR games, some of them looked interesting to try, but like every other gimmick that ever existed, it will lose its luster after the disorientation factor wears off.
Two things: any successful new or disruptive technology will tend to generate a shift in the way media is designed. As such, expect to see a lot of "turbulence" and 'things that don't work' thrown in the mix.
As an example, look at when the N64 was introduced: game designers went from having a console where Starfox and Mario Kart were the 'experimental' 3D carte du jour to creating Mario 64 and Goldeneye. However, somewhere in there we also got Superman.
Secondly: some established experiences just practically scream to be made for VR. One of these is the MMO I've been playing for 12 years: it is a tried-and-true game, and while you may or may not see it topping any VR lists it is one of the primary reasons I'm looking forward to getting my own headset. I even wrote an article here on MMORPG.com about how great the experience would be on a Head Mounted Display if only such hardware would "come down in price", one month before the Oculus Rift Kickstarter was announced.
So, I think you will tend to see a lot of experiences that are, as you say "gimmick[s]", but you will also have some soulful games that have been around for 12 years or more lending their formulas to VR, while developers figure out 'how to design' new experiences for this medium.
That is my hope, anyway.
"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
There's no evidence that its cool.. its been around already even in cell phones since the note 5, hell even before that. I literally spent an hour the other day looking over the top VR games, some of them looked interesting to try, but like every other gimmick that ever existed, it will lose its luster after the disorientation factor wears off.
The Wii was so amazing everyone was into it, but then.. after a while, they went back to regular controllers for games. The Kinect was also widely bought since the 360 and on, but despite its support issues, it eventually just never got to where it was a mainstream device. VR headsets aren't a new thing.. they've been upgraded substantially, but now the entire VR saving grace will hinge on its adoption through cell phones... the OR is way too expensive and restrictive that most people won't bother with it. Little niche gamers probably will, but the majority of gamers will still be using their M&K and a conventional monitor to play with.
ok we should just drop this. I think your definition of cool might be different then mine. I just think having the most floor space in the most important gaming convention of the year is kinda making a statement but whatever moving on.
wii and the majority of floor space at GDC isnt even remotely close to the same thing. Never mind Disney, google, facebook, Apple, Valve, Samsung, HTC, Marvel Comics?! (yes), friggin McDonalds? and the list goes on and on and on
I dont think you guys have any understanding how 'mainstreamism' having a product push be McDonalds really is.
Look back at what "floor space" was taken up by before, and its usually just the newest thing,
complete conjecture and based on really no evidence given gaming industry doesnt have that much change into the 'latest thing' anyway. what? controllers? latest mouse? what are you thinking of as an example
despite the fact that 'the latest thing' an 'cool' pretty much mean exactly the same thing.
I think its best we just disagree and move on.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Care to reply to my explanation of why there is no black magic needed... it seem to have been a topic dear to you and i am curious as to what you think.
No.... AR is just generally designed for a much lower resolution and most of the time only uses one "screen". In essence the same setup your average smartphone or desktop use. It then projects said image on to a clear surface in front of the user.
This cuts back on the amount of power needed when it comes to rendering massively. This in turn leads to smaller and more power efficient units.
VR otoh not only need a insane resolution and near perfect framerate at all time.. it need to render that twice in any good VR headset. That take computing power way beyond what any little handheld device kan produce at this time. (we will ofc get there in time. But for now)
There you have your difference, no black magic needed. Just a difference in specialization. Now with that said i think that the HoloLens is borderline to big to be a good AR unit too. It looks more like something a engineer at Boeing would use then something you will see on the subway. There are also questions about power usage. It looks like it would eat batteries like i eat cake.
this explanation doesn't make any sense to me.
1. you are saying its lower resolution which is pretty much exactly what I am saying. 2. displaying an image on a clear screen which is letting in a TON of white light is Power Calorie to Power calorie is going to require more 'power calorie' then if the screen is black or true black. 3. The amount of target space (the eye) for both solutions is the same and I know for a fact that Valve looked into this 'straight into your eye' concept and clearly that is not the version they ended up with
In the end the VR image is almost always going to be better than the OR image 'power calorie' to 'power calorie' and nevermind the fact that in addition to that Oculus has a rocket ship attached to it while Hololense has? wireless?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
So, I think you will tend to see a lot of experiences that are, as you say "gimmick[s]", but you will also have some soulful games that have been around for 12 years or more lending their formulas to VR, while developers figure out 'how to design' new experiences for this medium.
That is my hope, anyway.
There are two things against VR. One is the high price. Second is software support.
Some 12 year old MMO is not going to cut it. You need a CoD, or a new Fallout game to lure enough players to bootstrap a market that more devs are interested in.
So, I think you will tend to see a lot of experiences that are, as you say "gimmick[s]", but you will also have some soulful games that have been around for 12 years or more lending their formulas to VR, while developers figure out 'how to design' new experiences for this medium.
That is my hope, anyway.
There are two things against VR. One is the high price. Second is software support.
Some 12 year old MMO is not going to cut it. You need a CoD, or a new Fallout game to lure enough players to bootstrap a market that more devs are interested in.
minecraft guitar hero Eve Valkrie
and about 276 games in total by years end.
the importance of CoD is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over rated.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
1. you are saying its lower resolution which is pretty much exactly what I am saying. 2. displaying an image on a clear screen which is letting in a TON of white light is Power Calorie to Power calorie is going to require more 'power calorie' then if the screen is black or true black. 3. The amount of target space (the eye) for both solutions is the same and I know for a fact that Valve looked into this 'straight into your eye' concept and clearly that is not the version they ended up with
In the end the VR image is almost always going to be better than the OR image 'power calorie' to 'power calorie' and nevermind the fact that in addition to that Oculus has a rocket ship attached to it while Hololense has? wireless?
Yeah... That is pretty much the difference between AR and VR.
1. you are saying its lower resolution which is pretty much exactly what I am saying. 2. displaying an image on a clear screen which is letting in a TON of white light is Power Calorie to Power calorie is going to require more 'power calorie' then if the screen is black or true black. 3. The amount of target space (the eye) for both solutions is the same and I know for a fact that Valve looked into this 'straight into your eye' concept and clearly that is not the version they ended up with
In the end the VR image is almost always going to be better than the OR image 'power calorie' to 'power calorie' and nevermind the fact that in addition to that Oculus has a rocket ship attached to it while Hololense has? wireless?
Yeah... That is pretty much the difference between AR and VR.
Different areas of focus, different strengths.
agreed
AR will be great for playing a board game, then jumping on a motorcycle all without making much change.
while VR: enter a complete and totally different world.
Many people here say it has to be one or the other and I take issue with that and frankly I dont even believe them when the say it. I think for some reason its nothing more than brand loyalty or brand dislike not sure which or maybe its both.
For me, I will take both AR glasses and VR headset .thank you. I am just more interested in VR for two reasons. 1. for me personally its more interesting 2. its far closer to retail then AR is at the moment
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I literally spent an hour the other day looking over the top VR games, some of them looked interesting to try, but like every other gimmick that ever existed, it will lose its luster after the disorientation factor wears off.
Two things: any successful new or disruptive technology will tend to generate a shift in the way media is designed. As such, expect to see a lot of "turbulence" and 'things that don't work' thrown in the mix.
As an example, look at when the N64 was introduced: game designers went from having a console where Starfox and Mario Kart were the 'experimental' 3D carte du jour to creating Mario 64 and Goldeneye. However, somewhere in there we also got Superman.
Secondly: some established experiences just practically scream to be made for VR. One of these is the MMO I've been playing for 12 years: it is a tried-and-true game, and while you may or may not see it topping any VR lists it is one of the primary reasons I'm looking forward to getting my own headset. I even wrote an article here on MMORPG.com about how great the experience would be on a Head Mounted Display if only such hardware would "come down in price", one month before the Oculus Rift Kickstarter was announced.
So, I think you will tend to see a lot of experiences that are, as you say "gimmick[s]", but you will also have some soulful games that have been around for 12 years or more lending their formulas to VR, while developers figure out 'how to design' new experiences for this medium.
That is my hope, anyway.
I think the trick to designing a game FOR VR is probably going to be similar to designing a movie FOR 3D. This also presents the biggest problem. At least movies have a huge investment in 3D technology, but you can't say the same for VR..... yet. So there's not going to be a $60 million game created for VR. That's a bold statement, completely without supporting data, but it's probably the truth. Unless Facebook is going to shell out the money to develop a AAA game in a VR environment, designed for VR specifically. Also, that might be the best way to sell headsets, too.
Similarly, the thorn in the side of VR will be half-assed VR development slapped onto a game as an after thought, or just cheaply for the sake of having it there. I remember seeing Transformers: somthing something of the Fallen in 3D and thoroughly shaking my head. Yes, I, Michael Bay, have shot a 3D film....... Then James Cameron comes by and smacks him in the face.
I think the trick to designing a game FOR VR is probably going to be similar to designing a movie FOR 3D. This also presents the biggest problem. At least movies have a huge investment in 3D technology, but you can't say the same for VR..... yet. So there's not going to be a $60 million game created for VR. That's a bold statement, completely without supporting data, but it's probably the truth. Unless Facebook is going to shell out the money to develop a AAA game in a VR environment, designed for VR specifically. Also, that might be the best way to sell headsets, too.
Similarly, the thorn in the side of VR will be half-assed VR development slapped onto a game as an after thought, or just cheaply for the sake of having it there. I remember seeing Transformers: somthing something of the Fallen in 3D and thoroughly shaking my head. Yes, I, Michael Bay, have shot a 3D film....... Then James Cameron comes by and smacks him in the face.
lets back up a second.
How many of these so-implied games that matter come out per year? about 12? less? most likely less.
256 games many of which are NOT student projects but middle of the pack games vs 12 games per year. lets get some perspective here
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Is VR obsolete because of the Hololense or AR in general? Um, no. They provide different experiences. If you would rather have digital objects projected in the real world then you'd probably prefer AR. If you want to be in a completely digital world then you'd go for VR. Whether one is "cooler" than the other is completely subjective. I can see where I would prefer one over the other based on what type of experience I was looking for. I personally would want both, but of course, a lot of that will be based on pricing and whether I could actually afford the products. While VR is expensive, AR is way more expensive right now.
Is VR obsolete because of the Hololense or AR in general? Um, no. They provide different experiences. If you would rather have digital objects projected in the real world then you'd probably prefer AR. If you want to be in a completely digital world then you'd go for VR. Whether one is "cooler" than the other is completely subjective. I can see where I would prefer one over the other based on what type of experience I was looking for. I personally would want both, but of course, a lot of that will be based on pricing and whether I could actually afford the products. While VR is expensive, AR is way more expensive right now.
I very honestly think its really a combination of two things
1. Oculus not being 'microsoft oculus' or 'Sony Oculus' 2. investments of people saying VR will never happen in a million years over the last 3 years are trying to find away out of that while saving face. as a result they see an opportunity to still trash Oculus while at the same time talk about the promise of AR/OR technology in general in promising light. all of this is subconcious
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
all old ports or minor improvements. Any new AAA games?
like I said
those AAA games are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAy over rated in importance.
Microsoft paid 2 billion dollars for Minecraft.
and you know this because?
Do you know how many copies does the latest AAA games sold versus the indies?
and i said gameS. Minecraft is just one game .. no matter how popular it is, people are not buying a $600 piece of gear to play ONE game.
I know this because nearly every single major tech company and almost every single major media studio is doing something regarding VR, the majority of GDC floorspace last year was dedicated to VR, everytime Oculus goes on sale it sells out, McDondalds the icon of mainstream is getting into VR and all of this without a AAA title.
that is how I know, only consoles need AAA titles to justify their existence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
AR will be great for playing a board game, then jumping on a motorcycle all without making much change.
while VR: enter a complete and totally different world.
Many people here say it has to be one or the other and I take issue with that and frankly I dont even believe them when the say it. I think for some reason its nothing more than brand loyalty or brand dislike not sure which or maybe its both.
For me, I will take both AR glasses and VR headset .thank you. I am just more interested in VR for two reasons. 1. for me personally its more interesting 2. its far closer to retail then AR is at the moment
Yeah... my bad. I misread one of the earlier posts. I read it like you where arguing that AR had no real merit.
Comments
So in OR the processing power required to produce the same quality of a virtual image will be MORE than it is for VR. So unless Microsoft has some super secret black hole magic that headset will either need to be theared OR will not have as good of an image REGARDLESS of all those PR BS shows they demostrate which rarely turn out to be how it really is
VR is 'cool' almost annoyingly so and evidence of this fact is all over the place
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The Wii was so amazing everyone was into it, but then.. after a while, they went back to regular controllers for games. The Kinect was also widely bought since the 360 and on, but despite its support issues, it eventually just never got to where it was a mainstream device. VR headsets aren't a new thing.. they've been upgraded substantially, but now the entire VR saving grace will hinge on its adoption through cell phones... the OR is way too expensive and restrictive that most people won't bother with it. Little niche gamers probably will, but the majority of gamers will still be using their M&K and a conventional monitor to play with.
wii and the majority of floor space at GDC isnt even remotely close to the same thing. Never mind Disney, google, facebook, Apple, Valve, Samsung, HTC, Marvel Comics?! (yes), friggin McDonalds? and the list goes on and on and on
I dont think you guys have any understanding how 'mainstreamism' having a product push be McDonalds really is.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As an example, look at when the N64 was introduced: game designers went from having a console where Starfox and Mario Kart were the 'experimental' 3D carte du jour to creating Mario 64 and Goldeneye. However, somewhere in there we also got Superman.
Secondly: some established experiences just practically scream to be made for VR. One of these is the MMO I've been playing for 12 years: it is a tried-and-true game, and while you may or may not see it topping any VR lists it is one of the primary reasons I'm looking forward to getting my own headset. I even wrote an article here on MMORPG.com about how great the experience would be on a Head Mounted Display if only such hardware would "come down in price", one month before the Oculus Rift Kickstarter was announced.
So, I think you will tend to see a lot of experiences that are, as you say "gimmick[s]", but you will also have some soulful games that have been around for 12 years or more lending their formulas to VR, while developers figure out 'how to design' new experiences for this medium.
That is my hope, anyway.
"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
despite the fact that 'the latest thing' an 'cool' pretty much mean exactly the same thing.
I think its best we just disagree and move on.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Care to reply to my explanation of why there is no black magic needed... it seem to have been a topic dear to you and i am curious as to what you think.
This have been a good conversation
1. you are saying its lower resolution which is pretty much exactly what I am saying.
2. displaying an image on a clear screen which is letting in a TON of white light is Power Calorie to Power calorie is going to require more 'power calorie' then if the screen is black or true black.
3. The amount of target space (the eye) for both solutions is the same and I know for a fact that Valve looked into this 'straight into your eye' concept and clearly that is not the version they ended up with
In the end the VR image is almost always going to be better than the OR image 'power calorie' to 'power calorie' and nevermind the fact that in addition to that Oculus has a rocket ship attached to it while Hololense has? wireless?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Some 12 year old MMO is not going to cut it. You need a CoD, or a new Fallout game to lure enough players to bootstrap a market that more devs are interested in.
guitar hero
Eve Valkrie
and about 276 games in total by years end. the importance of CoD is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY over rated.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Different areas of focus, different strengths.
This have been a good conversation
AR will be great for playing a board game, then jumping on a motorcycle all without making much change.
while VR: enter a complete and totally different world.
Many people here say it has to be one or the other and I take issue with that and frankly I dont even believe them when the say it. I think for some reason its nothing more than brand loyalty or brand dislike not sure which or maybe its both.
For me, I will take both AR glasses and VR headset .thank you. I am just more interested in VR for two reasons. 1. for me personally its more interesting 2. its far closer to retail then AR is at the moment
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
those AAA games are WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAy over rated in importance.
Microsoft paid 2 billion dollars for Minecraft.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I think the trick to designing a game FOR VR is probably going to be similar to designing a movie FOR 3D. This also presents the biggest problem. At least movies have a huge investment in 3D technology, but you can't say the same for VR..... yet. So there's not going to be a $60 million game created for VR. That's a bold statement, completely without supporting data, but it's probably the truth. Unless Facebook is going to shell out the money to develop a AAA game in a VR environment, designed for VR specifically. Also, that might be the best way to sell headsets, too.
Similarly, the thorn in the side of VR will be half-assed VR development slapped onto a game as an after thought, or just cheaply for the sake of having it there. I remember seeing Transformers: somthing something of the Fallen in 3D and thoroughly shaking my head. Yes, I, Michael Bay, have shot a 3D film....... Then James Cameron comes by and smacks him in the face.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
How many of these so-implied games that matter come out per year? about 12? less? most likely less.
256 games many of which are NOT student projects but middle of the pack games vs 12 games per year. lets get some perspective here
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
http://baronsofthegalaxy.com/ An MMO game I created, solo. It's live now and absolutely free to play!
1. Oculus not being 'microsoft oculus' or 'Sony Oculus'
2. investments of people saying VR will never happen in a million years over the last 3 years are trying to find away out of that while saving face. as a result they see an opportunity to still trash Oculus while at the same time talk about the promise of AR/OR technology in general in promising light. all of this is subconcious
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Do you know how many copies does the latest AAA games sold versus the indies?
and i said gameS. Minecraft is just one game .. no matter how popular it is, people are not buying a $600 piece of gear to play ONE game.
that is how I know, only consoles need AAA titles to justify their existence.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I made a goof.
This have been a good conversation