The Galaxy Note 7 Is Built To Be a VR Trailblazer

SEANMCAD · August 2016

http://www.wired.com/2016/08/galaxy-note-7-built-vr-trailblazer/

Phaserlight · August 2016

Really looking at getting this phone, especially with the new Gear VR around the corner. Not sure if the time to upgrade is now or not, but the Galaxy Note 7 seems like a good option.

SEANMCAD · August 2016

I agree with John Carmack when it comes to mobile being likely a larger part of VR then dedicated headset

Ridelynn · August 2016

Weren't you the one saying that mobile VR sucked ?

SEANMCAD · August 2016

Ridelynn said:

Weren't you the one saying that mobile VR sucked ?

yes.

why is that confusing?

observer · August 2016

Ridelynn said:

Weren't you the one saying that mobile VR sucked ?

I did too. Mobile VR is still inferior. Here's an article that compares it to the others.

"But the Gear VR’s reliance on a smartphone rather than a high-performance PC means a less refined overall experience. The Gear VR can be laggy, and it doesn’t track your body’s movement in the digital space. The Rift and Vive, by comparison, create far more immersive virtual worlds. It’s comparable to the difference between playing a smartphone game and playing the latest PlayStation 4 or Xbox One title."

SEANMCAD · August 2016

observer said:

Ridelynn said:

Weren't you the one saying that mobile VR sucked ?

I did too. Mobile VR is still inferior. Here's an article that compares it to the others.

"But the Gear VR’s reliance on a smartphone rather than a high-performance PC means a less refined overall experience. The Gear VR can be laggy, and it doesn’t track your body’s movement in the digital space. The Rift and Vive, by comparison, create far more immersive virtual worlds. It’s comparable to the difference between playing a smartphone game and playing the latest PlayStation 4 or Xbox One title."

guys..

the better quality choice is rarely the most popular one. Mobile is likely to be more popular because its simple, easy and portable not because of its quality

observer · August 2016

SEANMCAD said:

observer said:

Ridelynn said:

Weren't you the one saying that mobile VR sucked ?

I did too. Mobile VR is still inferior. Here's an article that compares it to the others.

"But the Gear VR’s reliance on a smartphone rather than a high-performance PC means a less refined overall experience. The Gear VR can be laggy, and it doesn’t track your body’s movement in the digital space. The Rift and Vive, by comparison, create far more immersive virtual worlds. It’s comparable to the difference between playing a smartphone game and playing the latest PlayStation 4 or Xbox One title."

guys..

the better quality choice is rarely the most popular one. Mobile is likely to be more popular because its simple, easy and portable not because of its quality

You have a point. It's the reason why mobile games are more popular in the first place. The software isn't any better though, graphically speaking. Here's another article.

"The horsepower factor comes into play with Rift games that milk their PC graphics cards for all they're worth. Titles like Chronos, Eve: Valkyrie and Edge of Nowhere(among others) are visually far beyond anything you can play on the Gear today. And once you get past the Gear's very best titles, the rest of its storefront has plenty of arcade-like fluff that plays exactly like what you'd expect from a rapidly-developed smartphone game."

Sirmatthias · August 2016

I will not upgrade my Galaxy Note 4 Until they bring back removable batteries. period.

SEANMCAD · August 2016

observer said:

SEANMCAD said:

observer said:

Ridelynn said:

Weren't you the one saying that mobile VR sucked ?

I did too. Mobile VR is still inferior. Here's an article that compares it to the others.

"But the Gear VR’s reliance on a smartphone rather than a high-performance PC means a less refined overall experience. The Gear VR can be laggy, and it doesn’t track your body’s movement in the digital space. The Rift and Vive, by comparison, create far more immersive virtual worlds. It’s comparable to the difference between playing a smartphone game and playing the latest PlayStation 4 or Xbox One title."

guys..

the better quality choice is rarely the most popular one. Mobile is likely to be more popular because its simple, easy and portable not because of its quality

You have a point. It's the reason why mobile games are more popular in the first place. The software isn't any better though, graphically speaking. Here's another article.

"The horsepower factor comes into play with Rift games that milk their PC graphics cards for all they're worth. Titles like Chronos, Eve: Valkyrie and Edge of Nowhere(among others) are visually far beyond anything you can play on the Gear today. And once you get past the Gear's very best titles, the rest of its storefront has plenty of arcade-like fluff that plays exactly like what you'd expect from a rapidly-developed smartphone game."

no question that the PC based VR solutions are better and most likely by a large measure.

What Carmack was saying (and I agree with him) is that 1. the portability of the devices makes it much easier to share experiences which then 'spreads the word' of VR much faster. 2. High end phones are a common purchase making the only uncommon part of the purchase just the headset (my point not his) 3. Simplicity of use. I can jump into bed, slap that thing on and be watching a movie in a theather while lying on my back within seconds. None of this 'where is the keyboard' 'is the computer on' 'oh let me move the cables' etc (again my view not his)

So yeah, now why @Ridelynn doesnt know that 'larger part' and 'better option' are not living in the same orbit i am not sure but never the less there it is.

rojoArcueid · August 2016

VR or not, when i'm ready to upgrade my Galaxy S5 it wont be another Samsung phone. That i know for a fact.

SEANMCAD · August 2016

rojoArcueid said:

VR or not, when i'm ready to upgrade my Galaxy S5 it wont be another Samsung phone. That i know for a fact.

are we supposed to ask why at this point? not sure I understand the meaning here

Phaserlight · August 2016

rojoArcueid said:

VR or not, when i'm ready to upgrade my Galaxy S5 it wont be another Samsung phone. That i know for a fact.

Do tell.

I'm not very impressed with my current LG for a couple of reasons, but I had a pretty good experience with the Galaxy S3.

Phry · August 2016

SEANMCAD said:

observer said:

SEANMCAD said:

observer said:

Ridelynn said:

Weren't you the one saying that mobile VR sucked ?

I did too. Mobile VR is still inferior. Here's an article that compares it to the others.

"But the Gear VR’s reliance on a smartphone rather than a high-performance PC means a less refined overall experience. The Gear VR can be laggy, and it doesn’t track your body’s movement in the digital space. The Rift and Vive, by comparison, create far more immersive virtual worlds. It’s comparable to the difference between playing a smartphone game and playing the latest PlayStation 4 or Xbox One title."

guys..

the better quality choice is rarely the most popular one. Mobile is likely to be more popular because its simple, easy and portable not because of its quality

You have a point. It's the reason why mobile games are more popular in the first place. The software isn't any better though, graphically speaking. Here's another article.

"The horsepower factor comes into play with Rift games that milk their PC graphics cards for all they're worth. Titles like Chronos, Eve: Valkyrie and Edge of Nowhere(among others) are visually far beyond anything you can play on the Gear today. And once you get past the Gear's very best titles, the rest of its storefront has plenty of arcade-like fluff that plays exactly like what you'd expect from a rapidly-developed smartphone game."

no question that the PC based VR solutions are better and most likely by a large measure.

What Carmack was saying (and I agree with him) is that 1. the portability of the devices makes it much easier to share experiences which then 'spreads the word' of VR much faster. 2. High end phones are a common purchase making the only uncommon part of the purchase just the headset (my point not his) 3. Simplicity of use. I can jump into bed, slap that thing on and be watching a movie in a theather while lying on my back within seconds. None of this 'where is the keyboard' 'is the computer on' 'oh let me move the cables' etc (again my view not his)

So yeah, now why @Ridelynn doesnt know that 'larger part' and 'better option' are not living in the same orbit i am not sure but never the less there it is.

Mobile VR is little more than a gimmick, it is okay'ish for watching films, but not much else. The future for VR gaming is not candy crush or farmville, and for anything more than that, you need the resources of a far more powerful device than a smartphone, its something that the current gen consoles can barely support, hence the 'new' next gen consoles, which will still struggle, but at least they will be more capable, to suggest that a mobile device can replicate that capability is absurd.

rojoArcueid · August 2016

@SEANMCAD, @Phaserligh,

VR is too demanding and Samsung phones are plagued with non removable bloatware that even when disabled are still taking memory and space. My GS5 has 2GB RAM and it has 70+% used at all times and mostly is from garbage that i cant remove. I rooted it so i could free my RAM for more important things, and the majority is system apps that cause the phone to malfunction if removed so i have to keep them.

I went from the first Galaxy S phone(vibrant) to the S5 and it was the same bloated experience just on a bigger scale.

Of course, that is based on my personal experience with them.

I can only imagine how VR gaming will run on a massively bloated phone like Samsung Galaxy phones are.

SEANMCAD · August 2016

Phry said:

SEANMCAD said:

observer said:

SEANMCAD said:

observer said:

Ridelynn said:

Weren't you the one saying that mobile VR sucked ?

I did too. Mobile VR is still inferior. Here's an article that compares it to the others.

"But the Gear VR’s reliance on a smartphone rather than a high-performance PC means a less refined overall experience. The Gear VR can be laggy, and it doesn’t track your body’s movement in the digital space. The Rift and Vive, by comparison, create far more immersive virtual worlds. It’s comparable to the difference between playing a smartphone game and playing the latest PlayStation 4 or Xbox One title."

guys..

the better quality choice is rarely the most popular one. Mobile is likely to be more popular because its simple, easy and portable not because of its quality

You have a point. It's the reason why mobile games are more popular in the first place. The software isn't any better though, graphically speaking. Here's another article.

"The horsepower factor comes into play with Rift games that milk their PC graphics cards for all they're worth. Titles like Chronos, Eve: Valkyrie and Edge of Nowhere(among others) are visually far beyond anything you can play on the Gear today. And once you get past the Gear's very best titles, the rest of its storefront has plenty of arcade-like fluff that plays exactly like what you'd expect from a rapidly-developed smartphone game."

no question that the PC based VR solutions are better and most likely by a large measure.

What Carmack was saying (and I agree with him) is that 1. the portability of the devices makes it much easier to share experiences which then 'spreads the word' of VR much faster. 2. High end phones are a common purchase making the only uncommon part of the purchase just the headset (my point not his) 3. Simplicity of use. I can jump into bed, slap that thing on and be watching a movie in a theather while lying on my back within seconds. None of this 'where is the keyboard' 'is the computer on' 'oh let me move the cables' etc (again my view not his)

So yeah, now why @Ridelynn doesnt know that 'larger part' and 'better option' are not living in the same orbit i am not sure but never the less there it is.

Mobile VR is little more than a gimmick, it is okay'ish for watching films, but not much else. The future for VR gaming is not candy crush or farmville, and for anything more than that, you need the resources of a far more powerful device than a smartphone, its something that the current gen consoles can barely support, hence the 'new' next gen consoles, which will still struggle, but at least they will be more capable, to suggest that a mobile device can replicate that capability is absurd.

the word 'Gimick' is little more than an abstract vauge concept.

I understand that you disagree with John Carmack however I agree with him for the reasons he gave as well as the reasons I gave and to be honest VR or mobile VR being a 'gimmick' or not a 'gimmick' doesnt even factor into the outcome of that not to mention being a word that is not even defined very well in the context of this discussion

thanks

Ozmodan · August 2016

Let me give a big ROFL if you think a phone is going to do VR. You need a high end PC for that. Even the VR for the consoles struggles at times.

Thanks for the laugh though.

Phaserlight · August 2016

Phry said:

SEANMCAD said:

observer said:

SEANMCAD said:

observer said:

Ridelynn said:

Weren't you the one saying that mobile VR sucked ?

I did too. Mobile VR is still inferior. Here's an article that compares it to the others.

"But the Gear VR’s reliance on a smartphone rather than a high-performance PC means a less refined overall experience. The Gear VR can be laggy, and it doesn’t track your body’s movement in the digital space. The Rift and Vive, by comparison, create far more immersive virtual worlds. It’s comparable to the difference between playing a smartphone game and playing the latest PlayStation 4 or Xbox One title."

guys..

the better quality choice is rarely the most popular one. Mobile is likely to be more popular because its simple, easy and portable not because of its quality

You have a point. It's the reason why mobile games are more popular in the first place. The software isn't any better though, graphically speaking. Here's another article.

"The horsepower factor comes into play with Rift games that milk their PC graphics cards for all they're worth. Titles like Chronos, Eve: Valkyrie and Edge of Nowhere(among others) are visually far beyond anything you can play on the Gear today. And once you get past the Gear's very best titles, the rest of its storefront has plenty of arcade-like fluff that plays exactly like what you'd expect from a rapidly-developed smartphone game."

no question that the PC based VR solutions are better and most likely by a large measure.

What Carmack was saying (and I agree with him) is that 1. the portability of the devices makes it much easier to share experiences which then 'spreads the word' of VR much faster. 2. High end phones are a common purchase making the only uncommon part of the purchase just the headset (my point not his) 3. Simplicity of use. I can jump into bed, slap that thing on and be watching a movie in a theather while lying on my back within seconds. None of this 'where is the keyboard' 'is the computer on' 'oh let me move the cables' etc (again my view not his)

So yeah, now why @Ridelynn doesnt know that 'larger part' and 'better option' are not living in the same orbit i am not sure but never the less there it is.

Mobile VR is little more than a gimmick, it is okay'ish for watching films, but not much else. The future for VR gaming is not candy crush or farmville, and for anything more than that, you need the resources of a far more powerful device than a smartphone, its something that the current gen consoles can barely support, hence the 'new' next gen consoles, which will still struggle, but at least they will be more capable, to suggest that a mobile device can replicate that capability is absurd.

This is a really very uninformed statement. Mobile VR apps are nothing like candy crush or farmville, and there are non-VR mobile games that are nothing like candy crush or farmville.

Land's End

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022221/uploads/editor/36/iiqz1ruc24vy.png

Eve GunJack

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022221/uploads/editor/ag/kecf2sppqkcm.jpg

Esper 2

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022221/uploads/editor/2m/pvz4pzk7z81u.png

Vendetta Online

Image: https://us.v-cdn.net/5022221/uploads/editor/c7/20nvv57twqha.jpg

Minecraft

...all games you can play on a mobile phone.

SEANMCAD · August 2016

Phaserlight said:

Phry said:

SEANMCAD said:

observer said:

SEANMCAD said:

observer said:

Ridelynn said:

Weren't you the one saying that mobile VR sucked ?

I did too. Mobile VR is still inferior. Here's an article that compares it to the others.

"But the Gear VR’s reliance on a smartphone rather than a high-performance PC means a less refined overall experience. The Gear VR can be laggy, and it doesn’t track your body’s movement in the digital space. The Rift and Vive, by comparison, create far more immersive virtual worlds. It’s comparable to the difference between playing a smartphone game and playing the latest PlayStation 4 or Xbox One title."

guys..

the better quality choice is rarely the most popular one. Mobile is likely to be more popular because its simple, easy and portable not because of its quality

You have a point. It's the reason why mobile games are more popular in the first place. The software isn't any better though, graphically speaking. Here's another article.

"The horsepower factor comes into play with Rift games that milk their PC graphics cards for all they're worth. Titles like Chronos, Eve: Valkyrie and Edge of Nowhere(among others) are visually far beyond anything you can play on the Gear today. And once you get past the Gear's very best titles, the rest of its storefront has plenty of arcade-like fluff that plays exactly like what you'd expect from a rapidly-developed smartphone game."

no question that the PC based VR solutions are better and most likely by a large measure.

What Carmack was saying (and I agree with him) is that 1. the portability of the devices makes it much easier to share experiences which then 'spreads the word' of VR much faster. 2. High end phones are a common purchase making the only uncommon part of the purchase just the headset (my point not his) 3. Simplicity of use. I can jump into bed, slap that thing on and be watching a movie in a theather while lying on my back within seconds. None of this 'where is the keyboard' 'is the computer on' 'oh let me move the cables' etc (again my view not his)

So yeah, now why @Ridelynn doesnt know that 'larger part' and 'better option' are not living in the same orbit i am not sure but never the less there it is.

Mobile VR is little more than a gimmick, it is okay'ish for watching films, but not much else. The future for VR gaming is not candy crush or farmville, and for anything more than that, you need the resources of a far more powerful device than a smartphone, its something that the current gen consoles can barely support, hence the 'new' next gen consoles, which will still struggle, but at least they will be more capable, to suggest that a mobile device can replicate that capability is absurd.

This is a really very uninformed statement. Mobile VR apps are nothing like candy crush or farmville, and there are non-VR mobile games that are nothing like candy crush or farmville.

Land's End

...all games you can play on a mobile phone.

not to mention movies and porn. both of which I get a feeling will be the most used for mobile VR

Phaserlight · August 2016

rojoArcueid said:

@SEANMCAD, @Phaserligh,

VR is too demanding and Samsung phones are plagued with non removable bloatware that even when disabled are still taking memory and space. My GS5 has 2GB RAM and it has 70+% used at all times and mostly is from garbage that i cant remove. I rooted it so i could free my RAM for more important things, and the majority is system apps that cause the phone to malfunction if removed so i have to keep them.

I went from the first Galaxy S phone(vibrant) to the S5 and it was the same bloated experience just on a bigger scale.

Of course, that is based on my personal experience with them.

I can only imagine how VR gaming will run on a massively bloated phone like Samsung Galaxy phones are.

Oh dear.

Non-removable bloatware was one of the issues I mentioned that really gave me trouble on my LG Vista (that, and an unreliable GPS among some other more minor things). It's gotten to the point where I can't update any of the apps I do use because my phone's storage is totally locked up with system data. I thought Samsung, the second-most-valuable brand on the market, would have solved this problem.

...if only Apple wasn't so walled-gardeny and would get on the mobile VR bandwagon.

Nanfoodle · August 2016

Ya, only thing this will be good for is watching movies and shows.

Phaserlight · August 2016

Ozmodan said:

Let me give a big ROFL if you think a phone is going to do VR. You need a high end PC for that. Even the VR for the consoles struggles at times.

Thanks for the laugh though.

It's been done since last year, and it's nothing to sneeze at. People are taking it very seriously. Take this guy's video review of Minecraft in Gear VR:

http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/6/11607050/minecraft-is-great-in-gear-vr

He's very down to earth, and yet states that the app 'took him to another place', which is the whole idea behind VR's "presence".

As it states in the article @SEANMCAD linked in the OP, one of the reasons affordable PC-based VR-HMDs such as Rift and Vive became possible in recent years was due to cell phone components (OLEDs).

SEANMCAD · August 2016

Nanfoodle said:

Ya, only thing this will be good for is watching movies and shows.

which I think the impact of is highly under rated. By that I mean I think watching movies and shows is going to be the primary use of VR and that said experience is very compelling, not for people like but for the general population.

rojoArcueid · August 2016

Phaserlight said:

rojoArcueid said:

@SEANMCAD, @Phaserligh,

VR is too demanding and Samsung phones are plagued with non removable bloatware that even when disabled are still taking memory and space. My GS5 has 2GB RAM and it has 70+% used at all times and mostly is from garbage that i cant remove. I rooted it so i could free my RAM for more important things, and the majority is system apps that cause the phone to malfunction if removed so i have to keep them.

I went from the first Galaxy S phone(vibrant) to the S5 and it was the same bloated experience just on a bigger scale.

Of course, that is based on my personal experience with them.

I can only imagine how VR gaming will run on a massively bloated phone like Samsung Galaxy phones are.

Oh dear.

Non-removable bloatware was one of the issues I mentioned that really gave me trouble on my LG Vista (that, and an unreliable GPS among some other more minor things). It's gotten to the point where I can't update any of the apps I do use because my phone's storage is totally locked up with system data. I thought Samsung, the second-most-valuable brand on the market, would have solved this problem.

...if only Apple wasn't so walled-gardeny and would get on the mobile VR bandwagon.

Nope, Samsung still has that problem. HTC sort of solved it with HTC 10 but it is too expensive at the moment (for me anyway). No doubt Samsung make great phones, but you can only enjoy a small portion of it's full potential. Too bad LG still does the same mistake. Samsung is so focused on beating Apple that they, seemingly, became another Apple when it comes to trying to control its users (knox security?) as well.

Nanfoodle · August 2016

SEANMCAD said:

Nanfoodle said:

Ya, only thing this will be good for is watching movies and shows.

which I think the impact of is highly under rated. By that I mean I think watching movies and shows is going to be the primary use of VR and that said experience is very compelling, not for people like but for the general population.

I dont think its going to be anything big. I just cant see families all sitting with Phones strapped to their faces to watch a show together. Even then, till you can sync media between more than one device, its really a solo experience.

SEANMCAD · August 2016

Nanfoodle said:

SEANMCAD said:

Nanfoodle said:

Ya, only thing this will be good for is watching movies and shows.

which I think the impact of is highly under rated. By that I mean I think watching movies and shows is going to be the primary use of VR and that said experience is very compelling, not for people like but for the general population.

I dont think its going to be anything big. I just cant see families all sitting with Phones strapped to their faces to watch a show together. Even then, till you can sync media between more than one device, its really a solo experience.

Porn sells extreemly well and somehow I doubt the family is watching porn together.

1 in 4 households are 1 person only living in the home.
Everyone else is snuggled up to each other sharing notes on their movie watching experience?not 100% and not 100% of the time

and by the way growing up my family and most of my friends family would often complain how the kids would be watching their own shows in the bedroom and not with the family...that was in 1987

Howdy, Stranger!

The Galaxy Note 7 Is Built To Be a VR Trailblazer

Comments

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

The Galaxy Note 7 Is Built To Be a VR Trailblazer

Comments