This MF'er is trying to single handedly will VR into meaningful existence. LOL.
VR!!! VR!!! VR!!! VR!!!
EXACTLY!
VR is just an incremental improvement to a gaming experince.
just like getting a sound card was, just like getting a new video card is, just like getting a better monitor is, just like getting a steering wheel is, just like getting a better joystick is, just like getting a faster mouse is.
just because the industry decided to call it 'VR' isnt a good reason to show how clever you are by resticting yourself in improving your gaming experience just to proof a stupid point
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
When I see two to three VR stories in one week. They aren't that interesting or news worthy, when there are other things in the world that could use the news space. Some of those are sponsored articles. And news unbiased? Haha, that's funny. Sure some might be unbiased. But some also have an agenda. They have bills to pay too.
But we'll agree to disagree. I just don't see VR getting as big as some of y'all on this site does. If they ever release hard numbers proving otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong. And no, showing me an article saying it sold out with out giving the number proves nothing. It could of been 1k sold. That isn't taking off.
Also edit: Thanks for letting me know what HMD is. Learn something new.
thats because I am posting them bro.
take your rage out on me not the news
Except no, it's not you. It is actual news sites. You know, those people that actually write the articles about things.
And I have no rage. I just think your obsession with VR is rather amazing. It hasn't taken off and I doubt it does unless someone starts dumping some serious cash into it. But most want to see a return on their product and I just don't think it is there yet. Will it be there in 10 years. Maybe, but I doubt it.
[mod edit]
Hey man, if you want to understand put this on:
It will all make sense once you have the proper outlook on the world.
Post edited by Vaross on
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
When I see two to three VR stories in one week. They aren't that interesting or news worthy, when there are other things in the world that could use the news space. Some of those are sponsored articles. And news unbiased? Haha, that's funny. Sure some might be unbiased. But some also have an agenda. They have bills to pay too.
But we'll agree to disagree. I just don't see VR getting as big as some of y'all on this site does. If they ever release hard numbers proving otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong. And no, showing me an article saying it sold out with out giving the number proves nothing. It could of been 1k sold. That isn't taking off.
Also edit: Thanks for letting me know what HMD is. Learn something new.
thats because I am posting them bro.
take your rage out on me not the news
Except no, it's not you. It is actual news sites. You know, those people that actually write the articles about things.
And I have no rage. I just think your obsession with VR is rather amazing. It hasn't taken off and I doubt it does unless someone starts dumping some serious cash into it. But most want to see a return on their product and I just don't think it is there yet. Will it be there in 10 years. Maybe, but I doubt it.
[mod edit]
Hey man, if you want to understand put this on:
It will all make sense once you have the proper outlook on the world.
I think in the area of technology comparing technology from 1993 to the technology of 2017 as a way to illustrate how clever you are is not a very good idea.
Keep in mind, CDs where a new technology in the mid 90s.
Post edited by Vaross on
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
When I see two to three VR stories in one week. They aren't that interesting or news worthy, when there are other things in the world that could use the news space. Some of those are sponsored articles. And news unbiased? Haha, that's funny. Sure some might be unbiased. But some also have an agenda. They have bills to pay too.
But we'll agree to disagree. I just don't see VR getting as big as some of y'all on this site does. If they ever release hard numbers proving otherwise, I'll admit I was wrong. And no, showing me an article saying it sold out with out giving the number proves nothing. It could of been 1k sold. That isn't taking off.
Also edit: Thanks for letting me know what HMD is. Learn something new.
thats because I am posting them bro.
take your rage out on me not the news
Except no, it's not you. It is actual news sites. You know, those people that actually write the articles about things.
And I have no rage. I just think your obsession with VR is rather amazing. It hasn't taken off and I doubt it does unless someone starts dumping some serious cash into it. But most want to see a return on their product and I just don't think it is there yet. Will it be there in 10 years. Maybe, but I doubt it.
[mod edit]
Hey man, if you want to understand put this on:
It will all make sense once you have the proper outlook on the world.
Surprisingly, technology has changed since the 90's. You can read more about it here.
From my limited understanding, 3 most important advantages are:
-Very low latency (imperceptible by human sensory organs) -Higher field of view -Low persistence (high refresh rate)
There are numerous other things, of course. Sure, it looks the same on the "outside". However, advances in computer graphics, the internet, and optics have resulted in a drastically better experience:
"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
If the Virtual Boy is where you are setting the bar... I envy you. You are about to have your mind blown if you ever try any of the current sets.
"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
like i said, when it comes to technology comparing the technology of 1993 to make a joke about the abilities of technology in 2016 is beyond stupid.
Well, no... it's good to learn from the past. I think the Virtual Boy is an important lesson in advertising.
"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
The sources of the 'report' are so biased it's hard to take their Ms. Cleo predictions seriously, One 'source' was founded in 2011; the other in 2013. Both make their money by selling these 'reports' on the VR industry. So there is a huge conflict of interest; their 'reports' are more newsworthy with positive forecasts (versus, for example, stating VR might actually end up being a totally niche product). Therefore, the objectivity of both 'sources' is an obvious issue.
The 'report' also conveniently ignores the current status of the industry, which is on rocky footing to say the least, "But despite the rosy industry forecasts, more than half of the report’s
industry respondents said they expect to bring in less than $1 million
in VR revenue in the next 12 months, and just 45.2% think they’ll be
profitable in that time frame".
That right there indicates the average VR manufacturer isn't at all optimistic about VR as a business decision...55% don't expect to make a profit on their VR headsets by November 2017! Based on that, the majority of headset manufactures are already admitting VR appears to be a niche product.
A more objective report would be more focused on which VR companies are unlikely to be around for the 2nd or 3rd generation (due to an overabundance of VR headset companies, lack of revenue, and most importantly total lack of profit) vs. goofy predictions of industry "shifts" in 2020 via the "enterprise market" and subsequently a '$38 billion industry by 2026'. (So they are basing the 2026 prediction on their 2020 industry paradigm shift prediction to be spot-on. A prediction dependent on another huge prediction magically coming true...no logical flaws there!)
here is what you are saying (and I dont think its out of line but we should be clear) you are saying how Wallstreet works 100% is basically 'cleo'. The entire stock market works on predictions. people getting paid high dollar to study trends all day long to make predictions.
I am not saying because they do that it makes them right. I am just making it clear that if you think this article is a Celo its likely you think all wallstreet predictions
clear?
Very clear. Thanks for reinforcing my point with a Wallstreet comparison. There were literally only a handful of people who understood what collateralized debt obligation's (CDO) were. These few knew the mortgage and mortgage-backed securities were based on junk mortgages. The so called 'high dollar' 'experts' were literally clueless and actually rated them AAA (safest). The 2007 subprime mortgage crisis resulted in economic chaos for the U.S. ( which then triggered a global recession).
So, yes, the comparison is clear and it's a very good one. Those 'high dollar' Wallstreet 'experts' were blindsided due to "drinking the Kool-Aid"; they ignored the basic economic factors which hinted towards major trouble. Why? Because the 'experts' were paid very well for the continuous rosy outlook. The two sources of the VR 'research' are not only ignoring the obvious; the entire VR industry appears to be headed into a major correction (which comes straight from the mouth of the VR industry) vs. the so called minor 'slump' these people foresee. They then go onto predict a major paradigm shift for the industry in five years and a golden age by 2026 (for extra fun they should have stated the Mars colony becomes the epicenter of VR by 2030!).
It shouldn't shock anyone that two VR industry 'research/news' companies practically created out of thin air (the industry and so called 'experts' didn't even exist five years ago and are literally just making things up as they go along) are now predicting an upcoming VR renaissance. And their full 'expert' reports can be yours for the low, low price of $800+!!!
If you want to be a cheerleader for the VR industry, that's great and I won't rain on your parade. However, you said 'high dollar people are studying trends' and that's why we should accept their 'expertise'...but they are willfully and conveniently ignoring the immediate state of the industry (which is trending towards a correction or maybe something worse) in order to make money.
Again, not to rain on you your parade, but these sources literally profit by creating bias reports predicting 'unicorns and rainbows' as the future of the VR industry.
The sources of the 'report' are so biased it's hard to take their Ms. Cleo predictions seriously, One 'source' was founded in 2011; the other in 2013. Both make their money by selling these 'reports' on the VR industry. So there is a huge conflict of interest; their 'reports' are more newsworthy with positive forecasts (versus, for example, stating VR might actually end up being a totally niche product). Therefore, the objectivity of both 'sources' is an obvious issue.
The 'report' also conveniently ignores the current status of the industry, which is on rocky footing to say the least, "But despite the rosy industry forecasts, more than half of the report’s
industry respondents said they expect to bring in less than $1 million
in VR revenue in the next 12 months, and just 45.2% think they’ll be
profitable in that time frame".
That right there indicates the average VR manufacturer isn't at all optimistic about VR as a business decision...55% don't expect to make a profit on their VR headsets by November 2017! Based on that, the majority of headset manufactures are already admitting VR appears to be a niche product.
A more objective report would be more focused on which VR companies are unlikely to be around for the 2nd or 3rd generation (due to an overabundance of VR headset companies, lack of revenue, and most importantly total lack of profit) vs. goofy predictions of industry "shifts" in 2020 via the "enterprise market" and subsequently a '$38 billion industry by 2026'. (So they are basing the 2026 prediction on their 2020 industry paradigm shift prediction to be spot-on. A prediction dependent on another huge prediction magically coming true...no logical flaws there!)
here is what you are saying (and I dont think its out of line but we should be clear) you are saying how Wallstreet works 100% is basically 'cleo'. The entire stock market works on predictions. people getting paid high dollar to study trends all day long to make predictions.
I am not saying because they do that it makes them right. I am just making it clear that if you think this article is a Celo its likely you think all wallstreet predictions
clear?
Very clear. Thanks for reinforcing my point with a Wallstreet comparison. There were literally only a handful of people who understood what collateralized debt obligation's (CDO) were. ....
HOWEVER, do you think its fair to give the impression that walstreet predictions about VR are faultily because of VR instead of making it clear to your audience that the vast majority of wallstreet predictions in your mind is faulty?
seems rather disingenuous if you ask me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The sources of the 'report' are so biased it's hard to take their Ms. Cleo predictions seriously, One 'source' was founded in 2011; the other in 2013. Both make their money by selling these 'reports' on the VR industry. So there is a huge conflict of interest; their 'reports' are more newsworthy with positive forecasts (versus, for example, stating VR might actually end up being a totally niche product). Therefore, the objectivity of both 'sources' is an obvious issue.
The 'report' also conveniently ignores the current status of the industry, which is on rocky footing to say the least, "But despite the rosy industry forecasts, more than half of the report’s
industry respondents said they expect to bring in less than $1 million
in VR revenue in the next 12 months, and just 45.2% think they’ll be
profitable in that time frame".
That right there indicates the average VR manufacturer isn't at all optimistic about VR as a business decision...55% don't expect to make a profit on their VR headsets by November 2017! Based on that, the majority of headset manufactures are already admitting VR appears to be a niche product.
A more objective report would be more focused on which VR companies are unlikely to be around for the 2nd or 3rd generation (due to an overabundance of VR headset companies, lack of revenue, and most importantly total lack of profit) vs. goofy predictions of industry "shifts" in 2020 via the "enterprise market" and subsequently a '$38 billion industry by 2026'. (So they are basing the 2026 prediction on their 2020 industry paradigm shift prediction to be spot-on. A prediction dependent on another huge prediction magically coming true...no logical flaws there!)
here is what you are saying (and I dont think its out of line but we should be clear) you are saying how Wallstreet works 100% is basically 'cleo'. The entire stock market works on predictions. people getting paid high dollar to study trends all day long to make predictions.
I am not saying because they do that it makes them right. I am just making it clear that if you think this article is a Celo its likely you think all wallstreet predictions
clear?
Very clear. Thanks for reinforcing my point with a Wallstreet comparison. There were literally only a handful of people who understood what collateralized debt obligation's (CDO) were. ....
HOWEVER, do you think its fair to give the impression that walstreet predictions about VR are faultily because of VR instead of making it clear to your audience that the vast majority of wallstreet predictions in your mind is faulty?
seems rather disingenuous if you ask me
Wall Street predictions about almost anything should be taken with a big boulder of salt, especially in these times.
Market values and book values being what they are.
The sources of the 'report' are so biased it's hard to take their Ms. Cleo predictions seriously, One 'source' was founded in 2011; the other in 2013. Both make their money by selling these 'reports' on the VR industry. So there is a huge conflict of interest; their 'reports' are more newsworthy with positive forecasts (versus, for example, stating VR might actually end up being a totally niche product). Therefore, the objectivity of both 'sources' is an obvious issue.
The 'report' also conveniently ignores the current status of the industry, which is on rocky footing to say the least, "But despite the rosy industry forecasts, more than half of the report’s
industry respondents said they expect to bring in less than $1 million
in VR revenue in the next 12 months, and just 45.2% think they’ll be
profitable in that time frame".
That right there indicates the average VR manufacturer isn't at all optimistic about VR as a business decision...55% don't expect to make a profit on their VR headsets by November 2017! Based on that, the majority of headset manufactures are already admitting VR appears to be a niche product.
A more objective report would be more focused on which VR companies are unlikely to be around for the 2nd or 3rd generation (due to an overabundance of VR headset companies, lack of revenue, and most importantly total lack of profit) vs. goofy predictions of industry "shifts" in 2020 via the "enterprise market" and subsequently a '$38 billion industry by 2026'. (So they are basing the 2026 prediction on their 2020 industry paradigm shift prediction to be spot-on. A prediction dependent on another huge prediction magically coming true...no logical flaws there!)
here is what you are saying (and I dont think its out of line but we should be clear) you are saying how Wallstreet works 100% is basically 'cleo'. The entire stock market works on predictions. people getting paid high dollar to study trends all day long to make predictions.
I am not saying because they do that it makes them right. I am just making it clear that if you think this article is a Celo its likely you think all wallstreet predictions
clear?
Very clear. Thanks for reinforcing my point with a Wallstreet comparison. There were literally only a handful of people who understood what collateralized debt obligation's (CDO) were. ....
HOWEVER, do you think its fair to give the impression that walstreet predictions about VR are faultily because of VR instead of making it clear to your audience that the vast majority of wallstreet predictions in your mind is faulty?
seems rather disingenuous if you ask me
Wall Street predictions about almost anything should be taken with a big boulder of salt, especially in these times.
Market values and book values being what they are.
my point is not questioning that. I point is if one believes that does it make sense to make a reply about a VR prediction appear as if ones view is only realted to VR or is it more honest to say 'I dont trust any predictions' why isolate it and paint a misleading picture?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The sources of the 'report' are so biased it's hard to take their Ms. Cleo predictions seriously, One 'source' was founded in 2011; the other in 2013. Both make their money by selling these 'reports' on the VR industry. So there is a huge conflict of interest; their 'reports' are more newsworthy with positive forecasts (versus, for example, stating VR might actually end up being a totally niche product). Therefore, the objectivity of both 'sources' is an obvious issue.
The 'report' also conveniently ignores the current status of the industry, which is on rocky footing to say the least, "But despite the rosy industry forecasts, more than half of the report’s
industry respondents said they expect to bring in less than $1 million
in VR revenue in the next 12 months, and just 45.2% think they’ll be
profitable in that time frame".
That right there indicates the average VR manufacturer isn't at all optimistic about VR as a business decision...55% don't expect to make a profit on their VR headsets by November 2017! Based on that, the majority of headset manufactures are already admitting VR appears to be a niche product.
A more objective report would be more focused on which VR companies are unlikely to be around for the 2nd or 3rd generation (due to an overabundance of VR headset companies, lack of revenue, and most importantly total lack of profit) vs. goofy predictions of industry "shifts" in 2020 via the "enterprise market" and subsequently a '$38 billion industry by 2026'. (So they are basing the 2026 prediction on their 2020 industry paradigm shift prediction to be spot-on. A prediction dependent on another huge prediction magically coming true...no logical flaws there!)
here is what you are saying (and I dont think its out of line but we should be clear) you are saying how Wallstreet works 100% is basically 'cleo'. The entire stock market works on predictions. people getting paid high dollar to study trends all day long to make predictions.
I am not saying because they do that it makes them right. I am just making it clear that if you think this article is a Celo its likely you think all wallstreet predictions
clear?
Very clear. Thanks for reinforcing my point with a Wallstreet comparison. There were literally only a handful of people who understood what collateralized debt obligation's (CDO) were. ....
HOWEVER, do you think its fair to give the impression that walstreet predictions about VR are faultily because of VR instead of making it clear to your audience that the vast majority of wallstreet predictions in your mind is faulty?
seems rather disingenuous if you ask me
Wall Street predictions about almost anything should be taken with a big boulder of salt, especially in these times.
Market values and book values being what they are.
The market is currently projecting a big TRUMP win!
VR could be a nice new tech. But since these game corporations can't seem to handle making a good 2D game these days, what makes anyone think that adding 3D is going to change that? It adds a layer of complexity when what is needed is a return to basics and redevelopment of foundational theory.
The current companies are having a hard time remembering what a game is. They are making money off of things that look like games but which lack essential features. Gambling is only going to work for a set period of time and the new people brought into the gaming market will start demanding more than click to advance. The market will mature and the growth will level off. The cell phone market is near saturation, consoles as well. Computers are everywhere they are going to be already for the forseeable future.
Without hype to drive year on year growth targets (which has replaced "profit" in financial areas for some inexplicable reason) there would be no investment. Right now the market is immature and the newer customers are willing to spend money on things that they won't at a later date.
Unsophisticated investors (like desperate fund managers) are the target of these hype campaigns, not "gamers". Gamers are only useful as an afterthought. These companies are heavily into the idea of selling what they call a "community" along with the rest of their product because it represents a future revenue stream. Whether or not that community ever translates into actual cash is rarely explored. This is why the Free to Play phenomenon was pushed and the trolls came out to silence all opposition.
Now the well is almost dry, as we are left with the mere vapors of what is being called VR these days. Everyone is supposed to get excited about the whiff. The current management of many corporations is utterly devoid of imagination, or even workmanlike capability in many cases. They don't care about creating something new, they aren't driven by that inner fire. They are just desperate to keep their jobs and if that means lying that's what's going to happen.
It's the same across the entire corporate world. Since computer games are a multibillion dollar market now, they have attracted the mainstream investment types. Now they are just another product that gets more expensive and lower quality every year. Like clothes, shoes, and plastic shit at Wal Mart.
The Crappening has arrived in your favorite hobby.
VR is just an incremental improvement to a gaming experince.
I don't agree, I think it's a completely different experience with pros and cons.
As I've said before, I wasn't really interested in VR. Then I tried it at PAX Prime and I'm more than willing to upgrade my entire system to accommodate Doom if they release an entire VR experience. The Resident Evil would be the icing on the cake.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Now the well is almost dry, as we are left with the mere vapors of what is being called VR these days.
I found this to be an insightful post, but this line in particular was a little over the top. I agree with you in particular about fundamentals of game design.
I have no problems if you want to call what the current crop of headsets are aimed at something other than "Virtual Reality"; that's actually not the term that got me excited about the tech to begin with: call it "Extensive Digital Spaces" or even "Orientation-Sensitive Sterescopic Software Experiences".
"Virtual Reality" just rolls off the tongue a lot more easily.
And yes, it does add something over and above "adding 3D". Going back to the article I quoted earlier, Kyle Orland notes:
"Visuals aside, the Rift’s full 3D visual volume probably represents the biggest potential change in game design tropes since the widespread shift from 2D to 3D graphics in the ‘90s. Developers are still struggling to figure out what works and what doesn’t in this brave new world."
If you are asking me 'what does it add', it's probably best summed up in Oculus' catch-phrase: "presence". Everything this implies.
"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
The sources of the 'report' are so biased it's hard to take their Ms. Cleo predictions seriously, One 'source' was founded in 2011; the other in 2013. Both make their money by selling these 'reports' on the VR industry. So there is a huge conflict of interest; their 'reports' are more newsworthy with positive forecasts (versus, for example, stating VR might actually end up being a totally niche product). Therefore, the objectivity of both 'sources' is an obvious issue.
The 'report' also conveniently ignores the current status of the industry, which is on rocky footing to say the least, "But despite the rosy industry forecasts, more than half of the report’s
industry respondents said they expect to bring in less than $1 million
in VR revenue in the next 12 months, and just 45.2% think they’ll be
profitable in that time frame".
That right there indicates the average VR manufacturer isn't at all optimistic about VR as a business decision...55% don't expect to make a profit on their VR headsets by November 2017! Based on that, the majority of headset manufactures are already admitting VR appears to be a niche product.
A more objective report would be more focused on which VR companies are unlikely to be around for the 2nd or 3rd generation (due to an overabundance of VR headset companies, lack of revenue, and most importantly total lack of profit) vs. goofy predictions of industry "shifts" in 2020 via the "enterprise market" and subsequently a '$38 billion industry by 2026'. (So they are basing the 2026 prediction on their 2020 industry paradigm shift prediction to be spot-on. A prediction dependent on another huge prediction magically coming true...no logical flaws there!)
here is what you are saying (and I dont think its out of line but we should be clear) you are saying how Wallstreet works 100% is basically 'cleo'. The entire stock market works on predictions. people getting paid high dollar to study trends all day long to make predictions.
I am not saying because they do that it makes them right. I am just making it clear that if you think this article is a Celo its likely you think all wallstreet predictions
clear?
Very clear. Thanks for reinforcing my point with a Wallstreet comparison. There were literally only a handful of people who understood what collateralized debt obligation's (CDO) were. ....
HOWEVER, do you think its fair to give the impression that walstreet predictions about VR are faultily because of VR instead of making it clear to your audience that the vast majority of wallstreet predictions in your mind is faulty?
seems rather disingenuous if you ask me
The Wallstreet industry has existed for decades and as a result professionals get specialized degrees encompassing years of education. Even with all of this training, education, and decades of data to study, they were still blindsided due to complacency and financial convenience.
These VR 'sources' have no equivalent in terms of industry history and trends; as a result there is a complete void of objective, fact-based case material for anyone to study. Therefore, the self-proclaimed 'experts' are literally just making stuff up (as if they use a Magic 8-ball or simply pull it our of their rear-ends). Yes, I would call both VR 'sources' extremely flawed.
Well we got Microsoft, Facebook, Samsung, HTC, Sony and Valve invested in this so I am pretty sure they all see a huge potential. So much brain power focused on a technology was not seen in awhile.
The killer app is definitely round the corner.
I think MS has the concept right. That AR/VR become largely interchangeable and the creation of virtual spaces. You get to customize your space with stuff that appear as physical items and you interact that way. I can see "VR gaming" as playing your console on your couch while inside your virtual space on a virtual TV. With AR/VR as a shared concept, you don't have to detach from the real world, you just augment the real with, but engage with the space virtually if that makes sense.
So if I turn my head to play with my dog, the virtual room treats the space as real space and doesn't move along with my vision even though I'm surrounded by virtual objects.
AR has been in the plans/works for VR for awhile now. All it really takes is a camera on the front end of the VR headset. There is a performance lag concern of which is the EXACT same limitations a pure AR system has to solve as well.
Misinformation. It isn't the exact same limitations at all.
You can walk around freely with AR sets, there is no lag between what you see and what you physically do, only virtually, and the reason there aren't issues with motion sickness is because your movements have no lag either.
This is just one example of how little you understand of what AR is.
In a virtual environment, VR, you have to regenerate every single pixel, including the world around you. Even with a simple pass through camera, or any camera in general, walking around holding it to your face, you will always experience lag between what you are doing and what you are seeing.
You DO NOT have this issue in AR. the "lag" between what is generated and what you're doing is minimal and based on input only, so, say walking around the room won't have the consequences of a small view space, and being cut off from the real world in favor of a recreated "virtual" world.
And again, the lag is ONLY for input, and the latency is in general much lower depending on your input device. For example, using a keyboard, or a mouse, or a glove with inputs, there is virtually NO latency. Just like in VR when you use a controller you have little latency in the controller and the movements on screen. Latency only exists with detection input such as utilizing hand gestures.
Otherwise, the actual pixelated latency of the AR device isn't in play here, because you don't have anything to compare it to. Whatever is generated, it's only basis of comparison is itself, while when you pixelate an entire room and you're walking around it, each step that isn't in sync is perceived latency.
The sources of the 'report' are so biased it's hard to take their Ms. Cleo predictions seriously, One 'source' was founded in 2011; the other in 2013. Both make their money by selling these 'reports' on the VR industry. So there is a huge conflict of interest; their 'reports' are more newsworthy with positive forecasts (versus, for example, stating VR might actually end up being a totally niche product). Therefore, the objectivity of both 'sources' is an obvious issue.
The 'report' also conveniently ignores the current status of the industry, which is on rocky footing to say the least, "But despite the rosy industry forecasts, more than half of the report’s
industry respondents said they expect to bring in less than $1 million
in VR revenue in the next 12 months, and just 45.2% think they’ll be
profitable in that time frame".
That right there indicates the average VR manufacturer isn't at all optimistic about VR as a business decision...55% don't expect to make a profit on their VR headsets by November 2017! Based on that, the majority of headset manufactures are already admitting VR appears to be a niche product.
A more objective report would be more focused on which VR companies are unlikely to be around for the 2nd or 3rd generation (due to an overabundance of VR headset companies, lack of revenue, and most importantly total lack of profit) vs. goofy predictions of industry "shifts" in 2020 via the "enterprise market" and subsequently a '$38 billion industry by 2026'. (So they are basing the 2026 prediction on their 2020 industry paradigm shift prediction to be spot-on. A prediction dependent on another huge prediction magically coming true...no logical flaws there!)
here is what you are saying (and I dont think its out of line but we should be clear) you are saying how Wallstreet works 100% is basically 'cleo'. The entire stock market works on predictions. people getting paid high dollar to study trends all day long to make predictions.
I am not saying because they do that it makes them right. I am just making it clear that if you think this article is a Celo its likely you think all wallstreet predictions
clear?
Very clear. Thanks for reinforcing my point with a Wallstreet comparison. There were literally only a handful of people who understood what collateralized debt obligation's (CDO) were. ....
HOWEVER, do you think its fair to give the impression that walstreet predictions about VR are faultily because of VR instead of making it clear to your audience that the vast majority of wallstreet predictions in your mind is faulty?
seems rather disingenuous if you ask me
The Wallstreet industry has existed for decades and as a result professionals get specialized degrees encompassing years of education. Even with all of this training, education, and decades of data to study, they were still blindsided due to complacency and financial convenience.
These VR 'sources' have no equivalent in terms of industry history and trends; as a result there is a complete void of objective, fact-based case material for anyone to study. Therefore, the self-proclaimed 'experts' are literally just making stuff up (as if they use a Magic 8-ball or simply pull it our of their rear-ends). Yes, I would call both VR 'sources' extremely flawed.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
--------------------------------HERE IMPORTANT----------------------------- I am NOT I repeat I am NOT putting that assertion into question. I am NOT suggesting its wrong. _____________________END _____________________________
What I AM suggesting is that if one believes that then they should not make it sound like their view is only restricted to VR and not make it clear that they feel all predictions of wallstreet are faultly not just isolated to VR.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
After feeling burnt out over the last 2 years with MMO's and gaming in general, I been looking for something new to light that fire again.
The HTC Vive has managed to make me feel like a kid new to gaming again! It like the old days of PC gaming with solo devs making games in the bedroom and stretching the technology to new ideas. Yes, it needs an AAA title but it still early and they will come.
Current fav is VR Golf Club - Incredible golf experience that is so close to the real thing that if you're bad at golf you'll be bad at this. Although the new beginner difficulty may alter this.
Like it or not, it is going to be big and will be an awesome alternative to gaming!
If you get the chance to try out a Vive, Rift or even the PSVR I'm sure you will not be disappointed. Watching youtube videos does not do it any justice!
Also, anyone that lumps 3DTV with VR has never tried VR!
VR Goggles from the 90's do the same thing as VR Goggles now though; Fall short of being relevant to mainstream gaming, and make people sick.
It being relatively cheap enough to box and sell to the mainstream market doesn't really change the above. There's was no philosophical change in direction. Same tech but smaller and faster. Core issues still unsolved.
IMHO unless those headsets start directly plugging into the human vestibular system to calibrate equilibrium it's going to continue to be an exercise in futility.
By the time somebody does figure it out, somebody else will probably have figured out a better approach.
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
The Wallstreet industry has existed for decades and as a result professionals get specialized degrees encompassing years of education. Even with all of this training, education, and decades of data to study, they were still blindsided due to complacency and financial convenience.
These VR 'sources' have no equivalent in terms of industry history and trends; as a result there is a complete void of objective, fact-based case material for anyone to study. Therefore, the self-proclaimed 'experts' are literally just making stuff up (as if they use a Magic 8-ball or simply pull it our of their rear-ends). Yes, I would call both VR 'sources' extremely flawed.
PLEASE READ CAREFULLY
--------------------------------HERE IMPORTANT----------------------------- I am NOT I repeat I am NOT putting that assertion into question. I am NOT suggesting its wrong. _____________________END _____________________________
What I AM suggesting is that if one believes that then they should not make it sound like their view is only restricted to VR and not make it clear that they feel all predictions of wallstreet are faultly not just isolated to VR.
I don't get what you're getting at due to the fact the 'view' of the source conveniently ignores active industry trends (which point towards some sort of correction/contraction and the likelihood several current VR manufacturers drop-out due to lack of profitability and subsequent inability to keep up with the competition in terms of R&D). They instead literally create a fairy-tale-like future for VR. Again, if you read the details, their 'parallel dimension' 2026 depends heavily on a huge paradigm shift for the entire industry around 2020.
There is a huge logical fallacy here; their final pie in the sky outlook for VR is heavily dependent on a second pie in the sky event to occur a half-decade earlier. On top of all that 'research', which makes Ms. Cleo proud, their ultimate motivation is money. The list of flaws of these sources is quite extensive to say the least.
Comments
VR!!!
VR!!!
VR!!!
VR!!!
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
VR is just an incremental improvement to a gaming experince.
just like getting a sound card was, just like getting a new video card is, just like getting a better monitor is, just like getting a steering wheel is, just like getting a better joystick is, just like getting a faster mouse is.
just because the industry decided to call it 'VR' isnt a good reason to show how clever you are by resticting yourself in improving your gaming experience just to proof a stupid point
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It will all make sense once you have the proper outlook on the world.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Keep in mind, CDs where a new technology in the mid 90s.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
From my limited understanding, 3 most important advantages are:
-Very low latency (imperceptible by human sensory organs)
-Higher field of view
-Low persistence (high refresh rate)
There are numerous other things, of course. Sure, it looks the same on the "outside". However, advances in computer graphics, the internet, and optics have resulted in a drastically better experience:
"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
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"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
So, yes, the comparison is clear and it's a very good one. Those 'high dollar' Wallstreet 'experts' were blindsided due to "drinking the Kool-Aid"; they ignored the basic economic factors which hinted towards major trouble. Why? Because the 'experts' were paid very well for the continuous rosy outlook. The two sources of the VR 'research' are not only ignoring the obvious; the entire VR industry appears to be headed into a major correction (which comes straight from the mouth of the VR industry) vs. the so called minor 'slump' these people foresee. They then go onto predict a major paradigm shift for the industry in five years and a golden age by 2026 (for extra fun they should have stated the Mars colony becomes the epicenter of VR by 2030!).
It shouldn't shock anyone that two VR industry 'research/news' companies practically created out of thin air (the industry and so called 'experts' didn't even exist five years ago and are literally just making things up as they go along) are now predicting an upcoming VR renaissance. And their full 'expert' reports can be yours for the low, low price of $800+!!!
If you want to be a cheerleader for the VR industry, that's great and I won't rain on your parade. However, you said 'high dollar people are studying trends' and that's why we should accept their 'expertise'...but they are willfully and conveniently ignoring the immediate state of the industry (which is trending towards a correction or maybe something worse) in order to make money.
Again, not to rain on you your parade, but these sources literally profit by creating bias reports predicting 'unicorns and rainbows' as the future of the VR industry.
seems rather disingenuous if you ask me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Market values and book values being what they are.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The current companies are having a hard time remembering what a game is. They are making money off of things that look like games but which lack essential features. Gambling is only going to work for a set period of time and the new people brought into the gaming market will start demanding more than click to advance. The market will mature and the growth will level off. The cell phone market is near saturation, consoles as well. Computers are everywhere they are going to be already for the forseeable future.
Without hype to drive year on year growth targets (which has replaced "profit" in financial areas for some inexplicable reason) there would be no investment. Right now the market is immature and the newer customers are willing to spend money on things that they won't at a later date.
Unsophisticated investors (like desperate fund managers) are the target of these hype campaigns, not "gamers". Gamers are only useful as an afterthought. These companies are heavily into the idea of selling what they call a "community" along with the rest of their product because it represents a future revenue stream. Whether or not that community ever translates into actual cash is rarely explored. This is why the Free to Play phenomenon was pushed and the trolls came out to silence all opposition.
Now the well is almost dry, as we are left with the mere vapors of what is being called VR these days. Everyone is supposed to get excited about the whiff. The current management of many corporations is utterly devoid of imagination, or even workmanlike capability in many cases. They don't care about creating something new, they aren't driven by that inner fire. They are just desperate to keep their jobs and if that means lying that's what's going to happen.
It's the same across the entire corporate world. Since computer games are a multibillion dollar market now, they have attracted the mainstream investment types. Now they are just another product that gets more expensive and lower quality every year. Like clothes, shoes, and plastic shit at Wal Mart.
The Crappening has arrived in your favorite hobby.
As I've said before, I wasn't really interested in VR. Then I tried it at PAX Prime and I'm more than willing to upgrade my entire system to accommodate Doom if they release an entire VR experience. The Resident Evil would be the icing on the cake.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I have no problems if you want to call what the current crop of headsets are aimed at something other than "Virtual Reality"; that's actually not the term that got me excited about the tech to begin with: call it "Extensive Digital Spaces" or even "Orientation-Sensitive Sterescopic Software Experiences".
"Virtual Reality" just rolls off the tongue a lot more easily.
And yes, it does add something over and above "adding 3D". Going back to the article I quoted earlier, Kyle Orland notes:
"Visuals aside, the Rift’s full 3D visual volume probably represents the biggest potential change in game design tropes since the widespread shift from 2D to 3D graphics in the ‘90s. Developers are still struggling to figure out what works and what doesn’t in this brave new world."
If you are asking me 'what does it add', it's probably best summed up in Oculus' catch-phrase: "presence". Everything this implies.
"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
These VR 'sources' have no equivalent in terms of industry history and trends; as a result there is a complete void of objective, fact-based case material for anyone to study. Therefore, the self-proclaimed 'experts' are literally just making stuff up (as if they use a Magic 8-ball or simply pull it our of their rear-ends). Yes, I would call both VR 'sources' extremely flawed.
You can walk around freely with AR sets, there is no lag between what you see and what you physically do, only virtually, and the reason there aren't issues with motion sickness is because your movements have no lag either.
This is just one example of how little you understand of what AR is.
In a virtual environment, VR, you have to regenerate every single pixel, including the world around you. Even with a simple pass through camera, or any camera in general, walking around holding it to your face, you will always experience lag between what you are doing and what you are seeing.
You DO NOT have this issue in AR. the "lag" between what is generated and what you're doing is minimal and based on input only, so, say walking around the room won't have the consequences of a small view space, and being cut off from the real world in favor of a recreated "virtual" world.
And again, the lag is ONLY for input, and the latency is in general much lower depending on your input device. For example, using a keyboard, or a mouse, or a glove with inputs, there is virtually NO latency. Just like in VR when you use a controller you have little latency in the controller and the movements on screen. Latency only exists with detection input such as utilizing hand gestures.
Otherwise, the actual pixelated latency of the AR device isn't in play here, because you don't have anything to compare it to. Whatever is generated, it's only basis of comparison is itself, while when you pixelate an entire room and you're walking around it, each step that isn't in sync is perceived latency.
--------------------------------HERE IMPORTANT-----------------------------
I am NOT I repeat I am NOT putting that assertion into question. I am NOT suggesting its wrong.
_____________________END _____________________________
What I AM suggesting is that if one believes that then they should not make it sound like their view is only restricted to VR and not make it clear that they feel all predictions of wallstreet are faultly not just isolated to VR.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
After feeling burnt out over the last 2 years with MMO's and gaming in general, I been looking for something new to light that fire again.
The HTC Vive has managed to make me feel like a kid new to gaming again! It like the old days of PC gaming with solo devs making games in the bedroom and stretching the technology to new ideas. Yes, it needs an AAA title but it still early and they will come.
Current fav is VR Golf Club - Incredible golf experience that is so close to the real thing that if you're bad at golf you'll be bad at this. Although the new beginner difficulty may alter this.
Like it or not, it is going to be big and will be an awesome alternative to gaming!
If you get the chance to try out a Vive, Rift or even the PSVR I'm sure you will not be disappointed. Watching youtube videos does not do it any justice!
Also, anyone that lumps 3DTV with VR has never tried VR!
It being relatively cheap enough to box and sell to the mainstream market doesn't really change the above. There's was no philosophical change in direction. Same tech but smaller and faster. Core issues still unsolved.
IMHO unless those headsets start directly plugging into the human vestibular system to calibrate equilibrium it's going to continue to be an exercise in futility.
By the time somebody does figure it out, somebody else will probably have figured out a better approach.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
amazingly misinformed to a level that frankly I didnt think was even remotely possible
this was an era before LCD monitors even existed, have you seen a CRT monitor? that is just the begining of what is funny here.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
There is a huge logical fallacy here; their final pie in the sky outlook for VR is heavily dependent on a second pie in the sky event to occur a half-decade earlier. On top of all that 'research', which makes Ms. Cleo proud, their ultimate motivation is money. The list of flaws of these sources is quite extensive to say the least.