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.
'what I am getting at'
is I am not arguing the pont that wallstreet is always wrong with predictions so doing so is a HUGE waste of time on your part. That has nothing to do with my poiint. In the intrest of not arguing for the sake of it and in the intrest of not wasting your time dont type a bunch of text realted to how wallstreet is often wrong because I am not going to read a single word of it because its not realted to my point.
my point is, if one thinks wallstreet is often wrong then one should mention that in their Cleo post.
simple
as
that
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
The VR goggles in the 90's are like a VR viewer a bit like VR cardboard and phone and not a VR interactive environment like you can do now.
The Vive controllers and the Rift Touch are as close as . You can juggle them with the headset on they are that sensitive.
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.
The VR goggles in the 90's are like a VR viewer a bit like VR cardboard and phone and not a VR interactive environment like you can do now.
The Vive controllers and the Rift Touch are as close as . You can juggle them with the headset on they are that sensitive.
actually to be more clear a cardboard and a phone of todays technology is light years ahead from what was possible in the 90s.
The problem of CRT alone made it highly impossible
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
VR Goggles from the 90's do the same thing as VR Goggles now though; ....
lol... 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.
Quoting and cutting off the rest of my statement doesn't work when the statement is right there to read. Who needs VR when you can simply lie to yourself and it becomes reality though.
Has VR yet again fallen short in being relevant to mainstream gaming. Yes. Is it still making a large segment of people sick. Yes. Is this exact same problem that VR had in the 90's. Yes. Has the current iteration of VR head goggles addressed equilibrium to where it's viable mainstream? NO! Has there been any recent breakthroughs to address these issues? NO!
The closest headset to be reasonable is StarVR and they're only addressing FOV. There's still outstanding issues with VR, human perception and inner ear.
This isn't a discussion about predicting the future and over/undering VR. It's about RIGHT NOW. It's a fad (again) that companies are rushing to cash in on.
Keep on keeping on though bruh.
"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.
my point is, if one thinks wallstreet is often wrong then one should mention that in their Cleo post.
That's exactly what I said. Did you not read what I wrote? I gave examples of where the Wallstreet 'experts' were caught napping due to complacency and convenience. And pointed out they had decades of objective data and history to study AND they were still blindsided.
The sources of the article you posted have no equivalent objective data to study. On top of that, they plainly ignore less than positive trends set to take place in the short term (within next year with source being VR industry personnel questioned directly) in favor of consecutive five year periods of amazing growth and success.
The logic used by these two sources is beyond flawed and biased. Furthermore, they are both for profit organizations and benefit directly from over the top predictions. VR is still in its infancy with both organizations involved in this 'research' taking advantage of this fact. Therefore, objectivity goes out the window with these two 'sources' as they obviously intend to capitalize on the VR novelty.
but this line in particular was a little over the top
You know what's great about forums? People will agree with what you say but manage snark for no particular reason just because they've learned to enjoy being nasty.
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.
my point is, if one thinks wallstreet is often wrong then one should mention that in their Cleo post.
That's exactly what I said. Did you not read what I wrote? ....
I already said no.
once you started going on about how wallstreet is often wrong I had to stop you right there.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
By 2026, there better be a concept of a Star Trek TNG holodeck. The current, "thing", that you people call VR is garbage.
Its not, though. It's really quite good.
Not disagreeing with the "holodeck" comment, by the way
Oh yeah, and...
LOL funny pic the People who think that sticking tiny displays in front of their eyes is VR
Okay, so... you object that current VR requires hardware?
I want to feel the texture of the surface when I touch it.
Well, that's a very good point. I think that's very much the 'goal' of where VR tech is headed. These first "consumer versions" are really just baby steps.
That stated, even just simulating an extensive, 3D visual environment in all directions can be very compelling. It makes the experience really worthwhile, even if the other four senses aren't quite engaged. I have no idea when that will be possible; it may not be for quite some time, but it's important to start somewhere.
I agree, got to start somewhere. I just think they are going the wrong way about it.
for decades now I have been making incremental increases to my gaming experience by buying a new computer, better video cards, better monitors. I see VR as the same, an incremental increase in my gaming experience. I dont see it as THE ONE improvement that has to wait to be Star Trek in order to dive in.
Regarding AR/VR for me as a gamer I have nearly zero intrest in AR so I am glad VR is coming first.
Regardless of all that I support and even highly suggest that if you have reservations about VR to stay away from it
Try thinking outside of the box.
I am not an idoit.
When I play a video game i want to be teleported into a new world, not chase a creature around my living room hanging on my couch next to my dirty dishes with food on the dining room table. I want 100% of my view to teleport me to a place completely different, like standing on top of a mountain.
When I play a video game i want to be teleported into a new world, not chase a creature around my living room hanging on my couch next to my dirty dishes with food on the dining room table. I want 100% of my view to teleport me to a place completely different, like standing on top of a mountain.
You sure sound like one.
that is the best response you could muster given my detailed description of the difference.
gotcha
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
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.
my point is, if one thinks wallstreet is often wrong then one should mention that in their Cleo post.
That's exactly what I said. Did you not read what I wrote? ....
I already said no.
once you started going on about how wallstreet is often wrong I had to stop you right there.
I explained everything logically and thoughtfully, but you didn't bother to read what I wrote. Nice to know it's a "Who's On First?" routine style discussion.
but this line in particular was a little over the top
You know what's great about forums? People will agree with what you say but manage snark for no particular reason just because they've learned to enjoy being nasty.
Uh, did you miss the rest of my post? I really wasn't trying to "snark". Portraying current VR tech as "mere vapors" is overly dismal; I feel really bad if that's your outlook.
I actually agree with most of what you posted: I just think that there's quite a lot of fun to be had in current VR, and on the whole I feel very optimistic about where the technology is headed.
"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
once you started going on about how wallstreet is often wrong I had to stop you right there.
I explained everything logically and thoughtfully, but you didn't bother to read what I wrote. Nice to know it's a "Who's On First?" routine style discussion.
lol...
I never said it wasnt logical, I said it was off the point which is why I stopped reading it. anyone can pick a random completely unrelated response and make it logical, on point to what the person said however takes a little more work.
my suggestion is simple, the next time you want to talk about how VR predictions are going to be off please point out that you feel this way about the vast majority of wallstreet predictions as welll
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
There were lots of these types of projections for touch screens as well - they were right eventually but it took c. 20 years.
And there were projections like these for VR in the 90s as well. I am sure they will be right as well. Eventually.
and the projections I read for oil prices for the last 12 months ended up being dead balls accurate
They should hire the guys who did the oil projections to do the VR projections then.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
There were lots of these types of projections for touch screens as well - they were right eventually but it took c. 20 years.
And there were projections like these for VR in the 90s as well. I am sure they will be right as well. Eventually.
and the projections I read for oil prices for the last 12 months ended up being dead balls accurate
They should hire the guys who did the oil projections to do the VR projections then.
well to be fair i am in the camp that agrees that most of wallstreet estimates turn out to be random although great effort is applied. its just that by chance the oil ones appear to have been correct.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
once you started going on about how wallstreet is often wrong I had to stop you right there.
I explained everything logically and thoughtfully, but you didn't bother to read what I wrote. Nice to know it's a "Who's On First?" routine style discussion.
lol...
I never said it wasnt logical, I said it was off the point which is why I stopped reading it. anyone can pick a random completely unrelated response and make it logical, on point to what the person said however takes a little more work.
my suggestion is simple, the next time you want to talk about how VR predictions are going to be off please point out that you feel this way about the vast majority of wallstreet predictions as welll
Basically this response means "I understand you have a lot of rational, true, probably even damaging information to my point, but that's why I refuse to read it. Once it seems like you've got a point it's best to drop out"
Comments
is I am not arguing the pont that wallstreet is always wrong with predictions so doing so is a HUGE waste of time on your part. That has nothing to do with my poiint. In the intrest of not arguing for the sake of it and in the intrest of not wasting your time dont type a bunch of text realted to how wallstreet is often wrong because I am not going to read a single word of it because its not realted to my point.
my point is, if one thinks wallstreet is often wrong then one should mention that in their Cleo post.
simple
as
that
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The VR goggles in the 90's are like a VR viewer a bit like VR cardboard and phone and not a VR interactive environment like you can do now.
The Vive controllers and the Rift Touch are as close as . You can juggle them with the headset on they are that sensitive.
The problem of CRT alone made it highly impossible
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Has VR yet again fallen short in being relevant to mainstream gaming. Yes.
Is it still making a large segment of people sick. Yes.
Is this exact same problem that VR had in the 90's. Yes.
Has the current iteration of VR head goggles addressed equilibrium to where it's viable mainstream? NO!
Has there been any recent breakthroughs to address these issues? NO!
The closest headset to be reasonable is StarVR and they're only addressing FOV. There's still outstanding issues with VR, human perception and inner ear.
This isn't a discussion about predicting the future and over/undering VR. It's about RIGHT NOW. It's a fad (again) that companies are rushing to cash in on.
Keep on keeping on though bruh.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The sources of the article you posted have no equivalent objective data to study. On top of that, they plainly ignore less than positive trends set to take place in the short term (within next year with source being VR industry personnel questioned directly) in favor of consecutive five year periods of amazing growth and success.
The logic used by these two sources is beyond flawed and biased. Furthermore, they are both for profit organizations and benefit directly from over the top predictions. VR is still in its infancy with both organizations involved in this 'research' taking advantage of this fact. Therefore, objectivity goes out the window with these two 'sources' as they obviously intend to capitalize on the VR novelty.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You know what's great about forums? People will agree with what you say but manage snark for no particular reason just because they've learned to enjoy being nasty.
once you started going on about how wallstreet is often wrong I had to stop you right there.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
gotcha
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I actually agree with most of what you posted: I just think that there's quite a lot of fun to be had in current VR, and on the whole I feel very optimistic about where the technology is headed.
"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
my suggestion is simple, the next time you want to talk about how VR predictions are going to be off please point out that you feel this way about the vast majority of wallstreet predictions as welll
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me