Next up we need omnidirectional running machines that input the data to a game so you can actually run around. Then gamers will become one of the fittest groups ever.
However, I think that the VR people are a little over-optimistic. They plan to sell 170 million VR headsets by 2018 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/duncanrolph/2016/03/28/is-virtual-reality-a-viable-investment/#53a2bc3c68aa), which sounds a little out-there to me.
However, I think that the VR people are a little over-optimistic. They plan to sell 170 million VR headsets by 2018 (http://www.forbes.com/sites/duncanrolph/2016/03/28/is-virtual-reality-a-viable-investment/#53a2bc3c68aa), which sounds a little out-there to me.
Yeah it seems that way to me also, is there even 170 million person with a powerful enough PC to run the thing in the first place?
Next up we need omnidirectional running machines that input the data to a game so you can actually run around. Then gamers will become one of the fittest groups ever.
Reading about people`s experiences recently it seems they`ve finally managed to pull it off. And it`s very tempting to try, even though logistics - wearing a headset, getting motion sickness and all that are of putting and I`m definitely too old to spend hours with one on.Motion sickness is a result of having an inadequate graphics card (less than 90fps) or using software where the VR is hacked in and doesn't work properly (Skyrim, most prominently). Both of these issues are already not a problem if you use the equipment exactly as intended, and will get further away even from fringe cases over the next half decade or so.
Next up we need omnidirectional running machines that input the data to a game so you can actually run around. Then gamers will become one of the fittest groups ever.(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/G/01/aplus/detail-page/B0080D5982_img2.jpg)
I'm more interested in what the next iteration of virtual reality looks like. This one's nice, sure, but as far as I can tell they really haven't done anything new. All that's been done is make the concept of the stuff back in the 80's actually work in the modern day. I can't wait to see how this stuff ends up once we actually figure out how to do so.Two cool things I've seen in development are video cameras that watch your hands (bought out by Oculus, with no further news) and a project for facial recognition and monitoring. There's been some good development there independently of VR (which people on 4chan have used to map their faces to anime girls and then masturbate and share the result (the future is amazing)) but that tech is generally impeded by having half the face occluded by a big VR headset. So some people have taken the muscle impulse sensing tech used in high-end prosthetics and stuck it to the headset, then worked on software to integrate the two. The problem now is that it has to be calibrated each time you put it on, which will make it unappealing to the general market, but once it's ready for prime-time, multiplayer spaces will be greatly enriched.
Since VR is going to pretend that the Player Character is the Player, games are going to lose the ability to position the PC. Subtle stuff- like turning the camera to face an interesting object- and more obvious things, like getting hit by a club and landing flat on your back, aren't going to be possible.
Since VR is going to pretend that the Player Character is the Player, games are going to lose the ability to position the PC. Subtle stuff- like turning the camera to face an interesting object- and more obvious things, like getting hit by a club and landing flat on your back, aren't going to be possible. Overcoming that is going to be difficult. In multiplayer games, I imagine that VR rigs are going to have deaths or even stuns result in out-of-body-experiences.The "death camera" stuff that's become usual isn't possible, and game devs are going to have to actually take a note from the book of visual artists to make you look where they want, instead of just forcing your face in the right direction. Seems worth it to me, but it's definitely going to take devs a while to get used to.
After all, aren't cutscenes a means to get around functionality that the player lacks in the actual game?That's far from their only use. They can have all sorts of narrative purposes.
I'm disappointed that Steam's list of games for Vive is so weak compared to what Rift has in it's lineup. Steam has a handful of artsie applications, and tech-demonstrations that last about 5 minutes. I was expecting more from the service that boasts more games than any other on PC.The Rift has been releaseing dev kits for years, the Vive is much newer and Steam probably only started work on it when they found out about the Facebook acquisition. The Vive has far more content than the Rift did at the same age.
Honestly, the lack of ability to move the camera directly (at least not without nauseating people) is a boon to design. Same with the death of the cutscene as a trope of game design. It's a lazy copy-paste from film techniques, and totally undermines the immersion and agency that makes games different than film.While I think you're right in the long term, I think that in the short term it means poorer story-telling as devs flounder around without the crutch they've grown used to. One more argument in favor of not adopting yet, I suppose.
Side note: I'm starting to wonder if it's possible to make a VR Game which displays 4 Spatial Dimensions projected down using Stereoscopic 3D, and wondering how much of a headache it would induce.Spoiler: NVM, someone beat me to it. (click to show/hide)
The Rift has been releaseing dev kits for years, the Vive is much newer and Steam probably only started work on it when they found out about the Facebook acquisition. The Vive has far more content than the Rift did at the same age...well, actually while the current design of the Vive may be newer.. Valve has actually been working on room-scale VR since before E3 2012 when the initial showing of the oculus happened (before the kickstarter).
The stuff they were working on was stuff that they would have been just as happy to share with Oculus, until Facebook bought them out and closed the source. It's not like Valve has ever really been a partner of HTC before, you know.The Rift has been releaseing dev kits for years, the Vive is much newer and Steam probably only started work on it when they found out about the Facebook acquisition. The Vive has far more content than the Rift did at the same age...well, actually while the current design of the Vive may be newer.. Valve has actually been working on room-scale VR since before E3 2012 when the initial showing of the oculus happened (before the kickstarter).
Although the actual initial prototype (some cobbled together stuff in a garage) of the rift was made years before that... it's not like the Vive 'came out of no where' or wasnt in development for a similar amount of time... It's more that valve was focusing on room-scale vr and then with the rising popularity of oculus they adapted their plans to it.
I wouldn't be suprised if the sitting down experience of the oculus was 'better' then the vive though...Do you have facts to back that up? From what I've heard, the sense of place is better on the Vive and even in experiences that are comparable in scale to what the Rift provides, the reviewers and folks that I've heard from still pretty overwhelmingly prefer the Vive.
Of course, not every VR game is a good game by default. EVE Valkyrie, for example, is littered with microtransactions that detract from its initial appeal:o :-\ :'(
actually.. i just spent awhile looking andQuoteI wouldn't be suprised if the sitting down experience of the oculus was 'better' then the vive though...Do you have facts to back that up? From what I've heard, the sense of place is better on the Vive and even in experiences that are comparable in scale to what the Rift provides, the reviewers and folks that I've heard from still pretty overwhelmingly prefer the Vive.
From Gamespot Oculus Review (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/oculus-rift-review/1100-6436048/)QuoteOf course, not every VR game is a good game by default. EVE Valkyrie, for example, is littered with microtransactions that detract from its initial appeal:o :-\ :'(
For sure, how could we forget. My enthusiasm just went down a few notches...
Reading about the microtransactions, it's basically the same as EvE Online's Plex system... which apparently everyone is upset about now. Even though everyone was fine with it for the last 10 years... Ok.From Gamespot Oculus Review (http://www.gamespot.com/articles/oculus-rift-review/1100-6436048/)QuoteOf course, not every VR game is a good game by default. EVE Valkyrie, for example, is littered with microtransactions that detract from its initial appeal:o :-\ :'(
For sure, how could we forget. My enthusiasm just went down a few notches...
Oh god that's awful. If I'm already shelling out insane amounts for a PC upgrade and the VR hardware, I certainly won't be paying for anything in game that I don't have to. I had hoped it'd work the other way really, and VR games would basically be a new medium more in line with films (or even the 'blockbusters' of old like HL2) where it tried hard to be a contained 'experience' rather than lots of extra bolt ons and whatever. I'd also imagined it'd be a bit more high brow, and a move away from that kind of cheap money grabbing techniques. Such a shame.
Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if facebook hack the price down quickly when they realise that they're not managing to sell to the mainstream. They'll obviously want to monetize by utilizing their massive customer base, and they can't do that if only 0.001% can actually use it.
I dunno. Omnitreads are just so expensive, and it's hard to picture a way to make them cheaper. Pure motion tracking with some clever illusions would be free, but it demands space that many people just don't have available.They're expensive now, but I can guarantee that if VR takes off they'll become hilariously cheap - it's the most obvious next step for VR, and people will start demanding it pretty much as soon as they play the first blockbuster FPS on the VR.
Reading about the microtransactions, it's basically the same as EvE Online's Plex system... which apparently everyone is upset about now. Even though everyone was fine with it for the last 10 years... Ok.
Except Valkarie comes free with the rift.Reading about the microtransactions, it's basically the same as EvE Online's Plex system... which apparently everyone is upset about now. Even though everyone was fine with it for the last 10 years... Ok.
I don`t play Eve, but doubt it`s as black and white as you paint here. Micro$ in games you purchase for a fee are never okay. I hate f2p model too - though after playing Planetside 2 I must admit that it might "work" sometime - with the caveat that the game would always be better without this crap. But at least it sort of makes sense there and is more honest.
The goal of VR is ultimate immersion. If it works, then I can only imagine that avoiding some pushy ads and "gimme yo $$$" nagging will become much more insufferable (never mind the standard side effect of broken gameplay balance).
Except Valkarie comes free with the rift.
One thing I like about VR is that, from the demos i've seen, it looks like we're finally getting more variety back in environment design. Not to say we haven't left the Distressed Modern Industrial era behind, but there's a lot of much more colorful design from what I've seen.That's not because it's VR. We've been having professional "indie" games and publishers pushing that aesthetic for quite a while. It's just that these indie groups are the ones willing to go into VR since it's compatible with a strategy of attracting a small dedicated market, rather than an extensive one, whereas the AAA devs can't afford to take risks.
I dunno. Omnitreads are just so expensive, and it's hard to picture a way to make them cheaper. Pure motion tracking with some clever illusions would be free, but it demands space that many people just don't have available.I suspect that full-mobility VR won't see consumer success in this round. But headsets and hand controls don't really require that kind of thing anyway; walking with a joystick or using one of several other mobility solutions that creative people come up with should end up being adequate; people learned to deal with motion sickness for the sake of cars, after all. However, I do suspect we're going to continue seeing games made where you're in a space ship or other vehicle, and can only walk in an area the size of what your peripherals allow and otherwise move the vehicle (see for example Hover Junkers).
All I can say is that room-scale VR is a perfect fit for strategy games. Just have the map scaled to the available walking space, and the player walks through it like a god, directing his minions.While I agree, no dev seems to be following this train of thought. Perhaps because graphical gimmicks don't tend to track particularly well in the strategy market, and strategy gamers are quite discerning in game mechanics, making the barrier to entry higher than a lot of the simple games and glorified demos we're seeing so far. It would be awesome to play, for example, Stellaris, as a giant galaxy-striding space god, but I don't think we're going to see strategy game engines supporting that for around half a decade.
I'm also working on a vr version of Armok VisionWhat scale? Will the player be a dwarf, or a giant with the map scaled to match your room size? I see advantages to both.
Strategy games could work well if you had a proper control interface, but I have a feeling that reading text in a constantly slightly moving backdrop might get a bit...hard on the eyes.That's why I never read signs while driving.
I'm also working on a vr version of Armok VisionWhat scale? Will the player be a dwarf, or a giant with the map scaled to match your room size? I see advantages to both.
Have we reached peak VR yet? The thread title counter is killing me.
Have we reached peak VR yet?Not for many days yet.
Strategy games could work well if you had a proper control interface, but I have a feeling that reading text in a constantly slightly moving backdrop might get a bit...hard on the eyes.That's why I never read signs while driving.
If I had like $2000 lying around, I would consider it. Still, I think I'd wait for the second generation. If I had to get one from the current generation, I think I'd go with Vive just because I like the potential of room-scale VR.
I guess 2k is also for new PC so you can run it.If I had like $2000 lying around, I would consider it. Still, I think I'd wait for the second generation. If I had to get one from the current generation, I think I'd go with Vive just because I like the potential of room-scale VR.
Curiously, where are you getting the 2K from? Last I checked, pre-order Vive was ~$799.00 Still pricey, of course.
I found that despite my computer not being super new, the only think I would need to upgrade would be my graphics card, so it would be more like ~$1300. I think that most people who are in the situation that they're considering this at all would probably be in a similar position regarding already available hardware.I guess 2k is also for new PC so you can run it.If I had like $2000 lying around, I would consider it. Still, I think I'd wait for the second generation. If I had to get one from the current generation, I think I'd go with Vive just because I like the potential of room-scale VR.
Curiously, where are you getting the 2K from? Last I checked, pre-order Vive was ~$799.00 Still pricey, of course.
If I had like $2000 lying around, I would consider it. Still, I think I'd wait for the second generation. If I had to get one from the current generation, I think I'd go with Vive just because I like the potential of room-scale VR.
Curiously, where are you getting the 2K from? Last I checked, pre-order Vive was ~$799.00 Still pricey, of course.
I don't think it's entirely excessive - you can pretty much manage it with the same rig as you'd need for The Witcher 3 on high settings. More than that, we're only really just hitting the main stride of games taking advantage of the hardware in this generation of consoles, which means that most people that want to play current AAA games on a PC will need to update to about the VR level of hardware to enjoy them.
Shipping and handling plus taxes add another ~$100 to that number. The minimum recommended video card, processor, and memory(which most people don't have because they are entirely excessive for any non-VR applications) add another ~$1000 to the price of getting started with VR.
That's not really accurate. I have a better graphics card than the Xbox One (which was a mid-line card when it was announced) and can handle any AAA game no problem, but benchmarking indicates that I'd only be able to do VR at a fraction of the necessary FPS. Both Steam and Oculus suggest a card which is fairly high-tier right now, and will cost you a good bit more than the entire xbone.I don't think it's entirely excessive - you can pretty much manage it with the same rig as you'd need for The Witcher 3 on high settings. More than that, we're only really just hitting the main stride of games taking advantage of the hardware in this generation of consoles, which means that most people that want to play current AAA games on a PC will need to update to about the VR level of hardware to enjoy them.
Shipping and handling plus taxes add another ~$100 to that number. The minimum recommended video card, processor, and memory(which most people don't have because they are entirely excessive for any non-VR applications) add another ~$1000 to the price of getting started with VR.
That's not really accurate. I have a better graphics card than the Xbox One (which was a mid-line card when it was announced) and can handle any AAA game no problem, but benchmarking indicates that I'd only be able to do VR at a fraction of the necessary FPS. Both Steam and Oculus suggest a card which is fairly high-tier right now, and will cost you a good bit more than the entire xbone.
Heck, CLEANING them sounds like a chore. Imagine a keyboard, except you strap it to your face.
I'm wondering if the whole DX/Mantle/Vulcan releases will kick the specs down a tad? Fair enough, it's necessary to double render everything, but I wouldn't be surprised if some things get worked out in the render pipeline to make that a bit easier. They are two different "cameras/viewports", but they're pretty damn close together for standard binocular vision.
It's still a graphics card bottleneck, but CPU specs may not need to be as vigorous once Vulcan, etc come through properly, as well as CPU->GPU pipelines getting properly sorted for twin displays, freeing up some processing resources for most users.
Heck, CLEANING them sounds like a chore. Imagine a keyboard, except you strap it to your face.
Pink eye pandemic. Calling it. :P
Heck, CLEANING them sounds like a chore. Imagine a keyboard, except you strap it to your face.
Pink eye pandemic. Calling it. :P
It's a Herpes face mask.
Just you wait until the third generation consoles roll out with crotch adapters.The future is now. (http://www.otakutale.com/2014/electric-onahole-now-compatible-with-hentai-games/)
Just you wait until the third generation consoles roll out with crotch adapters.The future is now. (http://www.otakutale.com/2014/electric-onahole-now-compatible-with-hentai-games/)
So I guess the fad's over? See you all in 10-15 years then.What were you expecting that we didn't get? I'm seeing a pretty solid showing here, and I expect the market will continue to have its niche, with a new round of offerings growing iteratively more mainstream over the course of the next ~5 years.
I think the games on offer weren't good enough for the cost of entry. There were a couple standouts, like whatever that Matrix one with body-awareness was (Some obvious computer pun like all cyberpunk games, hard reset etc.) but overall it turned out pretty similar to the Wii. A few interesting uses of the new peripheral, lots of gimmicky bullshit.Some of the best games for it are mostly the ones that are also playable without VR. Subnautica (http://store.steampowered.com/app/264710/), for example. But I agree with your assessment. Remember that the Wii was quite successful, despite launch woes.
Yes, but the Wii was successful because of its gimmick and its low cost-of-entry that let it advertise to people who didn't normally play video games. VR is the opposite: the only people interested are dedicated and with deep pockets.That's really only true of the high end VR, the Rift and Vive. Lots of people are strapping smartphones to their faces. Hell, the President of the USA just showcased exactly that technology, he made a VR thingy of Yosemite for the National Park Service for their 100th birthday.
I bought a Vive last week. While it definitely still has an "early adopter" feel to the software, the hardware is pretty damned solid. I find the tracking works perfectly about 85-95% of the time, and when it doesn't, it's pretty easy to troubleshoot. I imagine that, as the software matures, it'll become its own niche of gaming. Additionally, as devs start moving away from either gimmicky (but still very fun) minigames and attempts to translate 2d experiences to 3d, I'm sure we'll start seeing entirely new genres pop up.
Also, pretty much any "sim" game benefits greatly from HMDs. Elite Dangerous becomes something entirely different with a headset. Once their code stabilizes, I'll likely never play the game outside VR again.
I've heard pretty much exactly the same from everyone I know who has one, and they've all said that sim games with VR are just on a completely different level. One of my friends plays flight sims just constantly now, and never really had much interest before.
I'm very glad devs are moving to more sophisticated attempts too - I was also talking to a game dev for a big company who said that a lot of work is going in to improving the dev kit and third party game engines ability to use VR directly and with less hassle in the hopes that they'll be able to bolt on or create VR versions of old/previous games much more easily. Whilst I hate the incessant money grabbing of game companies these days, I can honestly say that I wouldn't mind paying again for a game with full VR support. Alien Isolation would be absolutely incredible with it.
I find that the cinema mode works pretty well, but I've only used it in Fallout 4. (Which SHOULD work well in VR, but I'm finding it too fiddly atm. Needs some work before it'll feel right.) I also don't like the idea of paying for the driver, but they're not a hardware company and they're providing something unique. I don't think the company would be able to survive if they didn't charge for their product, honestly. They don't get profit from selling video cards or HMDs.
Ah sorry, I meant cinema things for movies or tv shows. Have you tried any of those? One person I know said it was amazing, but others said it was pretty rubbish, although could potentially improve with time.
Completely agree with your thoughts on the driver. My worry really is that they corner the market on the driver and it becomes a cost that everyone ends up having to pay.
Yeah, VR hit a second wall in making large spaces comfortable to navigate.
I really want to start a VR Gallery where you just have a full-sized gym-matted area large enough for the illusion of infinite space to be preserved. Like, if you start walking twoards a wall, the VR turns you slightly (i.e., turns the world around you clockwise so you turn counterclockwise to "correct") away from the wall.
Sadly that's like a 30m diameter so it gets expensive. And you have to switch from being tied to a computer to wearing a giant gaming laptop.
Still, I think it's workable.
Sadly that's like a 30m diameter so it gets expensive. And you have to switch from being tied to a computer to wearing a giant gaming laptop.
Bump because the Playstation VR is out, so let’s share impressions and recommendations. :)
I bought the set, spent the weekend playing around with it, and I am happy.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/virtual-reality-price-crash/ (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/virtual-reality-price-crash/)
This article(not that I put all that much stock in it) suggests that as early as 2017 we may see more affordable VR units that do not have to be tethered to a PC.
Sadly that's like a 30m diameter so it gets expensive. And you have to switch from being tied to a computer to wearing a giant gaming laptop.I don't think it would necessarily be analogous to a laptop on your head. You could build it as a backpack and essentially make a typical desktop computer (ie, larger and cheaper components) on a backpacking frame, just with a Li-ion battery powering the hardware instead of a wall socket. I could do this in my living room right now for under $2000 dollars, so if a major company wanted to build a machine on the paradigm of a game console, they could definitely get a good machine with a cost under $1000. I wouldn't put it past SONY to do this, although they'd have to market it hard because most consumers would have to go out into parks to play, rather than in their own home, which won't track well with helicopter parents that use video games as a way to keep their kids isolated from the dangers of the real world without the need to parent.
If by "it" you mean Qualcomm, I don't think this is a promising enough deal that you can ignore their poor showing last year, but if this goes well their stock price is definitely headed back up. A crashing price and improved functionality is the natural antecedent of innovation. Companies that refine rather than revolutionize are going to be the ones coming to the fore now. Oculus is definitely in the "revolutionize" camp and may fall out of the picture soon. They're already not seeing much interest since the high-budget early adopters go for Vive and the common man in want of a cool but affordable toy prefers Gear or Cardboard according to the nature of his wallet. Valve has already achieved their goal of preventing Facebook from having a monopoly, so they'll likely fade from the forefront or move on to other things, and HTC is probably going to focus on refinements and price drops now but they're skilled enough in the area so are unlikely to be chased out.Sadly that's like a 30m diameter so it gets expensive. And you have to switch from being tied to a computer to wearing a giant gaming laptop.
http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/virtual-reality-price-crash/ (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/virtual-reality-price-crash/)
This article(not that I put all that much stock in it) suggests that as early as 2017 we may see more affordable VR units that do not have to be tethered to a PC.
When it comes to encouraging game development, I think this will help spur progress, but it will add an impediment perhaps larger than the benefit it provides, at least initially. Right now, when you develop for VR, you need to develop for a specific type of VR. That means you might do what (for example) SubNautica has done. You develop a game, and realize it would be great with VR. So you implement it, because you're an excitable game dev. That's a lot of work, but you do it. Then another kind of VR comes out. Is it really worth all the work implementing that?http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/virtual-reality-price-crash/ (http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/virtual-reality-price-crash/)
This article(not that I put all that much stock in it) suggests that as early as 2017 we may see more affordable VR units that do not have to be tethered to a PC.
That is very interesting, and I think it will definitely drive the price down. Part of the attraction with reference designs is that it allows small companies to have a go at implementing their ideas of how to solve some of the 'problems' from a stable, openly engineerable platform, rather than having to either engineer it from the ground up or try it out on a closed off product like the Oculus. They obviously get swallowed up or sell their ideas, but it allows for more hands on the wheel so to speak.
On top of that, having a proliferation of lower cost models will definitely drive the market for 'proper' VR games, and hopefully force down the price of Oculus/Vive to being more consumer friendly.
My skepticism is not with Qualcomm specifically, but rather the prediction that they are going to massively affect the cost and capabilities of VR before the end of 2017. There are a lot of companies with their fingers in the VR industry, making many bold claims, and thus far 100% of them have fallen far short of their promises.They're implying that they'll shave a couple hundred bucks off the price of high-end VR, presumably for some undisclosed trade-offs that they're working to minimize the impact of. That is a totally reasonable claim to make in this situation. It's not like they're saying they're saying they can sell the Vive for the price of Cardboard.
...
I read a thread on GameFAQs (http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/178200-dragon-quest-builders/74416907) about someone using PSVR on Dragon Quest Builders, a game not designed for VR, and claiming almost impossibly good results. Have you tried any games not designed for VR using the VR, and if so, what were your results?
Is the fad over yet? There's supposed to be a bunch of cheaper VR rigs on the market now.
It's now probably just an expensive film making studio which hasn't made anything particularly note worth (in a wider sense) and they're just trying to cut back on excess stuff.
It's now probably just an expensive film making studio which hasn't made anything particularly note worth (in a wider sense) and they're just trying to cut back on excess stuff.
I'm not sure what 'wider sense' you are referring to, but the studio's productions gained considerable critical acclaim and won numerous awards.
Anyone know what I can do with the touch controllers in the meantime?Touch them?
Anyone know what I can do with the touch controllers in the meantime?Touch them?
2: A Competitive team-based PvP, something in the FPS/RTS/MOBA vein, with a highly active user base
I'd like a nice Co-op PvE shooter, though.
The HTC Vive just got a $200 price cut. (https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/21/16177270/htc-vive-price-cut-599)Ironically, the free viveport trial, despite essentially meaning "you get any five games or programs you like, free" is probably going to show as a weaker selling point than the Rift's free bundle, simply because it's less straightforward.
It's now $600, down from $800.
The HTC Vive just got a $200 price cut. (https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/21/16177270/htc-vive-price-cut-599)Ironically, the free viveport trial, despite essentially meaning "you get any five games or programs you like, free" is probably going to show as a weaker selling point than the Rift's free bundle, simply because it's less straightforward.
It's now $600, down from $800.
"Hey, so our main competitor just cut their price down to half of ours."
"Excellent. Wait for everyone who was considering VR to buy one of our competitor's products, then sell our product for 50% more than their sale price."
Can't the Vive also do seated? I had the opportunity to use it in a demo, and although I was standing, it would have worked the same if I sat."Hey, so our main competitor just cut their price down to half of ours."
"Excellent. Wait for everyone who was considering VR to buy one of our competitor's products, then sell our product for 50% more than their sale price."
I think they're not really straight competitors. Oculus and PSVR are both seated experiences, whereas Vive is room scale. I can't currently use room scale VR - so I'd have to get Oculus or PSVR if I wanted to buy VR now.
Having tried both I think Vive is better, but many people just aren't going to have room. If you're a 18 year old living with your parents, room-scale VR probably isn't going to work - if you're a 30 year old mum with two kids having run of the house, it's probably not going to work out either. It's way easier to just find somewhere to sit and put on the VR.
I wonder if we will see a PSVR price drop next? Having lower resolution and fps and a much more limited library, price was really the only thing PSVR had going for it.
These price cuts are nice and all, but they're kind of meaningless without some big system-seller software. Well, maybe falling prices will increase the install-base this Christmas and that will lead to something bigger, but it's looking more and more like the ship has sailed for now.
The difference between a fun game and a system seller is the difference between Paris and Helsinki. In order to break into the mainstream, VR needs a Paris. At one point I had a suspicion that Valve would bundle Half-Life 3 with the second version of the Vive, but rumors are now that their 2013 layoffs killed all internal game development, so something like this may be impossible.These price cuts are nice and all, but they're kind of meaningless without some big system-seller software. Well, maybe falling prices will increase the install-base this Christmas and that will lead to something bigger, but it's looking more and more like the ship has sailed for now.
There are already quite a few fun games out now - a lot more than just gimmicks and demos. I think you're right about a bigger install base, I just wish that one of the big companies would really give it a good shot at making a serious AAA VR game and doing all the marketing and stuff for it needed - I think that'll be the turn around point.
4: Any city builder. I mean come on, this is perfect for city building. There's like three ways to display the city, and they're all awesome: The Model-City mode, where the interocular distance makes the city look a few meters wide; The Helicopter mode, where it's full size but seen from a distant hovering perspective; and Pedestrian mode, where you actually stand on the ground and the buildings actually feel like buildings. I personally would make it a themed city builder (industrial era, for instance, or a space colony builder), so that game abstractions can be more easily hidden and so that the resultant city is more fantastic to observe. But a modern city has its own charms.Similarly, VR would be great with something that could be called a successor to Black and White, but with the voxel sculpting of From Dust and maybe some of the town and building mechanics of the wave of imitators that followed Minecraft.
I have a couple ideas, actually....Historically, these fall into the niche catergory; surely enjoyed by a few, but not creating statistically significant sales numbers.
1: Mech Mechanic.
2: A Good Story-Based VR Shooter.
3: An open-world RPG. Maybe synch it up to real-world props like chairs and such so that you can interact tangibly with them. But it has to be an RPG, in the sense of a role-playing game. More like Morrowind than Skyrim, for example.A new Skyrim would likely attract more customers than a new Morrowind. I'm not judging your preference, just saying that a slow talkative experience isn't going to sell as well as a fast-paced action adventure.
4: Any city builder.
VR needs two things in my mind:You're describing pretty much every single gimmicky tech demo that already exists for VR.
A breakout title that really demonstrates the power of the VR experience. A Mirror's Edge in high fidelity VR (although with some actual game attached.) Something that makes people go "Yeah, I have to experience that." When systems were not a every three year kind of thing, it took a game and something you had to get in to that motivated you to buy it. Once you've bought it.....you've taken the most expensive step and are in.
You're describing pretty much every single gimmicky tech demo that already exists for VR.
Hotdogs, Horseshoes, and Hand Grenades is doing a lot in VR right now. The dev is very very active and the game keeps getting bigger. There's already a (admittedly fiddly) procedural roguelike mode, several shooting ranges/games, and a more non-linear wild west style adventure mode. It's well worth keeping an eye on.
It seems almost 100% destined to fail - I really can't see the market for it at all and I'm amazed they think there is. If you can put down that much on a stand alone device, why not just buy a phone that can run gear vr and have more functionality? You're not talking about much more really.
It seems almost 100% destined to fail - I really can't see the market for it at all and I'm amazed they think there is. If you can put down that much on a stand alone device, why not just buy a phone that can run gear vr and have more functionality? You're not talking about much more really.
Most of the Samsung phone's I've looked at cost 3-4x more than the proposed price for this device...though I probably have not seen them all.
So... After being hype for VR for literally years, a combination of black friday week, generous friends pitching in for christmas, and temporary insanity have led to me having both a PSVR and Lenovo Explorer WMR headset (plus controllers etc.) creeping slowly towards my address. Holy shit.Not sure if you mean tried it in VR specifically, but Subnautica is amazing and the content of it is very well suited. I have a feeling you may encounter bugs on Microsoft vr though, just since it's new.
Apparently the only VR compatible game I own on PC so far is Subnautica (has anyone tried this?), and RE7 for PS4. I'm also looking at Rec Room which is free and should work on both.
Besides that, does anyone have any must-try recommendations for either platform, for someone new to VR?
So... After being hype for VR for literally years, a combination of black friday week, generous friends pitching in for christmas, and temporary insanity have led to me having both a PSVR and Lenovo Explorer WMR headset (plus controllers etc.) creeping slowly towards my address. Holy shit.
Apparently the only VR compatible game I own on PC so far is Subnautica (has anyone tried this?), and RE7 for PS4. I'm also looking at Rec Room which is free and should work on both.
Besides that, does anyone have any must-try recommendations for either platform, for someone new to VR?
The holiday price for PSVR is $300, for the bundle with headset+camera+wands.
Oculus Rift is down to $350, also including headset+sensors+controllers.
I've not seen any discounts for HTC Vive this season.
Just noticed that Doom VFR releases today. I have a sudden urgent need for $30.
Just noticed that Doom VFR releases today. I have a sudden urgent need for $30.
Sounds to me like they are pushing the price point back up just as VR was barely becoming affordable.That's how product cycles work, man. Drop the price on something, release a newer model for more money. I reckon that the Vive Pro is still likely to cost less than the Vive's highest price point, though. But if you were expecting the top of the line in the market to meet the pocketbook of anyone below a middle class enthusiast, I think you need to adjust your expectations. The higher market versions aren't aiming for a "in every home" price point. The ones using your phone addressed that as a gimmick, and in a while there'll be something akin to the current Vive/Oculus hitting that point, especially as the new model puts used versions of the old model onto the market, but if you want the newest and the best? Don't be poor.
I am really looking forward to the day when I can use VR as a workspace, once displays get good enough for comfortably reading text. When I'm working at my job, I always have at minimum 7 screens open that I'm actively monitoring and making use of (3 e-mail accounts + 2 spreadsheets + data entry system + document system), and there's dozens more I add on top of that on a daily basis. It would be a fucking dream to be able to put up a headset, and throw those screens up around me in virtual space.
I am really looking forward to the day when I can use VR as a workspace, once displays get good enough for comfortably reading text. When I'm working at my job, I always have at minimum 7 screens open that I'm actively monitoring and making use of (3 e-mail accounts + 2 spreadsheets + data entry system + document system), and there's dozens more I add on top of that on a daily basis. It would be a fucking dream to be able to put up a headset, and throw those screens up around me in virtual space.
From what I understand, one of the primary goals of the Vive Pro will be text which is much easier to read. However, I can't really imagine that they'll ever manage to do it in a way that avoids eye strain using current tech - whatever they do, you're still concentrating on screens really close to your eyes.
My VR rig was always on the bare minimum of support from Oculus, and as far as I can tell a recent patch finally killed it off for good. My sensors are giving me repeated poor tracking errors when I use the motherboard's 2.0 ports (no 3.0 on it), and my 3.0 expansion card is even worse, with "repeated catastrophic errors."Man, here I am watching this thread thinking this is a new technology that I'll buy into when it gets a bit less new, and there's people already with old and busted equipment gone obsolete to lack of support...
Going to have to upgrade the old beast, but until I do, no more VR for me.
My VR rig was always on the bare minimum of support from Oculus, and as far as I can tell a recent patch finally killed it off for good. My sensors are giving me repeated poor tracking errors when I use the motherboard's 2.0 ports (no 3.0 on it), and my 3.0 expansion card is even worse, with "repeated catastrophic errors."Man, here I am watching this thread thinking this is a new technology that I'll buy into when it gets a bit less new, and there's people already with old and busted equipment gone obsolete to lack of support...
Going to have to upgrade the old beast, but until I do, no more VR for me.
There are about 5 more then expected ; ) - we'll see if we can get it going, I am slap in the middle of the EU.
As an example, my work (not a gaming company or anything remotely similar) bought a number of laptops for presentations and stuff that would be VR capable, whereas 3 years ago they'd have been major high spec.
Another interesting thing is that we're turning the corner from VR requiring 'high end' hardware to sort of middle of the road gaming hardware. What started off as 'we can only just squeeze VR out on top end hardware' (which then had the terrible timing of coinciding with mining) is now pretty much standard issue (good) hardware. As an example, my work (not a gaming company or anything remotely similar) bought a number of laptops for presentations and stuff that would be VR capable, whereas 3 years ago they'd have been major high spec.
Google's been quietly doing that for awhile now. Glass is super useful in environments where workers need their hands free to do other things, like operating industrial equipment in factories, so Google's been focusing on developing Glass for that market for awhile now. Its not just about not playing mobile games, its also about not needing to look down at a screen or a readout.As an example, my work (not a gaming company or anything remotely similar) bought a number of laptops for presentations and stuff that would be VR capable, whereas 3 years ago they'd have been major high spec.
On that note, Google Glass (https://techacute.com/google-glass-enterprise-edition/) is making a comeback with it's Enterprise Edition. Apparently companies prefer it over smartphones, primarily because you can't play games on Glass.
From what I understand, one of the main reasons you need the high frame rate with VR is that it helps stop motion sickness/detrimental effects - it's of course possible to enjoy and play games without it hitting that, but variable frame rate is a big one for those sensitive to VR.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out like smart phones, there were tons of rubbish smart-phones before the iphone that no one really bothered with, but as soon as the iphone 'just worked' then the flood gates opened.
Agreed. Although I think nailing down immersive modes of movement and interactivity are a greater obstacle than display or wireless issues. I think the floodgates will really open when those get sorted out. And they're a much more difficult problem.
I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out like smart phones, there were tons of rubbish smart-phones before the iphone that no one really bothered with, but as soon as the iphone 'just worked' then the flood gates opened.I would be very surprised. Smart phones satisfied an important infrastructure need. Internet was becoming universal in developed countries as an important part of both business and social life, but because of its inconvenience, people necessarily had to either be out or be online. They are necessary for a societal change that was already well on the way to happening. There is no "internet" for VR, and it reduces, rather than increases, convenience. For the foreseeable future (which is only like a decade in the world of tech, but still) VR can only be a hardcore market product, not something with universal appeal.
I would be very surprised. Smart phones satisfied an important infrastructure need. Internet was becoming universal in developed countries as an important part of both business and social life, but because of its inconvenience, people necessarily had to either be out or be online.
They are necessary for a societal change that was already well on the way to happening.I think there's a similar societal change as a use case for VR - so many people are connecting connecting virtually and internationally, and we've about reached the bounds of how 'connected' we can get via just video and voice. So many people work/live away from their families, and so many people have friends internationally in a way that wasn't a thing before. People will want to connect with these people better, and the only way to really do that is VR.
That may be your experience with it, but lots of people were already using the internet heavily. As I said, social media use wasn't universal, but loads of people were already using things like forums and message boards, and AOL Instant Messenger was incredibly popular among young people for aa decade before the iPhone existed, as were online games (remeber NeoPets?) or even fusions of the two (like Gaia Online). Indeed, the convenience of smartphones allowed it to grow, as I already said, but it was already big with young people, even though many specific companies didn't survive the transition. Although the big names in information, like Google and Wikipedia, did fine. Of course, these things exist for VR too, but VR makes them less convenient, not more.I would be very surprised. Smart phones satisfied an important infrastructure need. Internet was becoming universal in developed countries as an important part of both business and social life, but because of its inconvenience, people necessarily had to either be out or be online.
I agree to a point, and it's slightly chicken-or-the-egg, but I think that there was at least an equal amount of push from the smartphone as there was from society.
Looking back on it now, we can't imagine why you wouldn't want internet in your pocket, but at the time (when the iphone first released) there wasn't a whole lot you could do on it. Maps wasn't really a thing (it was there, but rubbish), email was mostly for business (or at least certainly not for fast time comms) and there was no social media really. I remember when they first came out I just didn't really see the need - the need came after, driven by the addition of services due to the iphone becoming so pervasive. It was similarly expensive to VR, and before it came out smartphones were seen very much as niche.
Just the same way as currently VR seems a bit needless currently for the average consumer, a 'just works' product may well change it to 'well of course you need VR, how are you going to do VR meetings/SkypeVR/TripAdvisorVR etc without it?'.
So you think a whole industry will thrive on the back of super-skype functionality, despite the fact that the most prolific users now text far more than they call and don't use current Skype (and competitor) software?QuoteThey are necessary for a societal change that was already well on the way to happening.I think there's a similar societal change as a use case for VR - so many people are connecting connecting virtually and internationally, and we've about reached the bounds of how 'connected' we can get via just video and voice. So many people work/live away from their families, and so many people have friends internationally in a way that wasn't a thing before. People will want to connect with these people better, and the only way to really do that is VR.
It's not a perfect analogy, and I doubt we'll ever get the same perfect storm as the iphone (with the hordes of adoring apple fans ready to buy it) but I think we may get a smaller version of that revolution if a really good product comes out that 'just works'.The revolution you're describing could at its very most be the hot gift item one Christmas, like hover boards. The fact is, VR trades in convenience for luxury, and that's inherent. Even the perfect "just works" VR occupies your whole face and restricts your vision artificially. That means even if there were some reason most people would want it (VRchat and video games aren't going to cut it as anything beyond a niche market) it's going to be a hard sell. And there is no reason most people would want it.
Also, there were a whole bunch of single use devices that were being sold that the smartphone was able to replace. There's not a ton of folks using digital cameras or iPods or GPS devices or eReaders these days because smart phones can be all of those and more. There isn't really anything comparable to that for VR.I don't think eReaders are being used less. Kindles are very popular, they weren't exactly something everyone had in the first place.
And Apple/iPhone didn't really start the whole smartphone thing, Blackberry did.
I just hope that in a few years cyborg-eyes come along and render all of the visors obsolete.They sort of are coming along. They're just nowhere near as good as the stock option, so there's still not a big market. Turns out normal human body parts are already pretty good for being human body parts.
That may be your experience with it, but lots of people were already using the internet heavily. As I said, social media use wasn't universal, but loads of people were already using things like forums and message boards, and AOL Instant Messenger was incredibly popular among young people for aa decade before the iPhone existed, as were online games (remeber NeoPets?) or even fusions of the two (like Gaia Online). Indeed, the convenience of smartphones allowed it to grow, as I already said, but it was already big with young people, even though many specific companies didn't survive the transition. Although the big names in information, like Google and Wikipedia, did fine. Of course, these things exist for VR too, but VR makes them less convenient, not more.Certainly agree the internet was very popular at the time, but I don't remember at the time that people were wishing for it to be portable - there wasn't a drive for it inherently, as the internet was set up to be 'stationary' (as in, used by desktops) by it's very design at the time. As soon as smartphones came along everyone saw there were all these awesome things you could do with it, and then it just exploded. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that it that the iphone created the demand all by itself, it's just that the iphone being so good made it much, much more available - without it I think there would have been a much slower take up until something similar came along. Blackberry was a big driver too, but that really drove the messaging/business side more than general apps/commercial internet.
So you think a whole industry will thrive on the back of super-skype functionality, despite the fact that the most prolific users now text far more than they call and don't use current Skype (and competitor) software?I personally believe it could be a huge part of it. I have friends and family all over the world, the best we can do at major events is skype or play a few games with each other for the most part, and it sucks we can't do more. I know a lot of people in a similar situation, and being able to interact much more personally with them would really sell. Combine that with things like virtual shops, events etc. and there's enough of a market.
The revolution you're describing could at its very most be the hot gift item one Christmas, like hover boards. The fact is, VR trades in convenience for luxury, and that's inherent. Even the perfect "just works" VR occupies your whole face and restricts your vision artificially. That means even if there were some reason most people would want it (VRchat and video games aren't going to cut it as anything beyond a niche market) it's going to be a hard sell. And there is no reason most people would want it.
As cool as cyberpunk images of everyone being VR junkies may be, it's not reality, not now and not tomorrow. Why not enjoy that for the hardcore market, there are good products that keep getting better?
Imagine how transformative it could be for office work. Right now office workers need...enough office floor space for everyone to have their own cubicle...There's a ton of overhead in running an office.
Instead, issue everyone a pair of MR glasses and a smartphone.
VR may always be a niche market, even if costs come down enough that it doesn't have to be considered luxury.
But MR could very well take off dramatically in a similar fashion to the success of smartphones, because of the incredible productivity potential.
So many companies I know now are moving completely to remote working except for meetings - it's literally the only thing most people need to get together for.
Architect? bring in a scale model of what you've designed for everyone to walk round.Sounds more like a gimmick for presenting things to clients than something that would have much use internally. Although contractors might make fewer mistakes if they had the plans geotagged so they could see an AR overlay, but honestly they'll screw up no matter what you give them.
I've a sibling who's a systems architect for a Fortune 500 co and telecommutes all but ~2-4 days per 2-3 weeks. None the less, on any given day ~50-100% of their workday is meetings. Even those very frequently don't need a physical presence at this point.Yeah, I've done loads of meetings where I or someone else was only there through teleconference or similar. I don't know what tech your blood uses, but I've never encountered any system that doesn't suck compared to being there in person.
As for that bit about screen real estate, the vast majority of workstations are single monitor, so that's clearly not a major issue for most people.
There's not a ton of folks using digital cameras or iPods or GPS devices or eReaders these days because smart phones can be all of those and more.
What I got from this is that your smartphone is older, or not top of the line. New phone cameras, especially on Apple products (this is the one area in which they're still noticeably better than Android) are usually outright better than similarly priced dedicated cameras, their primary downside is that you can't really use big lenses, the range is fixed. So if you're doing wildlife photography they're not going to cut it. Any other photography should be fine though, even professional photography for weddings and portraits and things like that only really needs the big equipment because that's what people expect to see, nobody wants to pay three digits for some hipster to whip out en iPhone.There's not a ton of folks using digital cameras or iPods or GPS devices or eReaders these days because smart phones can be all of those and more.
Can be mediocre at all of those things. A smartphone can do everything well enough for amateurs, wich isn't a bad thing. It's the whole point of a smartphone, actually.
Maybe not a ton of folks are using digital cameras, if we are talking about instagram addicts taking pictures of their dinner. Real photography with some actual quality? Nope. Your 1k dollars phone isn't gonna cut it.
Google maps to find starbucks in a new city? Sure, the phone is perfectly fine.
Tracking a winter ascent in the Alps over multiple days? Your phone is a piece of frozen plastic.
Reading a book during a 12h travel? I'll take my 40$ kindle, wich isn't going to make me blind.
Smartphone are convenient because they (sort of) do a lot of things with a single device. That's the beauty of a smartphone.
But if I want quality, I'll take my camera, my drone, my garmin GPS and my kindle.
New phone cameras, especially on Apple products (this is the one area in which they're still noticeably better than Android)
even professional photography for weddings and portraits
No, but that kind of thing represents the vast majority of professional photography. The kinds of things that a phone camera can't do are pretty peripheral.even professional photography for weddings and portraits
I'm talking about wildlife, panoramic views, falling stars, milky way pictures.
Wedding pictures aren't exactly testing the limits of a camera.
Anything a little bit more adventurous? Nope.In my day, you could get pretty adventurous without any of this stuff. And I'm not that old. I guess that means we use tech differently, but battery life and needing to take gloves off aren't big problems in a device that mostly just sits in your backpack turned off. Also, I don't know them that well since I've never really lived by them, but aren't the alps pretty developed? Like, even if you get lost I reckon you should be able to find some form of human habitation in a day or two and not even have trouble with food supplies, assuming you prepared properly.
No, but that kind of thing represents the vast majority of professional photography. The kinds of things that a phone camera can't do are pretty peripheral.
QuoteAnything a little bit more adventurous? Nope.In my day, you could get pretty adventurous without any of this stuff. And I'm not that old. I guess that means we use tech differently, but battery life and needing to take gloves off aren't big problems in a device that mostly just sits in your backpack turned off. Also, I don't know them that well since I've never really lived by them, but aren't the alps pretty developed? Like, even if you get lost I reckon you should be able to find some form of human habitation in a day or two and not even have trouble with food supplies, assuming you prepared properly.
...I get the idea that you're not a photographer.I mean, my photos sell, but not nearly enough to make that my occupation. Call that what you will. I don't normally print them any bigger than 18*30 either, and I don't use a cell phone camera for it. But under most situations, I pretty well could without changing much, and I barely dip my foot into the rabbit hole of gear.
...I'm also getting the idea that you've never done serious mountaineeringI mean, the Sierra Nevada and the Cascades. They're fairly welcoming mountains I guess, it's no tlike I went to Everest or anything, but it's not like the folks who wander around the Appalachian hills a bit either. Definitely far more serious than the average person, although the most I've done in time and distance is a bit under 50 miles in the course of a week, so a relatively leisurely pace even with the elevation change.
it's very possible to get lost in the alps, and people do and subsequently die each year.I've never died, in the alps or elsewhere, but my perception is that people who die in the wilderness are either tremendously unlucky and encounter an avalanche or something, or else they're unprepared and lack either adequate shelter or adequate food to account for possible minor mishaps. You should expect that things can go wrong, not just in the mountains but in any aspect of life, and be prepared for the consequences as much as possible. From googling it, it looks like the biggest killer in the Alps is sudden storms, so... Well, I don't know the solution to that off-hand since it's not my region, but it seems like it should be possible to insulate yourself if there's enough snow on the ground and you've packed properly. I can see why it would be helpful to have more precise location information in that situation though, considering that it is built up well enough to give you a decent chance of finding more comfortable accommodation.
or being a capable mappingI'd trust Google maps over Garmin maps in general. Not saying either is perfect, but I've definitely had more problems with Garmin, back in the days when I used them for anything other than farm stuff. Even with a dedicated GPS, I'd recommend just using the lat/long to find yourself on a proper paper relief map - the best maps here are USGS, but I imagine pretty much every decent government has got their own equivalent.
Having been in situations where I have needed to absolutely trust that I've got something to get me home,First of all, home isn't where you need to get to unless you're so close enough that you should know the place like the back of your hand anyway. Otherwise, you just need to get somewhere that you can encounter a building or vehicle to sort out the situation. Which in the case of a storm would be to weather it there, or in the case of being lost would usually be to arrange some manner of vehicular transport from where you are to where you should be. It does entail relying on the kindness of strangers, but if it's an emergency then you'll just have to swallow your pride and do that.
Sure, you can get specialist, rugged smartphones with inbuilt failover GPS etc. but at that point you're basically buying a specialist device.I mean, I'd probably want that anyway, if I lived in the Alps.
If you trust bringing your Apple as your main mode of navigation in anything other than your local town you deserve to die on a mountaintop.I mean obviously if you just rush out into the wilderness with no prep and shout "Steve Jobs will save me!" then you're in for a rude awakening. But regardless of what tech you've got, you should already know exactly what route you're planning to take, every other thing, including maps and GPS is going to be a secondary thing, there as a backup to make sure you don't get off track. If you're adequately prepared, even the map should be unnecessary (though you should most definitely still have it just to confirm).
-snip-
First of all, home isn't where you need to get to unless you're so close enough that you should know the place...When I meant 'home' I meant as in 'away from trouble' as in 'I need to get back to somewhere safe'. Not home as in my literal house that I live in.
I mean me neither at this point, I wasn't really trying to play debate club to begin with. I reckon it's still an interesting conversation topic, albeit maybe not one relevant to the thread.-snip-
I honestly don't get what point you're making and some of the things you're saying don't make a great deal of sense I'm afraid. It's almost impossible to do any long distance or difficult trek/mountain/whatever without a map - I don't know anyone who can do that and end up where they need to be. You were saying that we can just use smartphones instead of a dedicated camera, but then that you use a dedicated camera to sell your photos. I really don't get the point that you're trying to make with all this?
I'm kinda curious if there are many people on this forum that play vr still? (besides me and akura?)