1990s called and wants its VR back

13

Comments

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,062
    Thane said:
    @threadstarter:

    uh god damnit, thank you.
    thought i am the only one feeling like that :P
    AR has a lot of theoritical technology that hasnt prooven itself yet to be viable in a production sense. VR has prooven itself

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Viper482Viper482 Somewhere, FLMember RarePosts: 1,684
    This has to be the dumbest debate I have seen on these forums.
  • MrSnufflesMrSnuffles Finkensburg, WAMember UncommonPosts: 1,117
    Fdzzaigl said:

    Just 2 examples where AR is going to make a huge difference for EVERYONE because it enhances LIFE. It does not shut out reality. It's practical and useful.

    Compared that to a VR helmet that makes you blind, sitting at home in a chair playing virtual reality games. The difference between the 2 could not be bigger. VR is an extreme niche and a gimmick, AR is the future.
    The problems with those examples, especially the car example is this: it would require / encourage lots of multitasking. Which was all the rage over the last past years, but it also doesn't work. One cannot do multiple things at once as effectively as when you devote your attention to one task (driving).

    Three is no multitasking. It only displays information like distance to the car in front, arrows on the road from your GPS, road condition and warnings.

    No interaction is necessary. GPS is set up manually before you start your travel.
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    "It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
    - Michael Bitton
    Community Manager, MMORPG.com

    "As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law

    "I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." 
    - SEANMCAD

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
  • MrSnufflesMrSnuffles Finkensburg, WAMember UncommonPosts: 1,117

    ...

    Let's pretend we have a set of contact lenses instead of something like google glass:

    ...
    That's the realm of extreme science fiction at this point.

    Even if the contact lenses were some form of advanced miniaturized transparent display screen, what would be their power source ? How would the data be transferred to the lens/screen ? How would the contact lens know what your eyes were looking at, or whether you were focusing on something close or far away ?

    The amount of data gathering, processing and miniaturization required is huge. It would most probably be a few centuries before that kind of device becomes mass-produced consumer tech.

    Devices like Google Glass are what we'll see in the near and medium-term future.
    You missed the point of my post. My examples work just as good with a google glass type as with contact lenses.
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    "It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
    - Michael Bitton
    Community Manager, MMORPG.com

    "As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law

    "I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." 
    - SEANMCAD

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
  • MrSnufflesMrSnuffles Finkensburg, WAMember UncommonPosts: 1,117
    Viper482 said:
    This has to be the dumbest debate I have seen on these forums.
    You ever visited the StarCitizen Cult Forum?
    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    "It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
    - Michael Bitton
    Community Manager, MMORPG.com

    "As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law

    "I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." 
    - SEANMCAD

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
  • VhayneVhayne none, CAMember UncommonPosts: 572

    The 3DS has AR capability.  It was cute shooting floating things around my room.  But like Kinect, it's a gimmick. 

    Actual AR like the one Microsoft is developing definitely has it's place, but gaming isn't really the main platform.  See the comment about the 3DS.

    Today's VR however, DOES have huge implication for gaming.  The entire point we play these awesome games is to become immersed as much as possible into their worlds.  We buy 3D/Surround Sound headsets, set up multiple monitor displays, and even some use motion seats....all to enhance our immersion of the gaming experience.  VR just does it for your visual experience, and it does it perfectly.  FULL visual immersion.  Almost time to throw out your triple monitor setup.

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAMember EpicPosts: 6,046
    edited January 2016
    SEANMCAD said:
    Ridelynn said:
    All that list boils down to one thing though: Games.

    A lot of people will buy VR for games, sure. I know I would if they had the right game on there.

    But, let's face it, gaming is still just a niche purpose. Particularly those with rigs that will be powerful enough to drive a Carmack-type game. 

    If gaming is the only thing VR will do, it will stay very small and very niche.
    like gaming video cards!....a gimmick for a neiche market
    That is exactly right.

    Out of the over 1 Billion PC computers that are out in the world, how many do you think have a discrete graphics card for the express purpose of gaming? How many people actually go out and upgrade to a gaming discrete graphics card?

    Sure, if your in college or something, maybe everyone you know of. But... you don't know everyone in the world. And there are millions upon millions of business PCs that don't run anything past Excel and Outlook, millions of people who don't do anything past Internet Explorer and Facebook, and millions of computers that don't run a GUI at all and just serve web pages all day.

    Gaming graphics cards are indeed a niche market. 

    To put this in some perspective, since there is no actual released numbers of GPUs sold for gaming in the world...

    Steam is one the bigger gaming sellers. I'll grant you that not everyone who plays games uses Steam, but we need some sort of baseline to start with, so I'll start with this one because it has numbers, and you can extrapolate up as you wish.

    Steam recently crossed 125M accounts. Some of these are fake accounts for hacks and scammers, but I believe most of these are really people. If a person is using Steam, I think it's safe to assume they are playing games.

    In the latest Steam Hardware survey (http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey), 54% are nVidia GPU users, 26% are AMD users, and 19% are Intel GPU users. I think it would be another rational assumption to assume that anyone playing on Intel graphics isn't using a discrete gaming video card. And AMD sells a lot of APUs, so not all of those AMD users are going to have discrete gaming video cards either. So we are in the ballpark of around 70% of Steam Users have discrete gaming video cards. Out of that 125M accounts, that's roughly 90M users known to have discrete video cards.

    The PC market passed 1B computers back in 2008, and by most estimates is expected to have passed 2B units by 2015. Looking at it in that perspected, I estimate we are somewhere in the range of 0.5-1.0% of all PC computers have a discrete gaming video card.

    To put it in a different light: Nintendo sold over 100M Wii units. Not even counting PS3/4, Xbox 360/Ones, or all 10 Wii U's that have been sold, there are probably more gaming consoles in the world than computers with discrete gaming cards.

    And that's ~any~ gaming card - we haven't even touched the point that only the very upper tier of those can support VR right now.
    Post edited by Ridelynn on
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,062
    edited January 2016
    Ridelynn said:
    lol...

    so what does a John Carmack hit game have to do with making VR viable if the best that can come is video games?

    Here is the problem you are equating something only being a hit in the video game market with failure:

    ...Will AR be a huge hit in the long run? YES
    IF....
    IF the theorical turns practical
    IF the theorical turns practical then seeing people without glasses will be extreemly rare. HOWEVER, something being the largest success in human history does not mean everything else ever made is a gimmick and a failure because its not as successful.

    Your argument is that everything in gaming is a gimmick. well that is fine in a 'all thing entertainment is futile kind of nihilistic hidden logic waiting to only be revealed once the trolling has hit its peek
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAMember EpicPosts: 6,046
    SEANMCAD said:
    Ridelynn said:

    Your argument is that everything in gaming is a gimmick. well that is fine in a 'all thing entertainment is futile kind of nihilistic hidden logic waiting to only be revealed once the trolling has hit its peek
    No, my "argument" is that it will need the right application. Gaming could keep it alive, but I don't think it will. Gaming has done wonders for graphic accelerators - if it were just CAD and graphic design they would still be years behind where they are now and still cost 4x more than they do today, but it remains a niche market. A large enough market to keep it alive, but not beyond that - it barely has enough market to support sufficient competition to keep it self-sustaining.

    To help illustrate - Intel is still the worlds largest PC GPU provider, and that's still after canceling their only dedicated GPU product (Larrabee) - largely because they didn't see the need to compete in that market. Until VR can run on one of those Intel GPUs, it's pretty much an extremely niche product because it gets the double whammy - you have to buy the VR equipment, and then you have to buy the computer that can drive it. It's not like I can just buy the Occulus or Hive or PS VR and I'm good to go blasting ships in SC or Eve without any other hardware - at least anytime in the near future.

    As opposed to technology like... smart phones. It has applications well beyond gaming, and right now that market is cut throat with innovation and price wars. I'd like to see AR/VR get into that position. If it's just for gaming, we won't see that level of competition, and hence won't see that level of innovation or price reduction either. What those applications for VR/AR could be, that's beyond me, and if I knew I wouldn't be saying it on these forums, I'd be filing an IPO.

    I honestly think something like Google Cardboard or Samsung Gear VR has a better chance of advancing VR than Occulus does, even though I think Occulus is the superior product right not (at least on paper). There were a lot of automobiles in the early 19th century, but it took Henry Ford and a low cost inferior product to make them mainstream. Occulus is looking for the premium experience, and that will get a lot of oohs and ahhs, but it won't sell. Google and Samsung are looking for the "good enough" experience without adding cost, and if they can get it actually good enough, it will move the technology forward.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,062
    Ridelynn said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Ridelynn said:

    Your argument is that everything in gaming is a gimmick. well that is fine in a 'all thing entertainment is futile kind of nihilistic hidden logic waiting to only be revealed once the trolling has hit its peek
    No, my "argument" is that it will need the right application. Gaming could keep it alive, but I don't think it will. Gaming has done wonders for graphic accelerators - if it were just CAD and graphic design they would still be years behind where they are now and still cost 4x more than they do today, but it remains a niche market. A large enough market to keep it alive, but not beyond that - it barely has enough market to support sufficient competition to keep it self-sustaining.

    To help illustrate - Intel is still the worlds largest PC GPU provider, and that's still after canceling their only dedicated GPU product (Larrabee) - largely because they didn't see the need to compete in that market. Until VR can run on one of those Intel GPUs, it's pretty much an extremely niche product because it gets the double whammy - you have to buy the VR equipment, and then you have to buy the computer that can drive it. It's not like I can just buy the Occulus or Hive or PS VR and I'm good to go blasting ships in SC or Eve without any other hardware - at least anytime in the near future.

    As opposed to technology like... smart phones. It has applications well beyond gaming, and right now that market is cut throat with innovation and price wars. I'd like to see AR/VR get into that position. If it's just for gaming, we won't see that level of competition, and hence won't see that level of innovation or price reduction either. What those applications for VR/AR could be, that's beyond me, and if I knew I wouldn't be saying it on these forums, I'd be filing an IPO.

    I honestly think something like Google Cardboard or Samsung Gear VR has a better chance of advancing VR than Occulus does, even though I think Occulus is the superior product right not (at least on paper). There were a lot of automobiles in the early 19th century, but it took Henry Ford and a low cost inferior product to make them mainstream. Occulus is looking for the premium experience, and that will get a lot of oohs and ahhs, but it won't sell. Google and Samsung are looking for the "good enough" experience without adding cost, and if they can get it actually good enough, it will move the technology forward.
    Electronic Arts is doing just fine staying in a 'niche market' so are all the other gaming companies.

    I think you could not be any more wrong.

    Did you know that most of the advancements in computer technology is because of gaming? Most desktops sold over several decades are far more powerful then users need OTHER than gaming.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAMember EpicPosts: 6,046
    And not everything John Carmak touches is gold. He was a big backer of OpenGL on Windows, which isn't exactly dead, but it's not exactly alive on Windows either (at least as long as DX remains viable). And Rage wasn't exactly a worthy spiritual successor to Quake or Doom.

    He's a brilliant programmer, but there are a lot of brilliant programs out in the world that don't spawn new industries. I won't say he got lucky with Doom/Quake, I pretty much credit those games as the spark propelling the GPU industry into what it is today, but I will say that rarely does lightning strike twice.

    His name lends a lot of credibility to Occulus, but personally, I think Facebook can kiss their money goodbye - I think they are betting the wrong horse in this race. 
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,062
    Ridelynn said:
    And not everything John Carmak touches is gold. He was a big backer of OpenGL on Windows, which isn't exactly dead, but it's not exactly alive on Windows either (at least as long as DX remains viable). And Rage wasn't exactly a worthy spiritual successor to Quake or Doom.

    He's a brilliant programmer, but there are a lot of brilliant programs out in the world that don't spawn new industries. I won't say he got lucky with Doom/Quake, I pretty much credit those games as the spark propelling the GPU industry into what it is today, but I will say that rarely does lightning strike twice.

    His name lends a lot of credibility to Occulus, but personally, I think Facebook can kiss their money goodbye - I think they are betting the wrong horse in this race. 
    interesting DIFFERENT point you are making there.

    regarding OpenGL I personally think its the bomb but that said, your John Carmack point is a different point that I am not interested in taking on.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAMember EpicPosts: 6,046
    Electronic Arts sells a lot more than PC games though...

    https://techreport.com/news/25136/ea-financials-show-growing-pc-game-revenue

    PC sales are significant, but only about 1/4 of their total revenue.

    I'll give you the fact that advancements in GPUs have been driven in no small part by gaming, but CPU technology, no, you'll have to come up with some proof to back that theory. I suggest that CPU advanced as fast as the industry would let it, and now it's hit a brick wall. In the past 10 years CPU design has been more driven by mobile and server markets than anything else - as evident by power management, core counts, and overall silicon efficiency - none of which have any significant bearing on gaming.

    Games haven't used full CPU capacity or really driven CPU capability since... well, since multicore came around, and I may even propose it were a good deal before that even. Once the GPU became a more or less assumed quantity for gaming, the CPU become almost irrelevant, and still is today.

    The fact that CPUs released in 2012 can still be on "Recommended" system requirements of a game today, and that particular title is noted as being "CPU Intensive" for a game ... You could make a case against that, I'd be interested in reading it.
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,062
    Ridelynn said:
    Electronic Arts sells a lot more than PC games though...

    https://techreport.com/news/25136/ea-financials-show-growing-pc-game-revenue

    PC sales are significant, but only about 1/4 of their total revenue.

    I'll give you the fact that advancements in GPUs have been driven in no small part by gaming, but CPU technology, no, you'll have to come up with some proof to back that theory. I suggest that CPU advanced as fast as the industry would let it, and now it's hit a brick wall. In the past 10 years CPU design has been more driven by mobile and server markets than anything else - as evident by power management, core counts, and overall silicon efficiency - none of which have any significant bearing on gaming.

    Games haven't used full CPU capacity or really driven CPU capability since... well, since multicore came around, and I may even propose it were a good deal before that even. Once the GPU became a more or less assumed quantity for gaming, the CPU become almost irrelevant, and still is today.

    The fact that CPUs released in 2012 can still be on "Recommended" system requirements of a game today, and that particular title is noted as being "CPU Intensive" for a game ... You could make a case against that, I'd be interested in reading it.
    sorry i am kinda bored with debating that a gaming device that is a smash hit for games will only be a gimmick and a failure if it doesnt work in other industries. its to ridiculous . 

    regarding AR though there is FAR less prooven and much more unknown questions to suggest it will be a smash hit at least at this point in time.

    and besides all that VR actually has a ton of uses outside of gaming and franlky I would not be surprised if it has a larger hit in non-gaming applications then in gaming I just didnt want to say it because that would divert attention in the wrong way

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Asm0deusAsm0deus BaatorMember RarePosts: 2,034
    VR is coming, it's a great way for those wanting simpits that cant afford them both moneywise and space wise to enjoy some immersion.

    TBH I find it a little ridiculous how far out there this thread has become.

    Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.

    case: Coolermaster HAF932
    PSU: Antec EA 750watt
    RAM: 4x2g G-SKILL DDR3-1600mhz 9-9-9-24
    Mb:Gigabyte GA-P55-UD4P
    CPU: i5-750 @4ghz
    GPU: gtx msi N760 TF 2GD5/OC
    cooling: Noctua NH-D14
    storage: seagate 600 240GB SSD, 500GB x7200rpm HDD


  • SlyLoKSlyLoK Sugar Grove, VAMember RarePosts: 2,223
    I can see AR in the future being more useful in the every day life sense. Maybe some really interesting experiences with games as well. But I wouldnt look at it as a gaming or entertainment device as its main selling point. But something that could enhance everything we do every single day.. Things that we use our smart phone for today would move to an AR HUD.

    VR on the other hand stilll is trying to decide on what to sell itself as.. First it was games then some issues arose. Then it was movies and the same issues were there. Then it was slower simulations and those previous issues became less of an issue. Now it is circled all the way back around to gaming again..l guess trying to keep each demographic interested in it.. Then throw in the system requirements and that is going to stunt its growth on PC ( Sony PS4 version probably wont sell much either ).

    In the end the adult industry will sadly be the ones with the content that will move VR units. Not gaming , Not movies and not simulations.


    image

  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember RarePosts: 1,967
    Omnimax Dome Theaters are conceptually more of a step towards better immersion than those silly headsets. That projection system MIT was working on that extends visuals to the viewers peripheral vision is more of a step towards better immersion. Surround sound = Immersion.

    Consumer "VR" Headsets are novelties trying to do something they CAN'T do and "less people vomit" isn't a good enough reason to necro the concept and put it to market now.
  • aRtFuLThinGaRtFuLThinG MelbourneMember UncommonPosts: 1,274
    edited January 2016
    The contact lenses thing that Kaku said will be a bust because contact lenses are too intrusive.

    It is the same reason why iris/retinal scan biometric security never took off as fast as fingerprint - no one like things mucking around with their eye. Everyone healthy fears of getting blinded. It is simply too close for comfort.

    Glasses remains the most viable AR option to a user when it becomes more capable.
    Post edited by aRtFuLThinG on
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,062
    Omnimax Dome Theaters are conceptually more of a step towards better immersion than those silly headsets. That projection system MIT was working on that extends visuals to the viewers peripheral vision is more of a step towards better immersion. Surround sound = Immersion.

    Consumer "VR" Headsets are novelties trying to do something they CAN'T do and "less people vomit" isn't a good enough reason to necro the concept and put it to market now.
    I get a kick out of this.

    many VR critics have been saying VR technology is to expensive (at $450 I know I know)

    and then I read this...

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • FlyByKnightFlyByKnight Algo Star SystemMember RarePosts: 1,967
    SEANMCAD said:
    Omnimax Dome Theaters are conceptually more of a step towards better immersion than those silly headsets. That projection system MIT was working on that extends visuals to the viewers peripheral vision is more of a step towards better immersion. Surround sound = Immersion.

    Consumer "VR" Headsets are novelties trying to do something they CAN'T do and "less people vomit" isn't a good enough reason to necro the concept and put it to market now.
    I get a kick out of this.

    many VR critics have been saying VR technology is to expensive (at $450 I know I know)

    and then I read this...
    Meaning what? If it's $150 or $600 as it stands it's novelty tech that will quickly collect dust.
  • MrSnufflesMrSnuffles Finkensburg, WAMember UncommonPosts: 1,117
    SEANMCAD said:
    Omnimax Dome Theaters are conceptually more of a step towards better immersion than those silly headsets. That projection system MIT was working on that extends visuals to the viewers peripheral vision is more of a step towards better immersion. Surround sound = Immersion.

    Consumer "VR" Headsets are novelties trying to do something they CAN'T do and "less people vomit" isn't a good enough reason to necro the concept and put it to market now.
    I get a kick out of this.

    many VR critics have been saying VR technology is to expensive (at $450 I know I know)

    and then I read this...
    Meaning what? If it's $150 or $600 as it stands it's novelty tech that will quickly collect dust.
    And you can go pre-order it in around 48 hours! 

    I'll pass for now, i think i rather get another ASUS 32" 4K monitor, they are only $500 right now.


    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ஜ۩۞۩ஜ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

    "It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
    - Michael Bitton
    Community Manager, MMORPG.com

    "As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law

    "I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." 
    - SEANMCAD

    ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,062
    SEANMCAD said:
    Omnimax Dome Theaters are conceptually more of a step towards better immersion than those silly headsets. That projection system MIT was working on that extends visuals to the viewers peripheral vision is more of a step towards better immersion. Surround sound = Immersion.

    Consumer "VR" Headsets are novelties trying to do something they CAN'T do and "less people vomit" isn't a good enough reason to necro the concept and put it to market now.
    I get a kick out of this.

    many VR critics have been saying VR technology is to expensive (at $450 I know I know)

    and then I read this...
    Meaning what? If it's $150 or $600 as it stands it's novelty tech that will quickly collect dust.
    no..
    that
    $350 is too much
    but
    $3,000 is not

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

  • Shoko_LiedShoko_Lied -, WAMember UncommonPosts: 2,175
    Apparently you never wore or seen Occulus rift. Its is far more advance than the shades of green and red that the 90s VR's had.  I think eventually it will be like the Matrix or Sword Art online which I am looking forward to.

    I just don't games being build around VR so they will be limited for a while until technology dictates otherwise.
    I swear it could very easily be done already. A lot of the developer community were making in-home models to tour around homes for the developer kit. I can easily see someone creating Kirito and Asuna's little lodge house and letting people tour around in it, maybe go outside and explore a bit and go out to the lake.

    In terms of immersion factor, were there visually. Just lacking some tactile feedback elements and the perfect UI.
  • Shoko_LiedShoko_Lied -, WAMember UncommonPosts: 2,175
    edited January 2016
    Sulaa said:
    DMKano said:
    The advancement goes like this

    Virtual reality gimmicks 1970's - 1990's

    Viable virtual reality - 2016+

    Augmented reality gimmicks - 2012-2019

    Viable Augmented reality - ~2020+  (Better than google glass, but still external hardware based)

    Retina Augmented reality - 2030+   (Like the contacts Mr. Kaku mentions)

    Neural Augmented reality - ~2100+ (Think Deus Ex Neural implants) ; Can bring just about anything you can dream up into reality: HUD's, Diameters of your coffee mug, fall rates, temperature analysis, height analysis, stop watch, test cheats, pong, you can paste details over objects and people; remember the saying "think of them as a talking fish? There's an app for that! Want to give your Christmas tree to your friends? Scan it with your brain and copy/past it into their room. Just beware of DRM. Last but not least, augmented objects that simulate tangible gravitational effects such as baseballs that you can throw (Augmented sports?!). --- Of course, you can jump into your favorite virtual world on the fly as well = No more boredom at the DMV. Why be bored at the DMV when you can take a seat at the 2116 International Virtual Boxing competition for only 500 creds? Sure you could do much of this with previous generations of augmented reality minus jumping into VR, but now you can simply use your mind to access any of it. Want to play the 9th spiritual successor to Star Citizen while sitting on the toilet? Go for it! It's Virtual using a real augmented overlay within the virtual space, allowing the game to mimic real world visuals. It's like reverse rape, but pertaining to augmented reality and VR. Don't kid yourself into thinking you ever actually go out and talk to people though;; Psh, that's what the internet is for. That and porn.

    ------------------- 3000+ Humans extinct?

    Humans will be extinct far sooner than 3000+ according to some like Kurzweil.

    If Kurzweil is anywhere near correct - the strong AI happens in 2030s - singularity in 2050s - at which point humanity as is loses all purpose (the rate of advancement is beyond collective human understanding), the AI superintelligence is so far advanced that a human mind (without augmentation) can't grasp it anymore.




    One of several reasons as to why human evolution will need to change from natural selection to 'manual' genetic manipulations and human cyberization both in order to enchance human capabilities.

    Question is though will that mean that human race will stop being human.
    Does a poke'man stop being a poke'man if it evolves itself using a crystal? No.

    I rest my case.


    @SpottyGekko

    I can see AR taking off for some of those real-world app games where you currently use your smart phone to play the game in a similar way to geo-caching.
    Post edited by Shoko_Lied on
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 16,062
    I have the luxury of having tried Virtual Boy, Oculus Rift DK1 (for hours) and Oculus Rift Dk@ (for hours)

    and people comparing Virtual Boy to Oculus Rift is hysterical. One doesnt even have to have tried any of it to find the humor.

    Its like saying Blue Ray will fail because VHS Beta didnt work out.

    Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.

    Please do not respond to me

Sign In or Register to comment.