Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

IMAX wants to add VR to your next movie

2

Comments

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    If they found a way for me to be able to read a book at the same time then I'd buy into VR right now! 
    Text works in VR; it just has to be somewhat larger than average due to the field of view versus resolution. I could see something like Morrowind's "books" working well. 
    OK, so what I'm thinking is that currently, in real life, I like to head off "into nature" to chill out. I'll take a few "proper smokes", a good book and a bottle of water and go find somewhere secluded. I'll then sit down for  few hours, have a smoke whilst reading a good book. It's extremely relaxing. 

    Now, imagine the same thing, but instead of the English countryside, I'm seeing Pandora! I'm still doing the same physical thing (sitting on my arse, getting high and reading a book) but I'm surrounded by crazy foliage, awesome creatures etc. 


    I'm not sure how they'd achieve such a thing - maybe some sort of weird interface that allowed me to hold the physical book in my hand, but replicate it digitally and track page turns? But, I'd still need the use of my eyes in the physical world to be able to smoke. 


    Seriously, though, it's not much trouble to just move the headset up onto one's forehead if anything in the real world needs attention.  The UX is about like wearing a pair of snowboarding goggles that let one see into another world:


    its worth adding by the way that the VR headsets are also not as tight.

    I am pretty sure that troll video that was going around with the guys marks on his face was after wearing something like your picture outside in the heat for about 3 hours and not a VR headset

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,171
    SEANMCAD said:
    If they found a way for me to be able to read a book at the same time then I'd buy into VR right now! 
    Text works in VR; it just has to be somewhat larger than average due to the field of view versus resolution. I could see something like Morrowind's "books" working well. 
    OK, so what I'm thinking is that currently, in real life, I like to head off "into nature" to chill out. I'll take a few "proper smokes", a good book and a bottle of water and go find somewhere secluded. I'll then sit down for  few hours, have a smoke whilst reading a good book. It's extremely relaxing. 

    Now, imagine the same thing, but instead of the English countryside, I'm seeing Pandora! I'm still doing the same physical thing (sitting on my arse, getting high and reading a book) but I'm surrounded by crazy foliage, awesome creatures etc. 


    I'm not sure how they'd achieve such a thing - maybe some sort of weird interface that allowed me to hold the physical book in my hand, but replicate it digitally and track page turns? But, I'd still need the use of my eyes in the physical world to be able to smoke. 


    Seriously, though, it's not much trouble to just move the headset up onto one's forehead if anything in the real world needs attention.  The UX is about like wearing a pair of snowboarding goggles that let one see into another world:


    its worth adding by the way that the VR headsets are also not as tight.

    I am pretty sure that troll video that was going around with the guys marks on his face was after wearing something like your picture outside in the heat for about 3 hours and not a VR headset
    VR sets do leave marks on your face when worn for ..much less time than 3 hours.



  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,071
    SEANMCAD said:
    If they found a way for me to be able to read a book at the same time then I'd buy into VR right now! 
    Text works in VR; it just has to be somewhat larger than average due to the field of view versus resolution. I could see something like Morrowind's "books" working well. 
    OK, so what I'm thinking is that currently, in real life, I like to head off "into nature" to chill out. I'll take a few "proper smokes", a good book and a bottle of water and go find somewhere secluded. I'll then sit down for  few hours, have a smoke whilst reading a good book. It's extremely relaxing. 

    Now, imagine the same thing, but instead of the English countryside, I'm seeing Pandora! I'm still doing the same physical thing (sitting on my arse, getting high and reading a book) but I'm surrounded by crazy foliage, awesome creatures etc. 


    I'm not sure how they'd achieve such a thing - maybe some sort of weird interface that allowed me to hold the physical book in my hand, but replicate it digitally and track page turns? But, I'd still need the use of my eyes in the physical world to be able to smoke. 


    Seriously, though, it's not much trouble to just move the headset up onto one's forehead if anything in the real world needs attention.  The UX is about like wearing a pair of snowboarding goggles that let one see into another world:


    its worth adding by the way that the VR headsets are also not as tight.

    I am pretty sure that troll video that was going around with the guys marks on his face was after wearing something like your picture outside in the heat for about 3 hours and not a VR headset
    No, VR face is real.  I got it after my last session; it's a joke, mostly.  However, there was a red line across my forehead after wearing the thing for a couple hours.

    Important to note it didn't feel uncomfortable at all; the 2016 Gear VR with an S6 really is about like a slightly bulky pair of snowboarding goggles, nothing more.  I was having such a good time in VR I didn't notice anything that would have left a mark on my skin; it was mostly due to the prolonged session, I guess.

    I used to get the same thing from snowboarding goggles too, when I would ride.

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member LegendaryPosts: 10,606
    SEANMCAD said:
    If they found a way for me to be able to read a book at the same time then I'd buy into VR right now! 
    Text works in VR; it just has to be somewhat larger than average due to the field of view versus resolution. I could see something like Morrowind's "books" working well. 
    OK, so what I'm thinking is that currently, in real life, I like to head off "into nature" to chill out. I'll take a few "proper smokes", a good book and a bottle of water and go find somewhere secluded. I'll then sit down for  few hours, have a smoke whilst reading a good book. It's extremely relaxing. 

    Now, imagine the same thing, but instead of the English countryside, I'm seeing Pandora! I'm still doing the same physical thing (sitting on my arse, getting high and reading a book) but I'm surrounded by crazy foliage, awesome creatures etc. 


    I'm not sure how they'd achieve such a thing - maybe some sort of weird interface that allowed me to hold the physical book in my hand, but replicate it digitally and track page turns? But, I'd still need the use of my eyes in the physical world to be able to smoke. 


    Seriously, though, it's not much trouble to just move the headset up onto one's forehead if anything in the real world needs attention.  The UX is about like wearing a pair of snowboarding goggles that let one see into another world:


    its worth adding by the way that the VR headsets are also not as tight.

    I am pretty sure that troll video that was going around with the guys marks on his face was after wearing something like your picture outside in the heat for about 3 hours and not a VR headset
    No, VR face is real.  I got it after my last session; it's a joke, mostly.  However, there was a red line across my forehead after wearing the thing for a couple hours.

    Important to note it didn't feel uncomfortable at all; the 2016 Gear VR with an S6 really is about like a slightly bulky pair of snowboarding goggles, nothing more.  I was having such a good time in VR I didn't notice anything that would have left a mark on my skin; it was mostly due to the prolonged session, I guess.

    I used to get the same thing from snowboarding goggles too, when I would ride.
    I watched a movie that lasted about 2hrs and got VR face. Wife made fun of me for it. I notice after repeated use it takes longer to go away. 
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited September 2016

    No, VR face is real.  I got it after my last session; it's a joke, mostly.  However, there was a red line across my forehead after wearing the thing for a couple hours.

    Important to note it didn't feel uncomfortable at all; the 2016 Gear VR with an S6 really is about like a slightly bulky pair of snowboarding goggles, nothing more.  I was having such a good time in VR I didn't notice anything that would have left a mark on my skin; it was mostly due to the prolonged session, I guess.

    I used to get the same thing from snowboarding goggles too, when I would ride.
    I did not get it after using it for about 4 hours playing Elite Dangerous.

    perhaps the Oculus is not as tight and yes I looked in the mirror to check

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    SEANMCAD said:
    If they found a way for me to be able to read a book at the same time then I'd buy into VR right now! 
    Text works in VR; it just has to be somewhat larger than average due to the field of view versus resolution. I could see something like Morrowind's "books" working well. 
    OK, so what I'm thinking is that currently, in real life, I like to head off "into nature" to chill out. I'll take a few "proper smokes", a good book and a bottle of water and go find somewhere secluded. I'll then sit down for  few hours, have a smoke whilst reading a good book. It's extremely relaxing. 

    Now, imagine the same thing, but instead of the English countryside, I'm seeing Pandora! I'm still doing the same physical thing (sitting on my arse, getting high and reading a book) but I'm surrounded by crazy foliage, awesome creatures etc. 


    I'm not sure how they'd achieve such a thing - maybe some sort of weird interface that allowed me to hold the physical book in my hand, but replicate it digitally and track page turns? But, I'd still need the use of my eyes in the physical world to be able to smoke. 


    Seriously, though, it's not much trouble to just move the headset up onto one's forehead if anything in the real world needs attention.  The UX is about like wearing a pair of snowboarding goggles that let one see into another world:


    its worth adding by the way that the VR headsets are also not as tight.

    I am pretty sure that troll video that was going around with the guys marks on his face was after wearing something like your picture outside in the heat for about 3 hours and not a VR headset
    VR sets do leave marks on your face when worn for ..much less time than 3 hours.
    I wore the Oculus Rift for about 3-4 hours playing Elite. I think took it off and immediatly took a look in the mirror.

    nothing

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,171
    SEANMCAD said:

    No, VR face is real.  I got it after my last session; it's a joke, mostly.  However, there was a red line across my forehead after wearing the thing for a couple hours.

    Important to note it didn't feel uncomfortable at all; the 2016 Gear VR with an S6 really is about like a slightly bulky pair of snowboarding goggles, nothing more.  I was having such a good time in VR I didn't notice anything that would have left a mark on my skin; it was mostly due to the prolonged session, I guess.

    I used to get the same thing from snowboarding goggles too, when I would ride.
    I did not get it after using it for about 4 hours playing Elite Dangerous.

    perhaps the Oculus is not as tight and yes I looked in the mirror to check
    It also happens with the oculus. Perhaps you just had nobody there to point it out to you.



  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited September 2016
    SEANMCAD said:

    No, VR face is real.  I got it after my last session; it's a joke, mostly.  However, there was a red line across my forehead after wearing the thing for a couple hours.

    Important to note it didn't feel uncomfortable at all; the 2016 Gear VR with an S6 really is about like a slightly bulky pair of snowboarding goggles, nothing more.  I was having such a good time in VR I didn't notice anything that would have left a mark on my skin; it was mostly due to the prolonged session, I guess.

    I used to get the same thing from snowboarding goggles too, when I would ride.
    I did not get it after using it for about 4 hours playing Elite Dangerous.

    perhaps the Oculus is not as tight and yes I looked in the mirror to check
    It also happens with the oculus. Perhaps you just had nobody there to point it out to you.
    To repeat myself for you again the words directly above your statement. I will put in bold so you are sure to catch it.

    ... and yes I looked in the mirror to check

    actually I think I am going to try and make that the last time I repeat myself

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • cameltosiscameltosis Member LegendaryPosts: 3,697
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    movies are gimmicks best I can tell so I dont see the problem
    I don't think you understand what the word gimmick means. 

    Movies are an evolution of the spoken word:

    1) We speak to one another, passing over information and stories. 
    2) We started writing down what we speak, the better record things for historical purposes and to reduce reliance on individuals. Writing serves a clear purpose. 
    3) We started making moving images as an evolution to the written word. It conveys the information quicker, records information that is impossible to record via writing (e.g. capturing lighting, facial expression, body movement etc). Moving images (and thus movies) serves a clear purpose. 

    A gimmick is something that attracts attention and stands out from the crowd but serves no real purpose. 

    What purpose will these 10minute VR experiences offer? Its completely separate to the movie, so serves no purpose there. You'll be stuck in a 6ft cube so can't wander around much, so the experience is limited. The fact it's VR doesn't convey information any better than a movie screen, so no purpose there either. 


    I'm not denying the technology is good, nor that a few people might enjoy it. I'm just questioning it's worthiness and purpose, beyond gimmicky fun. Again, nothing wrong with gimmicky fun (I still enjoy my Wii), but as a gimmick it's important to recognise the short-term appeal of such things and so I question the business logic of wanting to get these VR booths into cinemas. 
    how does any of that make it not a gimmick?

    maybe define gimmick as you see it
    From the OED (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gimmick)

    "A trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or trade"

    Further explanation of the meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimmick



    So, why aren't movies gimmicks? Are movies, as an art form, designed to attract attention, publicity or trade? No. Do they serve a purpose? Yes. Certain aspects of movies might be gimmicks (like over-the-top special effects that don't advance the story or convey any useful information) but movies as a whole arent. 

    Still not convinced? I'll re-iterate what I've already said, but in baby steps to ensure understanding. 


    GOAL: To disseminate knowledge

    With me so far? It is a fundamental natural drive to pass on knowledge to others. Parents have an inbuilt, biological drive to pass on information to their offspring, to increase chances of survival and thus spread their genes. Its in our DNA to want to pass on information to others. Being a social species, this biological urge extends to passing on information to our social groups. 

    Would you agree that this primal urge is not a gimmick? I hope so. If you don't, give up now. 

    So, how do humans disseminate knowledge to other humans?

    Step 1) Imitation

    Otherwise known as observe and repeat. Before anything else, humans watched each other do things, then tried to repeat them. It is still how babies learn, but once upon a time it was the only way to learn. 

    Step 2) Speech

    What happens if you want to learn something, but nobody is available to show you? Humans developed speech, a way of communicating information without needing to see it. It is an advancement in the purpose of disseminating knowledge. Now, we can talk to one another, share the information verbally. Speech still serves the primary purpose whilst overcoming the problems inherent with imitation. Not a gimmick. 

    Step 3) Drawing / Writing

    Speech is great, but humans have fallible memory, resulting in inaccuracies in communicated knowledge. So, we developing writing skills: ways of recording our knowledge so that it is less prone to error over time, can be duplicated and thus speed up dissemination. It still serves the primary purpose whilst overcoming the deficiencies of speech and imitation. Not a gimmick. 

    Step 4) Moving Pictures

    Moving pictures are the current peak of disseminating information. They are recorded, so not prone to change over time (assuming we retain the capability to watch it). They require less skill to participate in (i.e. you don't need to read). They convey more information than written word or speech. Moving pictures still serve the primary purpose of sharing information, whilst overcoming deficiencies of other methods. Not a gimmick. 



    Still with me? You can see that each method of disseminating information still serves the core purpose and each advances the way in which we share information. Each new stage is a net improvement overall, but each method also serves a unique purpose that cannot be fulfilled by any other method. That is why none of these things are gimmicks. 


    So, where does that leave VR headsets?

    Well, they display moving images, so they're still serving the primary purpose. But is there a net gain? Is watching a film in a VR headset universally better than watching a film on TV? No. Is there a problem with watching a movie or playing a game on a TV that VR solves? No. 

    VR serves no purpose compared to other methods of viewing moving images. It has one positive (depth perception / 3d) but many negatives (cut off from the world, encumbrance, extra expense, motion sickness, chafing). It is special effects for the purpose of special effects. 


    That it why it is a gimmick. Even once we solve the majority of the negative effects like motion sickness etc, you can never remove the fact that you're cut off from the rest of the world, that you've entirely replaced one of your senses with virtual images. So, VR will never be a net gain, it will always be a side-grade serving no purpose. So, it will always remain a gimmick. 


    Again, nothing wrong with gimmicks, they can be fun, but you should recognise them for what they are and recognise the short lifespan. Tamagotchis, yo-yos, nintendo Wii, 3d TV.....all gimmicks, still all profitable, but all of them short-lived. 
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    movies are gimmicks best I can tell so I dont see the problem
    I don't think you understand what the word gimmick means. 

    Movies are an evolution of the spoken word:

    1) We speak to one another, passing over information and stories. 
    2) We started writing down what we speak, the better record things for historical purposes and to reduce reliance on individuals. Writing serves a clear purpose. 
    3) We started making moving images as an evolution to the written word. It conveys the information quicker, records information that is impossible to record via writing (e.g. capturing lighting, facial expression, body movement etc). Moving images (and thus movies) serves a clear purpose. 

    A gimmick is something that attracts attention and stands out from the crowd but serves no real purpose. 

    What purpose will these 10minute VR experiences offer? Its completely separate to the movie, so serves no purpose there. You'll be stuck in a 6ft cube so can't wander around much, so the experience is limited. The fact it's VR doesn't convey information any better than a movie screen, so no purpose there either. 


    I'm not denying the technology is good, nor that a few people might enjoy it. I'm just questioning it's worthiness and purpose, beyond gimmicky fun. Again, nothing wrong with gimmicky fun (I still enjoy my Wii), but as a gimmick it's important to recognise the short-term appeal of such things and so I question the business logic of wanting to get these VR booths into cinemas. 
    how does any of that make it not a gimmick?

    maybe define gimmick as you see it
    From the OED (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/gimmick)

    "A trick or device intended to attract attention, publicity, or trade"

    Further explanation of the meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimmick



    So, why aren't movies gimmicks? Are movies, as an art form, designed to attract attention, publicity or trade? No. Do they serve a purpose? Yes. Certain aspects of movies might be gimmicks (like over-the-top special effects that don't advance the story or convey any useful information) but movies as a whole arent. 

    Still not convinced? I'll re-iterate what I've already said, but in baby steps to ensure understanding. 


    GOAL: To disseminate knowledge

    With me so far? It is a fundamental natural drive to pass on knowledge to others. Parents have an inbuilt, biological drive to pass on information to their offspring, to increase chances of survival and thus spread their genes. Its in our DNA to want to pass on information to others. Being a social species, this biological urge extends to passing on information to our social groups. 

    Would you agree that this primal urge is not a gimmick? I hope so. If you don't, give up now. 

    So, how do humans disseminate knowledge to other humans?

    Step 1) Imitation

    Otherwise known as observe and repeat. Before anything else, humans watched each other do things, then tried to repeat them. It is still how babies learn, but once upon a time it was the only way to learn. 

    Step 2) Speech

    What happens if you want to learn something, but nobody is available to show you? Humans developed speech, a way of communicating information without needing to see it. It is an advancement in the purpose of disseminating knowledge. Now, we can talk to one another, share the information verbally. Speech still serves the primary purpose whilst overcoming the problems inherent with imitation. Not a gimmick. 

    Step 3) Drawing / Writing

    Speech is great, but humans have fallible memory, resulting in inaccuracies in communicated knowledge. So, we developing writing skills: ways of recording our knowledge so that it is less prone to error over time, can be duplicated and thus speed up dissemination. It still serves the primary purpose whilst overcoming the deficiencies of speech and imitation. Not a gimmick. 

    Step 4) Moving Pictures

    Moving pictures are the current peak of disseminating information. They are recorded, so not prone to change over time (assuming we retain the capability to watch it). They require less skill to participate in (i.e. you don't need to read). They convey more information than written word or speech. Moving pictures still serve the primary purpose of sharing information, whilst overcoming deficiencies of other methods. Not a gimmick. 



    Still with me? You can see that each method of disseminating information still serves the core purpose and each advances the way in which we share information. Each new stage is a net improvement overall, but each method also serves a unique purpose that cannot be fulfilled by any other method. That is why none of these things are gimmicks. 


    So, where does that leave VR headsets?

    Well, they display moving images, so they're still serving the primary purpose. But is there a net gain? Is watching a film in a VR headset universally better than watching a film on TV? No. Is there a problem with watching a movie or playing a game on a TV that VR solves? No. 

    VR serves no purpose compared to other methods of viewing moving images. It has one positive (depth perception / 3d) but many negatives (cut off from the world, encumbrance, extra expense, motion sickness, chafing). It is special effects for the purpose of special effects. 


    That it why it is a gimmick. Even once we solve the majority of the negative effects like motion sickness etc, you can never remove the fact that you're cut off from the rest of the world, that you've entirely replaced one of your senses with virtual images. So, VR will never be a net gain, it will always be a side-grade serving no purpose. So, it will always remain a gimmick. 


    Again, nothing wrong with gimmicks, they can be fun, but you should recognise them for what they are and recognise the short lifespan. Tamagotchis, yo-yos, nintendo Wii, 3d TV.....all gimmicks, still all profitable, but all of them short-lived. 
    yeah that isnt going to work for me.

    They are gimmicks just as much as VR is a gimmick and all your logic can be applied to VR as well.

    More over, movies when they started where regularly described as 'gimmicks'

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,071
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    movies are gimmicks best I can tell so I dont see the problem
    I don't think you understand what the word gimmick means. 

    Movies are an evolution of the spoken word:

    1) We speak to one another, passing over information and stories. 
    2) We started writing down what we speak, the better record things for historical purposes and to reduce reliance on individuals. Writing serves a clear purpose. 
    3) We started making moving images as an evolution to the written word. It conveys the information quicker, records information that is impossible to record via writing (e.g. capturing lighting, facial expression, body movement etc). Moving images (and thus movies) serves a clear purpose. 

    A gimmick is something that attracts attention and stands out from the crowd but serves no real purpose. 

    What purpose will these 10minute VR experiences offer? Its completely separate to the movie, so serves no purpose there. You'll be stuck in a 6ft cube so can't wander around much, so the experience is limited. The fact it's VR doesn't convey information any better than a movie screen, so no purpose there either. 


    I'm not denying the technology is good, nor that a few people might enjoy it. I'm just questioning it's worthiness and purpose, beyond gimmicky fun. Again, nothing wrong with gimmicky fun (I still enjoy my Wii), but as a gimmick it's important to recognise the short-term appeal of such things and so I question the business logic of wanting to get these VR booths into cinemas. 
    how does any of that make it not a gimmick?

    maybe define gimmick as you see it


    So, where does that leave VR headsets?

    Well, they display moving images, so they're still serving the primary purpose. But is there a net gain? Is watching a film in a VR headset universally better than watching a film on TV? No. Is there a problem with watching a movie or playing a game on a TV that VR solves? No. 

    VR serves no purpose compared to other methods of viewing moving images. It has one positive (depth perception / 3d) but many negatives (cut off from the world, encumbrance, extra expense, motion sickness, chafing). It is special effects for the purpose of special effects. 


    That it why it is a gimmick. Even once we solve the majority of the negative effects like motion sickness etc, you can never remove the fact that you're cut off from the rest of the world, that you've entirely replaced one of your senses with virtual images. So, VR will never be a net gain, it will always be a side-grade serving no purpose. So, it will always remain a gimmick. 

    I'll have to disagree with you there.  I might have agreed with this in theory before having first-hand experience.  However, since having used one I am pleased to say it has far exceeded my expectations.  The whole of current-gen VR is greater than the sum of its individual parts.

    There is something in watching a film in VR that is universally different than watching it on a movie screen.  Something is added.  Moving forward, it is going to require a whole new language in terms of direction, tropes, et cetera.  It may not 'solve a problem' with TV or movies, but it is different, and there is some irreducible quality in that difference.

    Further, one needn't be "cut off from the world".  This was a concern for me, too.  However, unless you are using a large pair of over-ear, noise-cancelling headphones, you can still hear what's going on in the world around you.  It's more like being in two places at once.  This may seem uncomfortable, but in practice it feels very natural.  It's something that's difficult to explain until you experience it yourself.  I find I can forget about the real world just like I forget about the world when I am engrossed in a good movie or book, but I don't feel "cut off" from the real world in the slightest.

    In my experience there is most certainly a positive net gain.  So far, it has been well worth the price I payed and then some.

    Motion-sickness is something I never had, thankfully.  I did get a very strange inner-ear buzzing during the movements in my first experience, "Annie Amber", however this diminished the more I used VR.  Now I can be put on a roller-coaster ride spinning down microscopic nuclear DNA as I try to outrun a virus, and although the effect is dizzying to say the least I never got motion sick.  Perhaps I am just fortunate.  However, it's also important to note that what little disorientation I experienced seemed to lessen with experience.  It's like getting "sea-legs".

    To me, I am grateful to say VR is definitely not a gimmick.  Then again, neither is the medium of film.

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    movies are gimmicks best I can tell so I dont see the problem
    I don't think you understand what the word gimmick means. 

    Movies are an evolution of the spoken word:

    1) We speak to one another, passing over information and stories. 
    2) We started writing down what we speak, the better record things for historical purposes and to reduce reliance on individuals. Writing serves a clear purpose. 
    3) We started making moving images as an evolution to the written word. It conveys the information quicker, records information that is impossible to record via writing (e.g. capturing lighting, facial expression, body movement etc). Moving images (and thus movies) serves a clear purpose. 

    A gimmick is something that attracts attention and stands out from the crowd but serves no real purpose. 

    What purpose will these 10minute VR experiences offer? Its completely separate to the movie, so serves no purpose there. You'll be stuck in a 6ft cube so can't wander around much, so the experience is limited. The fact it's VR doesn't convey information any better than a movie screen, so no purpose there either. 


    I'm not denying the technology is good, nor that a few people might enjoy it. I'm just questioning it's worthiness and purpose, beyond gimmicky fun. Again, nothing wrong with gimmicky fun (I still enjoy my Wii), but as a gimmick it's important to recognise the short-term appeal of such things and so I question the business logic of wanting to get these VR booths into cinemas. 
    how does any of that make it not a gimmick?

    maybe define gimmick as you see it


    So, where does that leave VR headsets?

    Well, they display moving images, so they're still serving the primary purpose. But is there a net gain? Is watching a film in a VR headset universally better than watching a film on TV? No. Is there a problem with watching a movie or playing a game on a TV that VR solves? No. 

    VR serves no purpose compared to other methods of viewing moving images. It has one positive (depth perception / 3d) but many negatives (cut off from the world, encumbrance, extra expense, motion sickness, chafing). It is special effects for the purpose of special effects. 


    That it why it is a gimmick. Even once we solve the majority of the negative effects like motion sickness etc, you can never remove the fact that you're cut off from the rest of the world, that you've entirely replaced one of your senses with virtual images. So, VR will never be a net gain, it will always be a side-grade serving no purpose. So, it will always remain a gimmick. 

    I'll have to disagree with you there.  I might have agreed with this in theory before having first-hand experience.  However, since having used one I am pleased to say it has far exceeded my expectations.  The whole of current-gen VR is greater than the sum of its individual parts.

    There is something in watching a film in VR that is universally different than watching it on a movie screen.  Something is added.  Moving forward, it is going to require a whole new language in terms of direction, tropes, et cetera.  It may not 'solve a problem' with TV or movies, but it is different, and there is some irreducible quality in that difference.

    Further, one needn't be "cut off from the world".  This was a concern for me, too.  However, unless you are using a large pair of over-ear, noise-cancelling headphones, you can still hear what's going on in the world around you.  It's more like being in two places at once.  This may seem uncomfortable, but in practice it feels very natural.  It's something that's difficult to explain until you experience it yourself.  I find I can forget about the real world just like I forget about the world when I am engrossed in a good movie or book, but I don't feel "cut off" from the real world in the slightest.

    In my experience there is most certainly a positive net gain.  So far, it has been well worth the price I payed and then some.

    Motion-sickness is something I never had, thankfully.  I did get a very strange inner-ear buzzing during the movements in my first experience, "Annie Amber", however this diminished the more I used VR.  Now I can be put on a roller-coaster ride spinning down microscopic nuclear DNA as I try to outrun a virus, and although the effect is dizzying to say the least I never got motion sick.  Perhaps I am just fortunate.  However, it's also important to note that what little disorientation I experienced seemed to lessen with experience.  It's like getting "sea-legs".

    To me, I am grateful to say VR is definitely not a gimmick.  Then again, neither is the medium of film.
    added to what your saying regarding motiion sickness I have gotten a little motion sick however in those times I was doing something in the game that if i was doing in real life I would have lost my lunch for sure.

    so in some cases, motion sickness is actually an indication that its doing exactly what it should be doing.

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • GruugGruug Member RarePosts: 1,789
    It is a great idea but I do not think it will have a long lasting effect on movies if they are only going to be 10 minute "shorts". It will do a great deal to show off the capabilities of VR though. Again, I do not think VR will gain popularity until it is applied to more "mundane" task that already exist. Mundane may be the wrong term, perhaps "usual" or "normal" applications would be better. In other words, applying VR to a full feature movie in the right way would be applying to usual application and might garner greater acceptance. Trying to force new ways of doing things that are not as usual or normal will probably not be tried as easily. VR has a lot of potential. I just hope they start using some common sense when trying to market it.

    Let's party like it is 1863!

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Gruug said:
    It is a great idea but I do not think it will have a long lasting effect on movies if they are only going to be 10 minute "shorts". It will do a great deal to show off the capabilities of VR though. Again, I do not think VR will gain popularity until it is applied to more "mundane" task that already exist. Mundane may be the wrong term, perhaps "usual" or "normal" applications would be better. In other words, applying VR to a full feature movie in the right way would be applying to usual application and might garner greater acceptance. Trying to force new ways of doing things that are not as usual or normal will probably not be tried as easily. VR has a lot of potential. I just hope they start using some common sense when trying to market it.

    I agree with your first two sentences. I am not sure if your third is related to the first two but regardless of that point I do agree with the first two, namely because i do not see traditional movies in traditional movie theaters as having much of a future to begin with and the VR content is a bit separate from the experience.

    Having said that i think the reason they want to do it is because they have noticed that the lines for VR demos often are very large so they would like that traffic buying their tickets

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,171
    edited September 2016
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    movies are gimmicks best I can tell so I dont see the problem
    I don't think you understand what the word gimmick means. 

    Movies are an evolution of the spoken word:

    1) We speak to one another, passing over information and stories. 
    2) We started writing down what we speak, the better record things for historical purposes and to reduce reliance on individuals. Writing serves a clear purpose. 
    3) We started making moving images as an evolution to the written word. It conveys the information quicker, records information that is impossible to record via writing (e.g. capturing lighting, facial expression, body movement etc). Moving images (and thus movies) serves a clear purpose. 

    A gimmick is something that attracts attention and stands out from the crowd but serves no real purpose. 

    What purpose will these 10minute VR experiences offer? Its completely separate to the movie, so serves no purpose there. You'll be stuck in a 6ft cube so can't wander around much, so the experience is limited. The fact it's VR doesn't convey information any better than a movie screen, so no purpose there either. 


    I'm not denying the technology is good, nor that a few people might enjoy it. I'm just questioning it's worthiness and purpose, beyond gimmicky fun. Again, nothing wrong with gimmicky fun (I still enjoy my Wii), but as a gimmick it's important to recognise the short-term appeal of such things and so I question the business logic of wanting to get these VR booths into cinemas. 
    how does any of that make it not a gimmick?

    maybe define gimmick as you see it


    So, where does that leave VR headsets?

    Well, they display moving images, so they're still serving the primary purpose. But is there a net gain? Is watching a film in a VR headset universally better than watching a film on TV? No. Is there a problem with watching a movie or playing a game on a TV that VR solves? No. 

    VR serves no purpose compared to other methods of viewing moving images. It has one positive (depth perception / 3d) but many negatives (cut off from the world, encumbrance, extra expense, motion sickness, chafing). It is special effects for the purpose of special effects. 


    That it why it is a gimmick. Even once we solve the majority of the negative effects like motion sickness etc, you can never remove the fact that you're cut off from the rest of the world, that you've entirely replaced one of your senses with virtual images. So, VR will never be a net gain, it will always be a side-grade serving no purpose. So, it will always remain a gimmick. 

    I'll have to disagree with you there.  I might have agreed with this in theory before having first-hand experience.  However, since having used one I am pleased to say it has far exceeded my expectations.  The whole of current-gen VR is greater than the sum of its individual parts.

    There is something in watching a film in VR that is universally different than watching it on a movie screen.  Something is added.  Moving forward, it is going to require a whole new language in terms of direction, tropes, et cetera.  It may not 'solve a problem' with TV or movies, but it is different, and there is some irreducible quality in that difference.

    Further, one needn't be "cut off from the world".  This was a concern for me, too.  However, unless you are using a large pair of over-ear, noise-cancelling headphones, you can still hear what's going on in the world around you.  It's more like being in two places at once.  This may seem uncomfortable, but in practice it feels very natural.  It's something that's difficult to explain until you experience it yourself.  I find I can forget about the real world just like I forget about the world when I am engrossed in a good movie or book, but I don't feel "cut off" from the real world in the slightest.

    In my experience there is most certainly a positive net gain.  So far, it has been well worth the price I payed and then some.

    Motion-sickness is something I never had, thankfully.  I did get a very strange inner-ear buzzing during the movements in my first experience, "Annie Amber", however this diminished the more I used VR.  Now I can be put on a roller-coaster ride spinning down microscopic nuclear DNA as I try to outrun a virus, and although the effect is dizzying to say the least I never got motion sick.  Perhaps I am just fortunate.  However, it's also important to note that what little disorientation I experienced seemed to lessen with experience.  It's like getting "sea-legs".

    To me, I am grateful to say VR is definitely not a gimmick.  Then again, neither is the medium of film.
    I find merit in your experience,  but I do believe that VR in many ways is still, somewhat gimmicky.  

    I believe that VR can give you an experience that you can't really get otherwise.  

    But I've also experienced VR that was only "VR" for the sake of a viewing perspective,  but conveyed an experience that wasn't predominantly different.

    For this reason I find that Netflix and Hulu in VR are largely pointless for me.  I do not want to wear a headset and be forced to sit in a certain position, with the only major change being the virtual theater I'm sitting in.   

    VR experiences need to be more like Invasion.  Short bursts of a narrative where you are built inside of it.  This is more of what I expect them to try to convey with the IMAX experiences,  but.. for me at least,  a full length movie with this perspective wouldn't really make much sense.  

    When you go to a movie, you're there for a particular story, the main focus.  Being placed in a world where missing a minute detail can result in "understanding" a film and losing the meaning entirely, doesn't  work well for advanced narratives.

    For example,  Place yourself in a Harry Potter movie, where you're in a wand shop.  In VR you could potentially look around the entire shop,  it would be considered an "experience" for harry potter fans just to be there.  But in the film,  Harry could be testing out wands, and you were looking at the people walking back and forth out of the window when something integral to the story happens.  

    I think short experiences will be fantastic ways for a segment of the population to experience new things,  but right now I can't see it having much of an extended draw for movie goers.  



  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775

    I find merit in your experience,  but I do believe that VR in many ways is still, somewhat gimmicky.  

    I believe that VR can give you an experience that you can't really get otherwise.  

    But I've also experienced VR that was only "VR" for the sake of a viewing perspective,  but conveyed an experience that wasn't predominantly different.

    For this reason I find that Netflix and Hulu in VR are largely pointless for me.  I do not want to wear a headset and be forced to sit in a certain position, with the only major change being the virtual theater I'm sitting in.   

    VR experiences need to be more like Invasion.  Short bursts of a narrative where you are built inside of it.  This is more of what I expect them to try to convey with the IMAX experiences,  but.. for me at least,  a full length movie with this perspective wouldn't really make much sense.  

    When you go to a movie, you're there for a particular story, the main focus.  Being placed in a world where missing a minute detail can result in "understanding" a film and losing the meaning entirely, doesn't  work well for advanced narratives.

    For example,  Place yourself in a Harry Potter movie, where you're in a wand shop.  In VR you could potentially look around the entire shop,  it would be considered an "experience" for harry potter fans just to be there.  But in the film,  Harry could be testing out wands, and you were looking at the people walking back and forth out of the window when something integral to the story happens.  

    I think short experiences will be fantastic ways for a segment of the population to experience new things,  but right now I can't see it having much of an extended draw for movie goers.  
    I could without question spend more than 2 hours in a story like Henry. No question in my mind.

    What Hulu app needs for me anyway is the ability to make the background still while I move to a different position, then hit a key (or I would perfer a button on the headset) to readjust it.

    my porn VR works that way :)

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,071
    As a (not so) brief post-script to my above post:

    It's hard to say as I'm still very new to the tech, but I think what's added is a sense of dimensionally-extensive digital spaces.

    What I mean by this is that in eras gone by (the 8 or 16 bit era), video games would be more or less be "printed" on a display screen.  For me, this took a giant step forward in the mid 90's with the advent of modern 3d graphics and platforms like the Nintendo 64.  Designers had to start thinking about video games in different ways.  A bridge was no longer something that connected point A to point B on a Euclidean plane, but had to be considered from all angles, for example.  This is just one of the innumerable ways in which game design was affected.

    This feels like as big of a step forward.

    Like, for example, in movies there is the concept of the "frame".  The frame is whatever is shown on the movie screen.  There may be a whole lot of other stuff going on in set, but a director is thinking about what's in the frame.  It affects everything from script-writing to the type of camera used to lighting and effects.

    Similarly, in video games, although we now have photorealistic 3d graphics these graphics are rendered in terms of being displayed on any given personal video device.  This affects everything from 'health bar goes in the lower left corner' to 'in this cutscene we'll show the heroine from a panning low angle shot'.

    In VR, the frame is no longer a factor.  You're not viewing the world through a window; you're there.  This means a shift in all the priorities in terms of what's presented to the player over the course of the play experience.

    It becomes more about generating a cohesive digital space.  These digital spaces exist in my mind long after the session is over.

    ...and I have the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg.

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,171
    SEANMCAD said:

    I find merit in your experience,  but I do believe that VR in many ways is still, somewhat gimmicky.  

    I believe that VR can give you an experience that you can't really get otherwise.  

    But I've also experienced VR that was only "VR" for the sake of a viewing perspective,  but conveyed an experience that wasn't predominantly different.

    For this reason I find that Netflix and Hulu in VR are largely pointless for me.  I do not want to wear a headset and be forced to sit in a certain position, with the only major change being the virtual theater I'm sitting in.   

    VR experiences need to be more like Invasion.  Short bursts of a narrative where you are built inside of it.  This is more of what I expect them to try to convey with the IMAX experiences,  but.. for me at least,  a full length movie with this perspective wouldn't really make much sense.  

    When you go to a movie, you're there for a particular story, the main focus.  Being placed in a world where missing a minute detail can result in "understanding" a film and losing the meaning entirely, doesn't  work well for advanced narratives.

    For example,  Place yourself in a Harry Potter movie, where you're in a wand shop.  In VR you could potentially look around the entire shop,  it would be considered an "experience" for harry potter fans just to be there.  But in the film,  Harry could be testing out wands, and you were looking at the people walking back and forth out of the window when something integral to the story happens.  

    I think short experiences will be fantastic ways for a segment of the population to experience new things,  but right now I can't see it having much of an extended draw for movie goers.  
    I could without question spend more than 2 hours in a story like Henry. No question in my mind.

    What Hulu app needs for me anyway is the ability to make the background still while I move to a different position, then hit a key (or I would perfer a button on the headset) to readjust it.

    my porn VR works that way :)
    Just because you would do it doesn't mean the majority would.   Even in invasion, a short less than 10 minute film, I had several people try it, and each one saw something different.  One person didn't even see the aliens apart from the first part when the ship came in.    VR is not conducive to a story experience so much as experiencing an environment.  


    And the porn videos are as pointless as hulu.  It is absolutely a gimmick in all senses of transition from regular video to VR.  It adds nothing to the experience,  and you have to manually position it.   

    It's truly a sad state going through all the trouble of setting up a VR system for what is essentially a porn video with a 180 degree view.



  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,171
    As a (not so) brief post-script to my above post:

    It's hard to say as I'm still very new to the tech, but I think what's added is a sense of dimensionally-extensive digital spaces.

    What I mean by this is that in eras gone by (the 8 or 16 bit era), video games would be more or less be "printed" on a display screen.  For me, this took a giant step forward in the mid 90's with the advent of modern 3d graphics and platforms like the Nintendo 64.  Designers had to start thinking about video games in different ways.  A bridge was no longer something that connected point A to point B on a Euclidean plane, but had to be considered from all angles, for example.  This is just one of the innumerable ways in which game design was affected.

    This feels like as big of a step forward.

    Like, for example, in movies there is the concept of the "frame".  The frame is whatever is shown on the movie screen.  There may be a whole lot of other stuff going on in set, but a director is thinking about what's in the frame.  It affects everything from script-writing to the type of camera used to lighting and effects.

    Similarly, in video games, although we now have photorealistic 3d graphics these graphics are rendered in terms of being displayed on any given personal video device.  This affects everything from 'health bar goes in the lower left corner' to 'in this cutscene we'll show the heroine from a panning low angle shot'.

    In VR, the frame is no longer a factor.  You're not viewing the world through a window; you're there.  This means a shift in all the priorities in terms of what's presented to the player over the course of the play experience.

    It becomes more about generating a cohesive digital space.  These digital spaces exist in my mind long after the session is over.

    ...and I have the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg.
    Creating a digital space - yes.  Creating a cohesive narrative...  ehh thats iffy.    

    I understand that new things can get very exciting,  but there are still plenty of pitfalls before VR gets to a place where it proves its worth.  

    I'm here, I'm trying it, I'm interested in what it has to offer,  but I haven't seen anything that pulls me in to try it everyday.  Even the best game I've played on there hasn't been touched for a few days.  

    I certainly think there will be interesting applications for entertainment,  but not every experience is a knock out with VR.  Quite the opposite,  at the moment I've tried about 2 dozen experiences and I could only recommend a quarter of them.



  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited September 2016
    SEANMCAD said:

    I find merit in your experience,  but I do believe that VR in many ways is still, somewhat gimmicky.  

    I believe that VR can give you an experience that you can't really get otherwise.  

    But I've also experienced VR that was only "VR" for the sake of a viewing perspective,  but conveyed an experience that wasn't predominantly different.

    For this reason I find that Netflix and Hulu in VR are largely pointless for me.  I do not want to wear a headset and be forced to sit in a certain position, with the only major change being the virtual theater I'm sitting in.   

    VR experiences need to be more like Invasion.  Short bursts of a narrative where you are built inside of it.  This is more of what I expect them to try to convey with the IMAX experiences,  but.. for me at least,  a full length movie with this perspective wouldn't really make much sense.  

    When you go to a movie, you're there for a particular story, the main focus.  Being placed in a world where missing a minute detail can result in "understanding" a film and losing the meaning entirely, doesn't  work well for advanced narratives.

    For example,  Place yourself in a Harry Potter movie, where you're in a wand shop.  In VR you could potentially look around the entire shop,  it would be considered an "experience" for harry potter fans just to be there.  But in the film,  Harry could be testing out wands, and you were looking at the people walking back and forth out of the window when something integral to the story happens.  

    I think short experiences will be fantastic ways for a segment of the population to experience new things,  but right now I can't see it having much of an extended draw for movie goers.  
    I could without question spend more than 2 hours in a story like Henry. No question in my mind.

    What Hulu app needs for me anyway is the ability to make the background still while I move to a different position, then hit a key (or I would perfer a button on the headset) to readjust it.

    my porn VR works that way :)
    Just because you would do it doesn't mean the majority would.   Even in invasion, a short less than 10 minute film, I had several people try it, and each one saw something different.  One person didn't even see the aliens apart from the first part when the ship came in.    VR is not conducive to a story experience so much as experiencing an environment.  


    And the porn videos are as pointless as hulu.  It is absolutely a gimmick in all senses of transition from regular video to VR.  It adds nothing to the experience,  and you have to manually position it.   

    It's truly a sad state going through all the trouble of setting up a VR system for what is essentially a porn video with a 180 degree view.
    lol..

    porn in VR is fucking amazingly awesome and no fucks given if its a 'gimmick' or not ....serious lol that is.

    anyway..I am 90% positve that a very large number of people will find a 2 hour version of Henry a very good VR narrative experience. zero doubt in my mind.

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,171
    edited September 2016
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:

    I find merit in your experience,  but I do believe that VR in many ways is still, somewhat gimmicky.  

    I believe that VR can give you an experience that you can't really get otherwise.  

    But I've also experienced VR that was only "VR" for the sake of a viewing perspective,  but conveyed an experience that wasn't predominantly different.

    For this reason I find that Netflix and Hulu in VR are largely pointless for me.  I do not want to wear a headset and be forced to sit in a certain position, with the only major change being the virtual theater I'm sitting in.   

    VR experiences need to be more like Invasion.  Short bursts of a narrative where you are built inside of it.  This is more of what I expect them to try to convey with the IMAX experiences,  but.. for me at least,  a full length movie with this perspective wouldn't really make much sense.  

    When you go to a movie, you're there for a particular story, the main focus.  Being placed in a world where missing a minute detail can result in "understanding" a film and losing the meaning entirely, doesn't  work well for advanced narratives.

    For example,  Place yourself in a Harry Potter movie, where you're in a wand shop.  In VR you could potentially look around the entire shop,  it would be considered an "experience" for harry potter fans just to be there.  But in the film,  Harry could be testing out wands, and you were looking at the people walking back and forth out of the window when something integral to the story happens.  

    I think short experiences will be fantastic ways for a segment of the population to experience new things,  but right now I can't see it having much of an extended draw for movie goers.  
    I could without question spend more than 2 hours in a story like Henry. No question in my mind.

    What Hulu app needs for me anyway is the ability to make the background still while I move to a different position, then hit a key (or I would perfer a button on the headset) to readjust it.

    my porn VR works that way :)
    Just because you would do it doesn't mean the majority would.   Even in invasion, a short less than 10 minute film, I had several people try it, and each one saw something different.  One person didn't even see the aliens apart from the first part when the ship came in.    VR is not conducive to a story experience so much as experiencing an environment.  


    And the porn videos are as pointless as hulu.  It is absolutely a gimmick in all senses of transition from regular video to VR.  It adds nothing to the experience,  and you have to manually position it.   

    It's truly a sad state going through all the trouble of setting up a VR system for what is essentially a porn video with a 180 degree view.
    lol..

    porn in VR is fucking amazingly awesome and no fucks given if its a 'gimmick' or not ....serious lol that is.

    anyway..I am 90% positve that a very large number of people will find a 2 hour version of Henry a very good VR narrative experience. zero doubt in my mind.
    Your zero doubts amounts to zero.  Hows it coming finding all those quotes on Movies being a Gimmick when they first came out?   

    I thought so.


    ** oh an porn VR..  it is a gimmick and a ridiculous one at that.  It has ZERO merit and takes twice as long, with the smallest selection.  I don't watch porn often,  but I doubt anyone would waste their time with it after a week.   You'd have to be really hard up for a sexual experience to do it often.



  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited September 2016

    lol..

    porn in VR is fucking amazingly awesome and no fucks given if its a 'gimmick' or not ....serious lol that is.

    anyway..I am 90% positve that a very large number of people will find a 2 hour version of Henry a very good VR narrative experience. zero doubt in my mind.
    Your zero doubts amounts to zero.  Hows it coming finding all those quotes on Movies being a Gimmick when they first came out?   

    I thought so.


    ** oh an porn VR..  it is a gimmick and a ridiculous one at that.  It has ZERO merit and takes twice as long, with the smallest selection.  I don't watch porn often,  but I doubt anyone would waste their time with it after a week.   You'd have to be really hard up for a sexual experience to do it often.
    1. I am sorry did you ask me to provide you with that evidence? I missed it if you did. I am not inclided to casually put in the time to do so but if you push the subject hard enough I might.

    I watched a documentry about the history of movies and they said when movies came out they were often refered to as a gimmick in newspapers.

    2. I dont care if porn is a 'gimmick' or not VR is as much of a 'gimmick' as movies are. it doesnt matter gimmick or not, porn in VR is VERY good, VERY popular and tons of people agree.

    3. There is plenty of evidence that shows I am not alone in all of this, from repeatedly having VR demos lines being longer then any other line at games conventions over and over and over again should be enough for you to figure out I am not some lone wolf here.

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,171
    SEANMCAD said:

    lol..

    porn in VR is fucking amazingly awesome and no fucks given if its a 'gimmick' or not ....serious lol that is.

    anyway..I am 90% positve that a very large number of people will find a 2 hour version of Henry a very good VR narrative experience. zero doubt in my mind.
    Your zero doubts amounts to zero.  Hows it coming finding all those quotes on Movies being a Gimmick when they first came out?   

    I thought so.


    ** oh an porn VR..  it is a gimmick and a ridiculous one at that.  It has ZERO merit and takes twice as long, with the smallest selection.  I don't watch porn often,  but I doubt anyone would waste their time with it after a week.   You'd have to be really hard up for a sexual experience to do it often.
    1. I am sorry did you ask me to provide you with that evidence? I missed it if you did. I am not inclided to casually put in the time to do so but if you push the subject hard enough I might.

    I watched a documentry about the history of movies and they said when movies came out they were often refered to as a gimmick in newspapers.

    2. I dont care if porn is a 'gimmick' or not VR is as much of a 'gimmick' as movies are. it doesnt matter gimmick or not, porn in VR is VERY good, VERY popular and tons of people agree.

    3. There is plenty of evidence that shows I am not alone in all of this, from repeatedly having VR demos lines being longer then any other line at games conventions over and over and over again should be enough for you to figure out I am not some lone wolf here.
    1) You saw it. you responded.  You couldn't find them. Your Zero Doubts are worth doubting

    2) No.. it isn't very popular. No movies aren't a gimmick. You are just plain wrong as usual

    3) There is zero evidence...  Recent estimates show that VR sets will be down from the millions to barely 800K sets total... and  VR sets in general have been  ON THE MARKET FOR OVER 4 YEARS WITH ADVERTISING AND MARKET PENETRATION.

    It's a niche.  Niche isn't popular, niche is specifically a smaller, non-mainstream market.  You are not alone, but you are not popular.



  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    edited September 2016
    SEANMCAD said:

    lol..

    porn in VR is fucking amazingly awesome and no fucks given if its a 'gimmick' or not ....serious lol that is.

    anyway..I am 90% positve that a very large number of people will find a 2 hour version of Henry a very good VR narrative experience. zero doubt in my mind.
    Your zero doubts amounts to zero.  Hows it coming finding all those quotes on Movies being a Gimmick when they first came out?   

    I thought so.


    ** oh an porn VR..  it is a gimmick and a ridiculous one at that.  It has ZERO merit and takes twice as long, with the smallest selection.  I don't watch porn often,  but I doubt anyone would waste their time with it after a week.   You'd have to be really hard up for a sexual experience to do it often.
    1. I am sorry did you ask me to provide you with that evidence? I missed it if you did. I am not inclided to casually put in the time to do so but if you push the subject hard enough I might.

    I watched a documentry about the history of movies and they said when movies came out they were often refered to as a gimmick in newspapers.

    2. I dont care if porn is a 'gimmick' or not VR is as much of a 'gimmick' as movies are. it doesnt matter gimmick or not, porn in VR is VERY good, VERY popular and tons of people agree.

    3. There is plenty of evidence that shows I am not alone in all of this, from repeatedly having VR demos lines being longer then any other line at games conventions over and over and over again should be enough for you to figure out I am not some lone wolf here.
    1) You saw it. you responded.  You couldn't find them. Your Zero Doubts are worth doubting

    2) No.. it isn't very popular. No movies aren't a gimmick. You are just plain wrong as usual

    3) There is zero evidence...  Recent estimates show that VR sets will be down from the millions to barely 800K sets total... and  VR sets in general have been  ON THE MARKET FOR OVER 4 YEARS WITH ADVERTISING AND MARKET PENETRATION.

    It's a niche.  Niche isn't popular, niche is specifically a smaller, non-mainstream market.  You are not alone, but you are not popular.
    you need to go back and re-read what i said because you got it all wrong...again. and I am not repeating it again

    including claiming what I did or did not do.

    or better still

    how do you know I looked for it? because I am telling you TWICE now I didnt even bother to do so

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member LegendaryPosts: 12,171
    SEANMCAD said:
    SEANMCAD said:

    lol..

    porn in VR is fucking amazingly awesome and no fucks given if its a 'gimmick' or not ....serious lol that is.

    anyway..I am 90% positve that a very large number of people will find a 2 hour version of Henry a very good VR narrative experience. zero doubt in my mind.
    Your zero doubts amounts to zero.  Hows it coming finding all those quotes on Movies being a Gimmick when they first came out?   

    I thought so.


    ** oh an porn VR..  it is a gimmick and a ridiculous one at that.  It has ZERO merit and takes twice as long, with the smallest selection.  I don't watch porn often,  but I doubt anyone would waste their time with it after a week.   You'd have to be really hard up for a sexual experience to do it often.
    1. I am sorry did you ask me to provide you with that evidence? I missed it if you did. I am not inclided to casually put in the time to do so but if you push the subject hard enough I might.

    I watched a documentry about the history of movies and they said when movies came out they were often refered to as a gimmick in newspapers.

    2. I dont care if porn is a 'gimmick' or not VR is as much of a 'gimmick' as movies are. it doesnt matter gimmick or not, porn in VR is VERY good, VERY popular and tons of people agree.

    3. There is plenty of evidence that shows I am not alone in all of this, from repeatedly having VR demos lines being longer then any other line at games conventions over and over and over again should be enough for you to figure out I am not some lone wolf here.
    1) You saw it. you responded.  You couldn't find them. Your Zero Doubts are worth doubting

    2) No.. it isn't very popular. No movies aren't a gimmick. You are just plain wrong as usual

    3) There is zero evidence...  Recent estimates show that VR sets will be down from the millions to barely 800K sets total... and  VR sets in general have been  ON THE MARKET FOR OVER 4 YEARS WITH ADVERTISING AND MARKET PENETRATION.

    It's a niche.  Niche isn't popular, niche is specifically a smaller, non-mainstream market.  You are not alone, but you are not popular.
    you need to go back and re-read what i said because you got it all wrong...again. and I am not repeating it again

    including claiming what I did or did not do.

    or better still

    how do you know I looked for it? because I am telling you TWICE now I didnt even bother to do so
    Because you had zero doubts right? So many zeros of doubts you had that Movies were a gimmick right?  You have so many zeroes of of doubts that you just knew that it was a gimmick that you didn't have to look for it nor did you factually know it.. so in essence it's just you making things up again.  



Sign In or Register to comment.