One of the problems in the business right now is that most of the games coming out lately lack gameyness. There are certain things that a game needs to have to be a game, and a lot of these titles have less and less of them. The prime example are all the "sandbox" building titles that lack goals of any kind. But the "AAA" titles are losing pieces as time goes on as well. The games are more about the trailers, like movies, and less about what you do and the choices you make.
This is a dumbing down of design that is plaguing the business across the spectrum. A lot of this has to do with the infusion of bad capital and the things that come with it. Some of it has to do with the kind of programmers that are being hired. It all adds up to a lack of fun, and the time window of the less-fun-but-addictive-to-some-the-first-time is closing.
So if VR is going to be big, it's probably going to depend a lot on solving this issue of actually remembering how to make a game rather than these tech demos that are passing themselves off as $60 titles these days.
one clarification there. The vast majority of VR games but a very large margin are well under $60. tech demos? yeah I get that. Puzzles? yeah I agree. $60 each? nope.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
We've also seen the reluctance for the players to embrace speaking via VoIP recently on these forums. How exactly are the proponents of VR going to appeal to players in order too get them to change their habits? If players are expecting VR plus keyboard, how's the average player going to type? I seriously doubt that everyone playing games is capable of touch typing.
Mainstream adoption of speech-based interaction is probably right around the corner.
The Google Pixel phone presentation was all about speech recognition. It's clear Google is heavily focused on that area. Then you have all the "home assistants" - Amazon Echo, Google Home, or even iPhone Siri. They may be gimmicks at this stage, still it shows a large push for speech-based interaction.
A good chunk of people now send text-messages by talking at the screen. People are lazy, anything that saves them time is appealing. A wide adoption of speech-based interaction is one of the most certain tech predictions I can think of. It will likely come first in non-gaming areas and become second nature in games eventually.
For me, the issue is roleplay. When I play an RPG, I like to be the hero. Same to when a kid pretends to be an astronaut. Using voice on my behalf often breaks that connection. If it was a speech-to-text system though, I might not mind as much. It could even be my speech, to text, to my character then speaking. That setup would still maintain the illusion for me.
We already do this in our military simulators. I train soldiers how to do their jobs, and they can simply walk in, put on a pair of headphones and talk to the sims. There's some very good speech recognition software out there, however, the really good stuff is extremely expensive. We have it working really well with the FarCry Engine that powers our training scenarios.
As someone who does a lot of Sim Racing through games such as iRacing, Dirt and Gran Turismo, one of the most clear cut paths to VR gaming on the PC is through these games. The reason is that all of the peripherals have been in place for decades and work very well. You can buy steering wheels, pedals, shifters and even switch boxes for most games ranging from $50 for a cheap setup to $20,000 for a high end precision setup.
The point, though, is that with sim racing games, the avatar is the car and the body is stationary. The car is controlled through the peripheral's which most racers already have, and only the driver's head needs to turn. So sim racing developers only need to develop for one thing when it comes to sim racing, a players head turning to look out of the cars windows and see their mirrors. They don't need to compensate for body movement or arm placement.
Personally, sim racing is the only reason I would even remotely consider buying into the current generation of VR to experience. I already have a triple monitor setup and trackIR in order to look around and it lets me see things like my wheel, button box and shifters, so even in this case it would have to drop in price by hundreds of dollars before I'd consider swapping my current setup.
@laxie; I'd suggest you read the other thread about VoIP rather than using text to see some of the vitriol the gaming community has. Voice recognition is around the corner, yes, but I do not think that gamers are ready to accept a change in their MMORPGs.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Although I haven't played them for years, one of the things I was thinking about since starting this thread was driving sims. I can see the driving end itself getting much more immersive with VR, but what about the RPG elements of these games? The setting up of your brakes and gear bands for different tracks, the managing of your crew and team mates, the simulation of racing seasons, etc.. I wonder if these elements will transition to VR - for example you play part of the game with your mouse and keyboard, and part with your VR headset - or if they will basically just be cut out altogether. This latter possibility in a broad sense is what concerns me about VR.
- Are VR games quickly going to take over the lions share of the egame market, just as consoles have done in the last 15 years?
I object to the premise of that question. Unless you regard smartphones as a type of game console (which is more reasonable than it might seem at first glance if you haven't thought of it that way before), the trend has been in the other direction. 30 years ago, gaming basically meant consoles or arcades. PCs were tremendously expensive and not terribly capable, so PC gaming really wasn't that widespread. Today, PCs are cheap enough that the only reason for any household to have a gaming console and not a PC is that they want a game console and don't want a PC.
VR is a long way away from being mainstream. Sure, they could make VR with today's technology and graphics akin to Battlezone (the 1980 version, not more recent games of the same name) or even Faceball 2000 and have VR otherwise work about how you'd hope. But it's not at all clear that VR with graphical fidelity akin to today's PC games and frame rates and resolutions high enough to work how you'd hope will be possible before Moore's Law comes to a screeching halt and computer chips stop getting meaningfully faster.
Yes, there will be some niche VR games in coming years. But it's not going to be anything like the move from 2D to 3D graphics around the turn of the millennium that left far fewer 2D games still being made apart from games on a shoestring budget. At most, VR games could end up being a parallel market like smartphone games or Facebook games, and it probably won't even get that far in the next decade.
We argued some time ago about VR making it mainstream, and now it has. I don't think anyone should be listening to you. We also argued about big full featured games coming to tablets, and now you even have Nintendo Switch coming out. Literally everything you predicted ends up wrong.
Today's PC's are also not cheap enough where its an easy choice between PC and Console. Another area you are highly uneducated in. You can buy a console and play excellent quality games and many exclusives for $400 and under. Where as a $400 pc would not compare what-so-ever. A $400 pc is also not going to hook up to VR and produce PSVR quality graphics even in your dreams.
BTW, Graphics are already past what you have described in the VR world. Maybe open up google and do another search. Eve Valkyrie is incredible on PC and PSVR. Rigs looks excellent and is fast paced.
Also, you keep bringing up Moore's law. I don't think you follow whats been going on very well. Check the wikipedia under future trends. Maybe educate yourself some instead of your usual half assed google searches.
Frankly dude, you are way behind on everything. You are at a complete loss regarding VR and where the tech already is, and you keep abusing your limited understanding of moore's law.
With that said, I believe it will run along side regular games. It will be a large market, but not the MAIN market. People want to invest more into gaming and now we are getting good reasons too. The fact PSVR sold so damn well so fast shows that. The overwhelmingly positive reviews also reflect that. The fact some games can add somewhat simple patches to enable forms of VR also speaks volumes.
Whats really up for debate, is how well Hololens is going to do.
Moore's law was never a law, it was an observation made in 1965. First it was doubling every year, then every two years. Now? Things are really slowing down and the expectation that things will just get faster every year is pretty suspect.
VR is what it is today because of the limits of today's hardware. You can't just expect it to get better because of more brute force being available, it is going to be a lot harder than that and a lot more expensive to produce.
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
let me ask you think
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
?? Teleportation is a crutch? I think mounts are a crutch.
As people said, VR is just the first generation. It will take another generation or two to work out the hardware and other parts. I mean, look how long it took for cell phones to become popular (in 1996 my wife had one of the first Nokia phones and couldn't connect unless the phone was less than a mile from a cell tower) - it took a while there also but it will come.
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
?? Teleportation is a crutch? I think mounts are a crutch.
As people said, VR is just the first generation. It will take another generation or two to work out the hardware and other parts. I mean, look how long it took for cell phones to become popular (in 1996 my wife had one of the first Nokia phones and couldn't connect unless the phone was less than a mile from a cell tower) - it took a while there also but it will come.
the way I look at it is this.
Since about 1993 I have been playing computer games in which locomotion works and nobody really complains about at an epic level. WSAD has worked out well for me. VR (just because its VR) doesnt have to make locomotion 100% realistic in order for it to be an improvement on WASD.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Just wanted to state that Vendetta in VR is awesome; I spent 3 hours in VR last night on this app alone, longer than any other in one sitting (Minecraft comes in second by a fair margin), and it just flew by.
Modestly, this is how the game was meant to be played.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
let me ask you think
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
In traditional games AWSD and analog emulate moving, they do not instantly translocate you. They do that for a reason, because Teleportation is an immersion killer, and that's why it's an absolutely terrible choice in a platform that is all about immersion.
Onward actually does movement pretty well, but most VR devs don't take that path
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
let me ask you think
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
In traditional games AWSD and analog emulate moving, they do not instantly translocate you. They do that for a reason, because Teleportation is an immersion killer, and that's why it's an absolutely terrible choice in a platform that is all about immersion
let me ask it differently then.
why cant some version of WASD which has worked in gaming for 24 or so years not work in VR?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I don't think VR games are going to be that major yet, but in ten years maybe. By which time games will be dumbed down so much I am not sure we will notice any difference when they go VR.
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
let me ask you think
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
In traditional games AWSD and analog emulate moving, they do not instantly translocate you. They do that for a reason, because Teleportation is an immersion killer, and that's why it's an absolutely terrible choice in a platform that is all about immersion
let me ask it differently then.
why cant some version of WASD which has worked in gaming for 24 or so years not work in VR?
Because of basic biology.
The vestibular system in your inner ear has fluids that tells your brain when you are moving, which direction you are moving and if you are up side down or something.
VR with full movement controls will tell your brain that you are moving forward but your inner ear will tell your brain that you are standing still. This will confuse the brain and cause many people to get sick.
Solutions are being worked on but they probably wont be ready for a while or perfect.
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
let me ask you think
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
In traditional games AWSD and analog emulate moving, they do not instantly translocate you. They do that for a reason, because Teleportation is an immersion killer, and that's why it's an absolutely terrible choice in a platform that is all about immersion
let me ask it differently then.
why cant some version of WASD which has worked in gaming for 24 or so years not work in VR?
Because of basic biology.
The vestibular system in your inner ear has fluids that tells your brain when you are moving, which direction you are moving and if you are up side down or something.
VR with full movement controls will tell your brain that you are moving forward but your inner ear will tell your brain that you are standing still. This will confuse the brain and cause many people to get sick.
Solutions are being worked on but they probably wont be ready for a while or perfect.
and the same arguement applies to sitting in front of a computer screen using WSAD. its not like your biology is any different sitting in front of a screen and moving while your body doesnt.
example: traditional, your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused' VR: your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused'
so you really havent answered the question in a way that illustrates a difference
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
let me ask you think
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
In traditional games AWSD and analog emulate moving, they do not instantly translocate you. They do that for a reason, because Teleportation is an immersion killer, and that's why it's an absolutely terrible choice in a platform that is all about immersion
let me ask it differently then.
why cant some version of WASD which has worked in gaming for 24 or so years not work in VR?
Because of basic biology.
The vestibular system in your inner ear has fluids that tells your brain when you are moving, which direction you are moving and if you are up side down or something.
VR with full movement controls will tell your brain that you are moving forward but your inner ear will tell your brain that you are standing still. This will confuse the brain and cause many people to get sick.
Solutions are being worked on but they probably wont be ready for a while or perfect.
This is exactly one of the major reasons MR doesn't have the same issues. The greater view is the real world, when you move you're actually moving, when items in the world move it works as any other object minus, of course, the fact that you have to train yourself to focus on holographic images.
But with quite a few reviews of Hololens, not a single one spoke of any type of sickness. VR often makes reviewers and gamers sick, myself included, and yes, it mostly happens during high movement content or videos.
Well look at how the genre exploded when WoW was introduced....Alot of us that played MMOs before that thought it was a dumbed down game in many areas yet it exloded bringing in millions of new players to the genre....Even if VR is dumbed down there will be people that like it.
I just got finished watching a go pro video in first person. I did not get sick. my inner ear is fine, I dont think the fact that in VR I can look in all 6 degrees of freedom is the one and only reason why movement in Media and games works fine while the person is not moving but no solution can exist in VR other than full movement.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Arguing that you don't get sick when hundreds of others that have tried the systems and own the systems have mentioned that they have gotten sick doesn't make your point any more valid than it did before.
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
let me ask you think
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
In traditional games AWSD and analog emulate moving, they do not instantly translocate you. They do that for a reason, because Teleportation is an immersion killer, and that's why it's an absolutely terrible choice in a platform that is all about immersion
let me ask it differently then.
why cant some version of WASD which has worked in gaming for 24 or so years not work in VR?
Because of basic biology.
The vestibular system in your inner ear has fluids that tells your brain when you are moving, which direction you are moving and if you are up side down or something.
VR with full movement controls will tell your brain that you are moving forward but your inner ear will tell your brain that you are standing still. This will confuse the brain and cause many people to get sick.
Solutions are being worked on but they probably wont be ready for a while or perfect.
and the same arguement applies to sitting in front of a computer screen using WSAD. its not like your biology is any different sitting in front of a screen and moving while your body doesnt.
example: traditional, your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused' VR: your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused'
so you really havent answered the question in a way that illustrates a difference
I gave you the real answer and it is now up to you to accept it or not.
Your assertion that your vestibular system being confused by a game on a computer monitor is ....laughable.
I have no idea why would argue against something that you dont even know what it is.
People should really stop explaining logic or fact to the shill/fanatic guy about VR. He literally makes threads about VR or responses to them like this:
"A factually inaccurate statement is my opinion. Not up for discussion."
"As far as the forum code of conduct, I would think it's a bit outdated and in need of a refre *CLOSED*"
I don't see VR as a dumbing down of games. If anything it's a shift to more sensory gameplay and away from the numerical/progression gameplay. VR seems to focus more on what you see, hear, and feel(emotions) than how many foos you can click on or how much xp you get for clicking them. That's not necessarily better. It's not necessarily worse. It's just different.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
let me ask you think
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
In traditional games AWSD and analog emulate moving, they do not instantly translocate you. They do that for a reason, because Teleportation is an immersion killer, and that's why it's an absolutely terrible choice in a platform that is all about immersion
let me ask it differently then.
why cant some version of WASD which has worked in gaming for 24 or so years not work in VR?
Because of basic biology.
The vestibular system in your inner ear has fluids that tells your brain when you are moving, which direction you are moving and if you are up side down or something.
VR with full movement controls will tell your brain that you are moving forward but your inner ear will tell your brain that you are standing still. This will confuse the brain and cause many people to get sick.
Solutions are being worked on but they probably wont be ready for a while or perfect.
and the same arguement applies to sitting in front of a computer screen using WSAD. its not like your biology is any different sitting in front of a screen and moving while your body doesnt.
example: traditional, your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused' VR: your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused'
so you really havent answered the question in a way that illustrates a difference
I gave you the real answer and it is now up to you to accept it or not.
Your assertion that your vestibular system being confused by a game on a computer monitor is ....laughable.
I have no idea why would argue against something that you dont even know what it is.
its actually not laughable at all.
more over, what about driving in a car? flying in a plane? riding a rollercoaster. how is that different in this respect? oh my! so the entire reason we have an inner ear problem is ONLY realated to when we are moving and..not in a car....not in a boat...not in a plane...not in a Mech...AND only when we are looking left and right with our head (the main difference between using a monitor and VR).
so yeah, I think its certifiable bullshit. Just like 'its too heavy' and 'there will be a lot of neck injuries' and 'they tried it in 1993 and clearly the technology is the same' and 'the computer requirements are too high but same specs for Quantum Break makes total sense'
yeah it all goes into the same bucket
oh and I should be clear my position is that VR movement doesnt have to be 10000% like real life in order for it to work at all in any way whatsoever. There is compromise here
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
VR needs to work out locomotion before I'd even consider it a threat to typical fare games. The teleportation system lots of games are using now is a crutch and will hurt them in the long run if they don't figure out a much better solution.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
let me ask you think
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
In traditional games AWSD and analog emulate moving, they do not instantly translocate you. They do that for a reason, because Teleportation is an immersion killer, and that's why it's an absolutely terrible choice in a platform that is all about immersion
let me ask it differently then.
why cant some version of WASD which has worked in gaming for 24 or so years not work in VR?
Because of basic biology.
The vestibular system in your inner ear has fluids that tells your brain when you are moving, which direction you are moving and if you are up side down or something.
VR with full movement controls will tell your brain that you are moving forward but your inner ear will tell your brain that you are standing still. This will confuse the brain and cause many people to get sick.
Solutions are being worked on but they probably wont be ready for a while or perfect.
and the same arguement applies to sitting in front of a computer screen using WSAD. its not like your biology is any different sitting in front of a screen and moving while your body doesnt.
example: traditional, your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused' VR: your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused'
so you really havent answered the question in a way that illustrates a difference
I gave you the real answer and it is now up to you to accept it or not.
Your assertion that your vestibular system being confused by a game on a computer monitor is ....laughable.
I have no idea why would argue against something that you dont even know what it is.
its actually not laughable at all.
more over, what about driving in a car? flying in a plane? riding a rollercoaster. how is that different in this respect?
you are physically moving in each and every single one of those.... how can you not understand this?
Comments
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
As someone who does a lot of Sim Racing through games such as iRacing, Dirt and Gran Turismo, one of the most clear cut paths to VR gaming on the PC is through these games. The reason is that all of the peripherals have been in place for decades and work very well. You can buy steering wheels, pedals, shifters and even switch boxes for most games ranging from $50 for a cheap setup to $20,000 for a high end precision setup.
The point, though, is that with sim racing games, the avatar is the car and the body is stationary. The car is controlled through the peripheral's which most racers already have, and only the driver's head needs to turn. So sim racing developers only need to develop for one thing when it comes to sim racing, a players head turning to look out of the cars windows and see their mirrors. They don't need to compensate for body movement or arm placement.
Personally, sim racing is the only reason I would even remotely consider buying into the current generation of VR to experience. I already have a triple monitor setup and trackIR in order to look around and it lets me see things like my wheel, button box and shifters, so even in this case it would have to drop in price by hundreds of dollars before I'd consider swapping my current setup.
Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.
Today's PC's are also not cheap enough where its an easy choice between PC and Console. Another area you are highly uneducated in. You can buy a console and play excellent quality games and many exclusives for $400 and under. Where as a $400 pc would not compare what-so-ever. A $400 pc is also not going to hook up to VR and produce PSVR quality graphics even in your dreams.
BTW, Graphics are already past what you have described in the VR world. Maybe open up google and do another search. Eve Valkyrie is incredible on PC and PSVR. Rigs looks excellent and is fast paced.
Also, you keep bringing up Moore's law. I don't think you follow whats been going on very well. Check the wikipedia under future trends. Maybe educate yourself some instead of your usual half assed google searches.
Frankly dude, you are way behind on everything. You are at a complete loss regarding VR and where the tech already is, and you keep abusing your limited understanding of moore's law.
With that said, I believe it will run along side regular games. It will be a large market, but not the MAIN market. People want to invest more into gaming and now we are getting good reasons too. The fact PSVR sold so damn well so fast shows that. The overwhelmingly positive reviews also reflect that. The fact some games can add somewhat simple patches to enable forms of VR also speaks volumes.
Whats really up for debate, is how well Hololens is going to do.
Moore's Law is dead now what?
Moore's law was never a law, it was an observation made in 1965. First it was doubling every year, then every two years. Now? Things are really slowing down and the expectation that things will just get faster every year is pretty suspect.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601441/moores-law-is-dead-now-what/
VR is what it is today because of the limits of today's hardware. You can't just expect it to get better because of more brute force being available, it is going to be a lot harder than that and a lot more expensive to produce.
I do do think that many sim games are significantly "dumbed down" by *not* supporting VR. For instance, the way elite dangerous integrates with VR is amazing and makes star citizen feel like garbage in comparison
How does locomotion work in traditional gaming and why MUST VR do it differently in order for it to be an improvement on existing experiences?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
?? Teleportation is a crutch? I think mounts are a crutch.
As people said, VR is just the first generation. It will take another generation or two to work out the hardware and other parts. I mean, look how long it took for cell phones to become popular (in 1996 my wife had one of the first Nokia phones and couldn't connect unless the phone was less than a mile from a cell tower) - it took a while there also but it will come.
Since about 1993 I have been playing computer games in which locomotion works and nobody really complains about at an epic level. WSAD has worked out well for me.
VR (just because its VR) doesnt have to make locomotion 100% realistic in order for it to be an improvement on WASD.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Modestly, this is how the game was meant to be played.
"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
Onward actually does movement pretty well, but most VR devs don't take that path
why cant some version of WASD which has worked in gaming for 24 or so years not work in VR?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The vestibular system in your inner ear has fluids that tells your brain when you are moving, which direction you are moving and if you are up side down or something.
VR with full movement controls will tell your brain that you are moving forward but your inner ear will tell your brain that you are standing still. This will confuse the brain and cause many people to get sick.
Solutions are being worked on but they probably wont be ready for a while or perfect.
example: traditional, your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused'
VR: your character is moving forward but your inner ear is 'confused'
so you really havent answered the question in a way that illustrates a difference
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
But with quite a few reviews of Hololens, not a single one spoke of any type of sickness. VR often makes reviewers and gamers sick, myself included, and yes, it mostly happens during high movement content or videos.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Your assertion that your vestibular system being confused by a game on a computer monitor is ....laughable.
I have no idea why would argue against something that you dont even know what it is.
"A factually inaccurate statement is my opinion. Not up for discussion."
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
That's not necessarily better. It's not necessarily worse.
It's just different.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
more over, what about driving in a car? flying in a plane? riding a rollercoaster. how is that different in this respect? oh my! so the entire reason we have an inner ear problem is ONLY realated to when we are moving and..not in a car....not in a boat...not in a plane...not in a Mech...AND only when we are looking left and right with our head (the main difference between using a monitor and VR).
so yeah, I think its certifiable bullshit. Just like 'its too heavy' and 'there will be a lot of neck injuries' and 'they tried it in 1993 and clearly the technology is the same' and 'the computer requirements are too high but same specs for Quantum Break makes total sense'
yeah it all goes into the same bucket
oh and I should be clear my position is that VR movement doesnt have to be 10000% like real life in order for it to work at all in any way whatsoever. There is compromise here
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me