Next Trend in gaming?

245

Comments

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,078
    Loke666 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:

    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    Yes, and I already said that in the post, it was not ready in the 90s and I ain't 100% certain it is ready now either even if it is far better. That is why I think it wont really take off until 5 years from now.

    Please read the entire post before calling me "ignorant".
    anyone who says what you said (and I will quote below) of which its full meaning is very clear has zero standing with me on this subject but my rant is over. please do not pretend to think I do not understand the full meaning of what you said in the quote below

    'VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),.'
    Kyleran

    Do NOT respond to this reply if you think the contents of the reply is unwarranted in this discussion. 

    On replying to the content of this reply you are participating in the discussion of its contents

    Current Ignore List: postlarval, cameltosis, VengeSunsoar

  • blueturtle13blueturtle13 Valve Corporation Member LegendaryPosts: 9,738
    Loke666 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:

    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    Yes, and I already said that in the post, it was not ready in the 90s and I ain't 100% certain it is ready now either even if it is far better. That is why I think it wont really take off until 5 years from now.

    Please read the entire post before calling me "ignorant".
    Most developers agree with you. At the last Virtual Reality Developers Conference 77% said they believe AR/MR will be more popular than VR.  
    KyleranOctagon7711

    거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다












  • Loke666Loke666 KalmarMember EpicPosts: 20,571
    Wizardry said:
    Well there is only one way to that and that is with voxels or similar to voxel ideas.That means blocky type games,similar to Minecraft and to me that is a step backwards,so several negatives to attain one positive.

    I actually posted a video a few months ago on some studio that was attempting to do exactly as you ask .I doubt i could find it again,i might have it saved somewhere idk.
    Here is the problem as that studio clearly laid out it's drawbacks.To create a live active/dynamic world they needed to incorporate tons of cloud servers at very high cost.That was only a demonstration so imagine trying to do it large scale in a mmorpg, it would be extremely costly.

    Knowing what i know about game design,flooding a base would be very bandwidth heavy unless of course going the low end graphics route which i don't approve of.I like to see architecture,not blocks,curves not straight lines.Is it possible to have a truly dynamic world unlike the false advertising of GW2,not yet ,we are still too many years away from that.I figure it will be possible around the year 2025+,so possibly after i have departed.All we have for now is phasing and nodes,that is not even remotely good enough to claim dynamic.

    However yes the idea of dynamic worlds would be amazing,heck i would probably play even a bad game just for the visuals and interaction but sadly i do not see it as being viable in the  near future.
    "Dynamic world" is a buzzword. GW2 is more dynamic then Wow but clearly far from how dynamic a MMO could be. But as you say, it takes a lot of resources so it is something we might see more in singleplayer games.

    You don't need voxels, Dx12 support for instance that it start to snow and everything become white but we are still talking loads of resources for it. In MMOs it is more likely they will cheat, making a MMO with seasons is far less job if you change the seasons during downtime and have 4 different versions of the majority of the zones, that I could see happening already.
    sedatedkarma
  • Loke666Loke666 KalmarMember EpicPosts: 20,571
    thunderC said:
    Live actors as NPC's and Bosses in MMO's should be the next big thing. It probably wont though because the amount of money it would cost to hire live actors/gm's 24 hours a day across a multitude of servers. 
    Far too expensive. A good AI program is likely and will probably happen though.
    blueturtle13
  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,078
    edited July 3
    Loke666 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:

    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    Yes, and I already said that in the post, it was not ready in the 90s and I ain't 100% certain it is ready now either even if it is far better. That is why I think it wont really take off until 5 years from now.

    Please read the entire post before calling me "ignorant".
    Most developers agree with you. At the last Virtual Reality Developers Conference 77% said they believe AR/MR will be more popular than VR.  
    i wonder how much of that prediction is based soly on the success of one game Pokemon Go. There is compelling arguments, AR implies one is physically out in the world however the socialization between both VR and AR are about the same although done differently and VR is not less social then current video games.

    It will be fun to see, there is also the good argument that AR is easier to use and less exhausting more of a snap and go thing.

    My own personal view is that VR is going to be far more successful in narratives then in games so movies, TV etc). AR as a technology however I think still has a ways to go unless we are calling Pokemon Go a true AR technology which I would not
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on

    Do NOT respond to this reply if you think the contents of the reply is unwarranted in this discussion. 

    On replying to the content of this reply you are participating in the discussion of its contents

    Current Ignore List: postlarval, cameltosis, VengeSunsoar

  • postlarvalpostlarval Member EpicPosts: 1,410
    Loke666 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:

    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    Yes, and I already said that in the post, it was not ready in the 90s and I ain't 100% certain it is ready now either even if it is far better. That is why I think it wont really take off until 5 years from now.

    Please read the entire post before calling me "ignorant".
    This is how your conversation is going to end with that one. Get out while you can!


    RidelynnKyleran
     Ever heard of "Software as a Service"? That's what MMOs are. They're games, and they're a service. They have an ongoing cost to maintain, fix, support, develop, etc. I'm always amazed at the sheer entitled mentality of people who seem to feel that somehow developers owe you a game to play for free, or it's a "cash-grab" otherwise. If that attitude isn't the epitome of the entitled, "I deserve it because I want it" generation, I don't know what is.
    Playing: Albion Online
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,544
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    But what does VR really offer that is new and exciting?  Other than neck pain and eye strain, what is going to fun about having a console on your head?   While it might be "cool" and "in" thing to have, I don't see it offering me something exciting. 

    Can you tell me what VR will do for you that current games aren't.  Be specific.  For example, if you just say first person view, we have that.  Why is would be new/different/great is better.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Houston, TXMember EpicPosts: 15,078
    edited July 3
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    But what does VR really offer that is new and exciting?  Other than neck pain and eye strain, what is going to fun about having a console on your head?   While it might be "cool" and "in" thing to have, I don't see it offering me something exciting. 

    Can you tell me what VR will do for you that current games aren't.  Be specific.  For example, if you just say first person view, we have that.  Why is would be new/different/great is better.
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    But what does VR really offer that is new and exciting? ...
    frankly...if you dont know its impossible to explain or for that matter have much of a conversation on the subject. sorry but not me bro

    so no I am not engaging in your other questions which I personally think are just bait but even if they arent it doesnt matter because one who is that much disconnected on this subject can not be reasoned with on this subject
    Post edited by SEANMCAD on
    KyleranRecore

    Do NOT respond to this reply if you think the contents of the reply is unwarranted in this discussion. 

    On replying to the content of this reply you are participating in the discussion of its contents

    Current Ignore List: postlarval, cameltosis, VengeSunsoar

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,544
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    But what does VR really offer that is new and exciting?  Other than neck pain and eye strain, what is going to fun about having a console on your head?   While it might be "cool" and "in" thing to have, I don't see it offering me something exciting. 

    Can you tell me what VR will do for you that current games aren't.  Be specific.  For example, if you just say first person view, we have that.  Why is would be new/different/great is better.
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    But what does VR really offer that is new and exciting? ...
    frankly...if you dont know its impossible to explain or for that matter have much of a conversation on the subject. sorry but not me bro

    so no I am not engaging in your other questions which I personally think are just bait but even if they arent it doesnt matter because one who is that much disconnected on this subject can not be reasoned with on this subject

    Honest question asked and not answered.
    KyleranRecore
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • NycteliosNyctelios Novo Hamburgo - RS - BrazilMember EpicPosts: 2,151
    Crossplay, though. >.>

    " Tawnos's blueprints were critical to the creation of my armor. As he once sealed himself in steel, I sealed myself in a walking crypt. "
    —Urza

    - Steam ID Discord ID: Night # 6102
  • RidelynnRidelynn Fresno, CAMember EpicPosts: 5,970
    Next trend in game play?

    Hmm, I think the current trends are sandbox survival and hub-driven instanced multiplayer (ala Destiny). I think the Minecraft/Voxel Building games are starting to pass out of favor.

    I think story-driven action games are poised to make a comeback. Breath of the Wild has done spectacularly. Titles like Horizon Zero Dawn and Nier Automata have done surprisingly well this year as well. I suppose it really shouldn't be a surprise, as a lot of the titles we are seeing today probably stem from the success of titles like Witcher 3.

    There's been a good deal of talk about eSports, I don't get it, but I suppose it's a been a thing to the Twitch crowd. A lot of games make a lot of hay about been "The Next" eSport title, but seems like the old favorites still tend to reign (LoL, SC, DOTA, etc). I wouldn't necessarily call this the next trend in game play, I think it's very much a current trend that may be poised to grow.

    Personally, I'm so swamped in MMOs right now I can't find enough time to play them all. Morrowwind, Stormblood, SWLegends, and I still haven't done everything I wanted to do in Legion, or even taken the time to try a few newer titles, like BDO. Talk about a resurgence in a genre that people here like to call all but dead.

    Next trend? Not VR, it's still too expensive, too bulky, too tied down, and too likely to follow in the footsteps of the 3D fad (it really isn't any different, sorry).

    If anything, mobile is going to trend even more, seeing as how well the Switch is actually doing (against my expectation, for sure). I wouldn't be surprised to see a rise in devices like PS VIta with Remote Play to a PS Pro, or nVidia Shield, or software solutions like the upcoming Rainway app.
    Kyleran
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Boca Raton, FLMember RarePosts: 2,107
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    But what does VR really offer that is new and exciting?  Other than neck pain and eye strain, what is going to fun about having a console on your head?   While it might be "cool" and "in" thing to have, I don't see it offering me something exciting. 

    Can you tell me what VR will do for you that current games aren't.  Be specific.  For example, if you just say first person view, we have that.  Why is would be new/different/great is better.
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    But what does VR really offer that is new and exciting? ...
    frankly...if you dont know its impossible to explain or for that matter have much of a conversation on the subject. sorry but not me bro

    so no I am not engaging in your other questions which I personally think are just bait but even if they arent it doesnt matter because one who is that much disconnected on this subject can not be reasoned with on this subject

    Honest question asked and not answered.
    I don't know if your honest question was directed specifically @SEANMCAD or not, but I'll have a go:

    It's a combination of head tracking, stereoscopy (depth perception), 3D audio, and that nearly everything else in the natural-physical world is blotted out from your sensory intake (even if this last effect is predominantly subconscious I've come to realize it's an important one).  The whole effect is greater than the sum of its parts.

    It's a question worth asking, though; I've been lost in plenty of games before, whether it's in a first-person shooter or a 4X game like Civ.  VR makes getting there that much easier.

    This dated article from Ars Techinca says "wearing a Rift feels like being surrounded by the biggest monitor you’ve ever used. By tracking your head’s position and angle and changing the image to reflect your new view 90 times per second, the Rift simulates an edge-free, spherical screen that surrounds you in 360 degrees up and down and side to side."  I think they are being purposefully modest here: from my experience in Gear VR it's better than that.  The stereoscopic effect cannot be understated.  You remember Magic Eye, don't you?  Well, it's that, everywhere, without any weird wall-eye trick.



    This all leads to something Oculus has called "Presence", which is kind of a catch-phrase, umbrella term trending toward 'anything we think is cool that has to do with VR', but it actually has a specific meaning and it's real.  John Carmack has a few things to say about the subject.

    I don't think eye-strain is a big concern.  Since there is more than one focal length being applied to one's ocular muscles within each experience (thanks again to stereoscopy) it's less eye straining than looking at a flat monitor at a single distance of 3' for long periods.  What I have noticed, and maybe this has something to do with VR (I've had my rig since last August, almost a year) or maybe it's simply because I'm getting older, but I've noticed my fine motor control seems to occasionally slip; I'll drop something or miss what I was going for in real life.  Correlation does not equal causation, but it's worth mentioning.
    Kyleran

    "To be what you are not, experience what you are not." -Saint John of the Cross
    Authored 131 missions in Vendetta Online
    Check it out on Steam

  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Boca Raton, FLMember RarePosts: 2,107
    edited July 3
    <doppelposten>
    Post edited by Phaserlight on

    "To be what you are not, experience what you are not." -Saint John of the Cross
    Authored 131 missions in Vendetta Online
    Check it out on Steam

  • Loke666Loke666 KalmarMember EpicPosts: 20,571
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Yes, and I already said that in the post, it was not ready in the 90s and I ain't 100% certain it is ready now either even if it is far better. That is why I think it wont really take off until 5 years from now.

    Please read the entire post before calling me "ignorant".
    anyone who says what you said (and I will quote below) of which its full meaning is very clear has zero standing with me on this subject but my rant is over. please do not pretend to think I do not understand the full meaning of what you said in the quote below

    'VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),.'
     At least use the full sentence when you quote which was "VR already failed once (ask Nintendo), the gear is better now but the question is if it is good enough and if enough good games release to get people to get it."
    And yes, I stand by that but if you just read part of a sentence and rant about it you can make anyone sound insane.

    I do believe we will see VR among mainstream gamers and that we are close but still a generation away. Vive is almost good enough but a bit too uncomfortable and pricey. Cut the size and price in half and we are ready. Also, the controlers could need some improvements.

    AR is another matter, it also have great potential but I don't think we are just a generation away there.  It will be used in a different type of games though, perfect for strategy games for instance while VR works better for FPS games.  
    Hrimnir
  • HrimnirHrimnir Member RarePosts: 2,376

    If VR was going to be the next big thing then sales would already be through the roof. The new hardware is pretty damn good, visual fidelity is high, etc.


    Developers aren't embracing it and making a lot of games for it because the market hasn't embraced, people really aren't buying into VR.  We can speculate about the reasons for that, but it's just the reality of the situation.


    Personally I think it's gimmicky.  It certainly lends itself well to certain types of games and experiences, but it's absolutely horrific for other games. Could you imagine trying to play LoL or Dota 2 in VR? Civilization 5? Etc?

    FPS? Sure, be awesome. Horror games? Absolutely, awesome.

    RTS? Nope, Traditional RPG? Nope. ARPG (Diablo 3, etc)? Nope.  Any kind of city builder? Nope.

    The list goes on.

    Could it change? Yes.  My instinct is that VR will never really get out of being a niche market.

    waynejr2

    "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

    - Friedrich Nietzsche

  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Member RarePosts: 4,245
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology

    @SEANMCAD is correct in that the overall experience has improved over time and will continue to improve. 

    In many ways though this generation of VR currently looks no different to the dozen plus efforts at VR going back to 1955. 

    Multiple big companies (Sony, Atari, Phillips and others) making huge investments - check.

    Hardware to expensive; no compelling games; too few buyers; developers reluctant; so stores lose interest; so no volume production so hardware stays expensive - check.

    Commercially todays VR looks LITTLE different to previous VR attempts.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Member RarePosts: 4,245
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.
    3D TVs problem really is that it has too little effect so it isn't worth wearing the silly glasses.
    <snip>

    The last two major TV manufacturers - Sony and LG - announced in January that production would cease in 2017. Which makes the discussion moot. A commercial failure for now at least.

  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Boca Raton, FLMember RarePosts: 2,107
    edited July 4
    Hrimnir said:

    If VR was going to be the next big thing then sales would already be through the roof. The new hardware is pretty damn good, visual fidelity is high, etc.


    Developers aren't embracing it and making a lot of games for it because the market hasn't embraced, people really aren't buying into VR.  We can speculate about the reasons for that, but it's just the reality of the situation.


    Personally I think it's gimmicky.  It certainly lends itself well to certain types of games and experiences, but it's absolutely horrific for other games. Could you imagine trying to play LoL or Dota 2 in VR? Civilization 5? Etc?

    FPS? Sure, be awesome. Horror games? Absolutely, awesome.

    RTS? Nope, Traditional RPG? Nope. ARPG (Diablo 3, etc)? Nope.  Any kind of city builder? Nope.

    The list goes on.

    Could it change? Yes.  My instinct is that VR will never really get out of being a niche market.

    Actually, all of the genres you name could work and would benefit from VR.  Before actually owning a VR rig and using it regularly I would have agreed with you.

    gervaise1 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology

    @SEANMCAD is correct in that the overall experience has improved over time and will continue to improve. 

    In many ways though this generation of VR currently looks no different to the dozen plus efforts at VR going back to 1955. 

    Multiple big companies (Sony, Atari, Phillips and others) making huge investments - check.

    Hardware to expensive; no compelling games; too few buyers; developers reluctant; so stores lose interest; so no volume production so hardware stays expensive - check.

    Commercially todays VR looks LITTLE different to previous VR attempts.
    "Commercially" is a hard thing to quantify.  I'd agree that it hasn't really taken off yet, but the world of business is so different today than in 1955.  I like to think of it as a seed, germinating.  The current generation owes more to military simulators than it does to 1950's VR tech like Sensorama or even Nintendo's embarrassing 1995 Virtual Boy.  Moore's law has also had a say since 1955.

    Oculus has a nice goalpost of "a billion people in virtual reality"; there are multiple ways to take that but from the article it looks like Iribe means a billion people interacting in VR, which would mean near universal adoption like cell phones.  Clearly, there's a ways to go.  I kind of read this as SpaceX's mission to "enable a self sustaining human civilization on Mars", which oddly enough would likely benefit from elaborate and immersive VR.
    Post edited by Phaserlight on

    "To be what you are not, experience what you are not." -Saint John of the Cross
    Authored 131 missions in Vendetta Online
    Check it out on Steam

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,544
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    But what does VR really offer that is new and exciting?  Other than neck pain and eye strain, what is going to fun about having a console on your head?   While it might be "cool" and "in" thing to have, I don't see it offering me something exciting. 

    Can you tell me what VR will do for you that current games aren't.  Be specific.  For example, if you just say first person view, we have that.  Why is would be new/different/great is better.
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    But what does VR really offer that is new and exciting? ...
    frankly...if you dont know its impossible to explain or for that matter have much of a conversation on the subject. sorry but not me bro

    so no I am not engaging in your other questions which I personally think are just bait but even if they arent it doesnt matter because one who is that much disconnected on this subject can not be reasoned with on this subject

    Honest question asked and not answered.
    I don't know if your honest question was directed specifically @SEANMCAD or not, but I'll have a go:

    It's a combination of head tracking, stereoscopy (depth perception), 3D audio, and that nearly everything else in the natural-physical world is blotted out from your sensory intake (even if this last effect is predominantly subconscious I've come to realize it's an important one).  The whole effect is greater than the sum of its parts.

    It's a question worth asking, though; I've been lost in plenty of games before, whether it's in a first-person shooter or a 4X game like Civ.  VR makes getting there that much easier.

    This dated article from Ars Techinca says "wearing a Rift feels like being surrounded by the biggest monitor you’ve ever used. By tracking your head’s position and angle and changing the image to reflect your new view 90 times per second, the Rift simulates an edge-free, spherical screen that surrounds you in 360 degrees up and down and side to side."  I think they are being purposefully modest here: from my experience in Gear VR it's better than that.  The stereoscopic effect cannot be understated.  You remember Magic Eye, don't you?  Well, it's that, everywhere, without any weird wall-eye trick.



    This all leads to something Oculus has called "Presence", which is kind of a catch-phrase, umbrella term trending toward 'anything we think is cool that has to do with VR', but it actually has a specific meaning and it's real.  John Carmack has a few things to say about the subject.

    I don't think eye-strain is a big concern.  Since there is more than one focal length being applied to one's ocular muscles within each experience (thanks again to stereoscopy) it's less eye straining than looking at a flat monitor at a single distance of 3' for long periods.  What I have noticed, and maybe this has something to do with VR (I've had my rig since last August, almost a year) or maybe it's simply because I'm getting older, but I've noticed my fine motor control seems to occasionally slip; I'll drop something or miss what I was going for in real life.  Correlation does not equal causation, but it's worth mentioning.

    It has been my bit with VR that it isn't much more than console on your face with perhaps audio.  To me is it missing all the other stuff you listed.  I have said so on this site in the past.  However, I don't think players will be using this in the next five years as I don't believe it will be adopted by the marketplace by then.  Plus games would need to be built to make great use  of it.

    That still doesn't make it interesting game play.  Suppose you are living out your 3d dnd adventure with body motion capture, how quickly will gamers get physically tired swinging their weapons?  How many of them can run a mile?   We shall see...
    Phaserlight
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,544
    gervaise1 said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.
    3D TVs problem really is that it has too little effect so it isn't worth wearing the silly glasses.
    <snip>

    The last two major TV manufacturers - Sony and LG - announced in January that production would cease in 2017. Which makes the discussion moot. A commercial failure for now at least.


    How about those curved tv sets?  Are those selling well? 
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Member RarePosts: 4,245
    As far as the original question.

    I don't see any current major trend in the near future. Developers want a profit so are either looking for inexpensive or something with global appeal.

    AR could - eventually - make a difference. I think it will need the support of business and industry though first. Volume production that comes with head up displays for cars say; travel companies; realtors/ estate agents / property agents; designers. 

    I think it will need "passive VR" however. Can mobile phones deliver though? (Ironically LG's 4K OLED did!)  Or will we have to wait for Avatar 4 in 2024 if - if - James Cameron is able to deliver a glasses free 3D experience?


  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Boca Raton, FLMember RarePosts: 2,107
    waynejr2 said:
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:

    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    Loke666 said:
    Elidien said:
    I think it will be "how does VR do?". Right now, VR gaming reminds me of the discussion around 3D tv. 3D tv while interesting and kinda cool in some ways, never "tipped" and went big.

    I am curious what will happen with the technology behind VR. Will it be big and therefore appeal to the consumer? If so, how will the price change?

    I think a lot of the market is waiting to see if VR will "trend" or not.


    VR already failed once (ask Nintendo),...
    everytime I read something like that I want to scream and for me it makes pretty much every single thing they say after null and  void.

    There is a HUGE difference between VR of 1993 and today and not knowing that makes one woefully ignorant on this subject

    its like comparing communicating between two cans and a string and that of cell phone technology
    But what does VR really offer that is new and exciting? ...
    frankly...if you dont know its impossible to explain or for that matter have much of a conversation on the subject. sorry but not me bro

    so no I am not engaging in your other questions which I personally think are just bait but even if they arent it doesnt matter because one who is that much disconnected on this subject can not be reasoned with on this subject

    Honest question asked and not answered.
    I don't know if your honest question was directed specifically @SEANMCAD or not, but I'll have a go:

    It's a combination of head tracking, stereoscopy (depth perception), 3D audio, and that nearly everything else in the natural-physical world is blotted out from your sensory intake (even if this last effect is predominantly subconscious I've come to realize it's an important one).  The whole effect is greater than the sum of its parts.

    It's a question worth asking, though; I've been lost in plenty of games before, whether it's in a first-person shooter or a 4X game like Civ.  VR makes getting there that much easier.

    This dated article from Ars Techinca says "wearing a Rift feels like being surrounded by the biggest monitor you’ve ever used. By tracking your head’s position and angle and changing the image to reflect your new view 90 times per second, the Rift simulates an edge-free, spherical screen that surrounds you in 360 degrees up and down and side to side."  I think they are being purposefully modest here: from my experience in Gear VR it's better than that.  The stereoscopic effect cannot be understated.  You remember Magic Eye, don't you?  Well, it's that, everywhere, without any weird wall-eye trick.



    This all leads to something Oculus has called "Presence", which is kind of a catch-phrase, umbrella term trending toward 'anything we think is cool that has to do with VR', but it actually has a specific meaning and it's real.  John Carmack has a few things to say about the subject.

    I don't think eye-strain is a big concern.  Since there is more than one focal length being applied to one's ocular muscles within each experience (thanks again to stereoscopy) it's less eye straining than looking at a flat monitor at a single distance of 3' for long periods.  What I have noticed, and maybe this has something to do with VR (I've had my rig since last August, almost a year) or maybe it's simply because I'm getting older, but I've noticed my fine motor control seems to occasionally slip; I'll drop something or miss what I was going for in real life.  Correlation does not equal causation, but it's worth mentioning.

    It has been my bit with VR that it isn't much more than console on your face with perhaps audio.  To me is it missing all the other stuff you listed.  I have said so on this site in the past.  However, I don't think players will be using this in the next five years as I don't believe it will be adopted by the marketplace by then.  Plus games would need to be built to make great use  of it.

    That still doesn't make it interesting game play.  Suppose you are living out your 3d dnd adventure with body motion capture, how quickly will gamers get physically tired swinging their weapons?  How many of them can run a mile?   We shall see...
    I respect your opinion, and I agree that I can't see motion-controls really working greatly in VR's favor (although I have yet to use them).  Pressing a button is much easier than miming out swinging a battle axe, and takes less space.  I could actually see motion controls coming into play to great effect in a RTS game such as Warcraft, where one has a godlike perspective over the map and can reach down to direct or interact.  However, the proverbial jury is still out on motion controls from my perspective.

    When you say "it is missing all the other stuff you listed" could you be more specific?  Other than "Presence", which may be somewhat subjective, everything I listed was physiological?  I mean, the rig I use literally has stereoscopy, directional head tracking, 3D audio, and it blots out nearly all sensory input from the real world (other than the feeling of being seated in a swivel chair, obviously).  Does your VR machine not have or do those things?

    "To be what you are not, experience what you are not." -Saint John of the Cross
    Authored 131 missions in Vendetta Online
    Check it out on Steam

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,544
    Phaserlight said:I respect your opinion, and I agree that I can't see motion-controls really working greatly in VR's favor (although I have yet to use them).  Pressing a button is much easier than miming out swinging a battle axe, and takes less space.  I could actually see motion controls coming into play to great effect in a RTS game such as Warcraft, where one has a godlike perspective over the map and can reach down to direct or interact.  However, the proverbial jury is still out on motion controls from my perspective.

    When you say "it is missing all the other stuff you listed" could you be more specific?  Other than "Presence", which may be somewhat subjective, everything I listed was physiological?  I mean, the rig I use literally has stereoscopy, directional head tracking, 3D audio, and it blots out nearly all sensory input from the real world (other than the feeling of being seated in a swivel chair, obviously).  Does your VR machine not have or do those things?

    Motion capture is the number one.  Audio second (mind you I said this in the past so if they do that now that is ok). Those plus vision are the minimum for me to consider it VR.  Outside of labs and perhaps some developers, where is it as far as being in the gaming masses hands?

    Basically, VR with just a screen is a console on your head.  Might as well be snake oil because that certainly isn't VR.

    I don't see the masses picking this up and using it like they do current video games.  Part of it would require better physical conditioning and perhaps it it isn't ergonomic enough to prevent injuries.

    But there is the practical matter.  What games will be served better by this?  Superman flying around might be interesting.  Exploring the ocean but that might be considered educational rather than a game.  Lots of opportunity for porn but that would require more "hardware" :wink::

    So what is the compelling video game experience.  If it is anything like what we are currently playing it has to be a whole lot better than just being different.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • TrionicusTrionicus Palm Beach, FLMember UncommonPosts: 496
    edited July 4
    I feel like the next major trend in gaming will be A.I. deployment. AR/VR are still extremely important to the future of gaming but A.I. is ready for primetime NPC integration (it's not like anyone can get hurt as a consequence of malfunction). Things like smart in-game assistants, more autonomous control of your own character, speech recognition.

    NPC's having their voices synthesized instead of using voice actors. More content may be procedurally generated using integrated A.I. Could all be very interesting. I can easily see people playing with NPC's and having NO CLUE if there is a human behind the avatar. Think about mass effect squadmate chatter if they reacted to what you were saying.

    Personally, I'm ready for maximum novelty. But full VR immersion with sensory stimulus (Sword Art Online I'm lookin' at you) isn't around the cornoer. I might be in my late 80's before that's realized, if ever.

    I can appreciate VR goggles and the like, so far I haven't felt compelled by any titles. I suspect we will see more VR in movies and TV before it becomes the dominant gaming peripheral.

    But I definitely see a trend in implementing more kinds of human input (speech, vision, gesture control etc...). A lot of games have started some form of integrated voice chat, the next logical level is that you will be able to interact in the game world with your voice (giving NPC's voice commands). Head and eye tracking could be huge as well, smaller and better cameras are everywhere and, deep learning with visuals are coming along well I'd say. Touch screens are bridging a gap right now but typing and mouse clicking is an awfully slow version of human input, we're due for an upgrade.


    Post edited by Trionicus on
    Phaserlight
  • HatefullHatefull Member RarePosts: 1,426
    waynejr2 said:
    SEANMCAD said:
    waynejr2 said:
    You need multiple data points to get a trend...
    very insightful thanks for your input.

    what do you think those will be in the near future?

    As a long time developer, I don't think I am going to come up with the right answer.  If you had asked me where mmoRPGs were heading back in the early days of EQ1, I would have talked in terms of massive virtual worlds with expanding game play features.  Obviously it didn't go that way and really went down the bean counter route.

    So I could "predict" something and it would likely be wrong.

    Prediction:  Games will continue to cater to the masses with dumbing down (as I see it).  Also, new technologies will be leveraged for sales but not really offer great new gameplay.  Some players will deny this saying it is amazing new and unlike anything before.   Finally, my 2018 prediction for what music will be popular is  "top  40 music".
    Are you seriously a developer? A game developer? Like no BS for real?

    That is mind blowing to me. 
    Gdemami

    If you want a new idea, go read an old book.

Sign In or Register to comment.