Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

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

The world is about to change

124»

Comments

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by Bloodaxes

    All I'm saying is, how is it any different from watching it on an ordinary screen if it's in 3rd person? 

     

    It would be very different, even in third person.  There is a fundamental difference to your brain when it received simulated three dimensional information and when it receives real three dimensional information.  For one thing your mind is going to perceive the size of things properly.  It isn't doing that right now looking at a flat screen.

     

    However, in Third Person view where the camera whips around based on the movement of your mouse and not the movement of your head, it's going to be weird.  That's one of those cases where it seems like nausea would set in as your eyes were seeing things that your head was in no way experiencing.  Maybe if the camera panning was dependent upon the movement of the head gear instead of the mouse it might work OK.  Our brains are pretty adaptable and if we give them an "out", they'll take the path of least resistance and vomit inducing nausea is not that path.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775

    by the way...some suggest that the Oculus is bad for vision. They base this on....well...no evidence.

    Check out this article.

     

    http://www.theverge.com/2014/8/25/6065669/oculus-rift-helps-man-with-2d-vision-see-3d

     

    intrestingly for me I have this exact eye issue. Although my lazy eye was corrected however I still see most of my content from one eye still today

     

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,299
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by laserit
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by laserit
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by lugal

    It will launch to thunderous silence. Only those who feel the need to have every peice of latest tech will jump on it. Game support will be low at first. Then some other company, like Sony, will release a version later that will be better supported by game makers.

    sony might but, sony has a problem.

    The dev kit 2 is already 1080p. There are predictions that consumer edition might be 4k.

     

    try running that on a playstation.

     

    I really hope the consumer edition is 4k because as much as I love how great the occulus works. The resolutions are much much to be desired.

     

    I also can see that what it can do for television and movies is as much revolutionary as what in can do for games.

    I assume you have tried it then.

    My 1080p Dev kit 2 will be hitting my door very soon and I jazzed about it. I have the Dev 1 and I would agree the resolution needs to be better however from what I have read 1080p is the sweet spot.

    The 1080p is a very big improvement, but I think it won't live up to your expectations. It is still too low a resolution for something that is that close to your eyes.

     

    For any kind of sim where the controls are pretty simplistic ie racing or fighter planes, the immersion is f...ing awesome. Shooters are pretty cool but most other genre's are meh.

     

     

    so clearly I have to ask. Have you tried Dev  Kit 1 and have you tried Dev Kit 2 and have you read articles that state 1080p is the 'entry point' of VR that makes it totally worth it.

     

    I own a Dev kit 1 and I have had the pleasure of seeing the new version.  "entry point" is a statement that I would be in total agreement with.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Member CommonPosts: 10,910
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by lizardbones
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by lugal

    It will launch to thunderous silence. Only those who feel the need to have every peice of latest tech will jump on it. Game support will be low at first. Then some other company, like Sony, will release a version later that will be better supported by game makers.

    sony might but, sony has a problem.

    The dev kit 2 is already 1080p. There are predictions that consumer edition might be 4k.

     

    try running that on a playstation.

     

     

    Try running that on most PCs that are currently in the market, running the current crop of video games.

     

    exactly...

    which is why its time to upgrade if you want to play VR.

    Otherwise just stay in the 8 bit world :) (hidden meaning in that last comment)

     

    There is a fairly big difference in pushing the common "top end" and pushing the top end of what currently exists.  A 4K monitor costs something like $450 or more.  A 4K monitor that fits in the Oculus Rift is going to be very expensive.  Even for a single 4K display, two GTX 780's are the entry point just to play games. Dual GTX 780's will get you to 30FPS. 

     

    They would not sell many 4K units, so they would have to charge a lot more than they are planning on charging for them.  Seems very unlikely that 4K is going to be the standard.  There might be a 4K special edition, but the standard unit is not going to be a 4K unit, and the standard resolution is not going to be 4K.

     

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by laserit

     

     

    so clearly I have to ask. Have you tried Dev  Kit 1 and have you tried Dev Kit 2 and have you read articles that state 1080p is the 'entry point' of VR that makes it totally worth it.

     

    I own a Dev kit 1 and I have had the pleasure of seeing the new version.  "entry point" is a statement that I would be in total agreement with.

    interesting because I played some demos on dev kit 1 that I could totally work as a game as it was..full stop.

    well I am looking forward to getting my dev kit 2

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • UhwopUhwop Member UncommonPosts: 1,791
    Originally posted by Havekk
    I wouldn't be as excited as I am if some big players hadn't been impressed. When Carmack jumped on board and Zuckerburg bought it, I started paying a lot more attention. I've watched this thing go from a dude in his garage to what it is now and I can't help but be excited to see this hit the market. 

    Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.  Oculus had hardware, zenimax didn't, and carmack didn't seem so keen on working for someone else. 

    Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.  Contrary to Sean's inferring that zuckerberg must know something we don't, after trying sonys, he didn't buy oculus because it was "better".  Oculus was looking for a buyer and Sony wasn't.  

    Zuckerberg has a vision for Facebook and buying oculus is cheaper than developing a vr set himself.  His vision has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with a more immersive Facebook environment.  

     

    Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3, and will end up with just as many PS4's in homes over the coming year.  The GPU on your PC is still needed to drive the rendering on the oculus, and the higher they set the native resolution the fewer people that will be able to use the oculus for games, and the fewer games that will get developed for it.  

    But then Sean made the comment that PC games have outsold console games for the past few years.  

  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 6,299
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by laserit

     

     

    so clearly I have to ask. Have you tried Dev  Kit 1 and have you tried Dev Kit 2 and have you read articles that state 1080p is the 'entry point' of VR that makes it totally worth it.

     

    I own a Dev kit 1 and I have had the pleasure of seeing the new version.  "entry point" is a statement that I would be in total agreement with.

    interesting because I played some demos on dev kit 1 that I could totally work as a game as it was..full stop.

    well I am looking forward to getting my dev kit 2

    I remember moving up from VGA to SVGA and thinking how it was the greatest, now I look back and wonder how I did it.  Take a 1080p TV and stretch it so its like a 200" screen and that is what you picture will be like. 6" away from your face the 720p version looks like a million bucks, put it on and  the picture is just like that old SVGA. Now maybe its my age, but about 10 minutes looking at that resolution so close to my face is about all I can deal with.

    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by Havekk
    I wouldn't be as excited as I am if some big players hadn't been impressed. When Carmack jumped on board and Zuckerburg bought it, I started paying a lot more attention. I've watched this thing go from a dude in his garage to what it is now and I can't help but be excited to see this hit the market. 

    Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.  Oculus had hardware, zenimax didn't, and carmack didn't seem so keen on working for someone else. 

    Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.  Contrary to Sean's inferring that zuckerberg must know something we don't, after trying sonys, he didn't buy oculus because it was "better".  Oculus was looking for a buyer and Sony wasn't.  

    Zuckerberg has a vision for Facebook and buying oculus is cheaper than developing a vr set himself.  His vision has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with a more immersive Facebook environment.  

     

    Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3, and will end up with just as many PS4's in homes over the coming year.  The GPU on your PC is still needed to drive the rendering on the oculus, and the higher they set the native resolution the fewer people that will be able to use the oculus for games, and the fewer games that will get developed for it.  

    But then Sean made the comment that PC games have outsold console games for the past few years.  

    1. Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.

    not completely true. Zenimax put all VR projects to the dead letter office and as I understand it Carmack tried to get them to work more on the projects but they didnt want to have anything to do with it.

    2. Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.

    That is complete speculation based on zero evidence and in fact is the exact opposite of what Facebook said. I dont mind people suggesting what they think but stating it as fact like you have seems odd

    3. Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3

    What you fail to understand despite it being fairly common knowedge for those that follow this technology is that 720p doesnt work that well in VR. It does work for very specific games but one has to be careful with the colors choosen etc. The universal agreement in the VR community is that 1080p is the ENTRY POINT for VR. Prefer higher. Now despite sonys investments its against the law of physics for the consoles to push beyond 1080p

    4. PC games are not outselling consoles?

    yes they are

    http://www.siliconrepublic.com/digital-life/item/36658-pc-games-are-now-outselling

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • UhwopUhwop Member UncommonPosts: 1,791
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by Havekk
    I wouldn't be as excited as I am if some big players hadn't been impressed. When Carmack jumped on board and Zuckerburg bought it, I started paying a lot more attention. I've watched this thing go from a dude in his garage to what it is now and I can't help but be excited to see this hit the market. 

    Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.  Oculus had hardware, zenimax didn't, and carmack didn't seem so keen on working for someone else. 

    Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.  Contrary to Sean's inferring that zuckerberg must know something we don't, after trying sonys, he didn't buy oculus because it was "better".  Oculus was looking for a buyer and Sony wasn't.  

    Zuckerberg has a vision for Facebook and buying oculus is cheaper than developing a vr set himself.  His vision has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with a more immersive Facebook environment.  

     

    Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3, and will end up with just as many PS4's in homes over the coming year.  The GPU on your PC is still needed to drive the rendering on the oculus, and the higher they set the native resolution the fewer people that will be able to use the oculus for games, and the fewer games that will get developed for it.  

    But then Sean made the comment that PC games have outsold console games for the past few years.  

    1. Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.

    not completely true. Zenimax put all VR projects to the dead letter office and as I understand it Carmack tried to get them to work more on the projects but they didnt want to have anything to do with it.

    2. Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.

    That is complete speculation based on zero evidence and in fact is the exact opposite of what Facebook said. I dont mind people suggesting what they think but stating it as fact like you have seems odd

    3. Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3

    What you fail to understand despite it being fairly common knowedge for those that follow this technology is that 720p doesnt work that well in VR. It does work for very specific games but one has to be careful with the colors choosen etc. The universal agreement in the VR community is that 1080p is the ENTRY POINT for VR. Prefer higher. Now despite sonys investments its against the law of physics for the consoles to push beyond 1080p

    This is what I mean.  

    All of this shit is documented and Sean simply refuses the reality that the rest of us lives in.  

    Zuckerberg made it very clear after buying oculus that he did so because he envisions Facebook moving into virtual environment.  Sean however is hyped about gaming so it obviously has to do with gaming, and never mind what the man with the money has said.  

    Sean doesn't like console gaming, so obviously the rift will do better than a set made for a console that will end up in near 100m homes, and even though PC gaming is the SMALLEST market in gaming.  This is the same guy that stated in another thread that PC games have outsold console games the past few years.  

     

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by Havekk
    I wouldn't be as excited as I am if some big players hadn't been impressed. When Carmack jumped on board and Zuckerburg bought it, I started paying a lot more attention. I've watched this thing go from a dude in his garage to what it is now and I can't help but be excited to see this hit the market. 

    Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.  Oculus had hardware, zenimax didn't, and carmack didn't seem so keen on working for someone else. 

    Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.  Contrary to Sean's inferring that zuckerberg must know something we don't, after trying sonys, he didn't buy oculus because it was "better".  Oculus was looking for a buyer and Sony wasn't.  

    Zuckerberg has a vision for Facebook and buying oculus is cheaper than developing a vr set himself.  His vision has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with a more immersive Facebook environment.  

     

    Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3, and will end up with just as many PS4's in homes over the coming year.  The GPU on your PC is still needed to drive the rendering on the oculus, and the higher they set the native resolution the fewer people that will be able to use the oculus for games, and the fewer games that will get developed for it.  

    But then Sean made the comment that PC games have outsold console games for the past few years.  

    1. Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.

    not completely true. Zenimax put all VR projects to the dead letter office and as I understand it Carmack tried to get them to work more on the projects but they didnt want to have anything to do with it.

    2. Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.

    That is complete speculation based on zero evidence and in fact is the exact opposite of what Facebook said. I dont mind people suggesting what they think but stating it as fact like you have seems odd

    3. Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3

    What you fail to understand despite it being fairly common knowedge for those that follow this technology is that 720p doesnt work that well in VR. It does work for very specific games but one has to be careful with the colors choosen etc. The universal agreement in the VR community is that 1080p is the ENTRY POINT for VR. Prefer higher. Now despite sonys investments its against the law of physics for the consoles to push beyond 1080p

    This is what I mean.  

    All of this shit is documented and Sean simply refuses the reality that the rest of us lives in.  

    Zuckerberg made it very clear after buying oculus that he did so because he envisions Facebook moving into virtual environment.  Sean however is hyped about gaming so it obviously has to do with gaming, and never mind what the man with the money has said.  

    Sean doesn't like console gaming, so obviously the rift will do better than a set made for a console that will end up in near 100m homes, and even though PC gaming is the SMALLEST market in gaming.  This is the same guy that stated in another thread that PC games have outsold console games the past few years.  

     

    links please.

    last I heard Zuckerberg said he plans to have a hands off policy with Oculus. Where are you getting you information or are you just making it up.

     

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • UhwopUhwop Member UncommonPosts: 1,791
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by Havekk
    I wouldn't be as excited as I am if some big players hadn't been impressed. When Carmack jumped on board and Zuckerburg bought it, I started paying a lot more attention. I've watched this thing go from a dude in his garage to what it is now and I can't help but be excited to see this hit the market. 

    Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.  Oculus had hardware, zenimax didn't, and carmack didn't seem so keen on working for someone else. 

    Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.  Contrary to Sean's inferring that zuckerberg must know something we don't, after trying sonys, he didn't buy oculus because it was "better".  Oculus was looking for a buyer and Sony wasn't.  

    Zuckerberg has a vision for Facebook and buying oculus is cheaper than developing a vr set himself.  His vision has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with a more immersive Facebook environment.  

     

    Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3, and will end up with just as many PS4's in homes over the coming year.  The GPU on your PC is still needed to drive the rendering on the oculus, and the higher they set the native resolution the fewer people that will be able to use the oculus for games, and the fewer games that will get developed for it.  

    But then Sean made the comment that PC games have outsold console games for the past few years.  

    1. Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.

    not completely true. Zenimax put all VR projects to the dead letter office and as I understand it Carmack tried to get them to work more on the projects but they didnt want to have anything to do with it.

    2. Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.

    That is complete speculation based on zero evidence and in fact is the exact opposite of what Facebook said. I dont mind people suggesting what they think but stating it as fact like you have seems odd

    3. Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3

    What you fail to understand despite it being fairly common knowedge for those that follow this technology is that 720p doesnt work that well in VR. It does work for very specific games but one has to be careful with the colors choosen etc. The universal agreement in the VR community is that 1080p is the ENTRY POINT for VR. Prefer higher. Now despite sonys investments its against the law of physics for the consoles to push beyond 1080p

    This is what I mean.  

    All of this shit is documented and Sean simply refuses the reality that the rest of us lives in.  

    Zuckerberg made it very clear after buying oculus that he did so because he envisions Facebook moving into virtual environment.  Sean however is hyped about gaming so it obviously has to do with gaming, and never mind what the man with the money has said.  

    Sean doesn't like console gaming, so obviously the rift will do better than a set made for a console that will end up in near 100m homes, and even though PC gaming is the SMALLEST market in gaming.  This is the same guy that stated in another thread that PC games have outsold console games the past few years.  

     

    links please.

    last I heard Zuckerberg said he plans to have a hands off policy with Oculus. Where are you getting you information or are you just making it up.

     

    https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

     

    Immersive gaming will be the first, and Oculus already has big plans here that won't be changing and we hope to accelerate. The Rift is highly anticipated by the gaming community, and there's a lot of interest from developers in building for this platform. We're going to focus on helping Oculus build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games. Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this.

    But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home.

    This is really a new communication platform. By feeling truly present, you can share unbounded spaces and experiences with the people in your life. Imagine sharing not just moments with your friends online, but entire experiences and adventures.

    These are just some of the potential uses. By working with developers and partners across the industry, together we can build many more. One day, we believe this kind of immersive, augmented reality will become a part of daily life for billions of people.

     

    They didn't buy it "for gaming", they did it for the future.  Zuckerburg is all about Facebook, and everything he's been buying up is all about the future of Facebook.  From messaging apps to frigging drone and low orbit satellite manufacturers.  It's all about Facebook.   

    Let me guess, Sean doesn't use or like Facebook? 

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by Havekk
    I wouldn't be as excited as I am if some big players hadn't been impressed. When Carmack jumped on board and Zuckerburg bought it, I started paying a lot more attention. I've watched this thing go from a dude in his garage to what it is now and I can't help but be excited to see this hit the market. 

    Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.  Oculus had hardware, zenimax didn't, and carmack didn't seem so keen on working for someone else. 

    Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.  Contrary to Sean's inferring that zuckerberg must know something we don't, after trying sonys, he didn't buy oculus because it was "better".  Oculus was looking for a buyer and Sony wasn't.  

    Zuckerberg has a vision for Facebook and buying oculus is cheaper than developing a vr set himself.  His vision has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with a more immersive Facebook environment.  

     

    Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3, and will end up with just as many PS4's in homes over the coming year.  The GPU on your PC is still needed to drive the rendering on the oculus, and the higher they set the native resolution the fewer people that will be able to use the oculus for games, and the fewer games that will get developed for it.  

    But then Sean made the comment that PC games have outsold console games for the past few years.  

    1. Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.

    not completely true. Zenimax put all VR projects to the dead letter office and as I understand it Carmack tried to get them to work more on the projects but they didnt want to have anything to do with it.

    2. Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.

    That is complete speculation based on zero evidence and in fact is the exact opposite of what Facebook said. I dont mind people suggesting what they think but stating it as fact like you have seems odd

    3. Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3

    What you fail to understand despite it being fairly common knowedge for those that follow this technology is that 720p doesnt work that well in VR. It does work for very specific games but one has to be careful with the colors choosen etc. The universal agreement in the VR community is that 1080p is the ENTRY POINT for VR. Prefer higher. Now despite sonys investments its against the law of physics for the consoles to push beyond 1080p

    This is what I mean.  

    All of this shit is documented and Sean simply refuses the reality that the rest of us lives in.  

    Zuckerberg made it very clear after buying oculus that he did so because he envisions Facebook moving into virtual environment.  Sean however is hyped about gaming so it obviously has to do with gaming, and never mind what the man with the money has said.  

    Sean doesn't like console gaming, so obviously the rift will do better than a set made for a console that will end up in near 100m homes, and even though PC gaming is the SMALLEST market in gaming.  This is the same guy that stated in another thread that PC games have outsold console games the past few years.  

     

    links please.

    last I heard Zuckerberg said he plans to have a hands off policy with Oculus. Where are you getting you information or are you just making it up.

     

    https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

     

    Immersive gaming will be the first, and Oculus already has big plans here that won't be changing and we hope to accelerate. The Rift is highly anticipated by the gaming community, and there's a lot of interest from developers in building for this platform. We're going to focus on helping Oculus build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games. Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this.

    But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home.

    This is really a new communication platform. By feeling truly present, you can share unbounded spaces and experiences with the people in your life. Imagine sharing not just moments with your friends online, but entire experiences and adventures.

    These are just some of the potential uses. By working with developers and partners across the industry, together we can build many more. One day, we believe this kind of immersive, augmented reality will become a part of daily life for billions of people.

     

     

    so you are saying that your evidence that Facebook is not interested in gaming for the oculus rift is this quote

    'Immersive gaming will be the first, and Oculus already has big plans here that won't be changing and we hope to accelerate. The Rift is highly anticipated by the gaming community, and there's a lot of interest from developers in building for this platform. We're going to focus on helping Oculus build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games. Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this.'

     

    You have taken what you want from what he said and transformed it into a 100% reality instead of...I dont know..both being true.

    do not be surprised if I limit my responses to you. You are starting make things personal about me and that will just turn into a troll and then we will both get mod slapped.

     sorry I would like to converse more but I see danger here.

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • PepeqPepeq Member UncommonPosts: 1,977

    The world changes every second... luckily we don't get a forum post for each and every one.  September 25th is just like September 26th and September 27th... they will come and go with all the fan-fare or lack thereof that they deserve just like any other day in the year.

     

    I'm shocked that he hasn't said that this will be a WoW killer... if it's so great, it clearly should topple the behemoth that is Blizzard in one fell swoop.

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by Havekk
    I wouldn't be as excited as I am if some big players hadn't been impressed. When Carmack jumped on board and Zuckerburg bought it, I started paying a lot more attention. I've watched this thing go from a dude in his garage to what it is now and I can't help but be excited to see this hit the market. 

    Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.  Oculus had hardware, zenimax didn't, and carmack didn't seem so keen on working for someone else. 

    Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.  Contrary to Sean's inferring that zuckerberg must know something we don't, after trying sonys, he didn't buy oculus because it was "better".  Oculus was looking for a buyer and Sony wasn't.  

    Zuckerberg has a vision for Facebook and buying oculus is cheaper than developing a vr set himself.  His vision has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with a more immersive Facebook environment.  

     

    Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3, and will end up with just as many PS4's in homes over the coming year.  The GPU on your PC is still needed to drive the rendering on the oculus, and the higher they set the native resolution the fewer people that will be able to use the oculus for games, and the fewer games that will get developed for it.  

    But then Sean made the comment that PC games have outsold console games for the past few years.  

    1. Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.

    not completely true. Zenimax put all VR projects to the dead letter office and as I understand it Carmack tried to get them to work more on the projects but they didnt want to have anything to do with it.

    2. Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.

    That is complete speculation based on zero evidence and in fact is the exact opposite of what Facebook said. I dont mind people suggesting what they think but stating it as fact like you have seems odd

    3. Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3

    What you fail to understand despite it being fairly common knowedge for those that follow this technology is that 720p doesnt work that well in VR. It does work for very specific games but one has to be careful with the colors choosen etc. The universal agreement in the VR community is that 1080p is the ENTRY POINT for VR. Prefer higher. Now despite sonys investments its against the law of physics for the consoles to push beyond 1080p

    This is what I mean.  

    All of this shit is documented and Sean simply refuses the reality that the rest of us lives in.  

    Zuckerberg made it very clear after buying oculus that he did so because he envisions Facebook moving into virtual environment.  Sean however is hyped about gaming so it obviously has to do with gaming, and never mind what the man with the money has said.  

    Sean doesn't like console gaming, so obviously the rift will do better than a set made for a console that will end up in near 100m homes, and even though PC gaming is the SMALLEST market in gaming.  This is the same guy that stated in another thread that PC games have outsold console games the past few years.  

     

    links please.

    last I heard Zuckerberg said he plans to have a hands off policy with Oculus. Where are you getting you information or are you just making it up.

     

    Making stuff up probably, given his antipathy towards VR technology, he also seems to be under some misapprehensions about how large the PC gaming community is, PC online gaming last i heard was significantly larger than console gaming, i think where the confusion arises, is mostly from cross platform games that include the PC, and are mostly single/limited multiplayer.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochiappetta/2014/07/14/the-console-war-is-over-the-pc-already-won/

    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-01-28-pc-gaming-market-to-exceed-USD25-billion-this-year-dfc

    i think one of the key points raised is that there is an estimated 285 million PC's in the Western market, i think worldwide the estimate for PC's was somewhere in the region of 2 billion, but that includes business as well as personal/home PC's.

    and Steam of course, has announced it has 75 million active users..

    http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/15/steam-has-75-million-active-users-valve-announces-at-dev-days/

    so yeah, i think he is probably making things up, and i would advise him not to make claims about the origin of OR without stating that it is his opinion and not based on personal knowledge or facts, which might land him in some kind of legal trouble.image

  • UhwopUhwop Member UncommonPosts: 1,791
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by Havekk
    I wouldn't be as excited as I am if some big players hadn't been impressed. When Carmack jumped on board and Zuckerburg bought it, I started paying a lot more attention. I've watched this thing go from a dude in his garage to what it is now and I can't help but be excited to see this hit the market. 

    Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.  Oculus had hardware, zenimax didn't, and carmack didn't seem so keen on working for someone else. 

    Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.  Contrary to Sean's inferring that zuckerberg must know something we don't, after trying sonys, he didn't buy oculus because it was "better".  Oculus was looking for a buyer and Sony wasn't.  

    Zuckerberg has a vision for Facebook and buying oculus is cheaper than developing a vr set himself.  His vision has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with a more immersive Facebook environment.  

     

    Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3, and will end up with just as many PS4's in homes over the coming year.  The GPU on your PC is still needed to drive the rendering on the oculus, and the higher they set the native resolution the fewer people that will be able to use the oculus for games, and the fewer games that will get developed for it.  

    But then Sean made the comment that PC games have outsold console games for the past few years.  

    1. Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.

    not completely true. Zenimax put all VR projects to the dead letter office and as I understand it Carmack tried to get them to work more on the projects but they didnt want to have anything to do with it.

    2. Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.

    That is complete speculation based on zero evidence and in fact is the exact opposite of what Facebook said. I dont mind people suggesting what they think but stating it as fact like you have seems odd

    3. Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3

    What you fail to understand despite it being fairly common knowedge for those that follow this technology is that 720p doesnt work that well in VR. It does work for very specific games but one has to be careful with the colors choosen etc. The universal agreement in the VR community is that 1080p is the ENTRY POINT for VR. Prefer higher. Now despite sonys investments its against the law of physics for the consoles to push beyond 1080p

    This is what I mean.  

    All of this shit is documented and Sean simply refuses the reality that the rest of us lives in.  

    Zuckerberg made it very clear after buying oculus that he did so because he envisions Facebook moving into virtual environment.  Sean however is hyped about gaming so it obviously has to do with gaming, and never mind what the man with the money has said.  

    Sean doesn't like console gaming, so obviously the rift will do better than a set made for a console that will end up in near 100m homes, and even though PC gaming is the SMALLEST market in gaming.  This is the same guy that stated in another thread that PC games have outsold console games the past few years.  

     

    links please.

    last I heard Zuckerberg said he plans to have a hands off policy with Oculus. Where are you getting you information or are you just making it up.

     

    https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10101319050523971

     

    Immersive gaming will be the first, and Oculus already has big plans here that won't be changing and we hope to accelerate. The Rift is highly anticipated by the gaming community, and there's a lot of interest from developers in building for this platform. We're going to focus on helping Oculus build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games. Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this.

    But this is just the start. After games, we're going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world or consulting with a doctor face-to-face -- just by putting on goggles in your home.

    This is really a new communication platform. By feeling truly present, you can share unbounded spaces and experiences with the people in your life. Imagine sharing not just moments with your friends online, but entire experiences and adventures.

    These are just some of the potential uses. By working with developers and partners across the industry, together we can build many more. One day, we believe this kind of immersive, augmented reality will become a part of daily life for billions of people.

     

     

    so you are saying that your evidence that Facebook is not interested in gaming for the oculus rift is this quote

    'Immersive gaming will be the first, and Oculus already has big plans here that won't be changing and we hope to accelerate. The Rift is highly anticipated by the gaming community, and there's a lot of interest from developers in building for this platform. We're going to focus on helping Oculus build out their product and develop partnerships to support more games. Oculus will continue operating independently within Facebook to achieve this.'

     

    You have taken what you want from what he said and transformed it into a 100% reality instead of...I dont know..both being true.

    do not be surprised if I limit my responses to you. You are starting make things personal about me and that will just turn into a troll and then we will both get mod slapped.

     sorry I would like to converse more but I see danger here.

    I'm willing to bet you're one of those hipsters that doesn't like Facebook.  Which again, my point, Sean works on the basis of preference.  

     

    Facebook doesn't care about what it will do for gaming, they care about how it can impact social media.  

    "Gaming is just the beginning", and they are being "hands off" with the gaming stuff.  They only care about what it will do for Facebook, not gaming.  He's even said that hiss goal is to move Facebook into a virtual environment, that's where oculus comes in. 

  • UhwopUhwop Member UncommonPosts: 1,791
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by Havekk
    I wouldn't be as excited as I am if some big players hadn't been impressed. When Carmack jumped on board and Zuckerburg bought it, I started paying a lot more attention. I've watched this thing go from a dude in his garage to what it is now and I can't help but be excited to see this hit the market. 

    Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.  Oculus had hardware, zenimax didn't, and carmack didn't seem so keen on working for someone else. 

    Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.  Contrary to Sean's inferring that zuckerberg must know something we don't, after trying sonys, he didn't buy oculus because it was "better".  Oculus was looking for a buyer and Sony wasn't.  

    Zuckerberg has a vision for Facebook and buying oculus is cheaper than developing a vr set himself.  His vision has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with a more immersive Facebook environment.  

     

    Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3, and will end up with just as many PS4's in homes over the coming year.  The GPU on your PC is still needed to drive the rendering on the oculus, and the higher they set the native resolution the fewer people that will be able to use the oculus for games, and the fewer games that will get developed for it.  

    But then Sean made the comment that PC games have outsold console games for the past few years.  

    1. Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.

    not completely true. Zenimax put all VR projects to the dead letter office and as I understand it Carmack tried to get them to work more on the projects but they didnt want to have anything to do with it.

    2. Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.

    That is complete speculation based on zero evidence and in fact is the exact opposite of what Facebook said. I dont mind people suggesting what they think but stating it as fact like you have seems odd

    3. Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3

    What you fail to understand despite it being fairly common knowedge for those that follow this technology is that 720p doesnt work that well in VR. It does work for very specific games but one has to be careful with the colors choosen etc. The universal agreement in the VR community is that 1080p is the ENTRY POINT for VR. Prefer higher. Now despite sonys investments its against the law of physics for the consoles to push beyond 1080p

    This is what I mean.  

    All of this shit is documented and Sean simply refuses the reality that the rest of us lives in.  

    Zuckerberg made it very clear after buying oculus that he did so because he envisions Facebook moving into virtual environment.  Sean however is hyped about gaming so it obviously has to do with gaming, and never mind what the man with the money has said.  

    Sean doesn't like console gaming, so obviously the rift will do better than a set made for a console that will end up in near 100m homes, and even though PC gaming is the SMALLEST market in gaming.  This is the same guy that stated in another thread that PC games have outsold console games the past few years.  

     

    links please.

    last I heard Zuckerberg said he plans to have a hands off policy with Oculus. Where are you getting you information or are you just making it up.

     

    Making stuff up probably, given his antipathy towards VR technology, he also seems to be under some misapprehensions about how large the PC gaming community is, PC online gaming last i heard was significantly larger than console gaming, i think where the confusion arises, is mostly from cross platform games that include the PC, and are mostly single/limited multiplayer.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochiappetta/2014/07/14/the-console-war-is-over-the-pc-already-won/

    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-01-28-pc-gaming-market-to-exceed-USD25-billion-this-year-dfc

    i think one of the key points raised is that there is an estimated 285 million PC's in the Western market, i think worldwide the estimate for PC's was somewhere in the region of 2 billion, but that includes business as well as personal/home PC's.

    and Steam of course, has announced it has 75 million active users..

    http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/15/steam-has-75-million-active-users-valve-announces-at-dev-days/

    so yeah, i think he is probably making things up, and i would advise him not to make claims about the origin of OR without stating that it is his opinion and not based on personal knowledge or facts, which might land him in some kind of legal trouble.image

    It's amazing you know my opinion on something without me ever giving it.  Here's a clue, you're wrong and I'm looking forward to oculus.  

    JPR counts mobile gaming, IE: iPad and android devices, as a part of the overall PC gaming market.  "PC" games haven't gone up, it's mobile gaming that's been thriving.  Try reading the article you link. 

    75m on steam?  That's awesome.  Sony sold 80m PS3's, Xbox 360 84m.  Dark souls and watchdogs both outsold by huge margins on the console.  If only they were available on mobile platforms.  

  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by Phry
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Uhwop
    Originally posted by Havekk
    I wouldn't be as excited as I am if some big players hadn't been impressed. When Carmack jumped on board and Zuckerburg bought it, I started paying a lot more attention. I've watched this thing go from a dude in his garage to what it is now and I can't help but be excited to see this hit the market. 

    Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.  Oculus had hardware, zenimax didn't, and carmack didn't seem so keen on working for someone else. 

    Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.  Contrary to Sean's inferring that zuckerberg must know something we don't, after trying sonys, he didn't buy oculus because it was "better".  Oculus was looking for a buyer and Sony wasn't.  

    Zuckerberg has a vision for Facebook and buying oculus is cheaper than developing a vr set himself.  His vision has nothing to do with gaming, and everything to do with a more immersive Facebook environment.  

     

    Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3, and will end up with just as many PS4's in homes over the coming year.  The GPU on your PC is still needed to drive the rendering on the oculus, and the higher they set the native resolution the fewer people that will be able to use the oculus for games, and the fewer games that will get developed for it.  

    But then Sean made the comment that PC games have outsold console games for the past few years.  

    1. Carmack was already working at zenimax to write the software that would allow games to run on a vr headset.

    not completely true. Zenimax put all VR projects to the dead letter office and as I understand it Carmack tried to get them to work more on the projects but they didnt want to have anything to do with it.

    2. Facebook didn't buy oculus because of gaming, they bought it for their future vision of Facebook.

    That is complete speculation based on zero evidence and in fact is the exact opposite of what Facebook said. I dont mind people suggesting what they think but stating it as fact like you have seems odd

    3. Sean also neglects to account for the fact that Sony sold 80 million PS3

    What you fail to understand despite it being fairly common knowedge for those that follow this technology is that 720p doesnt work that well in VR. It does work for very specific games but one has to be careful with the colors choosen etc. The universal agreement in the VR community is that 1080p is the ENTRY POINT for VR. Prefer higher. Now despite sonys investments its against the law of physics for the consoles to push beyond 1080p

    This is what I mean.  

    All of this shit is documented and Sean simply refuses the reality that the rest of us lives in.  

    Zuckerberg made it very clear after buying oculus that he did so because he envisions Facebook moving into virtual environment.  Sean however is hyped about gaming so it obviously has to do with gaming, and never mind what the man with the money has said.  

    Sean doesn't like console gaming, so obviously the rift will do better than a set made for a console that will end up in near 100m homes, and even though PC gaming is the SMALLEST market in gaming.  This is the same guy that stated in another thread that PC games have outsold console games the past few years.  

     

    links please.

    last I heard Zuckerberg said he plans to have a hands off policy with Oculus. Where are you getting you information or are you just making it up.

     

    Making stuff up probably, given his antipathy towards VR technology, he also seems to be under some misapprehensions about how large the PC gaming community is, PC online gaming last i heard was significantly larger than console gaming, i think where the confusion arises, is mostly from cross platform games that include the PC, and are mostly single/limited multiplayer.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/marcochiappetta/2014/07/14/the-console-war-is-over-the-pc-already-won/

    http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-01-28-pc-gaming-market-to-exceed-USD25-billion-this-year-dfc

    i think one of the key points raised is that there is an estimated 285 million PC's in the Western market, i think worldwide the estimate for PC's was somewhere in the region of 2 billion, but that includes business as well as personal/home PC's.

    and Steam of course, has announced it has 75 million active users..

    http://www.joystiq.com/2014/01/15/steam-has-75-million-active-users-valve-announces-at-dev-days/

    so yeah, i think he is probably making things up, and i would advise him not to make claims about the origin of OR without stating that it is his opinion and not based on personal knowledge or facts, which might land him in some kind of legal trouble.image

    It's amazing you know my opinion on something without me ever giving it.  Here's a clue, you're wrong and I'm looking forward to oculus.  

    JPR counts mobile gaming, IE: iPad and android devices, as a part of the overall PC gaming market.  "PC" games haven't gone up, it's mobile gaming that's been thriving.  Try reading the article you link. 

    75m on steam?  That's awesome.  Sony sold 80m PS3's, Xbox 360 84m.  Dark souls and watchdogs both outsold by huge margins on the console.  If only they were available on mobile platforms.  

    mobile platforms as you call it, are really the smartphone/tablet which, tbh when your talking about games for them, your mostly talking about 'apps' which have a very short lifespan and are struggling now to compete with each other, if you also read the articles you would have noticed that the tendency is for console players to gravitate towards these things, rather than the PC.

    But again your focusing on individual games that often include a bit of an iffy PC port, the overall PC gaming market is expected to outperform the console on, not just the hardware, but the software too. But returning to the mobile platform again, i am not sure that the future is necessarily that bright for the mobile platforms either, whether the 'app' bubble is about to burst, or is in the process of 'bursting' is a point of interest.

    http://rt.com/uk/181328-apps-download-drop-smartphone/

    http://www.extremetech.com/mobile/177416-the-partys-over-idc-predicts-sharp-decline-in-smartphone-market-growth-with-no-replacement-in-sight

    i think one of the reasons the PC market is often perceived to be in decline, is because people are just not buying PC systems in the same way they used to, and is at odds with the very real increase in the hardware sales for PC's, which in terms of value, is greater than the hardware market for Consoles, more than double it if reports are to be believed.

    http://jonpeddie.com/publications/pc_gaming_hardware_market_report/

    And yes, 75 million active users on steam, why else is Trion, EA, PWE and now, apparently Blizzard, have created their own platform to compete with Steam, if only for their own software, it surely isn't because its an unprofitable market, but more of a sign that its the next step in the evolution of Online and PC gaming, something that Sony and Microsoft are busy playing catchup on, and which the consoles still remain firmly behind the curve on. image

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775

    the PC gaming debate is always fun and interesting however in the case of VR the core point I was making about the consoles was not that they are popular or not popular that point is irrelevant. The full stop, do not pass go issue is 720p. 1080p is the agreed on entry point for VR gaming. some consoles appear to be doing 1080p while others appear to not to. Either way having 1080p as the ENTRY point is a problem for consoles.

     

    For PCs I have been gaming at 2560x1440 for about 5 years now.

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

    Please do not respond to me

Sign In or Register to comment.