When the Xbox came out it 1. had less games then Oculus 2. had less playable time then Oculus 3. had less variety of content then Oculus 4. had a very long peroid before it in which developers were creating for it unlike Oculus which has only had about 2 years.
1- Whats considered a game to you? Because from what I've seen from the oculus store... very few of them are actually worth playing.. or even considered a game. More like.. general demos.
2- Not even close on playable time... do you know what games launched with the original xbox? Do you know why it became as popular as it did? Would you like to guess? Just a single launch game with a fan following is worth more than every game in the OR store. Want to guess how many launched with XB?
3- not sure what this means but when I had my XB I could watch DVDs and things like that. Things that you really couldn't do on other systems. It was basically the equivalent of streaming today.
4- not really sure where you got this information from, or how you could even confirm it.
1. how many games did xbox have at release? 1 maybe 2? or was it 3? well yeah I consider Elite Dangerous 1, Eve Valkrine 2, and maybe the other 200 or so can all count together as,,,hmmm lets say 10 games. although hours played in all those games is considerably more? does that please you sire?
2. guess coming...hold on to it...wait for it. unadulterated, unmitigated marketing.
3. xbox had less variety of game play.
4. AAA games take on average 3-4 years to make. so unless the games that game out on xbox when it was first released where just rushed garbage games then its safe to assume they needed a 3-4 year lead time.
...serious...lol...
'over 20 games released with xbox'
lol...
done..point made. take it or leave it...to funny
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
VR will be the future of gaming and social networking. I firmly believe this technology is unstoppable. Like always it will take time to implement and everything to sorta catch up.
maybe, but sure it won't be like it is right now, tehy will need to fastly improve on it to even happen what you hope for.
also the mian gate for it? PRICE, not considerating the computer you will need to run it, also the lack of really good games to amke you play it will prevent more people to even think about it
VR will be the future of gaming and social networking. I firmly believe this technology is unstoppable. Like always it will take time to implement and everything to sorta catch up.
maybe, but sure it won't be like it is right now, tehy will need to fastly improve on it to even happen what you hope for.
also the mian gate for it? PRICE, not considerating the computer you will need to run it, also the lack of really good games to amke you play it will prevent more people to even think about it
very please for the love of god do no consider the price of the computer you will need
that 'The killer machine that can run The Division on suggested settings' meme is old
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
When the Xbox came out it 1. had less games then Oculus 2. had less playable time then Oculus 3. had less variety of content then Oculus 4. had a very long peroid before it in which developers were creating for it unlike Oculus which has only had about 2 years.
1- Whats considered a game to you? Because from what I've seen from the oculus store... very few of them are actually worth playing.. or even considered a game. More like.. general demos.
2- Not even close on playable time... do you know what games launched with the original xbox? Do you know why it became as popular as it did? Would you like to guess? Just a single launch game with a fan following is worth more than every game in the OR store. Want to guess how many launched with XB?
3- not sure what this means but when I had my XB I could watch DVDs and things like that. Things that you really couldn't do on other systems. It was basically the equivalent of streaming today.
4- not really sure where you got this information from, or how you could even confirm it.
1. how many games did xbox have at release? 1 maybe 2? or was it 3? well yeah I consider Elite Dangerous 1, Eve Valkrine 2, and maybe the other 200 or so can all count together as,,,hmmm lets say 10 games. although hours played in all those games is considerably more? does that please you sire?
2. guess coming...hold on to it...wait for it. unadulterated, unmitigated marketing.
3. xbox had less variety of game play.
4. AAA games take on average 3-4 years to make. so unless the games that game out on xbox when it was first released where just rushed garbage games then its safe to assume they needed a 3-4 year lead time.
Are you talking about the original xbox? Because if so... it takes like.. 2 minutes to look up the launch games. It launched with Tony Hawk Pro Skater 2X... that game alone is more playtime than the 200 or so you can count together... it was actually one of if not THE best, most successful and most critically acclaimed games that launched that year. Halo launched with the original XB... Halo... y'know... the game that ended up becoming a game that shaped not only the Xbox as a platform but emblazoned itself in pop culture.
Oh but Eve Valkyrie seems like it -- oh wait no... I don't think many people even know that game exists.
Over 20 games launched with the original xbox.. MOST of them were already big names... games that people wanted to buy already.
Madden was one of them... madden which is one of the biggest football games in the gaming industry.
NHL hits which was another sports game -- always very big.
Project Gotham Racing which was actually slated as a fantastic racing game...
Dead or Alive 3... The DoA series was HUGE back then.....
Most people don't know a single game on the Rift.
And oh yeah.. Xbox had much more variety than oculus on launch....
My question is.. why do you still talk about things you don't know about without doing even the slightest bit of research?
VR will be the future of gaming and social networking. I firmly believe this technology is unstoppable. Like always it will take time to implement and everything to sorta catch up.
maybe, but sure it won't be like it is right now, tehy will need to fastly improve on it to even happen what you hope for.
also the mian gate for it? PRICE, not considerating the computer you will need to run it, also the lack of really good games to amke you play it will prevent more people to even think about it
Exactly this.. no reason to waste money on something attached to a computer right now where the costs aren't even remotely worth it. -- well -- that and there isn't anything worth playing either.
If VR is going to ever truly catch on it will need to be self contained like hololens at a reasonable price. No doubt in the future you'll probably see more powerful cell phones running the majority of VR... or .. y'know.. the Playstation VR. It's highly unlikely anything else will be able to keep up as it isn't nor will it be worth it in the next few years.
I'm really starting to believe that you really know shit about an Oculus.
who are you asking that? how is it relevant? you know I have.
SEANMCAD said: who in the F is going to start creating a AAA game from a DK1 set that is just getting started by a company that has to have a kickstarter to stay around and is (at the time) basically being run by an 18 year old?
seriously?
god damnit
Just starting?
A DK1 is a little bit more than just getting started. Ever seen one for real? Doubtful, or you wouldn't make ridiculous comments like the one above.
Why do you think it's called a "Developer Kit" ?
Let me give you a hint: It's so developers can develop products for your device.
Let me give you another hint: You only release a Developers Kit when you are confident in the design and operation of your device. Or developers will have no confidence in you or your device.
DK1 works flawlessly with the exception that the device needs better resolution to be marketable. This does not stop developers from developing products for a retail version. It's the whole point of releasing the kit. So you can have products for your release version.
No AAA products announced and/or near release of a retail version of Oculus does not bode well or instill confidence.
I'm really starting to believe that you really know shit about an Oculus.
who are you asking that? how is it relevant? you know I have.
SEANMCAD said: who in the F is going to start creating a AAA game from a DK1 set that is just getting started by a company that has to have a kickstarter to stay around and is (at the time) basically being run by an 18 year old?
seriously?
god damnit
Just starting?
A DK1 is a little bit more than just getting started. Ever seen one for real? Doubtful, or you wouldn't make ridiculous comments like the one above.
Why do you think it's called a "Developer Kit" ?
Let me give you a hint: It's so developers can develop products for your device.
Let me give you another hint: You only release a Developers Kit when you are confident in the design and operation of your device. Or developers will have no confidence in you or your device.
DK1 works flawlessly with the exception that the device needs better resolution to be marketable. This does not stop developers from developing products for a retail version. It's the whole point of releasing the kit. So you can have products for your release version.
No AAA products announced and/or near release of a retail version of Oculus does not bode well or instill confidence.
let me say the same thing but perhaps differently.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART: -------------------------- When Microsoft approaches a developer and says 'this is the hardware specs, this is what we are going live with in 2 more years' its a lot more solid then.
'this is hardware that has never existed before and we have no idea when, if or what, the end CV will be, want to make a AAA game for it? understand the controls for the device might change, we might add camera, gloves, or lasers, we just dont know --------------------------
If you are a developer and you want to develop to a new device, if the controls of that device change (As they actually did in fact change) during your development time then you run the risk of loosing all your previous work.
That is one point that is completley and totally independent from the company not (at the time) being sponsored by a major company (like microsoft) and in effect being run buy an 18 year old.
So there are two different and very importantly different aspects here, the first of which is most important.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I'm really starting to believe that you really know shit about an Oculus.
who are you asking that? how is it relevant? you know I have.
SEANMCAD said: who in the F is going to start creating a AAA game from a DK1 set that is just getting started by a company that has to have a kickstarter to stay around and is (at the time) basically being run by an 18 year old?
seriously?
god damnit
Just starting?
A DK1 is a little bit more than just getting started. Ever seen one for real? Doubtful, or you wouldn't make ridiculous comments like the one above.
Why do you think it's called a "Developer Kit" ?
Let me give you a hint: It's so developers can develop products for your device.
Let me give you another hint: You only release a Developers Kit when you are confident in the design and operation of your device. Or developers will have no confidence in you or your device.
DK1 works flawlessly with the exception that the device needs better resolution to be marketable. This does not stop developers from developing products for a retail version. It's the whole point of releasing the kit. So you can have products for your release version.
No AAA products announced and/or near release of a retail version of Oculus does not bode well or instill confidence.
let me say the same thing but perhaps differently.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART: -------------------------- When Microsoft approaches a developer and says 'this is the hardware specs, this is what we are going live with in 2 more years' its a lot more solid then.
'this is hardware that has never existed before and we have no idea when, if or what, the end CV will be, want to make a AAA game for it? understand the controls for the device might change, we might add camera, gloves, or lasers, we just dont know --------------------------
If you are a developer and you want to develop to a new device, if the controls of that device change (As they actually did in fact change) during your development time then you run the risk of loosing all your previous work.
That is one point that is completley and totally independent from the company not (at the time) being sponsored by a major company (like microsoft) and in effect being run buy an 18 year old.
So there are two different and very importantly different aspects here, the first of which is most important.
I know I'm wasting my time, but here she goes:
When you release a "Developer Kit" you are saying "Here you go, here is a working product that you can *Develop With* "
It's not called and "An Experiment and Fuck Around With Kit" It's called a "Developer Kit"
When a developer purchases one and fucks with it for a couple days, they'll know if it's worth their time.
So what are you trying to say? That the DK1 was not worth a AAA company's time? Or Maybe just Maybe The DK2 is not worth a AAA companies time.
Maybe the release version isn't even as yet worth a AAA developers time. Maybe things aren't so peachy in Oculus land.
Maybe these AAA's know something you don't
Even Zuckerberg says it won't be ready for another 10 years.
I'm really starting to believe that you really know shit about an Oculus.
who are you asking that? how is it relevant? you know I have.
SEANMCAD said: who in the F is going to start creating a AAA game from a DK1 set that is just getting started by a company that has to have a kickstarter to stay around and is (at the time) basically being run by an 18 year old?
seriously?
god damnit
Just starting?
A DK1 is a little bit more than just getting started. Ever seen one for real? Doubtful, or you wouldn't make ridiculous comments like the one above.
Why do you think it's called a "Developer Kit" ?
Let me give you a hint: It's so developers can develop products for your device.
Let me give you another hint: You only release a Developers Kit when you are confident in the design and operation of your device. Or developers will have no confidence in you or your device.
DK1 works flawlessly with the exception that the device needs better resolution to be marketable. This does not stop developers from developing products for a retail version. It's the whole point of releasing the kit. So you can have products for your release version.
No AAA products announced and/or near release of a retail version of Oculus does not bode well or instill confidence.
let me say the same thing but perhaps differently.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART: -------------------------- When Microsoft approaches a developer and says 'this is the hardware specs, this is what we are going live with in 2 more years' its a lot more solid then.
'this is hardware that has never existed before and we have no idea when, if or what, the end CV will be, want to make a AAA game for it? understand the controls for the device might change, we might add camera, gloves, or lasers, we just dont know --------------------------
If you are a developer and you want to develop to a new device, if the controls of that device change (As they actually did in fact change) during your development time then you run the risk of loosing all your previous work.
That is one point that is completley and totally independent from the company not (at the time) being sponsored by a major company (like microsoft) and in effect being run buy an 18 year old.
So there are two different and very importantly different aspects here, the first of which is most important.
I know I'm wasting my time, but here she goes:
When you release a "Developer Kit" you are saying "Here you go, here is a working product that you can *Develop With* "
It's not called and "An Experiment and Fuck Around With Kit" It's called a "Developer Kit"
When a developer purchases one and fucks with it for a couple days, they'll know if it's worth their time.
So what are you trying to say? That the DK1 was not worth a AAA company's time? Or Maybe just Maybe The DK2 is not worth a AAA companies time.
Maybe the release version isn't even as yet worth a AAA developers time. Maybe things aren't so peachy in Oculus land.
Maybe these AAA's know something you don't
Even Zuckerberg says it won't be ready for another 10 years.
the process is very different. the realtionships and understanding between console manufactures and first party developers is not at all like a dev kit from a kickstater
more over a AAA company needs 3-4 years leadtime. not 2-3
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
When the XBox came out, it had a few things going for it
a) Microsoft - no stranger to software, no stranger to hardware, a couple of decades worth of track history, and very deep pockets.
b) Microsoft has a very strong reputation for iterating over a product until it became the market leader. Windows wasn't the dominating operating system overnight. Office wasn't the defacto standard overnight. In fact, when both products were first released, they were minor trainwrecks. But MS kept after it, continued to iterate and develop them, and they turned into juggernauts. Microsoft has a long track history of this.
c) They outright bought Bungie to be an XBox exclusive developer. That, of course, resulted in the Halo franchise being a console exclusive (Bungie was originally a Macintosh developer, and Halo was going to b e multi-platform similar to Oni - it was even originally demoed with Steve Jobs at a Macworld Expo)
d) Even if you didn't game on the device, it served as a gateway to the television. Don't forget, at the same time, Microsoft owned MSNBC and was experimenting with establishing their own cable TV/Internet service. There were a lot of rumors that the original XBox would act as a STB for such a service.
e) The original XBox, hardware-wise, wasn't a radical departure from a typical PC. There wasn't much in it that was proprietary or exclusive, unlike the 360 or the One. It has a basic PIII CPU, and a custom nVidia GPU that was very similar to the GeForce 3. So not a lot of high-risk hardware R&D into the effort.
All of that looks very good to a potential developer.
So OR has some deep pockets, but it's parent company, Facebook, is to date pretty much a one-trick pony. They have a very popular web portal - maybe the most popular real estate on the internet right now. And they have some cash. But they haven't been around all that long, and internet real estate is pretty fickle (just ask Myspace, AOL, and Yahoo how it's going). Yes, Occulus managed to woo John Carmack, and convince CCP to develop an exclusive AAA-like game, but that's isn't quite the same thing as if they had bought ID Software or CCP software.
@SEANMCAD Thanks for the wonderful entertainment, you are one of the best comedians on the web. Certainly the best on this site, reading your posts gives me a lot of belly laughs as I drink my morning coffee.
Why is everyone looking at the OR like its a console when its a plugin. Meaning its a freakin gamepad and soon there will be more companies making them.
Yes, Occulus managed to woo John Carmack, and convince CCP to develop an exclusive AAA-like game, but that's isn't quite the same thing as if they had bought ID Software or CCP software.
But that's the point, isn't it? It's all about the software, not the hardware. Content is king. It's all that matters.
In my opinion, Oculus messed up by charging so much. The reason the DK1 and DK2 were successful was because it was affordable for indie devs. Now the CV1 is too expensive and leaves them out of the process.
Just watched a video about VR sales projections going down. One game cut it's price by $10 bucks. Better sales are expected for Smartphone VR cause lots of people have smartphones and the device is around $30. Sony is hoping to do better.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Just watched a video about VR sales projections going down. One game cut it's price by $10 bucks. Better sales are expected for Smartphone VR cause lots of people have smartphones and the device is around $30. Sony is hoping to do better.
The only person I know personally that has ordered a VR set has been a Sony VR for his PS4.
I think Sony is in the best seat for success with VR. At least straight away.
I agree with all of the above. Samsungs Gear VR set I just bought off someone new in box for 40 bucks. Samsung was literally giving them away with S7 preorders and a bunch of people just don't want them so you find them pretty cheap right now. They're usually 99 dollars new.
PSVR is going to be probably the most successful non cell phone device simply because it works with the PS and they said they don't see any reason why it can't work with the PC. It's also the most affordable. That means you can play it on PS4, the new PS4 system, with potential to play PC titles too - with systems specs far under what a Rift or Vive would cost.
Who knows if the timing of these companies will work but the idea is set. Look at the first 3D video cards. . the games that supported them were mostly craptastic. Look at how far mobile games have come along.
PC gaming anyone?. . . it takes time. It might not be Oculus or Vive. It might be Sony or whever takes what they have done and makes it better. People who try it say it is immersive. The cost etc. will be a barrier until the next generation or 2.
I think something like MS Hololens is more likely to appeal to more people, but it is sooo expensive.
They also need the sets to be more wireless. I still think it is only going up and forward from here.
I think I am relieved that the debates have moved from:
'there is no way in hell anyone will want any of these things no developers, let alone a AAA game developer would touch it with a ten foot pole'
to
'which one of these devices will succeed and why weren't those AAA developers working on games for these devices back when I was saying not a single developer of any sort would touch one of these things'
its progress, deep dark and perverted, but progress all the same
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Pretty sure VR will succeed as it always has. As an afterthought. It's part of a current generation cell phone. Many people don't use it as you can look online and find the sets brand new in box or slightly used for 20 - 50 dollars under what retail price is. Again, they were giving them away.
I bought one so my GF could strap a set to her kids.
PSVR will likely do the best out of all VR headsets... but thats like saying... the Kinect did the best out of all the eye motion controls. I mean.. sure, it sold the most, and is generally the most advanced.. but after them trying to push it since the 360 -- more than 4 years after launch, it barely gets any support despite it being a rather complex and potentially useful piece of hardware. Then of course you had PS come out with a PS Eye piece of hardware, and PC's have had webcams forever, and back in 2005 webcam gaming was supposed to be a thing.
Everyone owns a webcam now, most XB1 users have the kinect.. nobody uses it.
1) too cumbersome 2) very few if any noteworthy games 3) issues with gameplay in some cases
So far with VR... well lets see.... uhm
1) too cumbersome 2) very few if any noteworthy games 3) issues with gameplay in some cases 4) Way too expensive for any version that connects to the PC right now 5) slower than molasses development on anything that could be considered more than a "demo" of "what could be" 6) The Rift and Vive that are touted as the "best options" -- although more powerful than the competition have even less of a chance of catching on due to hardware costs both for the devices and to run them. most likely they will become the first "kinect" devices... fading away into obscurity while still being "supported".
regardless of me not understanding your 'always has' and 'after thought' statement here is my assessment and prediction of those four devices.
GearVR: is the gateway drug. As Oculus/Facebook have said they are not interested in making money from the devices themselves but rather the consumer traffic that the software will create in the future. Much like how consoles are often sold at or near 'at cost'. This is not a prediction as much as what was stated by the company. Gear VR as far as use, playablity and quality will be on the bottom of the list and if any of them can be considered a gimmick this one would be it. HOWEVER, its advantage in portability is a great way to 'spread the word' of VR in general.
Sony VR: the next up in quality. Like most things that are in the middle of quality it most likely will do rather well, better than Oculus and Vive? I dont know but very close if not better is my prediction. However that stated I am more interested in the success of VR in general more than I am who.
Oculus VR: next up on quality. This will be the dedicated gamer/techy/nerdy/VR nut jobs like myself toy. When looking for a best in quality perspective this will be the device and as such the best in quality rarely makes the most sells so it would not surprise me at all that sony out sells Oculus.
Vive: despite common assumptions when it comes to quality of the image, response etc Oculus is better than Vive from what Tested has stated. However, Vive brings a much more compelling experience overall. However, for playing 8 hours straight in one 'sitting' its likely the advantages of Vive is not important. however having your friends over for a drunk session of a virutal orgy it very well maybe very compelling.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
regardless of me not understanding your 'always has' and 'after thought' statement here is my assessment and prediction of those four devices.
GearVR: is the gateway drug. As Oculus/Facebook have said they are not interested in making money from the devices themselves but rather the consumer traffic that the software will create in the future. Much like how consoles are often sold at or near 'at cost'. This is not a prediction as much as what was stated by the company. Gear VR as far as use, playablity and quality will be on the bottom of the list and if any of them can be considered a gimmick this one would be it. HOWEVER, its advantage in portability is a great way to 'spread the word' of VR in general.
Sony VR: the next up in quality. Like most things that are in the middle of quality it most likely will do rather well, better than Oculus and Vive? I dont know but very close if not better is my prediction. However that stated I am more interested in the success of VR in general more than I am who.
Oculus VR: next up on quality. This will be the dedicated gamer/techy/nerdy/VR nut jobs like myself toy. When looking for a best in quality perspective this will be the device and as such the best in quality rarely makes the most sells so it would not surprise me at all that sony out sells Oculus.
Vive: despite common assumptions when it comes to quality of the image, response etc Oculus is better than Vive from what Tested has stated. However, Vive brings a much more compelling experience overall. However, for playing 8 hours straight in one 'sitting' its likely the advantages of Vive is not important. however having your friends over for a drunk session of a virutal orgy it very well maybe very compelling.
It will "succeed" as it always has... just as kinect "succeeded" it will continue to exist despite it not really going anywhere. An Afterthought. A Day at the Beach. An event where you can say "I went to that". It's an afterthought in it's current and previous iterations.
VR has been around for decades... getting noteworthy praise here and there and everyone saying how "futuristic" it will be.... but I've tried it in both its "best" iteration and it's "worst" based on your list and honestly, despite once or twice of being startled, it's just another feature that will wear off once people get used to it.
Most people consider that a gimmick honestly ... like when you don't expect something to jump out at you when watching a 3D movie... but we'll see as VR progresses.
We're still a long way off from it ever really being worth anyones time -- we're talking at least 5 years.... and that's IF AR doesn't take hold by then.
The only reason Samsungs VR works is because it's built into a phone people will buy regardless.
The only reason PS VR will work is because it's cheaper. It works with systems already in place that don't require upgrades. It is slated to even work with PCs.
The only reason the Rift is "popular" is because it's the "first" ... the only reason the Vive is in the running at all is because it's the "most powerful".
In the end.. people just aren't going to invest in something so limited... and that is what VR is right now... limited. Geared toward the seclusionist with limited interactions in mind.. in an increasingly social world. You really can't even video chat with someone.
regardless of me not understanding your 'always has' and 'after thought' statement here is my assessment and prediction of those four devices.
GearVR: is the gateway drug. As Oculus/Facebook have said they are not interested in making money from the devices themselves but rather the consumer traffic that the software will create in the future. Much like how consoles are often sold at or near 'at cost'. This is not a prediction as much as what was stated by the company. Gear VR as far as use, playablity and quality will be on the bottom of the list and if any of them can be considered a gimmick this one would be it. HOWEVER, its advantage in portability is a great way to 'spread the word' of VR in general.
Sony VR: the next up in quality. Like most things that are in the middle of quality it most likely will do rather well, better than Oculus and Vive? I dont know but very close if not better is my prediction. However that stated I am more interested in the success of VR in general more than I am who.
Oculus VR: next up on quality. This will be the dedicated gamer/techy/nerdy/VR nut jobs like myself toy. When looking for a best in quality perspective this will be the device and as such the best in quality rarely makes the most sells so it would not surprise me at all that sony out sells Oculus.
Vive: despite common assumptions when it comes to quality of the image, response etc Oculus is better than Vive from what Tested has stated. However, Vive brings a much more compelling experience overall. However, for playing 8 hours straight in one 'sitting' its likely the advantages of Vive is not important. however having your friends over for a drunk session of a virutal orgy it very well maybe very compelling.
It will "succeed" as it always has... just as kinect "succeeded" it will continue to exist despite it not really going anywhere. An Afterthought.
that doesnt make any more sense in fact less sense.
VR has yet to 'succeed' at all yet so 'as always' doesnt make sense.
I think I am starting to understand what you mean by 'after thought' but I fail to understand why such a metric matters or what you would consider good or revelant.
Is USB drives a success but an afterthought? do we care? does it matter? what is a success but not an afterthought? why does it matter?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It would seem to me that Golf would be the easiest to do..
Want a club? Look at your golf bag and select a club. Your caddy hands it to you. Need a new ball? Look at your bag and select the area that has the golf balls. Your caddy hands you a new ball.
Why the heck would I want a static inventory system?
Comments
lol...
done..point made. take it or leave it...to funny
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
who are you asking that?
how is it relevant?
you know I have.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
also the mian gate for it? PRICE, not considerating the computer you will need to run it, also the lack of really good games to amke you play it will prevent more people to even think about it
that 'The killer machine that can run The Division on suggested settings' meme is old
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If VR is going to ever truly catch on it will need to be self contained like hololens at a reasonable price. No doubt in the future you'll probably see more powerful cell phones running the majority of VR... or .. y'know.. the Playstation VR. It's highly unlikely anything else will be able to keep up as it isn't nor will it be worth it in the next few years.
A DK1 is a little bit more than just getting started. Ever seen one for real? Doubtful, or you wouldn't make ridiculous comments like the one above.
Why do you think it's called a "Developer Kit" ?
Let me give you a hint: It's so developers can develop products for your device.
Let me give you another hint: You only release a Developers Kit when you are confident in the design and operation of your device. Or developers will have no confidence in you or your device.
DK1 works flawlessly with the exception that the device needs better resolution to be marketable. This does not stop developers from developing products for a retail version. It's the whole point of releasing the kit. So you can have products for your release version.
No AAA products announced and/or near release of a retail version of Oculus does not bode well or instill confidence.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART:
--------------------------
When Microsoft approaches a developer and says 'this is the hardware specs, this is what we are going live with in 2 more years' its a lot more solid then.
'this is hardware that has never existed before and we have no idea when, if or what, the end CV will be, want to make a AAA game for it? understand the controls for the device might change, we might add camera, gloves, or lasers, we just dont know
--------------------------
If you are a developer and you want to develop to a new device, if the controls of that device change (As they actually did in fact change) during your development time then you run the risk of loosing all your previous work.
That is one point that is completley and totally independent from the company not (at the time) being sponsored by a major company (like microsoft) and in effect being run buy an 18 year old.
So there are two different and very importantly different aspects here, the first of which is most important.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
When you release a "Developer Kit" you are saying "Here you go, here is a working product that you can *Develop With* "
It's not called and "An Experiment and Fuck Around With Kit" It's called a "Developer Kit"
When a developer purchases one and fucks with it for a couple days, they'll know if it's worth their time.
So what are you trying to say? That the DK1 was not worth a AAA company's time? Or Maybe just Maybe The DK2 is not worth a AAA companies time.
Maybe the release version isn't even as yet worth a AAA developers time. Maybe things aren't so peachy in Oculus land.
Maybe these AAA's know something you don't
Even Zuckerberg says it won't be ready for another 10 years.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/600915/mark-zuckerberg-says-it-will-take-10-years-for-virtual-reality-to-reach-mass-market/
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
the process is very different. the realtionships and understanding between console manufactures and first party developers is not at all like a dev kit from a kickstater
more over a AAA company needs 3-4 years leadtime. not 2-3
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
When the XBox came out, it had a few things going for it
a) Microsoft - no stranger to software, no stranger to hardware, a couple of decades worth of track history, and very deep pockets.
b) Microsoft has a very strong reputation for iterating over a product until it became the market leader. Windows wasn't the dominating operating system overnight. Office wasn't the defacto standard overnight. In fact, when both products were first released, they were minor trainwrecks. But MS kept after it, continued to iterate and develop them, and they turned into juggernauts. Microsoft has a long track history of this.
c) They outright bought Bungie to be an XBox exclusive developer. That, of course, resulted in the Halo franchise being a console exclusive (Bungie was originally a Macintosh developer, and Halo was going to b e multi-platform similar to Oni - it was even originally demoed with Steve Jobs at a Macworld Expo)
d) Even if you didn't game on the device, it served as a gateway to the television. Don't forget, at the same time, Microsoft owned MSNBC and was experimenting with establishing their own cable TV/Internet service. There were a lot of rumors that the original XBox would act as a STB for such a service.
e) The original XBox, hardware-wise, wasn't a radical departure from a typical PC. There wasn't much in it that was proprietary or exclusive, unlike the 360 or the One. It has a basic PIII CPU, and a custom nVidia GPU that was very similar to the GeForce 3. So not a lot of high-risk hardware R&D into the effort.
All of that looks very good to a potential developer.
So OR has some deep pockets, but it's parent company, Facebook, is to date pretty much a one-trick pony. They have a very popular web portal - maybe the most popular real estate on the internet right now. And they have some cash. But they haven't been around all that long, and internet real estate is pretty fickle (just ask Myspace, AOL, and Yahoo how it's going). Yes, Occulus managed to woo John Carmack, and convince CCP to develop an exclusive AAA-like game, but that's isn't quite the same thing as if they had bought ID Software or CCP software.
Content is king. It's all that matters.
In my opinion, Oculus messed up by charging so much. The reason the DK1 and DK2 were successful was because it was affordable for indie devs. Now the CV1 is too expensive and leaves them out of the process.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
PSVR is going to be probably the most successful non cell phone device simply because it works with the PS and they said they don't see any reason why it can't work with the PC. It's also the most affordable. That means you can play it on PS4, the new PS4 system, with potential to play PC titles too - with systems specs far under what a Rift or Vive would cost.
PC gaming anyone?. . . it takes time. It might not be Oculus or Vive. It might be Sony or whever takes what they have done and makes it better. People who try it say it is immersive. The cost etc. will be a barrier until the next generation or 2.
I think something like MS Hololens is more likely to appeal to more people, but it is sooo expensive.
They also need the sets to be more wireless. I still think it is only going up and forward from here.
Wa min God! Se æx on min heafod is!
'there is no way in hell anyone will want any of these things no developers, let alone a AAA game developer would touch it with a ten foot pole'
to
'which one of these devices will succeed and why weren't those AAA developers working on games for these devices back when I was saying not a single developer of any sort would touch one of these things'
its progress, deep dark and perverted, but progress all the same
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I bought one so my GF could strap a set to her kids.
PSVR will likely do the best out of all VR headsets... but thats like saying... the Kinect did the best out of all the eye motion controls. I mean.. sure, it sold the most, and is generally the most advanced.. but after them trying to push it since the 360 -- more than 4 years after launch, it barely gets any support despite it being a rather complex and potentially useful piece of hardware. Then of course you had PS come out with a PS Eye piece of hardware, and PC's have had webcams forever, and back in 2005 webcam gaming was supposed to be a thing.
Everyone owns a webcam now, most XB1 users have the kinect.. nobody uses it.
1) too cumbersome
2) very few if any noteworthy games
3) issues with gameplay in some cases
So far with VR... well lets see.... uhm
1) too cumbersome
2) very few if any noteworthy games
3) issues with gameplay in some cases
4) Way too expensive for any version that connects to the PC right now
5) slower than molasses development on anything that could be considered more than a "demo" of "what could be"
6) The Rift and Vive that are touted as the "best options" -- although more powerful than the competition have even less of a chance of catching on due to hardware costs both for the devices and to run them. most likely they will become the first "kinect" devices... fading away into obscurity while still being "supported".
'as it always has'
how has VR always succeeded and as an 'afterthought'?
whjat?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
regardless of me not understanding your 'always has' and 'after thought' statement here is my assessment and prediction of those four devices.
GearVR: is the gateway drug. As Oculus/Facebook have said they are not interested in making money from the devices themselves but rather the consumer traffic that the software will create in the future. Much like how consoles are often sold at or near 'at cost'. This is not a prediction as much as what was stated by the company. Gear VR as far as use, playablity and quality will be on the bottom of the list and if any of them can be considered a gimmick this one would be it. HOWEVER, its advantage in portability is a great way to 'spread the word' of VR in general.
Sony VR: the next up in quality. Like most things that are in the middle of quality it most likely will do rather well, better than Oculus and Vive? I dont know but very close if not better is my prediction. However that stated I am more interested in the success of VR in general more than I am who.
Oculus VR: next up on quality. This will be the dedicated gamer/techy/nerdy/VR nut jobs like myself toy. When looking for a best in quality perspective this will be the device and as such the best in quality rarely makes the most sells so it would not surprise me at all that sony out sells Oculus.
Vive: despite common assumptions when it comes to quality of the image, response etc Oculus is better than Vive from what Tested has stated. However, Vive brings a much more compelling experience overall. However, for playing 8 hours straight in one 'sitting' its likely the advantages of Vive is not important. however having your friends over for a drunk session of a virutal orgy it very well maybe very compelling.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
VR has been around for decades... getting noteworthy praise here and there and everyone saying how "futuristic" it will be.... but I've tried it in both its "best" iteration and it's "worst" based on your list and honestly, despite once or twice of being startled, it's just another feature that will wear off once people get used to it.
Most people consider that a gimmick honestly ... like when you don't expect something to jump out at you when watching a 3D movie... but we'll see as VR progresses.
We're still a long way off from it ever really being worth anyones time -- we're talking at least 5 years.... and that's IF AR doesn't take hold by then.
The only reason Samsungs VR works is because it's built into a phone people will buy regardless.
The only reason PS VR will work is because it's cheaper. It works with systems already in place that don't require upgrades. It is slated to even work with PCs.
The only reason the Rift is "popular" is because it's the "first" ... the only reason the Vive is in the running at all is because it's the "most powerful".
In the end.. people just aren't going to invest in something so limited... and that is what VR is right now... limited. Geared toward the seclusionist with limited interactions in mind.. in an increasingly social world. You really can't even video chat with someone.
VR has yet to 'succeed' at all yet so 'as always' doesnt make sense.
I think I am starting to understand what you mean by 'after thought' but I fail to understand why such a metric matters or what you would consider good or revelant.
Is USB drives a success but an afterthought? do we care? does it matter? what is a success but not an afterthought? why does it matter?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Want a club? Look at your golf bag and select a club. Your caddy hands it to you. Need a new ball? Look at your bag and select the area that has the golf balls. Your caddy hands you a new ball.
Why the heck would I want a static inventory system?