Howdy, Stranger!

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

VR getting even more excited

SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775

http://www.stuff.tv/oculus/oculus-founder-tells-stuff-were-going-sell-rift-cost-price/news

going to sell it at cost and its better than DK2? wow.
I don't have DK2 yet but I did buy one but from what I have heard DK2 is really good.

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

Please do not respond to me

«134

Comments

  • GurosanGurosan Member UncommonPosts: 24

    i've been playing games for 9 years now and for some odd reason i feel seriously alienated by whole VR thing.

    the concept of full immersion kinda is the main selling point of it, but to me how it looks from aside is too freaky, to look at someone using those VR goggles/helet looks plain weird to me. getting out of touch with reality and completely forsaking one's own being in exchange for this new experience/addiction is something i'll pass for sure.

    i'm not saying it shouldn't exist or be avoided at all, just voicing my opinion of it being too much for myself.

    i'd rather do pen & paper roleplaying which to me is lot more alive than full immersion VR universe.

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

    i've been playing games for 9 years now and for some odd reason i feel seriously alienated by whole VR thing.

    the concept of full immersion kinda is the main selling point of it, but to me how it looks from aside is too freaky, to look at someone using those VR goggles/helet looks plain weird to me. getting out of touch with reality and completely forsaking one's own being in exchange for this new experience/addiction is something i'll pass for sure.

    i'm not saying it shouldn't exist or be avoided at all, just voicing my opinion of it being too much for myself.

    i'd rather do pen & paper roleplaying which to me is lot more alive than full immersion VR universe.

    I really think people have very little idea of how much of a major change is about to happen in 2015 because of VR.

    To your concern regarding the headset itself one should understand that its not a fashion device. While you are in the enviroment you really dont care how you look outside of it.

    With that said the consumer version has been said to be much lighter.

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • AeonbladesAeonblades Member Posts: 2,083
    Personally, I'll be passing on this until actual VR is feasible.

    Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
    Have played: You name it
    If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Personally, I'll be passing on this until actual VR is feasible.

    feasible or released to customers?

    because its feasible now. I have a DK1 and I have played a few demos just fine.

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • AeonbladesAeonblades Member Posts: 2,083
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Personally, I'll be passing on this until actual VR is feasible.

    feasible or released to customers?

    because its feasible now. I have a DK1 and I have played a few demos just fine.

    Feasible as in actual virtual reality rather than just a clunky headgear apparatus that simulates virtual reality. It's just personal preference, I hope those that are excited for the Rift enjoy it and get their money's worth.

    Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
    Have played: You name it
    If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Personally, I'll be passing on this until actual VR is feasible.

    feasible or released to customers?

    because its feasible now. I have a DK1 and I have played a few demos just fine.

    Feasible as in actual virtual reality rather than just a clunky headgear apparatus that simulates virtual reality. It's just personal preference, I hope those that are excited for the Rift enjoy it and get their money's worth.

    well work is being done on what is called 'the room' which is basically a highly interactive room filled with projectors thus basically being a holodeck. They say its totally possible now but its still 5-10 years off as a consumer product.

     

    Having said that, for the majority of the life of 'VR", what you are calling 'true VR' has always been a headset...

    additioanlly, the consumer version is smaller even though the current headset which I have is completely workable.

     

    So maybe I dont understand?

     

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775

    let me ask this question just to help me understand.

    If Oculus RIft was everything it is now BUT just a pair of regular glasses would it then be of interest?

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • Laughing-manLaughing-man Member UncommonPosts: 3,645
    Originally posted by gurosan

    i've been playing games for 9 years now and for some odd reason i feel seriously alienated by whole VR thing.

    the concept of full immersion kinda is the main selling point of it, but to me how it looks from aside is too freaky, to look at someone using those VR goggles/helet looks plain weird to me. getting out of touch with reality and completely forsaking one's own being in exchange for this new experience/addiction is something i'll pass for sure.

    i'm not saying it shouldn't exist or be avoided at all, just voicing my opinion of it being too much for myself.

    i'd rather do pen & paper roleplaying which to me is lot more alive than full immersion VR universe.

    This will be a valid argument... in like 10 years.

    When we're actually playing Sword Art Online (which I'm assuming you are some what referencing when you say forsaking our own being).

  • Laughing-manLaughing-man Member UncommonPosts: 3,645
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD

    let me ask this question just to help me understand.

    If Oculus RIft was everything it is now BUT just a pair of regular glasses would it then be of interest?

    No, because new tech is scary!

    (or that's what it seems everyone is saying)

    What is so great about our reality anyway?  I mean why can't we have more than one?  Objectively speaking.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Laughing-man
    Originally posted by gurosan

    i've been playing games for 9 years now and for some odd reason i feel seriously alienated by whole VR thing.

    the concept of full immersion kinda is the main selling point of it, but to me how it looks from aside is too freaky, to look at someone using those VR goggles/helet looks plain weird to me. getting out of touch with reality and completely forsaking one's own being in exchange for this new experience/addiction is something i'll pass for sure.

    i'm not saying it shouldn't exist or be avoided at all, just voicing my opinion of it being too much for myself.

    i'd rather do pen & paper roleplaying which to me is lot more alive than full immersion VR universe.

    This will be a valid argument... in like 10 years.

    When we're actually playing Sword Art Online (which I'm assuming you are some what referencing when you say forsaking our own being).

    it appears to me everyone who is concerned about the Rift is really concerned about one thing. How it looks on your head.

    It appears to me that what keeps this device from having everyone on the planet loving is can be measured in actual inchces.

     

     

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • AeonbladesAeonblades Member Posts: 2,083
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD

    let me ask this question just to help me understand.

    If Oculus RIft was everything it is now BUT just a pair of regular glasses would it then be of interest?

    Probably not for me. I can see more people using it then though. When I think of Virtual Reality, I think of Virtual Reality, not a headset with tv monitors or anything to that effect.

     

    It's not just the aesthetic, it's also the fact that it's not truly VR for me.

    Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
    Have played: You name it
    If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD

    let me ask this question just to help me understand.

    If Oculus RIft was everything it is now BUT just a pair of regular glasses would it then be of interest?

    Probably not for me. I can see more people using it then though. When I think of Virtual Reality, I think of Virtual Reality, not a headset with tv monitors or anything to that effect.

    i am still a little confused. I mean other than the Star Trek holideck all other references to VR over the past 30 years or so has involved a headset.

    I think you are waiting for a holideck specifcaly not what is 'true VR'

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • kastakasta Member Posts: 512

    I had a GForce3.  It came with a set of glasses and I was fortunate enough to have a monitor with a high enough refresh rate to be able to use them.  It was really sweet with the games that worked with it.  EQ used some tricks so it was mostly broke with it but other single player games were just amazing.

    I will buy a Rift setup when it is available.

  • AeonbladesAeonblades Member Posts: 2,083
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD

    let me ask this question just to help me understand.

    If Oculus RIft was everything it is now BUT just a pair of regular glasses would it then be of interest?

    Probably not for me. I can see more people using it then though. When I think of Virtual Reality, I think of Virtual Reality, not a headset with tv monitors or anything to that effect.

    i am still a little confused. I mean other than the Star Trek holideck all other references to VR over the past 30 years or so has involved a headset.

    I think you are waiting for a holideck specifcaly not what is 'true VR'

    Read this

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_reality

    Oculus focuses only on a small part of Virtual Reality. It's not true Virtual reality. What you refer to as a holodeck is Virtual Reality. The Rift is just a small piece of VR. I'll wait for the complete product personally, I'm not paying to be a beta tester for a small part of VR. It's just what I prefer.

    Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
    Have played: You name it
    If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.

  • coorsguyscoorsguys Member Posts: 272

    Well I think the "VR" fad will go the way of the 3D tv. I just don't see it being able to be mainstream enough and so it will become  available to a niche market.  

    The shark tank had a guy trying to sell his treadmill that hooks up to the rift was passed over by all the sharks.  Mark Cubin did go back and invest in it after the show.  To me this looks clunky and uncomfortable and at $499 just for the treadmill is a reason why it won't be available for most.

    Now that's my opinion and I'm not going to jump on those that don't share my opinion like some do.  

    http://www.roadtovr.com/mark-cuban-shark-tank-virtuix-omni-3-million-3000000-investment-funding-venture-capital/

     

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

    I had a GForce3.  It came with a set of glasses and I was fortunate enough to have a monitor with a high enough refresh rate to be able to use them.  It was really sweet with the games that worked with it.  EQ used some tricks so it was mostly broke with it but other single player games were just amazing.

    I will buy a Rift setup when it is available.

    VR is going to be considerably better than ED screens for a variety of reasons.

    It will also shake up other industries. Forbes is trying it with their trading 'floor' (I think that is what its called). Anyway it replaced 20 monitors.

    Think about that! sitting on your couch watching a movie on a device that costs less than $350 and having better visual quality then a 60" $10,000 4k monitor.

     

    oh yeah

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

    Please do not respond to me

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

    Well I think the "VR" fad will go the way of the 3D tv. I just don't see it being able to be mainstream enough and so it will become  available to a niche market.  

    The shark tank had a guy trying to sell his treadmill that hooks up to the rift was passed over by all the sharks.  Mark Cubin did go back and invest in it after the show.  To me this looks clunky and uncomfortable and at $499 just for the treadmill is a reason why it won't be available for most.

    Now that's my opinion and I'm not going to jump on those that don't share my opinion like some do.  

    http://www.roadtovr.com/mark-cuban-shark-tank-virtuix-omni-3-million-3000000-investment-funding-venture-capital/

     

    I dont see a correlation betweeen 3D TV and VR. Not only do they both work differently but one works with a true wide field of view and motion detection.

    I was never interested in 3D TVs but I am very excited about VR.

    Now granted that is your opnion but I will point out that its obvious now that a lot of major players are invested in this device both from an investement as well as who they have been hiring.

     

    oh and Omni is not Oculus Rift. Nor is Omni camera technology, or glove technology. There is no doubt that an unseated VR experience is not going to be easy

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • coorsguyscoorsguys Member Posts: 272
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by kasta

    I had a GForce3.  It came with a set of glasses and I was fortunate enough to have a monitor with a high enough refresh rate to be able to use them.  It was really sweet with the games that worked with it.  EQ used some tricks so it was mostly broke with it but other single player games were just amazing.

    I will buy a Rift setup when it is available.

    VR is going to be considerably better than ED screens for a variety of reasons.

    It will also shake up other industries. Forbes is trying it with their trading 'floor' (I think that is what its called). Anyway it replaced 20 monitors.

    Think about that! sitting on your couch watching a movie on a device that costs less than $350 and having better visual quality then a 60" $10,000 4k monitor.

     

    oh yeah

     

    Hey there is nothing wrong with liking a product but coming out and making false claims doesn't help push the product.  Here read this if you think it's the same picture as a 4k tv...

     

    http://kotaku.com/what-its-like-to-watch-movies-on-the-oculus-rift-1206188927

     

    ill quote a section for you incase you don't want to look at the link.  

    "During close-ups it looked fine, but anytime there was a wide shot with lots of details—or worse yet a wide shot with lots of details plus movement—the Rift's inherent problem showed through: Because each of your eyes is looking at the equivalent of a 600x400 pixel screen two inches away from your face, it looks more than a little blocky.

    When I moved on to my second movie, the Tom Cruise sci-fi film Oblivion, it got even worse. As a live action movie, it was generally more detailed than an animated one—not that I'd know that from the Rift. Details in wide shots were practically non-existent—especially in the case of faces. This in turn caused me to miss out on some of the film's most important reveals (until, at least, the film's next close-up clarified what was going on). Also, due to the pixelation, reading anything was this side of impossible."

     

  • OlimanOliman Member Posts: 17
    Originally posted by coorsguys
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by kasta

    I had a GForce3.  It came with a set of glasses and I was fortunate enough to have a monitor with a high enough refresh rate to be able to use them.  It was really sweet with the games that worked with it.  EQ used some tricks so it was mostly broke with it but other single player games were just amazing.

    I will buy a Rift setup when it is available.

    VR is going to be considerably better than ED screens for a variety of reasons.

    It will also shake up other industries. Forbes is trying it with their trading 'floor' (I think that is what its called). Anyway it replaced 20 monitors.

    Think about that! sitting on your couch watching a movie on a device that costs less than $350 and having better visual quality then a 60" $10,000 4k monitor.

     

    oh yeah

     

    Hey there is nothing wrong with liking a product but coming out and making false claims doesn't help push the product.  Here read this if you think it's the same picture as a 4k tv...

     

    http://kotaku.com/what-its-like-to-watch-movies-on-the-oculus-rift-1206188927

     

    ill quote a section for you incase you don't want to look at the link.  

    "During close-ups it looked fine, but anytime there was a wide shot with lots of details—or worse yet a wide shot with lots of details plus movement—the Rift's inherent problem showed through: Because each of your eyes is looking at the equivalent of a 600x400 pixel screen two inches away from your face, it looks more than a little blocky.

    When I moved on to my second movie, the Tom Cruise sci-fi film Oblivion, it got even worse. As a live action movie, it was generally more detailed than an animated one—not that I'd know that from the Rift. Details in wide shots were practically non-existent—especially in the case of faces. This in turn caused me to miss out on some of the film's most important reveals (until, at least, the film's next close-up clarified what was going on). Also, due to the pixelation, reading anything was this side of impossible."

     

    Which version was this review written against?

     

    "Read Less, More TV." - Dr. House

  • AeonbladesAeonblades Member Posts: 2,083
    Originally posted by coorsguys
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by kasta

    I had a GForce3.  It came with a set of glasses and I was fortunate enough to have a monitor with a high enough refresh rate to be able to use them.  It was really sweet with the games that worked with it.  EQ used some tricks so it was mostly broke with it but other single player games were just amazing.

    I will buy a Rift setup when it is available.

    VR is going to be considerably better than ED screens for a variety of reasons.

    It will also shake up other industries. Forbes is trying it with their trading 'floor' (I think that is what its called). Anyway it replaced 20 monitors.

    Think about that! sitting on your couch watching a movie on a device that costs less than $350 and having better visual quality then a 60" $10,000 4k monitor.

     

    oh yeah

     

    Hey there is nothing wrong with liking a product but coming out and making false claims doesn't help push the product.  Here read this if you think it's the same picture as a 4k tv...

     

    http://kotaku.com/what-its-like-to-watch-movies-on-the-oculus-rift-1206188927

     

    ill quote a section for you incase you don't want to look at the link.  

    "During close-ups it looked fine, but anytime there was a wide shot with lots of details—or worse yet a wide shot with lots of details plus movement—the Rift's inherent problem showed through: Because each of your eyes is looking at the equivalent of a 600x400 pixel screen two inches away from your face, it looks more than a little blocky.

    When I moved on to my second movie, the Tom Cruise sci-fi film Oblivion, it got even worse. As a live action movie, it was generally more detailed than an animated one—not that I'd know that from the Rift. Details in wide shots were practically non-existent—especially in the case of faces. This in turn caused me to miss out on some of the film's most important reveals (until, at least, the film's next close-up clarified what was going on). Also, due to the pixelation, reading anything was this side of impossible."

     

    Stuff like this is why personally I think this is a huge blunder for companies to get involved in, but only time will tell. I tend to agree it's going to go the way of the 3D TV with only a small fraction of the market even owning the product. Once they can take what they learn from the Rift and why it didn't work, they can start working on a true VR experience rather than a simulated VR that doesn't quite measure up to anyone's expectations.

    Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
    Have played: You name it
    If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by coorsguys
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by kasta

    I had a GForce3.  It came with a set of glasses and I was fortunate enough to have a monitor with a high enough refresh rate to be able to use them.  It was really sweet with the games that worked with it.  EQ used some tricks so it was mostly broke with it but other single player games were just amazing.

    I will buy a Rift setup when it is available.

    VR is going to be considerably better than ED screens for a variety of reasons.

    It will also shake up other industries. Forbes is trying it with their trading 'floor' (I think that is what its called). Anyway it replaced 20 monitors.

    Think about that! sitting on your couch watching a movie on a device that costs less than $350 and having better visual quality then a 60" $10,000 4k monitor.

     

    oh yeah

     

    Hey there is nothing wrong with liking a product but coming out and making false claims doesn't help push the product.  Here read this if you think it's the same picture as a 4k tv...

     

    http://kotaku.com/what-its-like-to-watch-movies-on-the-oculus-rift-1206188927

     

    ill quote a section for you incase you don't want to look at the link.  

    "During close-ups it looked fine, but anytime there was a wide shot with lots of details—or worse yet a wide shot with lots of details plus movement—the Rift's inherent problem showed through: Because each of your eyes is looking at the equivalent of a 600x400 pixel screen two inches away from your face, it looks more than a little blocky.

    When I moved on to my second movie, the Tom Cruise sci-fi film Oblivion, it got even worse. As a live action movie, it was generally more detailed than an animated one—not that I'd know that from the Rift. Details in wide shots were practically non-existent—especially in the case of faces. This in turn caused me to miss out on some of the film's most important reveals (until, at least, the film's next close-up clarified what was going on). Also, due to the pixelation, reading anything was this side of impossible."

     

    let me try to be more clear.

    Fact: Forbes has virtualized 20 monitors into one headset

    Me speculating: How cool would it be to have a 60" monitor in your face!

    me Speculating not based on fact: 4k. Although I would think its easier to show 4k in 5" then it is in 60". call me crazy on that.

     

    My error for not being more clear. Also understand DK1 which was used that article is not as good as DK2 and the consumer version they have stated will be even better than DK2

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • SEANMCADSEANMCAD Member EpicPosts: 16,775
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by coorsguys
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by kasta

    I had a GForce3.  It came with a set of glasses and I was fortunate enough to have a monitor with a high enough refresh rate to be able to use them.  It was really sweet with the games that worked with it.  EQ used some tricks so it was mostly broke with it but other single player games were just amazing.

    I will buy a Rift setup when it is available.

    VR is going to be considerably better than ED screens for a variety of reasons.

    It will also shake up other industries. Forbes is trying it with their trading 'floor' (I think that is what its called). Anyway it replaced 20 monitors.

    Think about that! sitting on your couch watching a movie on a device that costs less than $350 and having better visual quality then a 60" $10,000 4k monitor.

     

    oh yeah

     

    Hey there is nothing wrong with liking a product but coming out and making false claims doesn't help push the product.  Here read this if you think it's the same picture as a 4k tv...

     

    http://kotaku.com/what-its-like-to-watch-movies-on-the-oculus-rift-1206188927

     

    ill quote a section for you incase you don't want to look at the link.  

    "During close-ups it looked fine, but anytime there was a wide shot with lots of details—or worse yet a wide shot with lots of details plus movement—the Rift's inherent problem showed through: Because each of your eyes is looking at the equivalent of a 600x400 pixel screen two inches away from your face, it looks more than a little blocky.

    When I moved on to my second movie, the Tom Cruise sci-fi film Oblivion, it got even worse. As a live action movie, it was generally more detailed than an animated one—not that I'd know that from the Rift. Details in wide shots were practically non-existent—especially in the case of faces. This in turn caused me to miss out on some of the film's most important reveals (until, at least, the film's next close-up clarified what was going on). Also, due to the pixelation, reading anything was this side of impossible."

     

    Stuff like this is why personally I think this is a huge blunder for companies to get involved in, but only time will tell. I tend to agree it's going to go the way of the 3D TV with only a small fraction of the market even owning the product. Once they can take what they learn from the Rift and why it didn't work, they can start working on a true VR experience rather than a simulated VR that doesn't quite measure up to anyone's expectations.

    just to keep you guys up to speed. 600x400 (720p)is the DK1 version which is a version Oculus has stated is not acceptable for consumer. DK2 is 1080p and I think the consumer version is slated to be higher.

    They fully understand (more so then most people) that VR has to have a resolution and response rate that well passes that of TVs and 720p which is why console VR is hard

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

    Please do not respond to me

  • coorsguyscoorsguys Member Posts: 272
    Originally posted by Oliman
    Originally posted by coorsguys
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by kasta

    I had a GForce3.  It came with a set of glasses and I was fortunate enough to have a monitor with a high enough refresh rate to be able to use them.  It was really sweet with the games that worked with it.  EQ used some tricks so it was mostly broke with it but other single player games were just amazing.

    I will buy a Rift setup when it is available.

    VR is going to be considerably better than ED screens for a variety of reasons.

    It will also shake up other industries. Forbes is trying it with their trading 'floor' (I think that is what its called). Anyway it replaced 20 monitors.

    Think about that! sitting on your couch watching a movie on a device that costs less than $350 and having better visual quality then a 60" $10,000 4k monitor.

     

    oh yeah

     

    Hey there is nothing wrong with liking a product but coming out and making false claims doesn't help push the product.  Here read this if you think it's the same picture as a 4k tv...

     

    http://kotaku.com/what-its-like-to-watch-movies-on-the-oculus-rift-1206188927

     

    ill quote a section for you incase you don't want to look at the link.  

    "During close-ups it looked fine, but anytime there was a wide shot with lots of details—or worse yet a wide shot with lots of details plus movement—the Rift's inherent problem showed through: Because each of your eyes is looking at the equivalent of a 600x400 pixel screen two inches away from your face, it looks more than a little blocky.

    When I moved on to my second movie, the Tom Cruise sci-fi film Oblivion, it got even worse. As a live action movie, it was generally more detailed than an animated one—not that I'd know that from the Rift. Details in wide shots were practically non-existent—especially in the case of faces. This in turn caused me to miss out on some of the film's most important reveals (until, at least, the film's next close-up clarified what was going on). Also, due to the pixelation, reading anything was this side of impossible."

     

    Which version was this review written against?

     

    [Note: The following observations were made on an Oculus Rift development kit, not the retail version (which does not yet exist at the time of publication).]

    I would assume this is the same one Sean has so to make that claim is even worse.  Now if the newer version is better please post a link that states it's a better picture then a 4k tv.  

  • AeonbladesAeonblades Member Posts: 2,083
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by Aeonblades
    Originally posted by coorsguys
    Originally posted by SEANMCAD
    Originally posted by kasta

    I had a GForce3.  It came with a set of glasses and I was fortunate enough to have a monitor with a high enough refresh rate to be able to use them.  It was really sweet with the games that worked with it.  EQ used some tricks so it was mostly broke with it but other single player games were just amazing.

    I will buy a Rift setup when it is available.

    VR is going to be considerably better than ED screens for a variety of reasons.

    It will also shake up other industries. Forbes is trying it with their trading 'floor' (I think that is what its called). Anyway it replaced 20 monitors.

    Think about that! sitting on your couch watching a movie on a device that costs less than $350 and having better visual quality then a 60" $10,000 4k monitor.

     

    oh yeah

     

    Hey there is nothing wrong with liking a product but coming out and making false claims doesn't help push the product.  Here read this if you think it's the same picture as a 4k tv...

     

    http://kotaku.com/what-its-like-to-watch-movies-on-the-oculus-rift-1206188927

     

    ill quote a section for you incase you don't want to look at the link.  

    "During close-ups it looked fine, but anytime there was a wide shot with lots of details—or worse yet a wide shot with lots of details plus movement—the Rift's inherent problem showed through: Because each of your eyes is looking at the equivalent of a 600x400 pixel screen two inches away from your face, it looks more than a little blocky.

    When I moved on to my second movie, the Tom Cruise sci-fi film Oblivion, it got even worse. As a live action movie, it was generally more detailed than an animated one—not that I'd know that from the Rift. Details in wide shots were practically non-existent—especially in the case of faces. This in turn caused me to miss out on some of the film's most important reveals (until, at least, the film's next close-up clarified what was going on). Also, due to the pixelation, reading anything was this side of impossible."

     

    Stuff like this is why personally I think this is a huge blunder for companies to get involved in, but only time will tell. I tend to agree it's going to go the way of the 3D TV with only a small fraction of the market even owning the product. Once they can take what they learn from the Rift and why it didn't work, they can start working on a true VR experience rather than a simulated VR that doesn't quite measure up to anyone's expectations.

    just to keep you guys up to speed. 600x400 (720p)is the DK1 version which is a version Oculus has stated is not acceptable for consumer. DK2 is 1080p and I think the consumer version is slated to be higher.

    They fully understand (more so then most people) that VR has to have a resolution and response rate that well passes that of TVs and 720p which is why console VR is hard

    I understand they say improvements will be made, I just won't believe it until I see it. I just don't see a niche product like the Rift replacing a TV for anyone but the most hardcore VR enthusiast that wants to follow them every step of the way on the journey to truly create VR.

    Currently Playing: ESO and FFXIV
    Have played: You name it
    If you mention rose tinted glasses, you better be referring to Mitch Hedberg.

  • EnterTheWombatEnterTheWombat Member UncommonPosts: 112
    I initially read this thread title and thought you meant that the Veteran Ranks (VR) in ESO had been altered drastically.  For a few moments, I was excited. Now I am not. 
Sign In or Register to comment.