There are dozens of players in Elite:Dangerous playing with Oculus headsets every day.
Nintendo sold almost a million 3D headsets in 1995, yet 3D failed and continues to fail and be rejected by the large majority of consumers, each year.
3D solved all technical problems that could be solved, yet it keeps failing and never goes mainstream, VR is no different. If anything VR has failed much more than 3D, VR has never shipped a million units of anything.
Originally posted by Waterlily
Originally posted by SpottyGekko
In games, 3D has been a massive, towering success that has changed the face of gaming fundamentally and irrevocably.
That's right, 3D rendering has been a success since day one, regardless of the many flaws it had at the beginning, the core concept was solid enough that it was an instant hit. VR and stereoscopic 3D have failed and will continue to do so as long as companies are willing to hit their head against the wall, trying the same thing that hasn't worked for decades.
First you state that 3D has been a massive failure, then you say it has been a success since day 1 ?
^^That's what happens when you start mixing genres and applications...
3D in gaming was a massive success. However, 3D in movies and TV was a gimmick and failed.
VR, if used in movies and TV will most likely fail just as 3D did in those genres.
But VR in gaming will most likely be a huge success.
There are dozens of players in Elite:Dangerous playing with Oculus headsets every day.
Nintendo sold almost a million 3D headsets in 1995, yet 3D failed and continues to fail and be rejected by the large majority of consumers, each year.
3D solved all technical problems that could be solved, yet it keeps failing and never goes mainstream, VR is no different. If anything VR has failed much more than 3D, VR has never shipped a million units of anything.
Originally posted by Waterlily
Originally posted by SpottyGekko
In games, 3D has been a massive, towering success that has changed the face of gaming fundamentally and irrevocably.
That's right, 3D rendering has been a success since day one, regardless of the many flaws it had at the beginning, the core concept was solid enough that it was an instant hit. VR and stereoscopic 3D have failed and will continue to do so as long as companies are willing to hit their head against the wall, trying the same thing that hasn't worked for decades.
First you state that 3D has been a massive failure, then you say it has been a success since day 1 ?
^^That's what happens when you start mixing genres and applications...
3D in gaming was a massive success. However, 3D in movies and TV was a gimmick and failed.
VR, if used in movies and TV will most likely fail just as 3D did in those genres.
But VR in gaming will most likely be a huge success.
I think in the first, she is referring to Virtual Boy, or VR-32. It seems to follow the context. Then later she is talking about 3D graphics, not the Nintendo hardware.
That's right, 3D rendering has been a success since day one, regardless of the many flaws it had at the beginning, the core concept was solid enough that it was an instant hit. VR and stereoscopic 3D have failed and will continue to do so as long as companies are willing to hit their head against the wall, trying the same thing that hasn't worked for decades.
First you state that 3D has been a massive failure, then you say it has been a success since day 1 ?
3D rendering we know from games and stereoscopic 3D are 2 different things. I only mentioned 3D rendering since someone else brought it up in reply to me. Everyone else since then meant "stereoscopic 3D" when we said "3D", even the OP.
I think many people here have a far fetched idea of what VR with the OR really is and intended to be. I think it is intended to replace a monitor when your looking for more immersion.
It works quite well in ED, will probably work well in SC and many other games. I do not think anyone that is being serious about this discussion expects SAO like VR or that people will suddenly start running in place in their living rooms and start doing flips and jumps and 360 turns because their character does so in game and they are using the OR anymore than it is expected when your sitting at your pc looking at a triple monitor set up.
I do see it working well with games like skyrim etc. Why would it not work? You move forwards with W backwards with S and the mouse side movements make you turn etc, while the head movements let your character turn his head around to look on the sides etc.
People here seem to think you need to reinvent the wheel to get OR working, you don't and there are some games already working just fine with it.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Originally posted by Jemcrystal I think it will be a rich man's toy. Or more to say the child of some rich guy.
Naw, if you were talking about the premade simpit type things the volair sim I would agree with you but by all accounts they will make the OR reasonably priced especially if you look at the price of some monitors out there.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
VR, if used in movies and TV will most likely fail just as 3D did in those genres.
But VR in gaming will most likely be a huge success.
I think the reverse. I think if VR is ever to find a niche market, and I think it might, it will be in a non-game related environment.
Like someone said in this thread, a museum that lets you view an old object in VR, a leak in a pipeline that can be viewed in 3D.
Cases where the amount of time, physical stress on your body and eyes, and movement, are limited, cases where the flaws of VR aren't allowed to manifest themselves.
Gaming underscores the flaws of VR, it promotes motion sickness, it promotes fast movement, it promotes sync and lag issues. VR might find a niche market, but I don't think it will ever succeed in gaming.
Voted no for one reason. Right now I can take the hand off my mouse, grab a glass, drink, put it down and keep playing. If Id use the screens right infront of your eye thing aka VR then Id have to take it off each time I want to do something not game related.
I think many people here have a far fetched idea of what VR with the OR really is and intended to be. I think it is intended to replace a monitor when your looking for more immersion.
It works quite well in ED, will probably work well in SC and many other games. I do not think anyone that is being serious about this discussion expects SAO like VR or that people will suddenly start running in place in their living rooms and start doing flips and jumps and 360 turns because their character does so in game and they are using the OR anymore than it is expected when your sitting at your pc looking at a triple monitor set up.
I do see it working well with games like skyrim etc. Why would it not work? You move forwards with W backwards with S and the mouse side movements make you turn etc, while the head movements let your character turn his head around to look on the sides etc.
People here seem to think you need to reinvent the wheel to get OR working, you don't and there are some games already working just fine with it.
I don't belive that but I do think that if you make a game specific to the OR you could change the mechanics to fit better for it.
Kinda like when you do an exclusive console game, then you mechanics are made to fit the console controller perfectly, like Soul Calibur to mention one game. When you make a game that is made both for PC and console you make compromizes.
Of course you just can add support for the OR and play Wow with just another input device as well but VR have more potential than that. It could make the gaming experience feel a lot more real and could add for new combat and crafting mechanics.
Add something similar to a Wii controller and you could make swordplay something very different from skill rotation.
Originally posted by Alumicard Voted no for one reason. Right now I can take the hand off my mouse, grab a glass, drink, put it down and keep playing. If Id use the screens right infront of your eye thing aka VR then Id have to take it off each time I want to do something not game related.
I heard of this great invention called a straw... Just use something like a MC Donalds soda mug and have it next to you.
What you can't do is like some people I know who also watch telly while they play but to be honest do they all suck pretty badly at playing, that might be unrelated but I think that keeping yourself focused on the game is important if you want to play well.
I am more worried about comfort, playing for 8 hours straight is common for MMOers.
VR, if used in movies and TV will most likely fail just as 3D did in those genres.
But VR in gaming will most likely be a huge success.
I think the reverse. I think if VR is ever to find a niche market, and I think it might, it will be in a non-game related environment.
Like someone said in this thread, a museum that lets you view an old object in VR, a leak in a pipeline that can be viewed in 3D.
Cases where the amount of time, physical stress on your body and eyes, and movement, are limited, cases where the flaws of VR aren't allowed to manifest themselves.
Gaming underscores the flaws of VR, it promotes motion sickness, it promotes fast movement, it promotes sync and lag issues. VR might find a niche market, but I don't think it will ever succeed in gaming.
It sounds like you have not tried the Oculus Rift in an appropriate game setting ?
Viewing an old object in a museum via VR would add nothing to the experience. Viewing a leak in a pipe via VR would add nothing that you couldn't see on a normal monitor. When used in RL scenario's, VR goggles would simply mean that you'd not have to use a keyboard, joystick or mouse to manipulate the camera that's providing the video feed. Your point of view will be determined by the camera location and field-of-view, and unless that camera is attached to a flying drone, it will be very limiting.
When playing a game, your monitor acts as a "window" on the game world. You only see the game while you are looking through that window. All around the "window" your RL room is very much in view. With VR goggles, you "pass through the window". You are now IN the game world, because you cannot see anything else. You are totally "immersed". And because the camera view in a game world is infinitely adjustable, your viewpoint is not tied to a fixed camera location.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the complaints about VR stems from the fact that many people are fundamentally uncomfortable with losing touch with their RL surroundings. That anxiety may well be expressed as completely different symptoms (too heavy, face get's sweaty, eyes take strain, etc.), because people don't like admitting that they simply don't like being "too immersed".
I think many people here have a far fetched idea of what VR with the OR really is and intended to be. I think it is intended to replace a monitor when your looking for more immersion.
It works quite well in ED, will probably work well in SC and many other games. I do not think anyone that is being serious about this discussion expects SAO like VR or that people will suddenly start running in place in their living rooms and start doing flips and jumps and 360 turns because their character does so in game and they are using the OR anymore than it is expected when your sitting at your pc looking at a triple monitor set up.
I do see it working well with games like skyrim etc. Why would it not work? You move forwards with W backwards with S and the mouse side movements make you turn etc, while the head movements let your character turn his head around to look on the sides etc.
People here seem to think you need to reinvent the wheel to get OR working, you don't and there are some games already working just fine with it.
I don't belive that but I do think that if you make a game specific to the OR you could change the mechanics to fit better for it.
Kinda like when you do an exclusive console game, then you mechanics are made to fit the console controller perfectly, like Soul Calibur to mention one game. When you make a game that is made both for PC and console you make compromizes.
Of course you just can add support for the OR and play Wow with just another input device as well but VR have more potential than that. It could make the gaming experience feel a lot more real and could add for new combat and crafting mechanics.
Add something similar to a Wii controller and you could make swordplay something very different from skill rotation.
Sure but first for game devs to do that kind of thing it has to become more mainstream. Also there it's a far cry from using wii like controller and the like and expecting people to run in place and do 360 degree turns so that your character does that too.
Most people will use it in lieu of a monitor for the added immersion, all that other stuff waterlilly is going on about is far away still and I also think she is greatly exaggerating the negative impacts based on those far off possibilities.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Originally posted by Alumicard Voted no for one reason. Right now I can take the hand off my mouse, grab a glass, drink, put it down and keep playing. If Id use the screens right infront of your eye thing aka VR then Id have to take it off each time I want to do something not game related.
I'm not fond of the idea of having two senses cut off from reality either. I like to know what's going on around me.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own. -- Herman Melville
Originally posted by Alumicard Voted no for one reason. Right now I can take the hand off my mouse, grab a glass, drink, put it down and keep playing. If Id use the screens right infront of your eye thing aka VR then Id have to take it off each time I want to do something not game related.
I'm not fond of the idea of having two senses cut off from reality either. I like to know what's going on around me.
I read something about this. A forward facing camera that shows whats in front of you when a certain button is pressed.
Originally posted by nerovipus32 I hope it fails, i have no intention of putting a dumb looking device over my head and becoming a fucking zombie.
Funny enough people said the same thing about Walkman and similar portable music systems...
Today headphones is very big biz...
I actually do believe we are manipulated constantly by audio and TV. I believe that putting a device that covers your head and completely removes you from the world has a whole level of more possibilities in terms of manipulation.
I'm not sure at this point whether they make it big or not. I imagine the path will be one of increments as opposed to a flash of brilliance. It will probabably become popular with something like virtual tours (places, museums, zoos). Once it gets established there, people will come along and say 'hey, what if we add this to it' and on an on, until there is a tipping point in favor of large scale usage in the MMO world. Along this process, the tech will mature, vertigo issues will be fixed,etc
Of course there will be early, simple MMOs, from the beginning, but they will remain niche until the above happens. It will be a couple of years before we see anything that really shines.
I'm not sure at this point whether they make it big or not. I imagine the path will be one of increments as opposed to a flash of brilliance. It will probabably become popular with something like virtual tours (places, museums, zoos). Once it gets established there, people will come along and say 'hey, what if we add this to it' and on an on, until there is a tipping point in favor of large scale usage in the MMO world. Along this process, the tech will mature, vertigo issues will be fixed,etc
Of course there will be early, simple MMOs, from the beginning, but they will remain niche until the above happens. It will be a couple of years before we see anything that really shines.
I agree. If a VR game causes widespread motion sickness then it won't sell. Devs will of course come up with strategies to minimise or eliminate this and other problems. A lot of the anti-VR arguments are very similar to the anti-motorcar arguments in the early-mid 1800's - cost, unwieldiness, comfort, social stigma, etc. All of the arguments were correct (if exaggerated) at the time, but what people failed to understand that technology is never static, but of course is continually adapted, modified and improved (please note I recognise that VR and automobiles are very different, so I'm not conflating the two. But I am saying that VR tech will continue to develop, particularly to overcome current limitations).
Why are these devices legitimately called VR devices? Just because it is visual? To me, VR needs to engage most of our senses and should require body movement systems as well. My 2 cents.
Also, these headsets are causing people to have neck issues. As someone who has had next problems in the past 2 years, I will submit you shouldn't underestimate how easily this can happen.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
I think it's going to be a staple of the flight sim /space sim/driving genres, but no, I doubt VR goggles will ever be a ubiquitous piece of gear for gamers generally.
It'll be more comparable to a steering wheel or a HOTAS setup. Essential gear for a specific type of player. I can't imagine something like an Oculus being any fun at all in a strategy game or a traditional MMORPG, but man... wearing an oculus in Elite was about the coolest gaming experience I've had in years.
I watched a show about dreaming on PBS the other day. Some people have actually studied dreaming in depth though they still don't know very much about it. Dreaming is like a virtual reality to teach you without real danger. Now imagine if they could somehow control your dreams to an extent with a device. You wouldn't need a TV, controller, or head device. When you dream it's like reality. This would be even scarier then things like Oculus Rift, but it would also be cool as it likely wouldn't cost much money. You might just need something the size of your fingernail or smaller attached to part of your body.
Originally posted by Flyte27 I watched a show about dreaming on PBS the other day. Some people have actually studied dreaming in depth though they still don't know very much about it. Dreaming is like a virtual reality to teach you without real danger. Now imagine if they could somehow control your dreams to an extent with a device. You wouldn't need a TV, controller, or head device. When you dream it's like reality. This would be even scarier then things like Oculus Rift, but it would also be cool as it likely wouldn't cost much money. You might just need something the size of your fingernail or smaller attached to part of your body.
It's never been possible to determine if anyone died as a result of having a heart attack while experiencing a particularly stressful dream. Theoretically, you always wake up when things get too epic, but then again, only those that woke up are around to testify...
I'd steer clear of dream-state VR, that's a bit TOO immersive for me, lol
Originally posted by Phry VR i think will probably do well for certain types of games, first person shooters for one, but, i don't think it will have a huge impact on games, some people, myself among them, just prefer to use a monitor. Its a device that will probably fill a niche market, but i don't see it having broad appeal, and i doubt that the units will be all that cheap, so a question of affordability is also a factor.
Quake in VR would be sooooo cool. I try not to think about it too much, as I'd be changing my pants all the time.
Originally posted by Flyte27 I watched a show about dreaming on PBS the other day. Some people have actually studied dreaming in depth though they still don't know very much about it. Dreaming is like a virtual reality to teach you without real danger. Now imagine if they could somehow control your dreams to an extent with a device. You wouldn't need a TV, controller, or head device. When you dream it's like reality. This would be even scarier then things like Oculus Rift, but it would also be cool as it likely wouldn't cost much money. You might just need something the size of your fingernail or smaller attached to part of your body.
True, but it would be real VR and it's all already in our brains.
Comments
First you state that 3D has been a massive failure, then you say it has been a success since day 1 ?
^^That's what happens when you start mixing genres and applications...
3D in gaming was a massive success. However, 3D in movies and TV was a gimmick and failed.
VR, if used in movies and TV will most likely fail just as 3D did in those genres.
But VR in gaming will most likely be a huge success.
I think in the first, she is referring to Virtual Boy, or VR-32. It seems to follow the context. Then later she is talking about 3D graphics, not the Nintendo hardware.
3D rendering we know from games and stereoscopic 3D are 2 different things. I only mentioned 3D rendering since someone else brought it up in reply to me. Everyone else since then meant "stereoscopic 3D" when we said "3D", even the OP.
I think many people here have a far fetched idea of what VR with the OR really is and intended to be. I think it is intended to replace a monitor when your looking for more immersion.
It works quite well in ED, will probably work well in SC and many other games. I do not think anyone that is being serious about this discussion expects SAO like VR or that people will suddenly start running in place in their living rooms and start doing flips and jumps and 360 turns because their character does so in game and they are using the OR anymore than it is expected when your sitting at your pc looking at a triple monitor set up.
I do see it working well with games like skyrim etc. Why would it not work? You move forwards with W backwards with S and the mouse side movements make you turn etc, while the head movements let your character turn his head around to look on the sides etc.
People here seem to think you need to reinvent the wheel to get OR working, you don't and there are some games already working just fine with it.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
Naw, if you were talking about the premade simpit type things the volair sim I would agree with you but by all accounts they will make the OR reasonably priced especially if you look at the price of some monitors out there.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I think the reverse. I think if VR is ever to find a niche market, and I think it might, it will be in a non-game related environment.
Like someone said in this thread, a museum that lets you view an old object in VR, a leak in a pipeline that can be viewed in 3D.
Cases where the amount of time, physical stress on your body and eyes, and movement, are limited, cases where the flaws of VR aren't allowed to manifest themselves.
Gaming underscores the flaws of VR, it promotes motion sickness, it promotes fast movement, it promotes sync and lag issues. VR might find a niche market, but I don't think it will ever succeed in gaming.
I don't belive that but I do think that if you make a game specific to the OR you could change the mechanics to fit better for it.
Kinda like when you do an exclusive console game, then you mechanics are made to fit the console controller perfectly, like Soul Calibur to mention one game. When you make a game that is made both for PC and console you make compromizes.
Of course you just can add support for the OR and play Wow with just another input device as well but VR have more potential than that. It could make the gaming experience feel a lot more real and could add for new combat and crafting mechanics.
Add something similar to a Wii controller and you could make swordplay something very different from skill rotation.
I heard of this great invention called a straw... Just use something like a MC Donalds soda mug and have it next to you.
What you can't do is like some people I know who also watch telly while they play but to be honest do they all suck pretty badly at playing, that might be unrelated but I think that keeping yourself focused on the game is important if you want to play well.
I am more worried about comfort, playing for 8 hours straight is common for MMOers.
It sounds like you have not tried the Oculus Rift in an appropriate game setting ?
Viewing an old object in a museum via VR would add nothing to the experience. Viewing a leak in a pipe via VR would add nothing that you couldn't see on a normal monitor. When used in RL scenario's, VR goggles would simply mean that you'd not have to use a keyboard, joystick or mouse to manipulate the camera that's providing the video feed. Your point of view will be determined by the camera location and field-of-view, and unless that camera is attached to a flying drone, it will be very limiting.
When playing a game, your monitor acts as a "window" on the game world. You only see the game while you are looking through that window. All around the "window" your RL room is very much in view. With VR goggles, you "pass through the window". You are now IN the game world, because you cannot see anything else. You are totally "immersed". And because the camera view in a game world is infinitely adjustable, your viewpoint is not tied to a fixed camera location.
I wouldn't be surprised if many of the complaints about VR stems from the fact that many people are fundamentally uncomfortable with losing touch with their RL surroundings. That anxiety may well be expressed as completely different symptoms (too heavy, face get's sweaty, eyes take strain, etc.), because people don't like admitting that they simply don't like being "too immersed".
Unless the human race get extinguished, VR most likely going to succeed.
The problem is by the time it succeed, you are most likely dead.
Sword Art online definately won't make it in the year 2022. But it might make it in the year 2522.
Sure but first for game devs to do that kind of thing it has to become more mainstream. Also there it's a far cry from using wii like controller and the like and expecting people to run in place and do 360 degree turns so that your character does that too.
Most people will use it in lieu of a monitor for the added immersion, all that other stuff waterlilly is going on about is far away still and I also think she is greatly exaggerating the negative impacts based on those far off possibilities.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I'm not fond of the idea of having two senses cut off from reality either. I like to know what's going on around me.
There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.
-- Herman Melville
I read something about this. A forward facing camera that shows whats in front of you when a certain button is pressed.
I actually do believe we are manipulated constantly by audio and TV. I believe that putting a device that covers your head and completely removes you from the world has a whole level of more possibilities in terms of manipulation.
I'm not sure at this point whether they make it big or not. I imagine the path will be one of increments as opposed to a flash of brilliance. It will probabably become popular with something like virtual tours (places, museums, zoos). Once it gets established there, people will come along and say 'hey, what if we add this to it' and on an on, until there is a tipping point in favor of large scale usage in the MMO world. Along this process, the tech will mature, vertigo issues will be fixed,etc
Of course there will be early, simple MMOs, from the beginning, but they will remain niche until the above happens. It will be a couple of years before we see anything that really shines.
I self identify as a monkey.
I agree. If a VR game causes widespread motion sickness then it won't sell. Devs will of course come up with strategies to minimise or eliminate this and other problems. A lot of the anti-VR arguments are very similar to the anti-motorcar arguments in the early-mid 1800's - cost, unwieldiness, comfort, social stigma, etc. All of the arguments were correct (if exaggerated) at the time, but what people failed to understand that technology is never static, but of course is continually adapted, modified and improved (please note I recognise that VR and automobiles are very different, so I'm not conflating the two. But I am saying that VR tech will continue to develop, particularly to overcome current limitations).
Why are these devices legitimately called VR devices? Just because it is visual? To me, VR needs to engage most of our senses and should require body movement systems as well. My 2 cents.
Also, these headsets are causing people to have neck issues. As someone who has had next problems in the past 2 years, I will submit you shouldn't underestimate how easily this can happen.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
I think it's going to be a staple of the flight sim /space sim/driving genres, but no, I doubt VR goggles will ever be a ubiquitous piece of gear for gamers generally.
It'll be more comparable to a steering wheel or a HOTAS setup. Essential gear for a specific type of player. I can't imagine something like an Oculus being any fun at all in a strategy game or a traditional MMORPG, but man... wearing an oculus in Elite was about the coolest gaming experience I've had in years.
Agree to above, for now VR is not really VR.
It's just a buzzword used to sell gimmicky stuff.
But it's good that constant progress is being made. One day (far in the future) we will get there.
It's never been possible to determine if anyone died as a result of having a heart attack while experiencing a particularly stressful dream. Theoretically, you always wake up when things get too epic, but then again, only those that woke up are around to testify...
I'd steer clear of dream-state VR, that's a bit TOO immersive for me, lol
Quake in VR would be sooooo cool. I try not to think about it too much, as I'd be changing my pants all the time.
True, but it would be real VR and it's all already in our brains.