I just read a few more articles that is touting the MS VR headset as if its the second coming of christ all the while in the same article saying 'even though we dont know the specs yet'.
This cute little device could be as good as Google cardrboard, marginally better, marginally worse the PSVR we dont know. This gamer really doesnt care either way, when it comes to my gaming experience I always look at the best option, then work my way down from there based on my finances of which are usually rather good so I am only slightly interested in who might when the McDonaldalization of VR.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
Remember MS has been working on this for a while. I think they learned that pushing out tech too early causes issues. It will be nice to see what they can do.
they have been working on smart phones for awhile too.
I think the community here as well as the media needs to turn down their painfully obvious bias down a notch and wait until specs come out.
Experience with failure is just as valuable as experience with success. Microsoft has never been shy on spending huge amounts of capital into research and development.
Microsoft jumping into the game, gives developers that much more confidence. I have a hell of a lot more confidence in Microsoft with VR than I do with Facebook.
I just read a few more articles that is touting the MS VR headset as if its the second coming of christ all the while in the same article saying 'even though we dont know the specs yet'.
This cute little device could be as good as Google cardrboard, marginally better, marginally worse the PSVR we dont know. This gamer really doesnt care either way, when it comes to my gaming experience I always look at the best option, then work my way down from there based on my finances of which are usually rather good so I am only slightly interested in who might when the McDonaldalization of VR.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
Remember MS has been working on this for a while. I think they learned that pushing out tech too early causes issues. It will be nice to see what they can do.
they have been working on smart phones for awhile too.
I think the community here as well as the media needs to turn down their painfully obvious bias down a notch and wait until specs come out.
Experience with failure is just as valuable as experience with success. Microsoft has never been shy on spending huge amounts of capital into research and development.
Microsoft jumping into the game, gives developers that much more confidence. I have a hell of a lot more confidence in Microsoft with VR than I do with Facebook.
well I agree with your first assertion, I do not agree with your last.
I didnt used to always thing that however in my mind MS has consitenty shown that they are out of touch in the consumer market
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
It didn't stop them from overhyping the Rift. Just like RIft, Microsoft will be expected to deliver on it. Unlike Rift, they probably can.
unlike the Rift they dont have specs.
look what I am asying is not that crazy.
google cardboard is not greater than Oculus
What the fuck are the specs on MS VR?
Your jumping the gun here. There not yet selling it, they announced they're working on it. I doubt the specs are fixed yet.
If my memory serves me right, Oculus claimed their consumer version was going to retail at about $300. The retail cost being what it is, I'd call that a pretty major fuck up.
I like microsoft. Theyve made a lot of mistakes, but also some great decisions. Ive had a windows machine for..... many years and have had some great times. met new friends, been immersed in some great MMOs and found some great porn.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
It didn't stop them from overhyping the Rift. Just like RIft, Microsoft will be expected to deliver on it. Unlike Rift, they probably can.
unlike the Rift they dont have specs.
look what I am asying is not that crazy.
google cardboard is not greater than Oculus
What the fuck are the specs on MS VR?
Your jumping the gun here. There not yet selling it, they announced they're working on it. I doubt the specs are fixed yet.
If my memory serves me right, Oculus claimed their consumer version was going to retail at about $300. The retail cost being what it is, I'd call that a pretty major fuck up.
the 'gun' that I am jumping to soon on would be this
'can we wait to see what the specs are before we suggest its a great gaming changing device'
that 'gun'?
and yes without quesiton Oculus fucked up, more than once in fact. dont forget the whole part of selling something that they cant deliever to a consumer for 6 months part either.
but what i am asking people to do is to simply not ASSUME that MS VR hardware is of the same quality until we see the fucking specs
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I like microsoft. Theyve made a lot of mistakes, but also some great decisions. Ive had a windows machine for..... many years and have had some great times. met new friends, been immersed in some great MMOs and found some great porn.
I'll be crossing my fingers for a success.
are you seriously taking the position right now of 'oh MS is great...because of windows'
really? ok well have fun with that one
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
It didn't stop them from overhyping the Rift. Just like RIft, Microsoft will be expected to deliver on it. Unlike Rift, they probably can.
unlike the Rift they dont have specs.
look what I am asying is not that crazy.
google cardboard is not greater than Oculus
What the fuck are the specs on MS VR?
I think you have it the wrong way around. The real question should be, what are the system requirements to support MS VR, but i'll make an outright guess here, but one i feel fairly confident about. And that is that i think the system requirements to support MS VR are likely to be lower than either the OR or the HTC Vive. Lest you forget, both those options require some very hefty system spec's in order to work half decently, coupled with their high price tags, which represents one of their biggest weaknesses when it comes to consumer interest. If, and its not much of an if tbh, the MS VR has system requirements that means it works at least as well as the PS VR on a mid range PC, then, its job done, advance to go and collect $200 then sit back and gloat at their competitors floundering helplessly.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
It didn't stop them from overhyping the Rift. Just like RIft, Microsoft will be expected to deliver on it. Unlike Rift, they probably can.
unlike the Rift they dont have specs.
look what I am asying is not that crazy.
google cardboard is not greater than Oculus
What the fuck are the specs on MS VR?
I think you have it the wrong way around. The real question should be, what are the system requirements to support MS VR
abosultly entirely not.
what is the requirements to run Google Cardboard? do those low requirements make it an obvious watershed game changer for the better?
as far as we know (for the sake of illustrating balance here) MSVR is that of Google Cardboard in a plastic holder
For someone who is supposedly such a fan of VR, i would not have expected so much negativity about the very thing you think is the future of gaming. I know you are a fan of the OR, but you must have known from the very beginning that as a first generation device, it would be supplanted by second generation devices as they became available, particularly as price points fell, if you really have such a problem with MS VR, i have to wonder how you will feel when we inevitably see 3rd generation devices emerge, as you can be sure, they most definitely will.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
It didn't stop them from overhyping the Rift. Just like RIft, Microsoft will be expected to deliver on it. Unlike Rift, they probably can.
unlike the Rift they dont have specs.
look what I am asying is not that crazy.
google cardboard is not greater than Oculus
What the fuck are the specs on MS VR?
I think you have it the wrong way around. The real question should be, what are the system requirements to support MS VR
abosultly entirely not.
what is the requirements to run Google Cardboard? do those low requirements make it an obvious watershed game changer for the better?
as far as we know (for the sake of illustrating balance here) MSVR is that of Google Cardboard in a plastic holder
For someone who is supposedly such a fan of VR, i would not have expected so much negativity about the very thing you think is the future of gaming. I know you are a fan of the OR, but you must have known from the very beginning that as a first generation device, it would be supplanted by second generation devices as they became available, particularly as price points fell, if you really have such a problem with MS VR, i have to wonder how you will feel when we inevitably see 3rd generation devices emerge, as you can be sure, they most definitely will.
I am more of a fan of Vive and wish I had bought it actually.
I am more of a 'high end gamer' I like looking at high end solutions for my gaming life, I am not as interested in mid to low level solutions which at the moment I am assuming the MS VR is not the same as a OR or Vive because of its price but maybe they will surprise me color me wrong on that.
Either way, the safe route is to not assume (me or you). There are currently A LOT of VR headsets in the market now varying in all matters of different levels of quality from Google cardboard to StarVR. Just because a vendor reveals a VR headset and a price one should not assume its technical location on that curve.
make sense? sound unreasonable?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
It didn't stop them from overhyping the Rift. Just like RIft, Microsoft will be expected to deliver on it. Unlike Rift, they probably can.
unlike the Rift they dont have specs.
look what I am asying is not that crazy.
google cardboard is not greater than Oculus
What the fuck are the specs on MS VR?
I think you have it the wrong way around. The real question should be, what are the system requirements to support MS VR
abosultly entirely not.
what is the requirements to run Google Cardboard? do those low requirements make it an obvious watershed game changer for the better?
as far as we know (for the sake of illustrating balance here) MSVR is that of Google Cardboard in a plastic holder
For someone who is supposedly such a fan of VR, i would not have expected so much negativity about the very thing you think is the future of gaming. I know you are a fan of the OR, but you must have known from the very beginning that as a first generation device, it would be supplanted by second generation devices as they became available, particularly as price points fell, if you really have such a problem with MS VR, i have to wonder how you will feel when we inevitably see 3rd generation devices emerge, as you can be sure, they most definitely will.
I am more of a fan of Vive and wish I had bought it actually.
I am more of a 'high end gamer' I like looking at high end solutions for my gaming life, I am not as interested in mid to low level solutions which at the moment I am assuming the MS VR is not the same as a OR or Vive because of its price but maybe they will surprise me color me wrong on that.
Either way, the safe route is to not assume (me or you). There are currently A LOT of VR headsets in the market now varying in all matters of different levels of quality from Google cardboard to StarVR. Just because a vendor reveals a VR headset and a price one should not assume its technical location on that curve.
make sense? sound unreasonable?
One of your more reasonable statements and one that can't be argued with.
The one thing that will retard VR this generation is saturation. Hasn't anyone learn't? Get to a standard asap.
The high price tag of the Occulus Rift and HTC Vibe coupled with the "smaller" potential market is a bigger issue.
Disagree. If a price war had not already kicked in and a standard agreed a year ago, the sales for a given format would be really very decent, even at the Rift price (for example).
What will kill VR this generation is dilution.
For software to be made, the market has to be robust. 4+ different formats for a year 1 niche tech do not make a robust market for software.
For software to be made their has to be a sufficiently high installed base of a given standard - or the expectation of one. The standard alone is not enough.
Oculus and Rift haven't delivered the install base this - 140k worldwide is trivial for example. Price without doubt a factor; availability probably an even bigger factor. No surprise that EA is not making games for them. "Standards" that don't sell "in volume" are pointless.
The console base is significant. And most owners can be assumed to play games - not the case with PCs.
If the MS (And Sony) offerings take off Oculus and Rift will - probably - have to respond by lowering their prices. Especially as XB1 VR will / might - presumably - run on (sufficiently powerful) PCs.
so I had mentioned about 2 months ago that there will be a major push with VR this month, turns out I was right. I didnt make it up, I actually posted articles that gave plenty of evidence to that.
What else have I posted some of? links to news articles saying millions are being invested currently into content. I am trying to hold my tongue but its becoming hard.
About two weeks ago I read that some 100+ million dollars was being spent to set up the 'Pixar of VR' another article that said HTC is about ready to tell people about a large content project they have been working on, another article about a studio being setup with also millions of dollars. This content doesnt happen over night but just like how I explained the 500 stores in best buy and it actually happening, the links do exist.
You also said that you didn't expect to see widespread availability this year. Which looks to be the case. Which doesn't mean they won't be running "big promotions" of course.
Availability requires "volume production". Which is when big expenditure kicks in. They would like to run low volume production. This reduces costs both of manufacturing and refining the units. It also keeps the units scare potentially generating premium prices. If demand (all sources) outstrips availability (all sources) no problem.
Sony and MS's entry into the market will - probably - upset this.
Ramping up production though is when you can also lose money. If HTC churn out units and end up with 2 million unsold then even if each unit only $100 to make that's $200M. Use any numbers you want but you can very quickly see how costs can escalate. Which is exactly what happened to Nintendo in the 90s prompting them to cancel their (years old) investment in VR after only selling 750k. (Only!) huge loss.
Production is the big cost driver. Especially if a part of the cost is "absorbed" by the manufacturer - as Sony and MS have historically done of course in order to get console adopted.
The one thing that will retard VR this generation is saturation. Hasn't anyone learn't? Get to a standard asap.
The high price tag of the Occulus Rift and HTC Vibe coupled with the "smaller" potential market is a bigger issue.
Disagree. If a price war had not already kicked in and a standard agreed a year ago, the sales for a given format would be really very decent, even at the Rift price (for example).
What will kill VR this generation is dilution.
For software to be made, the market has to be robust. 4+ different formats for a year 1 niche tech do not make a robust market for software.
For software to be made their has to be a sufficiently high installed base of a given standard - or the expectation of one. The standard alone is not enough.
Oculus and Rift haven't delivered the install base this - 140k worldwide is trivial for example. Price without doubt a factor; availability probably an even bigger factor. No surprise that EA is not making games for them. "Standards" that don't sell "in volume" are pointless.
The console base is significant. And most owners can be assumed to play games - not the case with PCs.
If the MS (And Sony) offerings take off Oculus and Rift will - probably - have to respond by lowering their prices. Especially as XB1 VR will / might - presumably - run on (sufficiently powerful) PCs.
so I had mentioned about 2 months ago that there will be a major push with VR this month, turns out I was right. I didnt make it up, I actually posted articles that gave plenty of evidence to that.
What else have I posted some of? links to news articles saying millions are being invested currently into content. I am trying to hold my tongue but its becoming hard.
About two weeks ago I read that some 100+ million dollars was being spent to set up the 'Pixar of VR' another article that said HTC is about ready to tell people about a large content project they have been working on, another article about a studio being setup with also millions of dollars. This content doesnt happen over night but just like how I explained the 500 stores in best buy and it actually happening, the links do exist.
You also said that you didn't expect to see widespread availability this year. Which looks to be the case. Which doesn't mean they won't be running "big promotions" of course.
Sorry I read that like 3 times and I still dont understand what your saying.
regardless let me help by re-stating my main assertion again but perhaps differently.
1. it takes 3 years to make a standard game, only very risky developers would start to develop on VR during the time frame when it was still in development and thus the first API was constantly changing as well as hardware.
2. millions of dollars are currently being spent on content most of which has just started or started this year. This is not an opinion this is a fact of which I have provided 3 examples.
3. thus I would expect to see content from these developers explained in item 2 to start having consumable content to customers around the 3 year mark.
can you please say something that addresses any of these three points
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The one thing that will retard VR this generation is saturation. Hasn't anyone learn't? Get to a standard asap.
The high price tag of the Occulus Rift and HTC Vibe coupled with the "smaller" potential market is a bigger issue.
Disagree. If a price war had not already kicked in and a standard agreed a year ago, the sales for a given format would be really very decent, even at the Rift price (for example).
What will kill VR this generation is dilution.
For software to be made, the market has to be robust. 4+ different formats for a year 1 niche tech do not make a robust market for software.
For software to be made their has to be a sufficiently high installed base of a given standard - or the expectation of one. The standard alone is not enough.
Oculus and Rift haven't delivered the install base this - 140k worldwide is trivial for example. Price without doubt a factor; availability probably an even bigger factor. No surprise that EA is not making games for them. "Standards" that don't sell "in volume" are pointless.
The console base is significant. And most owners can be assumed to play games - not the case with PCs.
If the MS (And Sony) offerings take off Oculus and Rift will - probably - have to respond by lowering their prices. Especially as XB1 VR will / might - presumably - run on (sufficiently powerful) PCs.
so I had mentioned about 2 months ago that there will be a major push with VR this month, turns out I was right. I didnt make it up, I actually posted articles that gave plenty of evidence to that.
What else have I posted some of? links to news articles saying millions are being invested currently into content. I am trying to hold my tongue but its becoming hard.
About two weeks ago I read that some 100+ million dollars was being spent to set up the 'Pixar of VR' another article that said HTC is about ready to tell people about a large content project they have been working on, another article about a studio being setup with also millions of dollars. This content doesnt happen over night but just like how I explained the 500 stores in best buy and it actually happening, the links do exist.
You also said that you didn't expect to see widespread availability this year. Which looks to be the case. Which doesn't mean they won't be running "big promotions" of course.
Sorry I read that like 3 times and I still dont understand what your saying.
regardless let me help by re-stating my main assertion again but perhaps differently.
1. it takes 3 years to make a standard game, only very risky developers would start to develop on VR during the time frame when it was still in development and thus the first API was constantly changing as well as hardware.
2. millions of dollars are currently being spent on content most of which has just started or started this year. This is not an opinion this is a fact of which I have provided 3 examples.
3. thus I would expect to see content from these developers explained in item 2 to start having consumable content to customers around the 3 year mark.
can you please say something that addresses any of these three points
Foolishness upon foolishness. Developing a game during the time they release development kits is exactly what its for. "Oh I'm a developer and I just got the Xbox 1 dev kit, I better not make a game for it and hope that others do it when the consumer version releases because they really only release development kits to developers for fun"
This is facetious at best. They've been "investing in VR content" for years. YEARS. We're seeing the best of what they have on the market right now, your assumption that nobody develops for "unfinished devices" is the most ridiculous assumption one could make, and wrong. So. Very. Wrong.
And you keep saying the 3 year mark... DK1 released in early 2013 and was in development since 2012, cardboard came out in early 2015, gear VR has been out since 2014... and here we are.. a mere 2 months away from 2017 and what do all those billions in investments have to show for those 4 years of development?
On a side note, it's hilarious to rail against Microsoft, but Microsoft isn't actually late to the game here, Microsoft has been working on the Hololens since 2014, and this VR set is an extension of a lot of that technology, and a chance to bolster their windows 10 Creators Update, which will use some of the developed tools that were developed for Hololens, but for their VR system instead.
We also know for a fact that their VR set will work on computers with much lower system specs, but does that mean it won't be scalable to more powerful PCs?
Currently with GOOGLE CARDBOARD, and RiftCAT you can play a LOT of those oculus games that SEAN believes are so "high end hardware" specific. What I also find extremely funny is that the Note 7 (may it rest in peace) had higher resolution than both the Rift and the Vive.
I like microsoft. Theyve made a lot of mistakes, but also some great decisions. Ive had a windows machine for..... many years and have had some great times. met new friends, been immersed in some great MMOs and found some great porn.
I'll be crossing my fingers for a success.
are you seriously taking the position right now of 'oh MS is great...because of windows'
really? ok well have fun with that one
You seem to be a bit combative. I acknowledge they aren't a perfect company. I just think, that on balance, that I view them favorably. I don't know why that puts you in such a snarky mood. It is ok for ppl to have a different opinion without worrying about childish saltiness..... isn't it.
I just read a few more articles that is touting the MS VR headset as if its the second coming of christ all the while in the same article saying 'even though we dont know the specs yet'.
This cute little device could be as good as Google cardrboard, marginally better, marginally worse the PSVR we dont know. This gamer really doesnt care either way, when it comes to my gaming experience I always look at the best option, then work my way down from there based on my finances of which are usually rather good so I am only slightly interested in who might when the McDonaldalization of VR.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
Yeah, i want to see some specs first before praising it. It was laughable when people were trying to compare Oculus and Vive with Google Cardboard.
I just read a few more articles that is touting the MS VR headset as if its the second coming of christ all the while in the same article saying 'even though we dont know the specs yet'.
This cute little device could be as good as Google cardrboard, marginally better, marginally worse the PSVR we dont know. This gamer really doesnt care either way, when it comes to my gaming experience I always look at the best option, then work my way down from there based on my finances of which are usually rather good so I am only slightly interested in who might when the McDonaldalization of VR.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
Yeah, i want to see some specs first before praising it. It was laughable when people were trying to compare Oculus and Vive with Google Cardboard.
I just read a few more articles that is touting the MS VR headset as if its the second coming of christ all the while in the same article saying 'even though we dont know the specs yet'.
This cute little device could be as good as Google cardrboard, marginally better, marginally worse the PSVR we dont know. This gamer really doesnt care either way, when it comes to my gaming experience I always look at the best option, then work my way down from there based on my finances of which are usually rather good so I am only slightly interested in who might when the McDonaldalization of VR.
that all said, the articles need to tone it down a notch until they have a remote clue what the specs actually are.
Yeah, i want to see some specs first before praising it. It was laughable when people were trying to compare Oculus and Vive with Google Cardboard.
exactly. that is all I am trying to suggest here.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
The one thing that will retard VR this generation is saturation. Hasn't anyone learn't? Get to a standard asap.
The high price tag of the Occulus Rift and HTC Vibe coupled with the "smaller" potential market is a bigger issue.
Disagree. If a price war had not already kicked in and a standard agreed a year ago, the sales for a given format would be really very decent, even at the Rift price (for example).
What will kill VR this generation is dilution.
For software to be made, the market has to be robust. 4+ different formats for a year 1 niche tech do not make a robust market for software.
For software to be made their has to be a sufficiently high installed base of a given standard - or the expectation of one. The standard alone is not enough.
Oculus and Rift haven't delivered the install base this - 140k worldwide is trivial for example. Price without doubt a factor; availability probably an even bigger factor. No surprise that EA is not making games for them. "Standards" that don't sell "in volume" are pointless.
The console base is significant. And most owners can be assumed to play games - not the case with PCs.
If the MS (And Sony) offerings take off Oculus and Rift will - probably - have to respond by lowering their prices. Especially as XB1 VR will / might - presumably - run on (sufficiently powerful) PCs.
so I had mentioned about 2 months ago that there will be a major push with VR this month, turns out I was right. I didnt make it up, I actually posted articles that gave plenty of evidence to that.
What else have I posted some of? links to news articles saying millions are being invested currently into content. I am trying to hold my tongue but its becoming hard.
About two weeks ago I read that some 100+ million dollars was being spent to set up the 'Pixar of VR' another article that said HTC is about ready to tell people about a large content project they have been working on, another article about a studio being setup with also millions of dollars. This content doesnt happen over night but just like how I explained the 500 stores in best buy and it actually happening, the links do exist.
You also said that you didn't expect to see widespread availability this year. Which looks to be the case. Which doesn't mean they won't be running "big promotions" of course.
Sorry I read that like 3 times and I still dont understand what your saying.
regardless let me help by re-stating my main assertion again but perhaps differently.
1. it takes 3 years to make a standard game, only very risky developers would start to develop on VR during the time frame when it was still in development and thus the first API was constantly changing as well as hardware.
2. millions of dollars are currently being spent on content most of which has just started or started this year. This is not an opinion this is a fact of which I have provided 3 examples.
3. thus I would expect to see content from these developers explained in item 2 to start having consumable content to customers around the 3 year mark.
can you please say something that addresses any of these three points
1. Yes it is risky for developers to make games without an installed user base; agree.
2. Yes money is being spent. And yes without money you have nothing. It doesn't mean "X" will make it though. As I have said before though I don't consider the numbers so far to be "huge" - yes I know what they are. "Serious money" only gets spent when companies commit to volume production. When they make millions of units @ $X manufacturing cost for worldwide sales. That is when costs spiral very quickly. Production is very different from development. Which is how Nintendo lost "a billion or so" in the 90s.
Implication: If MS and Sony are "serious about consumer VR" - IF - then they are or are planning to spend serious - very serious - money. We don't yet know though - although EA are developing for the Sony VR so they must expect "reasonable sales".
3. How long do games take? Ignore the conceptual phase and it can be quicker than 3 years (e.g. Destiny) if a firm goes for it. I don't disagree though with what you say. Games take time. Without games though people won't buy VR; but if they don't buy VR games don't get made. Chicken and egg. Which is the type of logjam that Sony and MS (and more recently Google) have been breaking.
(So I won't be at all surprised if we see stuff akin to what first came out for CD drives way back being released.)
1. Yes it is risky for developers to make games without an installed user base; agree.
2. Yes money is being spent. And yes without money you have nothing. It doesn't mean "X" will make it though. As I have said before though I don't consider the numbers so far to be "huge" - yes I know what they are. "Serious money" only gets spent when companies commit to volume production. When they make millions of units @ $X manufacturing cost for worldwide sales. That is when costs spiral very quickly. Production is very different from development. Which is how Nintendo lost "a billion or so" in the 90s.
Implication: If MS and Sony are "serious about consumer VR" - IF - then they are or are planning to spend serious - very serious - money. We don't yet know though - although EA are developing for the Sony VR so they must expect "reasonable sales".
3. How long do games take? Ignore the conceptual phase and it can be quicker than 3 years (e.g. Destiny) if a firm goes for it. I don't disagree though with what you say. Games take time. Without games though people won't buy VR; but if they don't buy VR games don't get made. Chicken and egg. Which is the type of logjam that Sony and MS (and more recently Google) have been breaking.
that is better, more focused. thank you
1. we agree
2. last year Facebook spent $250 million on content (that is basically a GTA 5 project) now they are doing it again with about $250 million new dollars. So the Facebook story alone is two GTA 5 games.
3. Wikipedia says average game is 3 years at least the last time I looked. I am willing to look at stats that suggest otherwise as long as they dont come out of someones ass
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Comments
Microsoft jumping into the game, gives developers that much more confidence. I have a hell of a lot more confidence in Microsoft with VR than I do with Facebook.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
look what I am asying is not that crazy.
google cardboard is not greater than Oculus
What
the
fuck
are
the
specs
on
MS VR?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I didnt used to always thing that however in my mind MS has consitenty shown that they are out of touch in the consumer market
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
If my memory serves me right, Oculus claimed their consumer version was going to retail at about $300. The retail cost being what it is, I'd call that a pretty major fuck up.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
I'll be crossing my fingers for a success.
I self identify as a monkey.
'can we wait to see what the specs are before we suggest its a great gaming changing device'
that 'gun'?
and yes without quesiton Oculus fucked up, more than once in fact. dont forget the whole part of selling something that they cant deliever to a consumer for 6 months part either.
but what i am asking people to do is to simply not ASSUME that MS VR hardware is of the same quality until we see the fucking specs
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
really? ok well have fun with that one
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The real question should be, what are the system requirements to support MS VR, but i'll make an outright guess here, but one i feel fairly confident about.
And that is that i think the system requirements to support MS VR are likely to be lower than either the OR or the HTC Vive.
Lest you forget, both those options require some very hefty system spec's in order to work half decently, coupled with their high price tags, which represents one of their biggest weaknesses when it comes to consumer interest.
If, and its not much of an if tbh, the MS VR has system requirements that means it works at least as well as the PS VR on a mid range PC, then, its job done, advance to go and collect $200 then sit back and gloat at their competitors floundering helplessly.
what is the requirements to run Google Cardboard? do those low requirements make it an obvious watershed game changer for the better?
as far as we know (for the sake of illustrating balance here) MSVR is that of Google Cardboard in a plastic holder
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I am more of a 'high end gamer' I like looking at high end solutions for my gaming life, I am not as interested in mid to low level solutions which at the moment I am assuming the MS VR is not the same as a OR or Vive because of its price but maybe they will surprise me color me wrong on that.
Either way, the safe route is to not assume (me or you). There are currently A LOT of VR headsets in the market now varying in all matters of different levels of quality from Google cardboard to StarVR. Just because a vendor reveals a VR headset and a price one should not assume its technical location on that curve.
make sense? sound unreasonable?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
You also said that you didn't expect to see widespread availability this year. Which looks to be the case. Which doesn't mean they won't be running "big promotions" of course.
Availability requires "volume production". Which is when big expenditure kicks in. They would like to run low volume production. This reduces costs both of manufacturing and refining the units. It also keeps the units scare potentially generating premium prices. If demand (all sources) outstrips availability (all sources) no problem.
Sony and MS's entry into the market will - probably - upset this.
Ramping up production though is when you can also lose money. If HTC churn out units and end up with 2 million unsold then even if each unit only $100 to make that's $200M. Use any numbers you want but you can very quickly see how costs can escalate. Which is exactly what happened to Nintendo in the 90s prompting them to cancel their (years old) investment in VR after only selling 750k. (Only!) huge loss.
Production is the big cost driver. Especially if a part of the cost is "absorbed" by the manufacturer - as Sony and MS have historically done of course in order to get console adopted.
regardless let me help by re-stating my main assertion again but perhaps differently.
1. it takes 3 years to make a standard game, only very risky developers would start to develop on VR during the time frame when it was still in development and thus the first API was constantly changing as well as hardware.
2. millions of dollars are currently being spent on content most of which has just started or started this year. This is not an opinion this is a fact of which I have provided 3 examples.
3. thus I would expect to see content from these developers explained in item 2 to start having consumable content to customers around the 3 year mark.
can you please say something that addresses any of these three points
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Millions of dollars in investments have been ongoing, and to pretend they weren't would be denying all of your other posts last year and any of them before.
http://fortune.com/2015/11/30/investment-hot-virtual-reality/
This is facetious at best. They've been "investing in VR content" for years. YEARS. We're seeing the best of what they have on the market right now, your assumption that nobody develops for "unfinished devices" is the most ridiculous assumption one could make, and wrong. So. Very. Wrong.
And you keep saying the 3 year mark... DK1 released in early 2013 and was in development since 2012, cardboard came out in early 2015, gear VR has been out since 2014... and here we are.. a mere 2 months away from 2017 and what do all those billions in investments have to show for those 4 years of development?
On a side note, it's hilarious to rail against Microsoft, but Microsoft isn't actually late to the game here, Microsoft has been working on the Hololens since 2014, and this VR set is an extension of a lot of that technology, and a chance to bolster their windows 10 Creators Update, which will use some of the developed tools that were developed for Hololens, but for their VR system instead.
We also know for a fact that their VR set will work on computers with much lower system specs, but does that mean it won't be scalable to more powerful PCs?
Currently with GOOGLE CARDBOARD, and RiftCAT you can play a LOT of those oculus games that SEAN believes are so "high end hardware" specific. What I also find extremely funny is that the Note 7 (may it rest in peace) had higher resolution than both the Rift and the Vive.
I self identify as a monkey.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
2. Yes money is being spent. And yes without money you have nothing. It doesn't mean "X" will make it though. As I have said before though I don't consider the numbers so far to be "huge" - yes I know what they are. "Serious money" only gets spent when companies commit to volume production. When they make millions of units @ $X manufacturing cost for worldwide sales. That is when costs spiral very quickly. Production is very different from development. Which is how Nintendo lost "a billion or so" in the 90s.
Implication: If MS and Sony are "serious about consumer VR" - IF - then they are or are planning to spend serious - very serious - money. We don't yet know though - although EA are developing for the Sony VR so they must expect "reasonable sales".
3. How long do games take? Ignore the conceptual phase and it can be quicker than 3 years (e.g. Destiny) if a firm goes for it. I don't disagree though with what you say. Games take time. Without games though people won't buy VR; but if they don't buy VR games don't get made. Chicken and egg. Which is the type of logjam that Sony and MS (and more recently Google) have been breaking.
(So I won't be at all surprised if we see stuff akin to what first came out for CD drives way back being released.)
1. we agree
2. last year Facebook spent $250 million on content (that is basically a GTA 5 project) now they are doing it again with about $250 million new dollars. So the Facebook story alone is two GTA 5 games.
3. Wikipedia says average game is 3 years at least the last time I looked. I am willing to look at stats that suggest otherwise as long as they dont come out of someones ass
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me