Iunno, I don't mind an abstraction between VR and game if it means cross-compatibility. Like having gestural actions within a certain range triggering different attacks, abilities, and emotes that to other viewers gets translated into preanimated elements like in more traditional games.
Keeps the trolling down a bit, and gives a clear framework for player skills and abilities to operate within. Primarily though, could still offer what would functionally be a full-featured VR experience while having cross-compatibility.
That would be really limiting the scope though to be honest. VR MMOs should be true livable worlds with full physics simulations where you can basically do anything you can think of rather than be restricted by game mechanics. You obviously need mechanics, and a lot of them, but I want to be able to fight Blade and Sorcery style. I want to be able to climb anything. I want to be able to pick up anything. I want everything to be natural.
It will be pretty immersion breaking once we get into hyper-realism territory if VR players run up against non-VR players that rely on animations. It's fine in VRChat and Rec Room because they use unrealistic art styles and themes, but the more believable everything else becomes, the more tinier details stand out.
You have to push things far enough for that to be a viable concern first. Even in the case of Blade and Sorcery, the AI is still using a set of animations. While you as an individual have greater freedom of control, until you have enemies and mobs that can respond to that with a comparable degree of freedom, will that actually matter.
So it's not just VR hardware you'd need to catch up there, but also complexity and depth of AI and environment.
Don't see why we can't have some games in the mean time that make reasonable compromises to allow for a broader user experience (as the tech allows).
Enemies in Boneworks all run off physics. I still think that players are more important to nail than NPCs though because that's where more of your interactions will be.
"Runs off physics" is a rather nebulous statement. You can apply physics to an animation, but that's not going to rewrite the base animation, you can generate animations of of complex physics-driven behaviors, but they aren't going to be freeform either. They will certainly simulate better though, and it takes to IK and procedural animations better to allow some variance to the root animations.
And as far as interacting with players, that entirely depends on the type of game. If it's a PvP game, sure, if it's a heavily social interaction driven game, kinda, if it's a PvE dungeon crawler, not too heavy of a reliance there, if it's a Diablo-esque dungeon crawler, then the scope of player interactions becomes pretty finite.
And to that end, the same tech that goes into creating more free-form mob animations off of IK rigs and physics behaviors applies all the same to player avatars. That's the type of thing the abstraction can take care of, matching player actions to intended scenario and vise-versa.
Like, if a player in VR is fighting a player on a besktop, The player in VR tries to do a sideswipe at a non-standard angle. abstracting their action and using a small window of degrees for the action would mean that game could render it on the desktop users perspective relatively accurately, but adjusted according to the standard related animation within it's library. The desktop user's response of, say blocking, would pass through that same abstraction, first pulling the appropriate block facing, then applying a matching angle to the IK rig's animation so that from the VR user's perspective, the desktop user is actually deflecting from the appropriate position.
It's the same kind of tech you refer to with Boneworks there, people just need to apply that kind of tech to the appropriate parts of the game to leverage it.
Iunno, I don't mind an abstraction between VR and game if it means cross-compatibility. Like having gestural actions within a certain range triggering different attacks, abilities, and emotes that to other viewers gets translated into preanimated elements like in more traditional games.
Keeps the trolling down a bit, and gives a clear framework for player skills and abilities to operate within. Primarily though, could still offer what would functionally be a full-featured VR experience while having cross-compatibility.
That would be really limiting the scope though to be honest. VR MMOs should be true livable worlds with full physics simulations where you can basically do anything you can think of rather than be restricted by game mechanics. You obviously need mechanics, and a lot of them, but I want to be able to fight Blade and Sorcery style. I want to be able to climb anything. I want to be able to pick up anything. I want everything to be natural.
It will be pretty immersion breaking once we get into hyper-realism territory if VR players run up against non-VR players that rely on animations. It's fine in VRChat and Rec Room because they use unrealistic art styles and themes, but the more believable everything else becomes, the more tinier details stand out.
You have to push things far enough for that to be a viable concern first. Even in the case of Blade and Sorcery, the AI is still using a set of animations. While you as an individual have greater freedom of control, until you have enemies and mobs that can respond to that with a comparable degree of freedom, will that actually matter.
So it's not just VR hardware you'd need to catch up there, but also complexity and depth of AI and environment.
Don't see why we can't have some games in the mean time that make reasonable compromises to allow for a broader user experience (as the tech allows).
Enemies in Boneworks all run off physics. I still think that players are more important to nail than NPCs though because that's where more of your interactions will be.
"Runs off physics" is a rather nebulous statement. You can apply physics to an animation, but that's not going to rewrite the base animation, you can generate animations of of complex physics-driven behaviors, but they aren't going to be freeform either. They will certainly simulate better though, and it takes to IK and procedural animations better to allow some variance to the root animations.
And as far as interacting with players, that entirely depends on the type of game. If it's a PvP game, sure, if it's a heavily social interaction driven game, kinda, if it's a PvE dungeon crawler, not too heavy of a reliance there, if it's a Diablo-esque dungeon crawler, then the scope of player interactions becomes pretty finite.
And to that end, the same tech that goes into creating more free-form mob animations off of IK rigs and physics behaviors applies all the same to player avatars. That's the type of thing the abstraction can take care of, matching player actions to intended scenario and vise-versa.
Like, if a player in VR is fighting a player on a besktop, The player in VR tries to do a sideswipe at a non-standard angle. abstracting their action and using a small window of degrees for the action would mean that game could render it on the desktop users perspective relatively accurately, but adjusted according to the standard related animation within it's library. The desktop user's response of, say blocking, would pass through that same abstraction, first pulling the appropriate block facing, then applying a matching angle to the IK rig's animation so that from the VR user's perspective, the desktop user is actually deflecting from the appropriate position.
It's the same kind of tech you refer to with Boneworks there, people just need to apply that kind of tech to the appropriate parts of the game to leverage it.
You can't really build a library of animations in the standard way for VR player behavior because human behavior is infinite. You would need a neural network to train on millions of examples of human behavior to create an overly complex system of translated animations that would be better off left as just pure player-driven data. Desktop users in my mind shouldn't ever see animations from VR players; they should just see what VR players are actually doing with their body until a disconnect happens like when climbing.
But that creates huge balance difficulty, which is why non-VR just doesn't fit in that well.
To be honest, the only reason VRMMOs should support desktop users is if the userbase isn't big enough.
Already seen that video, doesn't change what I already said regarding the animation.
And you're over complicating it to a massive degree. This is why I mentioned movements taking place within a window. IE, most actions could be derived from basic standard movements, along with direction breaking them down. Certain button presses and gestures can extend that. It's not about capturing everything a person can do, it's about parsing necessary information into a filtered set of behaviors and translating them back and forth.
The point of this was again what we can do now to create a consistent user experience between platforms, not what we might want X years into the future.
I find that VR is one of those things that people that want it to happen are super die hard about it and will tell anyone that isn't so interested or on the fence that they are wrong for thinking it's just a fad and it's 100% going to be the next big thing.
For some of us gamers VR just isn't attractive in it's current or near future forms and while there may be a few great games on it, great for VR is still average at best to non VR even with the technology advancing and getting better at a steady pace.
I can't say i would never buy a VR headset, but i can say that it wouldn't be in the next 5 years and to get me to do it, there would have to be some ground breaking game that i couldn't live without or play without VR because especially in it's current iteration i just don't find it all that great.
The headset would need to be so much more slimline with full body gestures to start with, the thought of playing VR with controllers is actually kind of disgusting to me, especially after watching so many anime's and having super high expectations of what my VR experience should look like.
This isn't any kind of argument that VR is just a fad, in my eyes it is and i never see it becoming mainstream and telling me i'm wrong and providing me all the evidence in the world won't change my mind, just like me doing the same wouldn't change VR fans minds that i'm wrong. it's just my opinion on the subject, nothing more.
Usually fans of VR are in the know about the types of games and apps available, the hardware, the cost, the many misconceptions that get thrown around, and abut the state of R&D.
People who call VR a fad never show such knowledge. They work very much on guesstimates which is why people often disagree with them.
You say you won't buy a headset in the next 5 years. How do you know? That's a random guess. What if there's (and it's likely to happen going off the R&D) a mainstream breakthrough product?
As for that groundbreaking must have game, it's entirely possible it could come this year or next with the Valve games.
Why do you never see it becoming mainstream? You can list issues and I'd bet good money that nearly all of them will be irrelevant in 10 years. You can argue that people just won't want to use it much, and I can counter with how much real world use it would have in daily life.
You really haven't thought this through.
See if you knew me, you'd know i have about as much interest in Valve as a company developing games as i have in VR... anything Valve could produce at the moment would excite me less than a VR headset, i'm sure the technology is a lot better than what i experienced near the end of last year when my buddy bought a HTC VR headset....
Just because you find the immersion and everything amazing doesn't mean everyone will, i was unimpressed and thats ok, i don't have to like VR, thats the thing VR doesn't have to be mainstream in every home for it to be successful and great for you to use... Sure development of big titles might not take a hold if there isnt a huge market audience to make bank off, but from what you guys are saying the smaller games are way better anyway so maybe thats a plus.
in 8 months i'm sure the tech has improved in leaps and bounds, but again just doesn't interest me and i would put money on it that i won't buy a headset in the next 5 years.. because again their current iteration doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.
i do consider it a fad however because i've seen VR fever flare up and down a couple of times over the past 20 years and while this time it may be different, until it actually is different i have no reason to believe it's anything other than a fad or gimmick.
But please, don't let my feelings on it take anything away from your experience, again i wasn't looking to have a debate about how I specifically feel about VR, just pointing out that some people just are truly uninterested.
I look at the inside of that unit, the part that goes over the eyes, and think to myself, "Nope. Nope. Nope." I believe(d) my grandmother when she said not to get anything that close to your eyes, including TV.
Seriously, though, I'll just wait to see longitudinal studies on the effects of something that close to eyes and its effect on the brain before I sign on.
Lastly, I like seeing and hearing the world around me. There's immersion and there's too much immersion, in my opinion. I prefer the former.
I kind of get this. I have a Rift and VR looks amazing but in my day to day; "what will I play now" musings, I typically opt for playing in front of my delightful widescreen monitor.
My other take on VR is while the technology is improving most games don't have the narrative experience present in PC games; they are relatively short.
So I find myself getting all excited for VR, plunk down the cash for a headset then in practice, rarely play with it.
VR isn't going to find mass appeal, not now, not in the near future. If you look at how the entire industry of gaming is going, it's mobile. Not even mobile in the sense of phones (though thats the driving hardware) but we've had some pretty stellar devices that are gearing stronger play in a mobile environment.
The switch is a great console geared for mobile, and Microsofts Surface Books are looking better to me with every new iteration. This series is supposed to have a 2060 in it, which is pretty decent for what is essentially a "tablet" style PC.
Regardless, one of the biggest "innovations" in the mobile space are the AR stickers and breakout AR games. While we're a few years from a standout consumer AR set, if you want to see a broader HMD revolution, it won't be in VR, it will be in that AR space.
This post will age badly. VR HMDs are still a good 5 years ahead of AR. The adoption rate of VR will be ahead because of that, especially because you'll have even better AR functionality in dedicated VR headsets than AR HMDs themselves.
Why do you have to pit the two against each other though? Everyone knows that they are going to combine anyway, and then kaboom, the mobile market is replaced by VR and AR since smartphones will be superseded.
VR sets have a higher adoption rate, but VR applications already have lower usage statistics than "AR" applications.
They are both HMD, so they will be compared to each other. All it takes is a single breakout device, and the facts of the matter are, more people are more likely to buy devices that reaffirm what they are currently doing than finding a "new" experience.
You won't get better AR functionality in VR headsets, because in order for VR (MR) sets to function currently as an AR set, they still require that users be in a completely closed environment with a video feed. There are TOO many problems when you get into latency and application building in a completely closed and pixelated environment.
Nobody will ever wear an MR device outside of their computer room. MR devices already exist, and in most cases, anything that is even remotely "mobile" uses the camera as a passthrough so people don't hurt themselves or it's used for room tracking.
Real AR devices will be much different, you'll see people wearing them, you'll wear one and see other people wearing them. Not being closed off or relying on a virtual representation of a pixelated world is going to appeal to a much broader audience. I've worn real AR sets before, in a room with other people wearing the same devices, these types of shared experiences are why AR is going to be the more popular HMD.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for nearly 7 years... and usage isn't really driving a surge or purchases. The growth is slow, even in software sales, but AR games are 100% software sales at the moment and roughly account for half of VRs total market which includes hardware.
We're really only waiting for a consumer set.
You're comparing mobile AR usage rates to VR HMD rates. It's no wonder that the everyday now-mature device most of us use is winning out in usage.
Pass-through AR has less limitations than see-through. The issues with latency aren't as bad as you are making them out to be. Even the head of the R&D team at Oculus says that AR will be best in a pass-through view for a long time to come. That doesn't mean most convenient, but it does mean best functionally. True blacks, full pixel control, full opacity, less jittery, doesn't care about lighting conditions as much.
You can get the same shared experiences using this proposed MR headset as what you got using your AR HMD. If you can mix real and virtual to any degree, than you can see others in the room with you and others across the planet at the same time. It's ideal for home use. Yes, see-through will be much more prevalent outside but I was talking about the functionality of pass-through.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for 3 years roughly. 7 years includes the first dev kits of the modern era, which means we have to include old AR HMD dev kits too if you want to go that route.
As for VR vs AR, it doesn't even matter if we talk about pass-through or see-through. They will combine either way by going opaque/transparent or by switching to a camera feed. All of this is inevitable and MR headsets will be the dominate form of HMDs.
You get "true blacks" and "full pixel control" and yeah lighting conditions don't matter, but that doesn't matter when you take into consideration that compute times at best will never be a 1 to 1 ratio in an MR HMD than in the current AR sets, which means nobody will EVER WEAR THEM outside of the house. It's why there are no MR mobile sets. They all connect to a PC.
MR sets are already out there, and they are generally cheaper than the VR sets, they aren't more popular. The highest selling HMD system is still the PSVR, even last year, which outsold every pass through set, all of which are the same price or cheaper in most cases. Nobody at this point wants the legal ramifications of shipping a mobile MR HMD where the point is to provide a closed off pass through, where people expect that they will be able to wear it all the time, out in the world.
People will die.
There is no confidence in those kinds of MR sets. In a closed environment they're fine, because the small latency or potential lag, won't send you tumbling over a fire hydrant, or into an oncoming car. I've used plenty of HMDs including the Hololens, it's just a different feel.
VR isn't going to find mass appeal, not now, not in the near future. If you look at how the entire industry of gaming is going, it's mobile. Not even mobile in the sense of phones (though thats the driving hardware) but we've had some pretty stellar devices that are gearing stronger play in a mobile environment.
The switch is a great console geared for mobile, and Microsofts Surface Books are looking better to me with every new iteration. This series is supposed to have a 2060 in it, which is pretty decent for what is essentially a "tablet" style PC.
Regardless, one of the biggest "innovations" in the mobile space are the AR stickers and breakout AR games. While we're a few years from a standout consumer AR set, if you want to see a broader HMD revolution, it won't be in VR, it will be in that AR space.
This post will age badly. VR HMDs are still a good 5 years ahead of AR. The adoption rate of VR will be ahead because of that, especially because you'll have even better AR functionality in dedicated VR headsets than AR HMDs themselves.
Why do you have to pit the two against each other though? Everyone knows that they are going to combine anyway, and then kaboom, the mobile market is replaced by VR and AR since smartphones will be superseded.
VR sets have a higher adoption rate, but VR applications already have lower usage statistics than "AR" applications.
They are both HMD, so they will be compared to each other. All it takes is a single breakout device, and the facts of the matter are, more people are more likely to buy devices that reaffirm what they are currently doing than finding a "new" experience.
You won't get better AR functionality in VR headsets, because in order for VR (MR) sets to function currently as an AR set, they still require that users be in a completely closed environment with a video feed. There are TOO many problems when you get into latency and application building in a completely closed and pixelated environment.
Nobody will ever wear an MR device outside of their computer room. MR devices already exist, and in most cases, anything that is even remotely "mobile" uses the camera as a passthrough so people don't hurt themselves or it's used for room tracking.
Real AR devices will be much different, you'll see people wearing them, you'll wear one and see other people wearing them. Not being closed off or relying on a virtual representation of a pixelated world is going to appeal to a much broader audience. I've worn real AR sets before, in a room with other people wearing the same devices, these types of shared experiences are why AR is going to be the more popular HMD.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for nearly 7 years... and usage isn't really driving a surge or purchases. The growth is slow, even in software sales, but AR games are 100% software sales at the moment and roughly account for half of VRs total market which includes hardware.
We're really only waiting for a consumer set.
You're comparing mobile AR usage rates to VR HMD rates. It's no wonder that the everyday now-mature device most of us use is winning out in usage.
Pass-through AR has less limitations than see-through. The issues with latency aren't as bad as you are making them out to be. Even the head of the R&D team at Oculus says that AR will be best in a pass-through view for a long time to come. That doesn't mean most convenient, but it does mean best functionally. True blacks, full pixel control, full opacity, less jittery, doesn't care about lighting conditions as much.
You can get the same shared experiences using this proposed MR headset as what you got using your AR HMD. If you can mix real and virtual to any degree, than you can see others in the room with you and others across the planet at the same time. It's ideal for home use. Yes, see-through will be much more prevalent outside but I was talking about the functionality of pass-through.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for 3 years roughly. 7 years includes the first dev kits of the modern era, which means we have to include old AR HMD dev kits too if you want to go that route.
As for VR vs AR, it doesn't even matter if we talk about pass-through or see-through. They will combine either way by going opaque/transparent or by switching to a camera feed. All of this is inevitable and MR headsets will be the dominate form of HMDs.
You get "true blacks" and "full pixel control" and yeah lighting conditions don't matter, but that doesn't matter when you take into consideration that compute times at best will never be a 1 to 1 ratio in an MR HMD than in the current AR sets, which means nobody will EVER WEAR THEM outside of the house. It's why there are no MR mobile sets. They all connect to a PC.
MR sets are already out there, and they are generally cheaper than the VR sets, they aren't more popular. The highest selling HMD system is still the PSVR, even last year, which outsold every pass through set, all of which are the same price or cheaper in most cases. Nobody at this point wants the legal ramifications of shipping a mobile MR HMD where the point is to provide a closed off pass through, where people expect that they will be able to wear it all the time, out in the world.
People will die.
There is no confidence in those kinds of MR sets. In a closed environment they're fine, because the small latency or potential lag, won't send you tumbling over a fire hydrant, or into an oncoming car. I've used plenty of HMDs including the Hololens, it's just a different feel.
Latency is nearly unperceivable to the point where Varjo and Volvo are using their MR headset to test drive real world cars in certain conditions.
I know they are not designed to be used outside, but that's why I said these are the best solution for inside your house because it's the most powerful form of MR.
I find that VR is one of those things that people that want it to happen are super die hard about it and will tell anyone that isn't so interested or on the fence that they are wrong for thinking it's just a fad and it's 100% going to be the next big thing.
For some of us gamers VR just isn't attractive in it's current or near future forms and while there may be a few great games on it, great for VR is still average at best to non VR even with the technology advancing and getting better at a steady pace.
I can't say i would never buy a VR headset, but i can say that it wouldn't be in the next 5 years and to get me to do it, there would have to be some ground breaking game that i couldn't live without or play without VR because especially in it's current iteration i just don't find it all that great.
The headset would need to be so much more slimline with full body gestures to start with, the thought of playing VR with controllers is actually kind of disgusting to me, especially after watching so many anime's and having super high expectations of what my VR experience should look like.
This isn't any kind of argument that VR is just a fad, in my eyes it is and i never see it becoming mainstream and telling me i'm wrong and providing me all the evidence in the world won't change my mind, just like me doing the same wouldn't change VR fans minds that i'm wrong. it's just my opinion on the subject, nothing more.
Usually fans of VR are in the know about the types of games and apps available, the hardware, the cost, the many misconceptions that get thrown around, and abut the state of R&D.
People who call VR a fad never show such knowledge. They work very much on guesstimates which is why people often disagree with them.
You say you won't buy a headset in the next 5 years. How do you know? That's a random guess. What if there's (and it's likely to happen going off the R&D) a mainstream breakthrough product?
As for that groundbreaking must have game, it's entirely possible it could come this year or next with the Valve games.
Why do you never see it becoming mainstream? You can list issues and I'd bet good money that nearly all of them will be irrelevant in 10 years. You can argue that people just won't want to use it much, and I can counter with how much real world use it would have in daily life.
You really haven't thought this through.
See if you knew me, you'd know i have about as much interest in Valve as a company developing games as i have in VR... anything Valve could produce at the moment would excite me less than a VR headset, i'm sure the technology is a lot better than what i experienced near the end of last year when my buddy bought a HTC VR headset....
Just because you find the immersion and everything amazing doesn't mean everyone will, i was unimpressed and thats ok, i don't have to like VR, thats the thing VR doesn't have to be mainstream in every home for it to be successful and great for you to use... Sure development of big titles might not take a hold if there isnt a huge market audience to make bank off, but from what you guys are saying the smaller games are way better anyway so maybe thats a plus.
in 8 months i'm sure the tech has improved in leaps and bounds, but again just doesn't interest me and i would put money on it that i won't buy a headset in the next 5 years.. because again their current iteration doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.
i do consider it a fad however because i've seen VR fever flare up and down a couple of times over the past 20 years and while this time it may be different, until it actually is different i have no reason to believe it's anything other than a fad or gimmick.
But please, don't let my feelings on it take anything away from your experience, again i wasn't looking to have a debate about how I specifically feel about VR, just pointing out that some people just are truly uninterested.
You can't take the current iteration and say you won't buy a headset in the next 6 years based off that.
Imagine saying that in 2003 about a smartphone. Things can rapidly change.
VR isn't going to find mass appeal, not now, not in the near future. If you look at how the entire industry of gaming is going, it's mobile. Not even mobile in the sense of phones (though thats the driving hardware) but we've had some pretty stellar devices that are gearing stronger play in a mobile environment.
The switch is a great console geared for mobile, and Microsofts Surface Books are looking better to me with every new iteration. This series is supposed to have a 2060 in it, which is pretty decent for what is essentially a "tablet" style PC.
Regardless, one of the biggest "innovations" in the mobile space are the AR stickers and breakout AR games. While we're a few years from a standout consumer AR set, if you want to see a broader HMD revolution, it won't be in VR, it will be in that AR space.
This post will age badly. VR HMDs are still a good 5 years ahead of AR. The adoption rate of VR will be ahead because of that, especially because you'll have even better AR functionality in dedicated VR headsets than AR HMDs themselves.
Why do you have to pit the two against each other though? Everyone knows that they are going to combine anyway, and then kaboom, the mobile market is replaced by VR and AR since smartphones will be superseded.
VR sets have a higher adoption rate, but VR applications already have lower usage statistics than "AR" applications.
They are both HMD, so they will be compared to each other. All it takes is a single breakout device, and the facts of the matter are, more people are more likely to buy devices that reaffirm what they are currently doing than finding a "new" experience.
You won't get better AR functionality in VR headsets, because in order for VR (MR) sets to function currently as an AR set, they still require that users be in a completely closed environment with a video feed. There are TOO many problems when you get into latency and application building in a completely closed and pixelated environment.
Nobody will ever wear an MR device outside of their computer room. MR devices already exist, and in most cases, anything that is even remotely "mobile" uses the camera as a passthrough so people don't hurt themselves or it's used for room tracking.
Real AR devices will be much different, you'll see people wearing them, you'll wear one and see other people wearing them. Not being closed off or relying on a virtual representation of a pixelated world is going to appeal to a much broader audience. I've worn real AR sets before, in a room with other people wearing the same devices, these types of shared experiences are why AR is going to be the more popular HMD.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for nearly 7 years... and usage isn't really driving a surge or purchases. The growth is slow, even in software sales, but AR games are 100% software sales at the moment and roughly account for half of VRs total market which includes hardware.
We're really only waiting for a consumer set.
You're comparing mobile AR usage rates to VR HMD rates. It's no wonder that the everyday now-mature device most of us use is winning out in usage.
Pass-through AR has less limitations than see-through. The issues with latency aren't as bad as you are making them out to be. Even the head of the R&D team at Oculus says that AR will be best in a pass-through view for a long time to come. That doesn't mean most convenient, but it does mean best functionally. True blacks, full pixel control, full opacity, less jittery, doesn't care about lighting conditions as much.
You can get the same shared experiences using this proposed MR headset as what you got using your AR HMD. If you can mix real and virtual to any degree, than you can see others in the room with you and others across the planet at the same time. It's ideal for home use. Yes, see-through will be much more prevalent outside but I was talking about the functionality of pass-through.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for 3 years roughly. 7 years includes the first dev kits of the modern era, which means we have to include old AR HMD dev kits too if you want to go that route.
As for VR vs AR, it doesn't even matter if we talk about pass-through or see-through. They will combine either way by going opaque/transparent or by switching to a camera feed. All of this is inevitable and MR headsets will be the dominate form of HMDs.
You get "true blacks" and "full pixel control" and yeah lighting conditions don't matter, but that doesn't matter when you take into consideration that compute times at best will never be a 1 to 1 ratio in an MR HMD than in the current AR sets, which means nobody will EVER WEAR THEM outside of the house. It's why there are no MR mobile sets. They all connect to a PC.
MR sets are already out there, and they are generally cheaper than the VR sets, they aren't more popular. The highest selling HMD system is still the PSVR, even last year, which outsold every pass through set, all of which are the same price or cheaper in most cases. Nobody at this point wants the legal ramifications of shipping a mobile MR HMD where the point is to provide a closed off pass through, where people expect that they will be able to wear it all the time, out in the world.
People will die.
There is no confidence in those kinds of MR sets. In a closed environment they're fine, because the small latency or potential lag, won't send you tumbling over a fire hydrant, or into an oncoming car. I've used plenty of HMDs including the Hololens, it's just a different feel.
Latency is nearly unperceivable to the point where Varjo and Volvo are using their MR headset to test drive real world cars in certain conditions.
I know they are not designed to be used outside, but that's why I said these are the best solution for inside your house because it's the most powerful form of MR.
In that we can kind of agree, but from someone who has used both MR and AR sets, it certainly is perceivable. I wouldn't trust myself in an outside environment, even if I could strap a powerful PC to my face to minimize the chances of any perceivable lag.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm pitting the two against eachother, VR and AR, I'm just saying that I can see more widespread appeal for the AR devices.
We're still a good ways from making it all work though, battery life is going to be killer unless they finally release a next gen battery, whether it's graphene or something else.
It'll be really easy to determine when VR actually has a game worth playing. We simply won't be having this discussion. As long as you see this debate over VR, it means they haven't built that killer app yet.
It reminds me of the original xbox. An untested fat machine with a controller the size of a baby elephant in a market against two giants of console gaming. Who wanted the xbox for the hardware? No one. The only reason xbox exists right now is because of HALO. That game made people want to buy a new, unproven, machine with a piddley catalog. And that's what VR needs. It needs something that makes people say, "oh shit, I need that and I don't care how I get it."
When it happens, that's it. This conversation won't exist. Because people won't be arguing over whether or not there's a reason to even use VR, they'll be trying to get the thing they want without regard to VR being the platform it's on.
So rule of thumb, if you think VR has a killer app/game and you see a discussion like the one in this thread . . . then no, there is no killer app/game yet. You'll know when it happens.
VR isn't going to find mass appeal, not now, not in the near future. If you look at how the entire industry of gaming is going, it's mobile. Not even mobile in the sense of phones (though thats the driving hardware) but we've had some pretty stellar devices that are gearing stronger play in a mobile environment.
The switch is a great console geared for mobile, and Microsofts Surface Books are looking better to me with every new iteration. This series is supposed to have a 2060 in it, which is pretty decent for what is essentially a "tablet" style PC.
Regardless, one of the biggest "innovations" in the mobile space are the AR stickers and breakout AR games. While we're a few years from a standout consumer AR set, if you want to see a broader HMD revolution, it won't be in VR, it will be in that AR space.
This post will age badly. VR HMDs are still a good 5 years ahead of AR. The adoption rate of VR will be ahead because of that, especially because you'll have even better AR functionality in dedicated VR headsets than AR HMDs themselves.
Why do you have to pit the two against each other though? Everyone knows that they are going to combine anyway, and then kaboom, the mobile market is replaced by VR and AR since smartphones will be superseded.
VR sets have a higher adoption rate, but VR applications already have lower usage statistics than "AR" applications.
They are both HMD, so they will be compared to each other. All it takes is a single breakout device, and the facts of the matter are, more people are more likely to buy devices that reaffirm what they are currently doing than finding a "new" experience.
You won't get better AR functionality in VR headsets, because in order for VR (MR) sets to function currently as an AR set, they still require that users be in a completely closed environment with a video feed. There are TOO many problems when you get into latency and application building in a completely closed and pixelated environment.
Nobody will ever wear an MR device outside of their computer room. MR devices already exist, and in most cases, anything that is even remotely "mobile" uses the camera as a passthrough so people don't hurt themselves or it's used for room tracking.
Real AR devices will be much different, you'll see people wearing them, you'll wear one and see other people wearing them. Not being closed off or relying on a virtual representation of a pixelated world is going to appeal to a much broader audience. I've worn real AR sets before, in a room with other people wearing the same devices, these types of shared experiences are why AR is going to be the more popular HMD.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for nearly 7 years... and usage isn't really driving a surge or purchases. The growth is slow, even in software sales, but AR games are 100% software sales at the moment and roughly account for half of VRs total market which includes hardware.
We're really only waiting for a consumer set.
You're comparing mobile AR usage rates to VR HMD rates. It's no wonder that the everyday now-mature device most of us use is winning out in usage.
Pass-through AR has less limitations than see-through. The issues with latency aren't as bad as you are making them out to be. Even the head of the R&D team at Oculus says that AR will be best in a pass-through view for a long time to come. That doesn't mean most convenient, but it does mean best functionally. True blacks, full pixel control, full opacity, less jittery, doesn't care about lighting conditions as much.
You can get the same shared experiences using this proposed MR headset as what you got using your AR HMD. If you can mix real and virtual to any degree, than you can see others in the room with you and others across the planet at the same time. It's ideal for home use. Yes, see-through will be much more prevalent outside but I was talking about the functionality of pass-through.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for 3 years roughly. 7 years includes the first dev kits of the modern era, which means we have to include old AR HMD dev kits too if you want to go that route.
As for VR vs AR, it doesn't even matter if we talk about pass-through or see-through. They will combine either way by going opaque/transparent or by switching to a camera feed. All of this is inevitable and MR headsets will be the dominate form of HMDs.
You get "true blacks" and "full pixel control" and yeah lighting conditions don't matter, but that doesn't matter when you take into consideration that compute times at best will never be a 1 to 1 ratio in an MR HMD than in the current AR sets, which means nobody will EVER WEAR THEM outside of the house. It's why there are no MR mobile sets. They all connect to a PC.
MR sets are already out there, and they are generally cheaper than the VR sets, they aren't more popular. The highest selling HMD system is still the PSVR, even last year, which outsold every pass through set, all of which are the same price or cheaper in most cases. Nobody at this point wants the legal ramifications of shipping a mobile MR HMD where the point is to provide a closed off pass through, where people expect that they will be able to wear it all the time, out in the world.
People will die.
There is no confidence in those kinds of MR sets. In a closed environment they're fine, because the small latency or potential lag, won't send you tumbling over a fire hydrant, or into an oncoming car. I've used plenty of HMDs including the Hololens, it's just a different feel.
Latency is nearly unperceivable to the point where Varjo and Volvo are using their MR headset to test drive real world cars in certain conditions.
I know they are not designed to be used outside, but that's why I said these are the best solution for inside your house because it's the most powerful form of MR.
In that we can kind of agree, but from someone who has used both MR and AR sets, it certainly is perceivable. I wouldn't trust myself in an outside environment, even if I could strap a powerful PC to my face to minimize the chances of any perceivable lag.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm pitting the two against eachother, VR and AR, I'm just saying that I can see more widespread appeal for the AR devices.
We're still a good ways from making it all work though, battery life is going to be killer unless they finally release a next gen battery, whether it's graphene or something else.
It depends on what set you used. The impressions from Varjo XR-1 is that it's a highly smooth experience.
I forgot to mention, one reason VR is a no go for me is that I do not use headphones, a mic is fine but I find headphones really annoying. So being able to put the sound through speakers, while using a mic and looking thorough the VR visor would be my set up. Not sure you can do that?
You can set all those separately, I've had my Vive running it's audio through my theater's surround sound for example.
Stopped doing that though because there is a particular flaw, the sound doesn't change according to your facing direction when you do that. If the noise comes from the left of you, it will always play through the "left" speakers, even though you might be facing the back of the room and those speakers are consequently on your right. It became a bit too disorienting so I defaulted back to headphones.
Dunno if that's been solved yet, but if not, that's a thing that should be addressed. Taking the headset's facing direction and re-orienting the speaker audio relative to the player's new forward axis.
I forgot to mention, one reason VR is a no go for me is that I do not use headphones, a mic is fine but I find headphones really annoying. So being able to put the sound through speakers, while using a mic and looking thorough the VR visor would be my set up. Not sure you can do that?
The headset this entire article is about doesn't use headphones. You have speakers that sit outside your ear. Oculus Go and Quest also don't use in-ear headphones.
Never use VR on your own speaker equipment though. Not unless it's something like Beat Saber.
No I am going based on the official forums and the people posting the good AND bad there. You know kick starters like yourself.
I think the Pimax has great potential but they need to fix some, frankly basic, issues first. It's too bad you got all sore and defensive and had to resort to basically calling me stupid because I am not kissing Pimax arse like you seem to be.
Pimax has a truly great FOV but it has quite a few other issues that come along with it. It's basically a give and take on what you prefer.
I don't "spit" on any of the VR companies they are all doing good work which hopefully will help the tech move further along till we get a HMD that has great blacks, vivid colors AND a great FOV along with no SDE...right now though you kind of have to pick your poison.
There's a good reason Pimax isn't as "mainstream" as say the vive/oculus headset and good luck finding a rental place that will carry it..there's also a reason for that.
Frankly I seriously looked into getting thr 5k+ but decided to wait as there too many issues right now, kind of hoping their next attempt will be the one for me. To tide me over I might get an odyssey+ next time it's on a 299$ sale.
That said I wasn't trying to piss on anyone's parade but like you say.... the internet breeds all kinds of stupid.
That's what I said. You spit on a product based on rumors.
Try it first, then come back and post your OWN critic. Don't trust forums where the people happy with their product rarely post.
...snip...
And your little snide comment about kickstarters... no, you do NOT know me. It's my SECOND Pimax product, I was so satisfied by their Pimax 4K. ....snip....
Err I said I don't own one not that I never tried one...I drove all the way to Montreal to try one out, colors were not that great like you are saying albeit it was before the new pitool updates that give more control over contrast and all that.
Also doing research on official forums and via known reviewers like MRTV and sweviver etc does not constitute "rumors"...lol It's called doing your research on a pruduct before buying, something most intelligent buyers do.
If you think giving an objective unbiased view is spitting on something then so be it but then don't get cross if I think your being a fangirl that's getting sore cause I am not huggling to death a product....like your obviously biased views shows you to be.
It's my SECOND Pimax product, I was so satisfied by their Pimax 4K.
This statement here of yours is pretty much enough for everyone to see for themselves that your opinion is more than a little biased.
I wouldn't give more than 300CAD for a pimax 5k+ cause it's not worth more than that IMO especially with the poor quality of the build, thinking of the housing problems here.
To everyone else..don't take my word for it go to the pimax forums and look through that cracked housing thread...
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.
If they have already sussed we don't all want headphones which is good, you can but hope they will work properly with any good speakers and direction of sound issues are sorted too.
I think they are the future just not for me yet, make them the size of a pair of wrap around googles and I am there.
You're comparing mobile AR usage rates to VR HMD rates. It's no wonder that the everyday now-mature device most of us use is winning out in usage.
Pass-through AR has less limitations than see-through. The issues with latency aren't as bad as you are making them out to be. Even the head of the R&D team at Oculus says that AR will be best in a pass-through view for a long time to come. That doesn't mean most convenient, but it does mean best functionally. True blacks, full pixel control, full opacity, less jittery, doesn't care about lighting conditions as much.
You can get the same shared experiences using this proposed MR headset as what you got using your AR HMD. If you can mix real and virtual to any degree, than you can see others in the room with you and others across the planet at the same time. It's ideal for home use. Yes, see-through will be much more prevalent outside but I was talking about the functionality of pass-through.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for 3 years roughly. 7 years includes the first dev kits of the modern era, which means we have to include old AR HMD dev kits too if you want to go that route.
As for VR vs AR, it doesn't even matter if we talk about pass-through or see-through. They will combine either way by going opaque/transparent or by switching to a camera feed. All of this is inevitable and MR headsets will be the dominate form of HMDs.
You get "true blacks" and "full pixel control" and yeah lighting conditions don't matter, but that doesn't matter when you take into consideration that compute times at best will never be a 1 to 1 ratio in an MR HMD than in the current AR sets, which means nobody will EVER WEAR THEM outside of the house. It's why there are no MR mobile sets. They all connect to a PC.
MR sets are already out there, and they are generally cheaper than the VR sets, they aren't more popular. The highest selling HMD system is still the PSVR, even last year, which outsold every pass through set, all of which are the same price or cheaper in most cases. Nobody at this point wants the legal ramifications of shipping a mobile MR HMD where the point is to provide a closed off pass through, where people expect that they will be able to wear it all the time, out in the world.
People will die.
There is no confidence in those kinds of MR sets. In a closed environment they're fine, because the small latency or potential lag, won't send you tumbling over a fire hydrant, or into an oncoming car. I've used plenty of HMDs including the Hololens, it's just a different feel.
Latency is nearly unperceivable to the point where Varjo and Volvo are using their MR headset to test drive real world cars in certain conditions.
I know they are not designed to be used outside, but that's why I said these are the best solution for inside your house because it's the most powerful form of MR.
In that we can kind of agree, but from someone who has used both MR and AR sets, it certainly is perceivable. I wouldn't trust myself in an outside environment, even if I could strap a powerful PC to my face to minimize the chances of any perceivable lag.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm pitting the two against eachother, VR and AR, I'm just saying that I can see more widespread appeal for the AR devices.
We're still a good ways from making it all work though, battery life is going to be killer unless they finally release a next gen battery, whether it's graphene or something else.
It depends on what set you used. The impressions from Varjo XR-1 is that it's a highly smooth experience.
haha well what that's a 7K dollar set? Yeah it better be a smooth experience. I'm talking about consumer sets. In comparison to that set, even hololens 2 is closer to a consumer set.
It would be like saying, "It depends on what car you're driving, my impressions of my ferrari seem to get me from 0 to 60 really quickly in comparison to all the fords and toyotas on the market."
I've used both acer and HP MR sets, plus the vive, psvr, gear vr and hololens. From a consumer standpoint I'm in a pretty good place.
You're comparing mobile AR usage rates to VR HMD rates. It's no wonder that the everyday now-mature device most of us use is winning out in usage.
Pass-through AR has less limitations than see-through. The issues with latency aren't as bad as you are making them out to be. Even the head of the R&D team at Oculus says that AR will be best in a pass-through view for a long time to come. That doesn't mean most convenient, but it does mean best functionally. True blacks, full pixel control, full opacity, less jittery, doesn't care about lighting conditions as much.
You can get the same shared experiences using this proposed MR headset as what you got using your AR HMD. If you can mix real and virtual to any degree, than you can see others in the room with you and others across the planet at the same time. It's ideal for home use. Yes, see-through will be much more prevalent outside but I was talking about the functionality of pass-through.
VR sets have been in their current iteration for 3 years roughly. 7 years includes the first dev kits of the modern era, which means we have to include old AR HMD dev kits too if you want to go that route.
As for VR vs AR, it doesn't even matter if we talk about pass-through or see-through. They will combine either way by going opaque/transparent or by switching to a camera feed. All of this is inevitable and MR headsets will be the dominate form of HMDs.
You get "true blacks" and "full pixel control" and yeah lighting conditions don't matter, but that doesn't matter when you take into consideration that compute times at best will never be a 1 to 1 ratio in an MR HMD than in the current AR sets, which means nobody will EVER WEAR THEM outside of the house. It's why there are no MR mobile sets. They all connect to a PC.
MR sets are already out there, and they are generally cheaper than the VR sets, they aren't more popular. The highest selling HMD system is still the PSVR, even last year, which outsold every pass through set, all of which are the same price or cheaper in most cases. Nobody at this point wants the legal ramifications of shipping a mobile MR HMD where the point is to provide a closed off pass through, where people expect that they will be able to wear it all the time, out in the world.
People will die.
There is no confidence in those kinds of MR sets. In a closed environment they're fine, because the small latency or potential lag, won't send you tumbling over a fire hydrant, or into an oncoming car. I've used plenty of HMDs including the Hololens, it's just a different feel.
Latency is nearly unperceivable to the point where Varjo and Volvo are using their MR headset to test drive real world cars in certain conditions.
I know they are not designed to be used outside, but that's why I said these are the best solution for inside your house because it's the most powerful form of MR.
In that we can kind of agree, but from someone who has used both MR and AR sets, it certainly is perceivable. I wouldn't trust myself in an outside environment, even if I could strap a powerful PC to my face to minimize the chances of any perceivable lag.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm pitting the two against eachother, VR and AR, I'm just saying that I can see more widespread appeal for the AR devices.
We're still a good ways from making it all work though, battery life is going to be killer unless they finally release a next gen battery, whether it's graphene or something else.
It depends on what set you used. The impressions from Varjo XR-1 is that it's a highly smooth experience.
haha well what that's a 7K dollar set? Yeah it better be a smooth experience. I'm talking about consumer sets. In comparison to that set, even hololens 2 is closer to a consumer set.
It would be like saying, "It depends on what car you're driving, my impressions of my ferrari seem to get me from 0 to 60 really quickly in comparison to all the fords and toyotas on the market."
I've used both acer and HP MR sets, plus the vive, psvr, gear vr and hololens. From a consumer standpoint I'm in a pretty good place.
Well it goes to show that there aren't physical limitations stopping it from being a smooth low-latency experience. I'm sure well have something much better than the MR functionality of the Varjo XR-1 in a few years in a consumer product anyway.
In that we can kind of agree, but from someone who has used both MR and AR sets, it certainly is perceivable. I wouldn't trust myself in an outside environment, even if I could strap a powerful PC to my face to minimize the chances of any perceivable lag.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm pitting the two against eachother, VR and AR, I'm just saying that I can see more widespread appeal for the AR devices.
We're still a good ways from making it all work though, battery life is going to be killer unless they finally release a next gen battery, whether it's graphene or something else.
It depends on what set you used. The impressions from Varjo XR-1 is that it's a highly smooth experience.
haha well what that's a 7K dollar set? Yeah it better be a smooth experience. I'm talking about consumer sets. In comparison to that set, even hololens 2 is closer to a consumer set.
It would be like saying, "It depends on what car you're driving, my impressions of my ferrari seem to get me from 0 to 60 really quickly in comparison to all the fords and toyotas on the market."
I've used both acer and HP MR sets, plus the vive, psvr, gear vr and hololens. From a consumer standpoint I'm in a pretty good place.
Well it goes to show that there aren't physical limitations stopping it from being a smooth low-latency experience. I'm sure well have something much better than the MR functionality of the Varjo XR-1 in a few years in a consumer product anyway.
Maybe within 7 - 10 years, but at that point, will it even be necessary? Probably not. 5G will essentially reduce the necessity for high powered hardware to process MR data. Peripherals will be less expensive, battery life will be much better. Closed MR sets may be useful in very specific circumstances but it's unlikely to me that they'll be necessary when the potential of low profile eyewear will be more fashionable and roughly as versatile. We'll have to wait and see though, we're still waiting for any kind of real consumer adoption.
It was slated for 2020, and it's very close to that now, so who knows, maybe they'll push it to 2022.
In that we can kind of agree, but from someone who has used both MR and AR sets, it certainly is perceivable. I wouldn't trust myself in an outside environment, even if I could strap a powerful PC to my face to minimize the chances of any perceivable lag.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm pitting the two against eachother, VR and AR, I'm just saying that I can see more widespread appeal for the AR devices.
We're still a good ways from making it all work though, battery life is going to be killer unless they finally release a next gen battery, whether it's graphene or something else.
It depends on what set you used. The impressions from Varjo XR-1 is that it's a highly smooth experience.
haha well what that's a 7K dollar set? Yeah it better be a smooth experience. I'm talking about consumer sets. In comparison to that set, even hololens 2 is closer to a consumer set.
It would be like saying, "It depends on what car you're driving, my impressions of my ferrari seem to get me from 0 to 60 really quickly in comparison to all the fords and toyotas on the market."
I've used both acer and HP MR sets, plus the vive, psvr, gear vr and hololens. From a consumer standpoint I'm in a pretty good place.
Well it goes to show that there aren't physical limitations stopping it from being a smooth low-latency experience. I'm sure well have something much better than the MR functionality of the Varjo XR-1 in a few years in a consumer product anyway.
Maybe within 7 - 10 years, but at that point, will it even be necessary? Probably not. 5G will essentially reduce the necessity for high powered hardware to process MR data. Peripherals will be less expensive, battery life will be much better. Closed MR sets may be useful in very specific circumstances but it's unlikely to me that they'll be necessary when the potential of low profile eyewear will be more fashionable and roughly as versatile. We'll have to wait and see though, we're still waiting for any kind of real consumer adoption.
It was slated for 2020, and it's very close to that now, so who knows, maybe they'll push it to 2022.
7-10 sounds pessimistic. The kind of MR functionality that Oculus are aiming for by 2022 would put Varjo XR-1 to shame, and we already know Oculus tries to be affordable.
I find that VR is one of those things that people that want it to happen are super die hard about it and will tell anyone that isn't so interested or on the fence that they are wrong for thinking it's just a fad and it's 100% going to be the next big thing.
For some of us gamers VR just isn't attractive in it's current or near future forms and while there may be a few great games on it, great for VR is still average at best to non VR even with the technology advancing and getting better at a steady pace.
I can't say i would never buy a VR headset, but i can say that it wouldn't be in the next 5 years and to get me to do it, there would have to be some ground breaking game that i couldn't live without or play without VR because especially in it's current iteration i just don't find it all that great.
The headset would need to be so much more slimline with full body gestures to start with, the thought of playing VR with controllers is actually kind of disgusting to me, especially after watching so many anime's and having super high expectations of what my VR experience should look like.
This isn't any kind of argument that VR is just a fad, in my eyes it is and i never see it becoming mainstream and telling me i'm wrong and providing me all the evidence in the world won't change my mind, just like me doing the same wouldn't change VR fans minds that i'm wrong. it's just my opinion on the subject, nothing more.
Usually fans of VR are in the know about the types of games and apps available, the hardware, the cost, the many misconceptions that get thrown around, and abut the state of R&D.
People who call VR a fad never show such knowledge. They work very much on guesstimates which is why people often disagree with them.
You say you won't buy a headset in the next 5 years. How do you know? That's a random guess. What if there's (and it's likely to happen going off the R&D) a mainstream breakthrough product?
As for that groundbreaking must have game, it's entirely possible it could come this year or next with the Valve games.
Why do you never see it becoming mainstream? You can list issues and I'd bet good money that nearly all of them will be irrelevant in 10 years. You can argue that people just won't want to use it much, and I can counter with how much real world use it would have in daily life.
You really haven't thought this through.
See if you knew me, you'd know i have about as much interest in Valve as a company developing games as i have in VR... anything Valve could produce at the moment would excite me less than a VR headset, i'm sure the technology is a lot better than what i experienced near the end of last year when my buddy bought a HTC VR headset....
Just because you find the immersion and everything amazing doesn't mean everyone will, i was unimpressed and thats ok, i don't have to like VR, thats the thing VR doesn't have to be mainstream in every home for it to be successful and great for you to use... Sure development of big titles might not take a hold if there isnt a huge market audience to make bank off, but from what you guys are saying the smaller games are way better anyway so maybe thats a plus.
in 8 months i'm sure the tech has improved in leaps and bounds, but again just doesn't interest me and i would put money on it that i won't buy a headset in the next 5 years.. because again their current iteration doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.
i do consider it a fad however because i've seen VR fever flare up and down a couple of times over the past 20 years and while this time it may be different, until it actually is different i have no reason to believe it's anything other than a fad or gimmick.
But please, don't let my feelings on it take anything away from your experience, again i wasn't looking to have a debate about how I specifically feel about VR, just pointing out that some people just are truly uninterested.
You can't take the current iteration and say you won't buy a headset in the next 6 years based off that.
Imagine saying that in 2003 about a smartphone. Things can rapidly change.
Yes i can, a phone is a device i use for everyday life and communication.
A VR headset is a luxury item i don't need.
You should honestly stop presuming to tell me what i would or wouldn't do, it's arrogant and doesn't help your argument at all and by doing so you're honestly pushing me away further from ownership, like VR headset owners are some strange cult like beings that can't understand that some people aren't interested and continue to shovel it down their throats.
I find that VR is one of those things that people that want it to happen are super die hard about it and will tell anyone that isn't so interested or on the fence that they are wrong for thinking it's just a fad and it's 100% going to be the next big thing.
For some of us gamers VR just isn't attractive in it's current or near future forms and while there may be a few great games on it, great for VR is still average at best to non VR even with the technology advancing and getting better at a steady pace.
I can't say i would never buy a VR headset, but i can say that it wouldn't be in the next 5 years and to get me to do it, there would have to be some ground breaking game that i couldn't live without or play without VR because especially in it's current iteration i just don't find it all that great.
The headset would need to be so much more slimline with full body gestures to start with, the thought of playing VR with controllers is actually kind of disgusting to me, especially after watching so many anime's and having super high expectations of what my VR experience should look like.
This isn't any kind of argument that VR is just a fad, in my eyes it is and i never see it becoming mainstream and telling me i'm wrong and providing me all the evidence in the world won't change my mind, just like me doing the same wouldn't change VR fans minds that i'm wrong. it's just my opinion on the subject, nothing more.
Usually fans of VR are in the know about the types of games and apps available, the hardware, the cost, the many misconceptions that get thrown around, and abut the state of R&D.
People who call VR a fad never show such knowledge. They work very much on guesstimates which is why people often disagree with them.
You say you won't buy a headset in the next 5 years. How do you know? That's a random guess. What if there's (and it's likely to happen going off the R&D) a mainstream breakthrough product?
As for that groundbreaking must have game, it's entirely possible it could come this year or next with the Valve games.
Why do you never see it becoming mainstream? You can list issues and I'd bet good money that nearly all of them will be irrelevant in 10 years. You can argue that people just won't want to use it much, and I can counter with how much real world use it would have in daily life.
You really haven't thought this through.
See if you knew me, you'd know i have about as much interest in Valve as a company developing games as i have in VR... anything Valve could produce at the moment would excite me less than a VR headset, i'm sure the technology is a lot better than what i experienced near the end of last year when my buddy bought a HTC VR headset....
Just because you find the immersion and everything amazing doesn't mean everyone will, i was unimpressed and thats ok, i don't have to like VR, thats the thing VR doesn't have to be mainstream in every home for it to be successful and great for you to use... Sure development of big titles might not take a hold if there isnt a huge market audience to make bank off, but from what you guys are saying the smaller games are way better anyway so maybe thats a plus.
in 8 months i'm sure the tech has improved in leaps and bounds, but again just doesn't interest me and i would put money on it that i won't buy a headset in the next 5 years.. because again their current iteration doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.
i do consider it a fad however because i've seen VR fever flare up and down a couple of times over the past 20 years and while this time it may be different, until it actually is different i have no reason to believe it's anything other than a fad or gimmick.
But please, don't let my feelings on it take anything away from your experience, again i wasn't looking to have a debate about how I specifically feel about VR, just pointing out that some people just are truly uninterested.
You can't take the current iteration and say you won't buy a headset in the next 6 years based off that.
Imagine saying that in 2003 about a smartphone. Things can rapidly change.
Yes i can, a phone is a device i use for everyday life and communication.
A VR headset is a luxury item i don't need.
You should honestly stop presuming to tell me what i would or wouldn't do, it's arrogant and doesn't help your argument at all and by doing so you're honestly pushing me away further from ownership, like VR headset owners are some strange cult like beings that can't understand that some people aren't interested and continue to shovel it down their throats.
No, that's now how this works. In 2003, a smartphone was not an everyday item, nor was it really needed for communication. The same is true in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Only after the iPhone launced did smartphones start to become essential.
I find that VR is one of those things that people that want it to happen are super die hard about it and will tell anyone that isn't so interested or on the fence that they are wrong for thinking it's just a fad and it's 100% going to be the next big thing.
For some of us gamers VR just isn't attractive in it's current or near future forms and while there may be a few great games on it, great for VR is still average at best to non VR even with the technology advancing and getting better at a steady pace.
I can't say i would never buy a VR headset, but i can say that it wouldn't be in the next 5 years and to get me to do it, there would have to be some ground breaking game that i couldn't live without or play without VR because especially in it's current iteration i just don't find it all that great.
The headset would need to be so much more slimline with full body gestures to start with, the thought of playing VR with controllers is actually kind of disgusting to me, especially after watching so many anime's and having super high expectations of what my VR experience should look like.
This isn't any kind of argument that VR is just a fad, in my eyes it is and i never see it becoming mainstream and telling me i'm wrong and providing me all the evidence in the world won't change my mind, just like me doing the same wouldn't change VR fans minds that i'm wrong. it's just my opinion on the subject, nothing more.
Usually fans of VR are in the know about the types of games and apps available, the hardware, the cost, the many misconceptions that get thrown around, and abut the state of R&D.
People who call VR a fad never show such knowledge. They work very much on guesstimates which is why people often disagree with them.
You say you won't buy a headset in the next 5 years. How do you know? That's a random guess. What if there's (and it's likely to happen going off the R&D) a mainstream breakthrough product?
As for that groundbreaking must have game, it's entirely possible it could come this year or next with the Valve games.
Why do you never see it becoming mainstream? You can list issues and I'd bet good money that nearly all of them will be irrelevant in 10 years. You can argue that people just won't want to use it much, and I can counter with how much real world use it would have in daily life.
You really haven't thought this through.
See if you knew me, you'd know i have about as much interest in Valve as a company developing games as i have in VR... anything Valve could produce at the moment would excite me less than a VR headset, i'm sure the technology is a lot better than what i experienced near the end of last year when my buddy bought a HTC VR headset....
Just because you find the immersion and everything amazing doesn't mean everyone will, i was unimpressed and thats ok, i don't have to like VR, thats the thing VR doesn't have to be mainstream in every home for it to be successful and great for you to use... Sure development of big titles might not take a hold if there isnt a huge market audience to make bank off, but from what you guys are saying the smaller games are way better anyway so maybe thats a plus.
in 8 months i'm sure the tech has improved in leaps and bounds, but again just doesn't interest me and i would put money on it that i won't buy a headset in the next 5 years.. because again their current iteration doesn't appeal to me in the slightest.
i do consider it a fad however because i've seen VR fever flare up and down a couple of times over the past 20 years and while this time it may be different, until it actually is different i have no reason to believe it's anything other than a fad or gimmick.
But please, don't let my feelings on it take anything away from your experience, again i wasn't looking to have a debate about how I specifically feel about VR, just pointing out that some people just are truly uninterested.
You can't take the current iteration and say you won't buy a headset in the next 6 years based off that.
Imagine saying that in 2003 about a smartphone. Things can rapidly change.
Yes i can, a phone is a device i use for everyday life and communication.
A VR headset is a luxury item i don't need.
You should honestly stop presuming to tell me what i would or wouldn't do, it's arrogant and doesn't help your argument at all and by doing so you're honestly pushing me away further from ownership, like VR headset owners are some strange cult like beings that can't understand that some people aren't interested and continue to shovel it down their throats.
No, that's now how this works. In 2003, a smartphone was not an everyday item, nor was it really needed for communication. The same is true in 2004, 2005, and 2006. Only after the iPhone launced did smartphones start to become essential.
I had a mobile / cell phone before i had a smart phone.
you're comparing apples and oranges, smart phones were an evolution of an item that people were already using for everyday use for calling / texting etc....
a VR headset is not in everyones home, it's not for everybody to use everyday, the majority of the population doesn't have one.
Again, i can't live without my phone, i use it to manage my businesses because i'm not physically at them, i use it to keep in touch with family and friends, social media, banking, controlling aspects of my house, keeping in touch with my property manager for the house i rent out, email, hell, even ordering food if the need arises.
The phone is something i need for everyday life and even before the smart phone came along and i was using my sony erriccson T28, or that first nokia color screen phone etc... i used them almost everyday for calling friends, texting, taking pictures when they had cameras.
So a phone is something in my life i've had to have for decades. Not a luxury gaming device. Stop trying to put them in the same market.
Comments
And as far as interacting with players, that entirely depends on the type of game. If it's a PvP game, sure, if it's a heavily social interaction driven game, kinda, if it's a PvE dungeon crawler, not too heavy of a reliance there, if it's a Diablo-esque dungeon crawler, then the scope of player interactions becomes pretty finite.
And to that end, the same tech that goes into creating more free-form mob animations off of IK rigs and physics behaviors applies all the same to player avatars. That's the type of thing the abstraction can take care of, matching player actions to intended scenario and vise-versa.
Like, if a player in VR is fighting a player on a besktop, The player in VR tries to do a sideswipe at a non-standard angle. abstracting their action and using a small window of degrees for the action would mean that game could render it on the desktop users perspective relatively accurately, but adjusted according to the standard related animation within it's library.
The desktop user's response of, say blocking, would pass through that same abstraction, first pulling the appropriate block facing, then applying a matching angle to the IK rig's animation so that from the VR user's perspective, the desktop user is actually deflecting from the appropriate position.
It's the same kind of tech you refer to with Boneworks there, people just need to apply that kind of tech to the appropriate parts of the game to leverage it.
You can't really build a library of animations in the standard way for VR player behavior because human behavior is infinite. You would need a neural network to train on millions of examples of human behavior to create an overly complex system of translated animations that would be better off left as just pure player-driven data. Desktop users in my mind shouldn't ever see animations from VR players; they should just see what VR players are actually doing with their body until a disconnect happens like when climbing.
But that creates huge balance difficulty, which is why non-VR just doesn't fit in that well.
To be honest, the only reason VRMMOs should support desktop users is if the userbase isn't big enough.
And you're over complicating it to a massive degree. This is why I mentioned movements taking place within a window. IE, most actions could be derived from basic standard movements, along with direction breaking them down. Certain button presses and gestures can extend that. It's not about capturing everything a person can do, it's about parsing necessary information into a filtered set of behaviors and translating them back and forth.
The point of this was again what we can do now to create a consistent user experience between platforms, not what we might want X years into the future.
Just because you find the immersion and everything amazing doesn't mean everyone will, i was unimpressed and thats ok, i don't have to like VR, thats the thing VR doesn't have to be mainstream in every home for it to be successful and great for you to use... Sure development of big titles might not take a hold if there isnt a huge market audience to make bank off, but from what you guys are saying the smaller games are way better anyway so maybe thats a plus.
But please, don't let my feelings on it take anything away from your experience, again i wasn't looking to have a debate about how I specifically feel about VR, just pointing out that some people just are truly uninterested.
I kind of get this. I have a Rift and VR looks amazing but in my day to day; "what will I play now" musings, I typically opt for playing in front of my delightful widescreen monitor.
My other take on VR is while the technology is improving most games don't have the narrative experience present in PC games; they are relatively short.
So I find myself getting all excited for VR, plunk down the cash for a headset then in practice, rarely play with it.
Seaspite
Playing ESO on my X-Box
MR sets are already out there, and they are generally cheaper than the VR sets, they aren't more popular. The highest selling HMD system is still the PSVR, even last year, which outsold every pass through set, all of which are the same price or cheaper in most cases. Nobody at this point wants the legal ramifications of shipping a mobile MR HMD where the point is to provide a closed off pass through, where people expect that they will be able to wear it all the time, out in the world.
People will die.
There is no confidence in those kinds of MR sets. In a closed environment they're fine, because the small latency or potential lag, won't send you tumbling over a fire hydrant, or into an oncoming car. I've used plenty of HMDs including the Hololens, it's just a different feel.
I know they are not designed to be used outside, but that's why I said these are the best solution for inside your house because it's the most powerful form of MR.
Imagine saying that in 2003 about a smartphone. Things can rapidly change.
I wouldn't necessarily say I'm pitting the two against eachother, VR and AR, I'm just saying that I can see more widespread appeal for the AR devices.
We're still a good ways from making it all work though, battery life is going to be killer unless they finally release a next gen battery, whether it's graphene or something else.
It reminds me of the original xbox. An untested fat machine with a controller the size of a baby elephant in a market against two giants of console gaming. Who wanted the xbox for the hardware? No one. The only reason xbox exists right now is because of HALO. That game made people want to buy a new, unproven, machine with a piddley catalog. And that's what VR needs. It needs something that makes people say, "oh shit, I need that and I don't care how I get it."
When it happens, that's it. This conversation won't exist. Because people won't be arguing over whether or not there's a reason to even use VR, they'll be trying to get the thing they want without regard to VR being the platform it's on.
So rule of thumb, if you think VR has a killer app/game and you see a discussion like the one in this thread . . . then no, there is no killer app/game yet. You'll know when it happens.
Stopped doing that though because there is a particular flaw, the sound doesn't change according to your facing direction when you do that. If the noise comes from the left of you, it will always play through the "left" speakers, even though you might be facing the back of the room and those speakers are consequently on your right. It became a bit too disorienting so I defaulted back to headphones.
Dunno if that's been solved yet, but if not, that's a thing that should be addressed. Taking the headset's facing direction and re-orienting the speaker audio relative to the player's new forward axis.
Never use VR on your own speaker equipment though. Not unless it's something like Beat Saber.
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.
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 they are the future just not for me yet, make them the size of a pair of wrap around googles and I am there.
It would be like saying, "It depends on what car you're driving, my impressions of my ferrari seem to get me from 0 to 60 really quickly in comparison to all the fords and toyotas on the market."
I've used both acer and HP MR sets, plus the vive, psvr, gear vr and hololens. From a consumer standpoint I'm in a pretty good place.
I had fun once, it was terrible.
It was slated for 2020, and it's very close to that now, so who knows, maybe they'll push it to 2022.
Again, i can't live without my phone, i use it to manage my businesses because i'm not physically at them, i use it to keep in touch with family and friends, social media, banking, controlling aspects of my house, keeping in touch with my property manager for the house i rent out, email, hell, even ordering food if the need arises.
The phone is something i need for everyday life and even before the smart phone came along and i was using my sony erriccson T28, or that first nokia color screen phone etc... i used them almost everyday for calling friends, texting, taking pictures when they had cameras.
So a phone is something in my life i've had to have for decades. Not a luxury gaming device. Stop trying to put them in the same market.