Howdy, Stranger!

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

Valve Index VR Review: Next-Gen VR Has Arrived - MMORPG.com

123468

Comments

  • LunoTrickster34LunoTrickster34 Member UncommonPosts: 47
    Sidhia08 said:
    VR is amazing and the MMORPG's and multiplayer games available are coming along at leaps and bounds.  Personally I think VR Dungeon Knight might be the beginning of a whole new era for Warcraft or RPG fans.  

    The funny thing is that once you start playing in VR you kinda loose track of all of the flat stuff going on and I think that actually may be hurting its marketing.  Once you have experienced this new generation of VR gear available you don't ever go back, there is no going back but it's ok because there is tons of content and the future is looking amazingly fun.

    The previous poster is correct about the spread of VR.  I cant wait to see what we can play even 24 months from now.  I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky in a few weeks.

    Why are VR MMORPG's and not listed on this site?  Granted the true MMORPG's like Orbus are very alpha but still surprisingly popular and fun.
    It's probably because there's only one VR MMO released right now which you just mentioned and it's indie.

    It will change though. If the site is still around in 10-15 years then most of it's coverage will be on VR since most MMOs will be VR at that point. Pretty easy to see that.
    Vendetta Online is very much a 'real' MMORPG by way of design, class of '04 and all that, and the devs have enthusiastically supported VR since 2013.

    It's a VR MMORPG.
    Well I meant a full blown built from the ground up VR MMORPG. Only Orbus fits that bill so far.
  • LunoTrickster34LunoTrickster34 Member UncommonPosts: 47
    edited June 2019
    Can somebody link the new account guy the conversations and specs and links and everything from the past 2 years? The whole "people are being misled by the media" retort is extra moldy at this point too.

    But yeah, VR is going to be in the "hasn't failed yet" phase for quite some time. At least the VR zealot from before has a new tag team partner :D. Good luck in your battles against the inner ear and sensory perception.
    Please don't tell me you've been brainwashed by the media too? Do you really think that all these crazy sales projections were sane? Remember how VR/AR was supposed to be a 160 billion dollar market by 2020? Remember how Google Cardboard was supposed to sell 88 million units? Remember how PSVR was supposed to sell 2.6 million units in the year it released, somehow outpacing supply by enormous margins?

    All of those are analysts that didn't have a clue about technology adoption, and the media bought every word of it, which means people like yourself bought every word of it. The media ignored everything that Sony, Oculus, HTC, Valve, Samsung and others had to say on the matter.

    What about the other misconceptions? You need a whole room, there's nothing that can't be done without it, it's anti-social, it's all tech demos, it costs thousands, few genres work and on and on.

    Again, you almost certainly bought into this stuff didn't you?.
    Yes, I'm an NPC that was brainwashed by the media. Mission failed. Abort. Abort. Self-destruct sequence initiated.

    I did that in my "Danger Will Robinson" voice just for you.  :D
    I was hoping you'd actually address my points. Nothing to say on them?
    'You are brainwashed for not wanting to wear this sci-fi looking device on your head'...

    Probably not the best approach, unless you are recruiting for a cult or something.
    That has nothing to do with what I just said. I was talking about figures and statements that can be quantified. What you're talking about is subjective. What I'm talking about is objective. 

    If the media says that all the games available are tech demos and someone believes them, they have been brainwashed. It doesn't matter if they hate or love the tech.
  • PhaserlightPhaserlight Member EpicPosts: 3,000
    Sidhia08 said:
    VR is amazing and the MMORPG's and multiplayer games available are coming along at leaps and bounds.  Personally I think VR Dungeon Knight might be the beginning of a whole new era for Warcraft or RPG fans.  

    The funny thing is that once you start playing in VR you kinda loose track of all of the flat stuff going on and I think that actually may be hurting its marketing.  Once you have experienced this new generation of VR gear available you don't ever go back, there is no going back but it's ok because there is tons of content and the future is looking amazingly fun.

    The previous poster is correct about the spread of VR.  I cant wait to see what we can play even 24 months from now.  I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky in a few weeks.

    Why are VR MMORPG's and not listed on this site?  Granted the true MMORPG's like Orbus are very alpha but still surprisingly popular and fun.
    It's probably because there's only one VR MMO released right now which you just mentioned and it's indie.

    It will change though. If the site is still around in 10-15 years then most of it's coverage will be on VR since most MMOs will be VR at that point. Pretty easy to see that.
    Vendetta Online is very much a 'real' MMORPG by way of design, class of '04 and all that, and the devs have enthusiastically supported VR since 2013.

    It's a VR MMORPG.
    Well I meant a full blown built from the ground up VR MMORPG. Only Orbus fits that bill so far.
    I would argue that Vendetta laid the foundations for being awesome in VR long before this current crop of headsets came up.

    I wrote a piece here on mmorpg.com prior to the Oculus Kickstarter even being announced, pining for an affordable head-mounted-display to play it on.

    As such, it is designed "for" VR, ground-up.  A fortunate anachronism, I suppose, but try it and then tell me...

    "The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
    Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 4 tracks in Distance

    Minecraft server: kyoto.apexmc.co

  • LunoTrickster34LunoTrickster34 Member UncommonPosts: 47
    Sidhia08 said:
    VR is amazing and the MMORPG's and multiplayer games available are coming along at leaps and bounds.  Personally I think VR Dungeon Knight might be the beginning of a whole new era for Warcraft or RPG fans.  

    The funny thing is that once you start playing in VR you kinda loose track of all of the flat stuff going on and I think that actually may be hurting its marketing.  Once you have experienced this new generation of VR gear available you don't ever go back, there is no going back but it's ok because there is tons of content and the future is looking amazingly fun.

    The previous poster is correct about the spread of VR.  I cant wait to see what we can play even 24 months from now.  I'm really looking forward to No Man's Sky in a few weeks.

    Why are VR MMORPG's and not listed on this site?  Granted the true MMORPG's like Orbus are very alpha but still surprisingly popular and fun.
    It's probably because there's only one VR MMO released right now which you just mentioned and it's indie.

    It will change though. If the site is still around in 10-15 years then most of it's coverage will be on VR since most MMOs will be VR at that point. Pretty easy to see that.
    Vendetta Online is very much a 'real' MMORPG by way of design, class of '04 and all that, and the devs have enthusiastically supported VR since 2013.

    It's a VR MMORPG.
    Well I meant a full blown built from the ground up VR MMORPG. Only Orbus fits that bill so far.
    I would argue that Vendetta laid the foundations for being awesome in VR long before this current crop of headsets came up.

    I wrote a piece here on mmorpg.com prior to the Oculus Kickstarter even being announced, pining for an affordable head-mounted-display to play it on.

    As such, it is designed "for" VR, ground-up.  A fortunate anachronism, I suppose, but try it and then tell me...
    I get your point, but to me, and this is where subjectivity comes in, I think of a VRMMORPG as one that only supports VR, because that's how the full potential of the medium gets used.

    Though that is more in reference to what we typically think of in MMOs, where we play as characters running around rather than engaged in space combat.
  • DvoraDvora Member UncommonPosts: 495
    I have a Vive but rarely touch it anymore, and wont be upgrading until the software moved beyond arcade and little gimmicky party games into true AAA games built only for VR.  Not sure when/if that will happen.  Like the last few comments I'm waiting for a real VR mmo, not the crap like Orbus.
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    edited June 2019
    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.
  • LackingMMOLackingMMO Member RarePosts: 456
    Orbus does look good though, its not the next gen look but the concept is cool, I want to get it once I have my area fixed.
  • LunoTrickster34LunoTrickster34 Member UncommonPosts: 47
    edited June 2019
    Limnic said:
    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.
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member EpicPosts: 10,345
    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. 
    SlyLoK



  • LunoTrickster34LunoTrickster34 Member UncommonPosts: 47
    edited June 2019
    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.

  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    Limnic said:
    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).
  • LunoTrickster34LunoTrickster34 Member UncommonPosts: 47
    Limnic said:
    Limnic said:
    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.
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    Limnic said:
    Limnic said:
    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.
  • LunoTrickster34LunoTrickster34 Member UncommonPosts: 47
    edited July 2019
    Limnic said:
    Limnic said:
    Limnic said:
    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.
    Well watch the video and see what you think of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E30vb3bmMc

    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.
  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    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.
  • mbrodiembrodie Member RarePosts: 1,481
    mbrodie said:
    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.
    jimmywolf
  • jonp200jonp200 Member UncommonPosts: 455

    SBFord said:

    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.

    Seaspite
    Playing ESO on my X-Box


  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member EpicPosts: 10,345
    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.



  • LunoTrickster34LunoTrickster34 Member UncommonPosts: 47
    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.
  • LunoTrickster34LunoTrickster34 Member UncommonPosts: 47
    mbrodie said:
    mbrodie said:
    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.
  • maskedweaselmaskedweasel Member EpicPosts: 10,345
    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.  



  • RusqueRusque Member RarePosts: 2,784
    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.
  • LunoTrickster34LunoTrickster34 Member UncommonPosts: 47
    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. 
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 12,438
    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?

     25 Agrees

    You received 25 Agrees. You're posting some good content. Great!

    - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

    Now Doesn't That Make You Feel All Warm And Fuzzy Inside? :P

  • LimnicLimnic Member RarePosts: 1,116
    edited July 2019
    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. 
Sign In or Register to comment.