They would have to be cheap or else the experience isnt worth the cost of the things. Personally im not interested in it so im already biased against it.
Why VR will fail
- Thread starter Fonejackerjon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My hypothesis is that VR will eventually succeed in mass-market appeal, beyond merely the gaming spectrum.
If the process continues where more and more labor is automated, combined with the process of more and more virtual interaction (the internet, video games, etc), it seems to me that we are headed towards a system similar to but not the same as The Matrix.
Eventually I think technology will force lots of non-intellectuals and poorer people into unemployment, and a system may be devised to keep them alive, but also entertained.
Just guesses at this point though
If the process continues where more and more labor is automated, combined with the process of more and more virtual interaction (the internet, video games, etc), it seems to me that we are headed towards a system similar to but not the same as The Matrix.
Eventually I think technology will force lots of non-intellectuals and poorer people into unemployment, and a system may be devised to keep them alive, but also entertained.
Just guesses at this point though
As far as I know, this VR thing is a peripheral, right? Look at the potential price. People have already paid quite a bit for their PS4. What's going to make them jump up and get the expensive VR kit?Zachary Amaranth said:
Yup. The only Rift available then was the Developer Kit 1, which compared to the new DK2 had a lower refresh rate, lower field of view, less precise head tracking and low persistence (I dunno the specifics behind that term but basically it means: lots of motion blur). All these things contribute to motion sickness.NateA42 said:
That's not to say the DK2 and eventual consumer version won't have that effect on anyone ever, but it should be a significant improvement.
Well because it's not really 'out' yet. It's just the developer kits that you either got from backing their Kickstarter, or there was a limited supply that you could order directly as well. DK1 was made available so that people who might want to develop for the final consumer version could start testing the basic hardware. On the order page of the website there's a box you have to tick to say "I understand this is intended for developers and is not a consumer product."NateA42 said:
Okay, that's interesting, I thought they were gonna pull an Apple and release the "great new product" while already having the great new product for 5 years from now already made.Britpoint said:
Is VR just gonna be for elitist monetarily gifted jerks though? I mean that's where the mainstream console market has gone.
To start with, for sure. Ordering the DK2 is currently $350 (£200), so pretty pricey for a peripheral. That's not ridiculous money, assuming the consumer version is similarly priced, but it is expensive. Over time that price should come down, but it will certainly be too expensive for the majority for the first couple of years at least.NateA42 said:
Yea, it's awesome when people don't read the thread and then see a comment they don't like...oh no! Some one with a differing opinion that I wrote off without realizing what they were saying...cloroxbb said:
I misspoke my mainstream I meant I don't want it to be mainstay IE replacing consoles and computer gaming.
First off my post said the same thing I did before it was just I edited it to make fun of how you formatted your post.
But perhaps you are right, maybe I will like VR when it gets better, but I sure as hell know that I don't enjoy wearing a facemask and standing to use a video game console.
As far as VR itself goes I don't like total immersion, I play games because they are games, not real life or even trying to be. I do stuff all day and it's good to sit down and do stuff and not have to stand anymore.
But perhaps you are right, maybe I will like VR when it gets better, but I sure as hell know that I don't enjoy wearing a facemask and standing to use a video game console.
As far as VR itself goes I don't like total immersion, I play games because they are games, not real life or even trying to be. I do stuff all day and it's good to sit down and do stuff and not have to stand anymore.
There are definitely games I'd like to experience in VR like the Oculus Rift. But that's about it, I'd like to experience it every now and then. It would never become my main or even secondary 'screen' to play games on. I see it as nothing more than a very promising and fun looking gimmick. So the current price tag on those things definitely makes them too expensive for me.
I agree with a lot of the responders. I think the current "VR" plan with fail, but not because of the price of entry. The thing is that they need stuff to do with it that will appeal to people. The problem with previous experiments of this type is that the price of entry was high, and there was nothing to actually do with the systems. Basically they decided once there was an install base they would worry about spending tons of money to create things to do with it, and of course with nothing to do with the systems nobody bought it. Wii kind of got lucky because it's free games had a lot of appeal for a generally non-gaming crowd, older folks and non-gamers were more or less willing to buy the Wii just to do that. Of course the Wii also never got out of it's casual rut because of that odd success story.Fonejackerjon said:
For something like this Sony needs to lead with a "Killer App" or preferably several. High budget games that they are able to generate a lot of hype for, and they need to have more in the pipe right from the beginning. Meaning that they will need to gamble on a level you rarely see (since the hardware is already seen as a gamble). Sony as a general rule has managed to get away with releasing systems with little or no support, such as what happened with the PS-2 through 4 where there were hardly any games on release. They were lucky to have a huge fan base built up from their previous console generation though who were willing to trust them. This is a little different, given that's it's a different kind of product, highly specialized video game add-on gimmicks generally failing.
Basically they need to lead with "what your going to do with it" right at the beginning, and that will probably mean putting at least one really good, high-budget game right into the box with it, as opposed to expecting all the money mentioned above and then on top of that expecting you to pay even more for a decent game. This pretty much needs some equivalent to "Super Mario Brothers" or "Wii Bowling" albeit for the hardcore gaming crowd that would be attracted to this as opposed to for general audiences.
-
That said, I get tired of people calling this kind of thing "Virtual Reality". The idea of VR is to create an immersive experience so complete that it might as well be real, except it isn't (and you know this). Optically-controlled games aren't going to come close. *REAL* VR is going to involve a direct neural interface and/or using a suit or device capable of cutting people off from the world and providing different stimula. To be honest I'm not sure if we'll ever get there, I'm pretty sure it's possible, but at the end of the day I don't think your ordinary person could handle that kind of tech. The lowest common human denominator that consumer products need to be aimed at is not something who is going to be able to take care of a neural jack for example, and god forbid what he'd do with an isolation tank (if such a technology could ever be approved due to the possibility of failure and keeping someone trapped inside until they died).
-
As far as this current style of gaming goes, I honestly think they guys doing this need to team up with the dudes at Google working on "Google Glass". Get the eyeglasses down to the point where they look like normal eyeglasses (to avoid the stigma and immediate paranoia about being recorded that is hampering the implementation) and improve the computer capabilities. I can easily see a situation where everyone pretty much has a notebook computer as eyewear, and the practical functionality here is obvious. Games, where you could then sit back and "zone out the world" using the tech talked about here would be something that could be done with this especially if the tech can be pumped up to the level of a gaming PC over time.
That's where I think this could succeed, while I could be wrong, I can't see people wearing bulky glasses or whatever to play video games this way, since really all it's doing is moving the screen closer to your face and letting you control some things by blinking and eye movement. At the end of the day I think most people will still default to a good old fashioned TV screen under the circumstances.
Later on though when everyone is wearing an eyeframe based computer, and nearly everyone treats it like a person who needs corrective glasses IRL (they might also actually be corrective glasses), that will change things I think. Assuming of course enough funding is put into things like Google Glass despite the setbacks and initial stigma.
Virtual Reality is going to need several things to really take off:
First, a light headset that avoids causing head and neck strain, as well as widely adjustable visual options to prevent eyestrain, headache, and motion sickness. Ideally one is going to wear this thing for hours, therefore solving these problems is paramount.
Second, either an camera and a button for seeing out while wearing it or the ability to easily take it on and off while still allowing it to be able to block out everything else while wearing it. Since people are going to want to see around them at times this is important.
Third, immersive and functional motion controls that feel natural to use. For instance, a pair of gloves that track finger movements precisely while having the ability to provide resistance on demand so the player can pick objects up in a game and wouldn't be able to still form a fist anyway. Until such a thing is made, one could still use a standard keyboard and mouse or controller set up.
Last, and maybe most importantly of all, a version that functions for general use. For example, for games that don't use it or predate it, as well as when one is not playing, it could just basically function like a wearable TV or computer monitor. That way it has more uses than just for gaming or for games that are designed for it. One could also use this to justify it's cost, since what need does one have for a TV or computer monitor when one has this headset that does what they do? This would naturally mean that it would have to be a wireless connection with a rechargeable battery life that could last all day.
First, a light headset that avoids causing head and neck strain, as well as widely adjustable visual options to prevent eyestrain, headache, and motion sickness. Ideally one is going to wear this thing for hours, therefore solving these problems is paramount.
Second, either an camera and a button for seeing out while wearing it or the ability to easily take it on and off while still allowing it to be able to block out everything else while wearing it. Since people are going to want to see around them at times this is important.
Third, immersive and functional motion controls that feel natural to use. For instance, a pair of gloves that track finger movements precisely while having the ability to provide resistance on demand so the player can pick objects up in a game and wouldn't be able to still form a fist anyway. Until such a thing is made, one could still use a standard keyboard and mouse or controller set up.
Last, and maybe most importantly of all, a version that functions for general use. For example, for games that don't use it or predate it, as well as when one is not playing, it could just basically function like a wearable TV or computer monitor. That way it has more uses than just for gaming or for games that are designed for it. One could also use this to justify it's cost, since what need does one have for a TV or computer monitor when one has this headset that does what they do? This would naturally mean that it would have to be a wireless connection with a rechargeable battery life that could last all day.
Eh, it kind of depends really. I always play Final Fantasy XIV in windowed mode, because I need access to other windows for various reasons (opening a browser to look up things, running skype to talk with my friends, etc). To not be in windowed mode is a bother, in that case.Rainbow_Dashtruction said:
And to some people, having a huge thing stuck on your head and wrapped around your face might be a distraction they can't surmount. Especially if they are prone to motion sickness and the whole thing makes them want to puke. It certainly won't be the epitome of immersion for everybody, but it'll be another option on the table.
Wearable VR might take off, but it's ultimately doomed to be replaced by wearable AR technology. AR can simulate VR (by overlaying the entire field of view) can be used without blinding the user to what's going on in the real world, and has uses outside of games (think of a HUD in real life, with minimap and everything).
The transition will either use VR, by adding a fish eye camera and super-imposing the virtual elements onto the real ones, or use a different tech altogether, like mini projecting onto the lens of glasses (with polarized filters to avoid annoying people in front of the user). There's a company called MicroVision (no, not that Microvision) already working on the latter solution.
That's my 2¢, anyways.
The transition will either use VR, by adding a fish eye camera and super-imposing the virtual elements onto the real ones, or use a different tech altogether, like mini projecting onto the lens of glasses (with polarized filters to avoid annoying people in front of the user). There's a company called MicroVision (no, not that Microvision) already working on the latter solution.
That's my 2¢, anyways.
The Oculus Rift exists on a platform where people are willing to spend well over $1000 on a rig and you think cost is going to stop them?Fonejackerjon said:
Plus, with the PC version of Kinect coming very soon, expect VR to justify itself further.
I disagree.RelativityMan said:
I think AR will be used more for app style software while wearable VR will be for full on entertainment software. People are probably going to start combining the Oculus Rift with the PC version of Kinect when the latter gets released. Google will probably buy Microvision and have them work on Google Glass for AR. AR and VR won't overtake one another imo.