Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

I don't expect VR to be a thing for current gen consoles, either, they hardly have the power to render modern games once...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlayStation_VR

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/playstation-vr/

[mainiac]

25 years? You're talking paradigm shift. Whatever it is that changes, it will be different enough that if you describe it to people today, a lot of people would shrug it off as crazy. Maybe that will be VR. or maybe it won't. But it will be something.

Well it could be a paradigm shift but it could also be something like social media; everything changes but then we get a new normal.

Or will it be like cellphones?

It's worth noting that in some places cell phones were in fact a completely life changing technology.  For instance in Mali in 2004 there were 3.5 cell phone subscriptions per 100 people.  In 2014 there were 149 cell phone subscriptions per 100 people.  This in a country where GDP per capita is 2 dollars a day.  The technology was cheap and it served a need so their society embraced it fully.  As they embraced it they discovered that it had unexpected uses, for instance cell phone credits provided a much more reliable banking system then their banks.

Like I said earlier, the actual developmental stuff done by dedicated VR has mostly simply been an application of the development of cell phones.

Yeah, that's the point.  The technology is good to go because the technological frontier has shifted.  It's like how solar cells are only viable because computers advanced silicon semiconductor manufacturing or railroads only took off because steam technology was developed for mines.  The fact that technology from a different field can now be applied is why the field is expected to grow so much.

[i2amroy]

85k really isn't a "good-sized bite". Compared to the market as a whole. That's about 1 percent of the people online on steam right now, and steam is 70% or so of the pc market, which itself is only a small part of the complete gaming's market.

Keep in mind that those are essentially "pre-orders", since the release date doesn't happen until next spring. By comparison most estimates of the number of Wii preorders (not Wii U) put them at around the 75k-150k mark (Wii U ones gave rough estimates in the 225k-450k range). And the Oculus Rift is one of the less demanded VR headsets right now compared to things like the Steam one, at least judging by the media.

So yeah, I'd be willing to bet money that together the VR headsets take a "good-sized bite" when they finally start releasing in these next couple of years.

[mainiac]

I just don't think that the current iteration does anything that a cell phone can't.

Well yes, computer are quickly programmable these days, why do you ask, Miss Lovelace?

[mainiac]

I think you are underestimating the number of people who think that being able to look around a virtual environment by turning their heads is really cool.

[mainiac]

Like I said, curious novelty. Probably not worth $400 to the average consumer for a dedicated peripheral (hint- still requires a computer powerful enough to run it, which will be no simple desktop computer purchasable at Walmart- we're talking $1200 on the computer).

Darn, I guess I'll just have to hope that over the next 15 years, the price of computer hardware might go down slightly.  Maybe there will be some sort of technological breakthrough.

[i2amroy]

Like I said, curious novelty. Probably not worth $400 to the average consumer for a dedicated peripheral (hint- still requires a computer powerful enough to run it, which will be no simple desktop computer purchasable at Walmart- we're talking $1200 on the computer).

You realize that the point of the linked article is that the majority of people who are going to be buying Rifts already own PC's worth as much or more than the quoted price, and thus the true price is more in the $300 range? I mean I know that me and most my friends already own computers that have total prices at least in the mid 1k range (personally I just ordered the parts for my new rig which comes in just shy of $3k). Google for "average cost of a good gaming computer" and you'll find that most options land only a little bit short of that $1.2k mark, meaning that most passionate gamers (who are most likely going to be the people buying Rifts) are already going to automatically qualify for the computer side of the requirement. To quote the comments below the article:

For Gamers, the specs listed is not high end.  I would suspect that 90% of Gamers already have computers that meet or beat those specs. For those that don't, it will be a good excuse to buy a new rig.
---------------------
Most of us who are interested in VR, at this stage, ALREADY have a gaming PC capable of VR, or close enough that all it will take is a slight upgrade to handle it. That is not a big deal. And the same would be true for any of the competing HMDs out there.

And lastly don't forget that electronics is one of the fields where prices drop every year and technology gets better, which means that in as little as 5 years your $1.2k computer is probably gonna be placing more around the $800 mark, or even lower.

[LordBucket]

I just don't think that the current iteration does anything that a cell phone can't.

Not sure if intended literally, or hyperbole, but there are a few things the current iteration will do that cellphones can't. I've demod google cardboard and I've demod gear VR. Gear is more than just a nice piece of plastic. The tracking difference is significant. While neither of my reviews were glowing, there is a clear hardware difference even between those two lower end options.

I've not (yet) demod Rift, Vive or Morpheus. But based on what I've seen and read, there are two significant hardware differences:

 * Directional tracking exists. Cardboard and gear are both purely rotational experiences. If you walk toward something while wearing them, you don't move any closer to it.
 * Input. Input with cardboard is...in my experience anyway, reaching inside to tap the screen. There are models with a single button, but it doesn't work very well. With gear, it's two buttons. Your'e basically using your face as a mouse pointer and clicking on the side of your hear. The vive controllers and oculus touch are nwe hardware input devices that are tracked as part of the experience. Where your hands go in real life, your "hands" go inside the experience. This allows it to be meaningfully interactive. there are videos of people juggling in vr. Not because it was that was a deliberately designed function. I was following when that was first discovered. Somebody just tried it and discovered that they could juggle in vr by doing basically the same thing that they do to juggle in real life.

This iteration definitely has capabilities beyond what cardboard is capable of, even when gear vr with its extra accelerometer is capable of.

Probably not worth $400 to the average consumer for a dedicated peripheral (hint- still requires a computer powerful enough to run it, which will be no simple desktop computer purchasable at Walmart

Lots of people have a playstation 4.

Like I said, curious novelty.

Well, we'll see. If you'd asked me in 1980 if by 2000 I'd be able to hop on a daily commercial flight to the moon, I'd probably have said yes. Whereas if you's asked me homeless people would be carrying around videophones capable of playing movies and translating foreign language signs in real time...I'd probably frowned at the weird question and not said yes.

It's hard to predict what will take off and what won't. On the bright side, we probably won't have to wait 20 years to find out whether vr takes off.

[mainiac]

=
@mainiac, sure, computers will improve in 15 years. So will VR, to the point where it would likely end up stand-alone. Again, I'm commenting on the current iteration, not what they will be in 15 years.

Um... why?  This thread is clearly discussing trends, not the current state.

[LordBucket]

lots of people own a PS4, but a PS4 can play games. A Rift can't; you still need a computer powerful enough that can. Hence why I italicized "peripheral."

There will be a VR headset for the playstation 4. I was responding to, quote:

Like I said, curious novelty. Probably not worth $400 to the average consumer for a dedicated peripheral (hint- still requires a computer powerful enough to run it, which will be no simple desktop computer purchasable at Walmart- we're talking $1200 on the computer).

People who already have a PS4 won't be in the position of needing to buy that beefy gaming pc in order to experience vr. It will be a peripheral, yes, but a peripheral for hardware they already own.

[mainiac]

Every single one of my posts has been addressing the "current iteration" of VR, including several that you quoted in argument. If you wanted to point this out, you should have done so two pages ago.

Every single one of your posts has been in response to someone saying the technology is improving or explaining why it is improving.  Naturally I assumed that you were discussing the topic of the thread.  I'm silly like that.

[endlessblaze]

they could juggle in vr by doing basically the same thing that they do to juggle in real life.

wait what?

-goes to watch video.-
.........
-is impressed-

ok then, has anyone already designed a combat system of any appeal?
sword, fireball throwing, gun shooting, whatever.

if so I could certainly see this going -BOOM- everywhere.  I for one would love combat in an immersive 3D VR environment. assuming it works well.
  of course knowing me, I would die quickly from being used to third person and not having to look behind me every second to keep from getting shot in the back.

the main issue I see is collision desync. if your sword hits someone else's sword there is nothing keeping your real arms from continuing to move.
so the game has to leave your "arms" where they SHOULD be, witch causes a delay. there by getting you killed when you enemy takes advantage of the time it takes you to return to position to begin his own attack. a purely ranged game could avoid this of course but there is still the chance of say....running into a wall in the game, running into an enemy, ect.

augmented reality is also an interesting approach, but again. collision.


((note I have no experiences with any big VR or AR system. the most I have used would be a AR in my 3DS))

[LordBucket]

Yes, but one that costs as much as the hardware they already own.

Yes. Much less than the cost of buying a top of the line gaming pc. In the same range as buying a console system. An amount of money they've already demonstrated they're willing to spend. For a lot of them I expect it will be like when any new console comes out. How many buyers do consoles have when they first come out?

...oh, wow. Way higher than I expected: 18.5 million PS4 units sold in its first year. Xbox was 3.9 million in first year. PS3 was 3.68 million in its first year.

Yeah, I don't know how this is going to play out. But i suspect that the limiting factor might not be buyer willingness...but rather, unit availability. Gear sold out all available units on its first day. It's possible Vive/Rift/Morpheus might be limited is sales solely by the factories are capable of producing.

[nenjin]

All I can say is remember playing VR games 20 years ago for about $10 a minute.....and basically only the form factor and resolution has changed since then.

I don't really feel like VR has met any real practical need for the average user. Like cellphones and smart phones have. It's great when a developer says they can do their job completely in VR. But that doesn't mean much to anyone who isn't living on the bleeding edge of tech.

Not saying we won't see a paradigm shift in another 15 years. But if VR is going to make a real impact on that time scale, it needs to have an actual application the average person finds a use for. And I seriously don't see virtual playgrounds meeting that requirement. Cell phones put complex (for phones) software in the hands of everyday people and helped them do everyday stuff. If VR isn't going to help people navigate, plan or talk, I don't really see it taking off and becoming part of the cultural zeitgeist.

Education is the one place I see pretty much limitless potential for the technology. And we all know how much at least Americans value investing in education....

[LordBucket]

ok then, has anyone already designed a combat system of any appeal?
sword, fireball throwing, gun shooting, whatever.

There are some hard problems there. A few projects have tried to create swordplay, but every one I've followed has failed. As you say, desynch creates problems. Some things definitely work better than others. For example:

Eve valkyrie demo. When watchign that, keep in mind that the camera motion you see is from you turning your head. Imagine playing that with a stick rather than a keyboard and mouse.

For first persons shooters, there are controllers shaped like guns.

I imagine a game like portal would very very well with the native vive controllers.

And...here we go: Megaton Rainfall. There were unconfirmed rumors at one point that that game, watch the demo, would be compatible with hand tracking systems like leap motion, so that you use no keyboard, no mouse, no controller...you use your hands and those hands you see in teh gaem demo are what you're doing with your hands in real life.

Also, compelling gameplay doesn't necessarily mean combat. For example, summer lseson comes to mind where you have visual novel style interactions with a "japanese" schoolgirl (blonde in this particular demo) by shaking and nodding your head.


Some things will definitely suffer in VR. It might take software developers a few years to let go of design methods that no longer work. And the better experiences may require additional peripherals. But yes, there are definitely combat systems "with appeal."