I remember people like this guy here saying 3d was here to stay and get used to the glasses. PC hardware...dude a 9XX series nvidia is about as cheap as you can get em...
VR is the WiiU of pc gaming.
I don't remember anyone saying "plasma screens" "LED" would flop. I do remember people saying projection TV would and it did. Terribly even.
Most gamers are casual. I know this hurts the hardcore bones in our bodies. But most are CASUAL gamers. Causal gamers playing casual games do not need VR for Bubblepetcrush Saga 3 the CCGMOBA.
Do you know how many times they've TRIED to get people to adopt VR? Since the freaking early 80's. Anyone else play TANK? I did. In the arcade. With that headset on. Wireframe but still VR by todays standard.
You act like it's new when it's old and it is a gimmick. It's all stemmed from the whole WII motion modification headsets that people made anyhow.
Some of you may be impressed with 80's tech being shinied up and reliant on my gpu instead it's own dedicated source. Some of you may even dig looking like a moron playing games.
Much like the WII ... VR will be SO SUCKY in a few years.
Go play some Wii bowling for a bit with that marvel of motion tech...no not interested? Yeah because the wii sucks.
VR sucks and it will suck forever. It'll suck because they'll rely on gimmicky game dev or methods...wait they do that now!
It'll suck because it's false VR, it's just bullshit depth perception tricks which magic viewers have done since the age of hella old.
But yeah be impressed with that dumb looking helmet thing.
You:LOL you get so angry it's funny to me!
Me:No anger. Just you projecting your parents fighting methods on to me. I type as I speak bluntly and not giving a fuck about your poor feels.
You:First let me start by saying you are wrong. Very very wrong. Why?
Me: I didn't ask.
You:Ok let me tell you. You know the military (most of them anyway) Have aircraft, and some pilots can fly these aircraft in total black out conditions. However, aircraft can cost in to the billions so instead of letting trainee pilots try to fly night vision in an at least multi-million dollar aircraft the military uses...guess what? Yeah VR.
Me: These are head mounted combat computers that can deduct the exact LL of a target via satalite/drone assistance across a wide spawn combat range. Not the same thing as a fucking view finder with moving pictures. It's a computer. You can take those OFF the craft and they operate. You ask too many questions for a non live audience. Congrats you are that guy.
You: And they have been for years. It won't take long for that technology to bleed over into the civilian market. IS this affordable by the average gamer at this time? No, no it is not however, as we advance (well some of us) it will get to where it is affordable.
It bled over YEARS ago with the virtual boy. It bled with arcade games in places like Vegas having VR. I raced VR cars long before I graduated highschool and that was a long fucking time ago. I've cruisin skated across entire vista's long before that on a VR game tied with a motion skateboard...for 50 cents a pop in 1998.
Thing is you are the koolaid drinker. You are the guy who forgot this technology has been rejected for years for various reasons. Mostly because it's jank as fuck and only VR if you count head tracking a depth perception. You flaunt the word around like a flag which means you are in fact the damned market.
I dunno I used both the rift and the vive and if I close one of my eyes it's like looking at a off centered picture. I couldn't even blur my eyes or it'd lose depth.
Reality doesn't lose depth on bluring eyes. It's using the most basic function of the eye. Once again the same concept tried with Virtual boy's long ago. Red screen only or not. It was VR it was billed as VR. It had stereo scopic gaming.
I just think it's young people so involved in this because they don't realize...it's the same bullshit just a different angle.
It's like a grand majority of you missed the 90's and the 90's VR acrade games/VR bs handhelds.
Are we really diving down the Calabi-Yau manifold of 'nothing's changed since the 90's'?
This tech hasn't. The only thing that has is the graphic rendering.
Thing is most of you ignored the tech until marketing hit with the Occulus. Until then most of you were content to watch animes based on vr headsets. Then your wet dreams started. Ima be like Kirito or Kyte!
You cite all these products as being wicked sick modern creations based on modern designs that the majority of the gaming population hasn't already rejected because they suck at this time.
But that doesn't defeat the fact this shit here? Is old tech. Ok it's rendered on a min gtx980 versus a voodoo 2.
Such leaps in bounds on rendering for something that actually has nothing to do with the rendering. Expensive view finders with motion trackers indeed and they'll stay that way until someone figures out not to.
Most of you who do endorse these products in their current mediocre yet expensive state just want to full dive in mmorpg's. Project your anxiety onto your parents or something. I think this tech right here is bullshit tech.
It's as important as google glass. Anyone remember that shit? Remember how epic it was.
Someone mentioned AR and I agree. AR is the way things will go. I can alread gps tag a site to have a billboard for say PEPSI in AR. AR has more applications than "Vr" could.
Plus you can find a lot of them used on sites like craigslist. It's not hard to find them. I could go buy one today if I wanted to.... waste my money that is.
And as far as other proof? More sets being given away for free from Samsung... Dozens of RIFTs BNIB for sale locally and also used. Poor earnings reports across the board regarding VR... lets see what VR titles E3 holds... I'm sure the only ones, if any of them, are worth the purchase they will be one of the purported 60 titles launching with PSVR
This entire thread is basically two posters, one who didn't realize the Rift came with a motion tracking camera, the other apparently reliving his 90's Virtual Boy PTSD (no offense intended to those with this actual diagnosis),
what about the people trying to compare V R to things like DVDs and Cars? The pro-VR people certainly dont come off any better than the anti-VR people here
This entire thread is basically two posters, one who didn't realize the Rift came with a motion tracking camera, the other apparently reliving his 90's Virtual Boy PTSD (no offense intended to those with this actual diagnosis),
what about the people trying to compare V R to things like DVDs and Cars? The pro-VR people certainly dont come off any better than the anti-VR people here
the difference is that people like me suggest that there isnt evidence that VR is doing badly (that does not by default its doing well, just not badly)
critics however get literally ONE STORY and title it 'more' 'proof'...really? seriously?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This entire thread is basically two posters, one who didn't realize the Rift came with a motion tracking camera, the other apparently reliving his 90's Virtual Boy PTSD (no offense intended to those with this actual diagnosis),
what about the people trying to compare V R to things like DVDs and Cars? The pro-VR people certainly dont come off any better than the anti-VR people here
the difference is that people like me suggest that there isnt evidence that VR is doing badly (that does not by default its doing well, just not badly)
critics however get literally ONE STORY and title it 'more' 'proof'...really? seriously?
Just for those and not sean (who blocked me thankfully) that aren't aware, if it was just one article and not several questionable articles, it would be a non issue.
VR is not massively successful.. it is not moderately successful.. at this stage.. it is struggling. I didn't state specifically.. that VR as a whole is a failure.. I didn't say "Oh, HTC Vives aren't doing well " which would also be true... I stated simply that with the HTC Vive failing to do particularly well, its just another instance we can point to where Home VR is struggling.
I mean if home VR was doing SO WELL in the mobile space, Samsung probably wouldn't be giving away hundreds of thousands to millions of sets that are sitting on shelves or being resold on the used market. Whether it was 1 story.. or 10 stories.. it wouldn't matter.
On top of that, I'm not even stating that VR in the commercial market isn't gaining traction.. this is strictly for home use.
Good so you are either a brazen liar or not full of hot air.. i can respect either.
Here is the thing... When was the last time you involuntary tried to step around a very much not real... what ever it is called... fotpall while pressing your face to the screen.
When was the last time you tried to reach out and flick switches while watching Apollo 13....
There is a big step between what i said and the rather taffy examples you pulled out.
Yes we are hardwired to react to jump-scares and to clench during stress... But as i said, i have seen people trying to lean on a virtual counter top. As in put their weight on a object they know is not there because their brain and eyes tells them that "sure buddy... that thing is there"... If that is not virtual (as in made up.. not real) reality... Then i do not know what is.
Not saying it is the penultimate VR experience or that this is revolutionary in it self... The revolution is that the tech is at a consumer level, a utter luxuary product still (disregarding the gearVR since it is at best a toy) but consumer level none the less.
But it is VR, it is working and it is here to stay in one shape or another.
A: You never actually used or saw the Virtuaboy did you... It was not VR in any way shape or form.. Sure it was sterioscopic 3D... But it was still just a poor fore-runner to the 3DS
B: As someone how had the "joy" of experinceing the previous generation of VR.... Yeah i guess a model T is a Ford and a car....
The thing that this current generation f VR does is.... Look good enough to fool your brain... Blunt object as it is. I have seen people try to rest on VR objects, i have seen people duck and swerve to avoid something that they KNOW is not there because their reflexes tell them to.
That is in every definition of the word... virtual reality.
You've never seen people try to do that with 3D TV's? It's a reflex. If someone throws something at you.. and it's in your line of sight you dodge .. you try to catch.... that's what 3D has been about and why people thought it was going to be amazing.
Here's a good test.. play a game with your face mashed up against the screen... you'll have the same reactions if you let yourself get immersed. When I've watched VR movies.. the only thing that really gets a reaction from me is the unexpected... the same JUMP you get when a monster jumps out during a horror film, that's the same reaction I get when I have the Gear VR set on and I turn around to find something I didn't expect right in my face.
The Gear VR demo gives people a taste of that, and leaves them walking away like "oh wow, that was exhilarating" until someone owns one and realizes that it can be trivialized and get stale rather quickly.
3D TV is not the same. I don't know why people keep trying to compare the two. 3D TV is limited in their viewpoint with restricted software (mostly movies). VR/HMD use input (keyboard/mouse/controllers), head-tracking sensors, 180/360 viewpoints, etc.
Also, with 3DTV, you can still see your reality around you which breaks immersion. For instance, while wearing 3D glasses, if you turn away from the TV or screen, you will still see the rest of the room. With VR/HMD, you are literally immersed inside another "room", zone, world, etc.
A: You never actually used or saw the Virtuaboy did you... It was not VR in any way shape or form.. Sure it was sterioscopic 3D... But it was still just a poor fore-runner to the 3DS
B: As someone how had the "joy" of experinceing the previous generation of VR.... Yeah i guess a model T is a Ford and a car....
The thing that this current generation f VR does is.... Look good enough to fool your brain... Blunt object as it is. I have seen people try to rest on VR objects, i have seen people duck and swerve to avoid something that they KNOW is not there because their reflexes tell them to.
That is in every definition of the word... virtual reality.
You've never seen people try to do that with 3D TV's? It's a reflex. If someone throws something at you.. and it's in your line of sight you dodge .. you try to catch.... that's what 3D has been about and why people thought it was going to be amazing.
Here's a good test.. play a game with your face mashed up against the screen... you'll have the same reactions if you let yourself get immersed. When I've watched VR movies.. the only thing that really gets a reaction from me is the unexpected... the same JUMP you get when a monster jumps out during a horror film, that's the same reaction I get when I have the Gear VR set on and I turn around to find something I didn't expect right in my face.
The Gear VR demo gives people a taste of that, and leaves them walking away like "oh wow, that was exhilarating" until someone owns one and realizes that it can be trivialized and get stale rather quickly.
3D TV is not the same. I don't know why people keep trying to compare the two. 3D TV is limited in their viewpoint with restricted software (mostly movies). VR/HMD use input (keyboard/mouse/controllers), head-tracking sensors, 180/360 viewpoints, etc.
Also, with 3DTV, you can still see your reality around you which breaks immersion. For instance, while wearing 3D glasses, if you turn away from the TV or screen, you will still see the rest of the room. With VR/HMD, you are literally immersed inside another "room", zone, world, etc.
I think intellectually many know its what you describe however when they speak they act as if VR is just a static screen in front of the viewer and no different that a monitor. These people need to experience it to understand it unfortunately. I didnt suffer from that problem, I understood it conceptually completely before I had tried it. I am not blessed to understand all things without trying it but for VR it was obvious to me both intellectually and 'emotionally'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
A: You never actually used or saw the Virtuaboy did you... It was not VR in any way shape or form.. Sure it was sterioscopic 3D... But it was still just a poor fore-runner to the 3DS
B: As someone how had the "joy" of experinceing the previous generation of VR.... Yeah i guess a model T is a Ford and a car....
The thing that this current generation f VR does is.... Look good enough to fool your brain... Blunt object as it is. I have seen people try to rest on VR objects, i have seen people duck and swerve to avoid something that they KNOW is not there because their reflexes tell them to.
That is in every definition of the word... virtual reality.
You've never seen people try to do that with 3D TV's? It's a reflex. If someone throws something at you.. and it's in your line of sight you dodge .. you try to catch.... that's what 3D has been about and why people thought it was going to be amazing.
Here's a good test.. play a game with your face mashed up against the screen... you'll have the same reactions if you let yourself get immersed. When I've watched VR movies.. the only thing that really gets a reaction from me is the unexpected... the same JUMP you get when a monster jumps out during a horror film, that's the same reaction I get when I have the Gear VR set on and I turn around to find something I didn't expect right in my face.
The Gear VR demo gives people a taste of that, and leaves them walking away like "oh wow, that was exhilarating" until someone owns one and realizes that it can be trivialized and get stale rather quickly.
3D TV is not the same. I don't know why people keep trying to compare the two. 3D TV is limited in their viewpoint with restricted software (mostly movies). VR/HMD use input (keyboard/mouse/controllers), head-tracking sensors, 180/360 viewpoints, etc.
Also, with 3DTV, you can still see your reality around you which breaks immersion. For instance, while wearing 3D glasses, if you turn away from the TV or screen, you will still see the rest of the room. With VR/HMD, you are literally immersed inside another "room", zone, world, etc.
You need to take what I said in context. He states specifically that he see's people duck and swerve... they do that with 3D TVs.. you do that with anything that visually comes at you.. regardless... you have that same reaction even if you find yourself up close to a screen in most cases. The other day I was standing next to a food truck that had a huge LED sign, I was standing next to it waiting for my food and the picture changed it made me jump as the next piece of text looked like something flying at me from my peripheral vision.... that doesn't make it Virtual Reality... it's just a reflex.
I know everyone wants to pretend that people have to try it.. that this is some sort of revolution. People argued with me about that when I was first skeptical about VR.. until I DID try it... conceptually it's as simple to understand as we all make it.
It really is just a screen on your face. I've said it a million times.. strap a screen to your head... play your favorite MMO and when you swivel your head to the left, use the mouse to swivel the camera to the left.. it's VIRTUALLY indistinguishable from 90% of current home VR experiences.
To push one more point.. about 6 months before VR was even a big deal.. Ford released an ad for the ford explorer that used your cell phone as a viewfinder with 360 degree views. You held it up to see the windshield.. if you were looking down at your phone you'd see the floor. I'ts a cool GIMMICK so you feel like you're in the drivers seat.. and no headset was needed to accomplish this.
VR in it's current iteration isn't somehow better than games in their traditional iterations. It's substantially more restrictive., and despite the push for gaming.. it's more useful for Video Entertainment. This is based on MY first hand experience with VR in both the Gear VR and Oculus Rift versions.
This entire thread is basically two posters, one who didn't realize the Rift came with a motion tracking camera, the other apparently reliving his 90's Virtual Boy PTSD (no offense intended to those with this actual diagnosis),
what about the people trying to compare V R to things like DVDs and Cars? The pro-VR people certainly dont come off any better than the anti-VR people here
the difference is that people like me suggest that there isnt evidence that VR is doing badly (that does not by default its doing well, just not badly)
critics however get literally ONE STORY and title it 'more' 'proof'...really? seriously?
Just pointing out that the 'defense' arguments are just as ridiculous in this thread.
A: You never actually used or saw the Virtuaboy did you... It was not VR in any way shape or form.. Sure it was sterioscopic 3D... But it was still just a poor fore-runner to the 3DS
B: As someone how had the "joy" of experinceing the previous generation of VR.... Yeah i guess a model T is a Ford and a car....
The thing that this current generation f VR does is.... Look good enough to fool your brain... Blunt object as it is. I have seen people try to rest on VR objects, i have seen people duck and swerve to avoid something that they KNOW is not there because their reflexes tell them to.
That is in every definition of the word... virtual reality.
You've never seen people try to do that with 3D TV's? It's a reflex. If someone throws something at you.. and it's in your line of sight you dodge .. you try to catch.... that's what 3D has been about and why people thought it was going to be amazing.
Here's a good test.. play a game with your face mashed up against the screen... you'll have the same reactions if you let yourself get immersed. When I've watched VR movies.. the only thing that really gets a reaction from me is the unexpected... the same JUMP you get when a monster jumps out during a horror film, that's the same reaction I get when I have the Gear VR set on and I turn around to find something I didn't expect right in my face.
The Gear VR demo gives people a taste of that, and leaves them walking away like "oh wow, that was exhilarating" until someone owns one and realizes that it can be trivialized and get stale rather quickly.
3D TV is not the same. I don't know why people keep trying to compare the two. 3D TV is limited in their viewpoint with restricted software (mostly movies). VR/HMD use input (keyboard/mouse/controllers), head-tracking sensors, 180/360 viewpoints, etc.
Also, with 3DTV, you can still see your reality around you which breaks immersion. For instance, while wearing 3D glasses, if you turn away from the TV or screen, you will still see the rest of the room. With VR/HMD, you are literally immersed inside another "room", zone, world, etc.
It really is just a screen on your face. I've said it a million times.. strap a screen to your head... play your favorite MMO and when you swivel your head to the left, use the mouse to swivel the camera to the left.. it's VIRTUALLY indistinguishable from 90% of current home VR experiences.
I'm not sure what you expected it to be? It's a viewport mimicking your field of vision in 180 or 360 degrees. As i said earlier, did people expect it to be a fully immersive experience like the holo-deck from Star Trek? Their expectations must've been too high. No sane person would've ever claimed it would be like that. There is progress however, for audio and motion sensors, which is going to make future software even more immersive. There's already instant feedback sensors with vibrations for touch, and spatial audio (binaural, 360, etc).
The difference, between a monitor and a VR headset, is that your vision is locked within the world until you take off the headset. The outside world is blocked out, and everything within the world is around you.
With a monitor (or 3D glasses), your vision still sees surrounding objects within your reality. They are not blocked out.
Just wait for Augmented Reality though. You will be within your reality, but it will be augmented. This is probably what people expected with VR. You'll be able to transform people and objects around you (much like the holo-deck). Augmented photoshop, design software, games, fashion, etc, in real time. It's going to be very interesting.
I'm not sure what you expected it to be? It's a viewport mimicking your field of vision in 180 or 360 degrees. As i said earlier, did people expect it to be a fully immersive experience like the holo-deck from Star Trek? Their expectations must've been too high. No sane person would've ever claimed it would be like that. There is progress however, for audio and motion sensors, which is going to make future software even more immersive. There's already instant feedback sensors with vibrations for touch, and spatial audio (binaural, 360, etc).
The difference, between a monitor and a VR headset, is that your vision is locked within the world until you take off the headset. The outside world is blocked out, and everything within the world is around you.
With a monitor (or 3D glasses), your vision still sees surrounding objects within your reality. They are not blocked out.
Just wait for Augmented Reality though. You will be within your reality, but it will be augmented. This is probably what people expected with VR. You'll be able to transform people and objects around you (much like the holo-deck). Augmented photoshop, design software, games, fashion, etc, in real time. It's going to be very interesting.
I didn't expect it to be anything different, but some here are pretending VR is more than it is. They try and tout eye tracking despite most games and videos having no use for it. They try and pretend these systems are more than they are.
AR is something I'm personally excited for.. but with healthy skepticism. Hololens is a ways away and magic leap... I know it's supposed to be on the cusp of some kind of developmental release but I don't see it being feasible.. I mean.. what they're purporting that AR can do .. it's .. unfathomable at this point despite the current demos they've released.
Regardless, people often think I'm against VR.. and I'm not... I'm not into buying into the VR gaming hype in its current state.... I do believe VR will have it's purpose.. but not to the extent people believe. I will use my Gear VR set as content releases that I believe is worth it... but I doubt most people will think of it the same way.. at least not for a number of years.
VR is very prevalent in other areas.I think it is safe to say the technology is useful and helping people. Will it survive a crossover to gaming? That has yet to be determined. From my viewpoint I think it will eventually. The following is some examples I found that show VR is not a gimmick and is being used for serious advancements.
This is just a few examples where VR is advancing different sciences and military training. VR will be advanced and get better even if gaming fails to contribute. I hope it makes the crossover to gaming in a big way, because I think the technology if done right will revolutionize how we play games and have fun in the future.
VR is very prevalent in other areas.I think it is safe to say the technology is useful and helping people. Will it survive a crossover to gaming? That has yet to be determined. From my viewpoint I think it will eventually. The following is some examples I found that show VR is not a gimmick and is being used for serious advancements.
This is just a few examples where VR is advancing different sciences and military training. VR will be advanced and get better even if gaming fails to contribute. I hope it makes the crossover to gaming in a big way, because I think the technology if done right will revolutionize how we play games and have fun in the future.
Yet the original post specifically is about home VR systems. VR CAN be utilized for a lot ... again, in the entertainment sector like Theme parks it's being used as well... but it isn't really a gaming revolution, and ultimately in the private sector AR will eventually outpace VR in the medical and commercial sectors.
Yeah the whole 3D comparison makes a lot of sense to me as are the comparisons with earlier attempts with VR, back when the technology wasn't even close to ready.
In other news, I have no idea why people think smartphones will be a succes. Clearly the palmtop isn't catching on beyond it's tiny niche of insecure business men. People just aren't ready for it. And it looks silly. No one takes you seriously with a pocketsized computer in your hand. It doesn't matter if you can also call with it, people want comfort, not all the technology that you can already get on your desktop crammed into your phone.
Just look at Nokia. Their communicator smartphone model hardly sells everyone wants their comfertable tiny models that fit in every pocket.
Microsoft chairman Steve Ballmer was so right when he laughed at the notion that the Iphone could be a succes. And that Nokia chairman was so right when he said that for the foreseeable future smartphones will remain a niche. Apple and Andriod are just fads.
Yeah the whole 3D comparison makes a lot of sense to me as are the comparisons with earlier attempts with VR, back when the technology wasn't even close to ready.
In other news, I have no idea why people think smartphones will be a succes. Clearly the palmtop isn't catching on beyond it's tiny niche of insecure business men. People just aren't ready for it. And it looks silly. No one takes you seriously with a pocketsized computer in your hand. It doesn't matter if you can also call with it, people want comfort, not all the technology that you can already get on your desktop crammed into your phone.
Just look at Nokia. Their communicator smartphone model hardly sells everyone wants their comfertable tiny models that fit in every pocket.
Microsoft chairman Steve Ballmer was so right when he laughed at the notion that the Iphone could be a succes. And that Nokia chairman was so right when he said that for the foreseeable future smartphones will remain a niche. Apple and Andriod are just fads.
When you look at metrics for the predictions of 3D TV's nearly 7 years ago, it does make sense.
When you consider that the iPod touch was already a success prior to the iPhone being released with a commanding marketshare at that point you'd see that nobody questioned the success of an iPhone.
When you stop to look at how current VR companies are handling the current crop of VR you can easily see why home VR is struggling, and why, like the OP states, HTC with all of their technological advancements over the Rift and Gear VR, is falling far shorter than anticipated.
Everyone is making predictions now, and many of them depict marketshares based on an untested market. Development scale was supposed to actually increase for the Vive over the Rift 45% to 30% within the next 3 years. That same article mentions not to expect VR to reach mainstream adoption by 2025, and that PSVR although the dominant headset by 2018 will also have decreased support in comparison to the Vive.
These predictions were made in April, but I bet the same predictions would be quite different had the article been written today.
Those same predictions depicted 3D TV's to be a 22Billion dollar business by next year.
It's called falling for hype, and people do it all the time. Meanwhile companies are literally giving away headsets so maybe they can make something on the VIRTUALLY nonexistent unpopular software.
VR is still before it's time.. there is no real support here. They've learned nothing from their past failures.
So, a 3d device that was supposed to "revolutionize gaming" failed to even enter the market.
Not like we've seen this happening many times before, right?
EXACTLY! it hasnt even gotten to market yet and people are posting so called 'proof' that its failed.
It is easier for me to buy a GTX 1080 right now then it is for me to buy an Oculus Rift. The biggest fanboy of VR on these forums hasnt been able to even buy one yet.
Maybe..just maybe, we should wait until you can walk into a store and buy one before making a choice here on success or failure? crazy idea I know
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This entire thread is basically two posters, one who didn't realize the Rift came with a motion tracking camera, the other apparently reliving his 90's Virtual Boy PTSD (no offense intended to those with this actual diagnosis),
what about the people trying to compare V R to things like DVDs and Cars? The pro-VR people certainly dont come off any better than the anti-VR people here
the difference is that people like me suggest that there isnt evidence that VR is doing badly (that does not by default its doing well, just not badly)
critics however get literally ONE STORY and title it 'more' 'proof'...really? seriously?
Just pointing out that the 'defense' arguments are just as ridiculous in this thread.
again I state
This fan boy has NEVER..I repeat NEVER...said there is 'proof' nor have I EVER..I repeat NEVER said that VR is a smashing success. I have ONLY..I repeat ONLY said that it APPEARS as if VR is not a failure.
HUGE difference between 'VR appears to not be a failure' and 'Proof that VR is a failure'
HUGE difference
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Almost everyone wanted DVDs. They were an upgrade in quality and convenience.
VR is not something everyone wants. Its certainly not an upgrade in convenience, and for many people saying its an upgrade in quality is debatable.
While I think the demand for quality VR products is bigger than niche, its also not something the 'masses' will want. The struggle will be moderate demand keeping prices up and the amount of software down. Which might turn that moderate audience into a niche audience after all.
ummm
the entire family had to drag my father into Sears with great resistance on his part and literally beg him to buy a VCR when they first came out.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
"The April launch of the Vive and a new smartphone weren’t enough to bounce HTC back into the game as the Taiwanese company had a poor fiscal showing for the month of May, with year-over-year results down by 37.4 percent."
"The company saw a small boost of 17.4 percent in unaudited consolidated revenue from April to May, but it’s troubling that with the flagship HTC 10 available now, as well as one of the most well-received virtual reality headsets, HTC’s consolidated revenue still managed to go down by 58.5 percent in comparison to the same five-month time frame from last year."
It has been touted as the BEST VR headset .. and it by far is much better than the Rift, as it has motion sensors, a pass through camera, and actual controllers for it whereas the rift has... well.. none of that.
Just as I mentioned before, the Vive might be out of production before VR really even "kicks off" with content that is actually worth playing. Probably in.... 2 to 3 years. The real question is, with all of the missteps HTC has made, including the Vive and spending Millions on third party developers to develop for the vive -- will HTC still be around in 2 years?
Anyone who expects the Vive to have made HTC profitable in one month is clearly out of touch with reality, just like this thread.
HTC faces 4 problems. They don't update their android version, so the consumer does not want to invest $500 into a phone that is outdated in a year. They no longer diversify their OS. They are locked to android where a year ago they were the flagship Windows Phone. Sure the market is smaller, but it's pretty much just installing a free OS onto their android products for the bulk of sales in the market. They lack a decent low end solution which represents the bulk of sales. They lacked sufficient inventory for the Vive. They made that profit with all vive headsets already sold until this week.
Comments
oh and I am still waiting for my Oculus and cant buy one retail anywhere at the moment that I looked so a little early to say much
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This tech hasn't.
The only thing that has is the graphic rendering.
Thing is most of you ignored the tech until marketing hit with the Occulus. Until then most of you were content to watch animes based on vr headsets. Then your wet dreams started. Ima be like Kirito or Kyte!
You cite all these products as being wicked sick modern creations based on modern designs that the majority of the gaming population hasn't already rejected because they suck at this time.
But that doesn't defeat the fact this shit here? Is old tech.
Ok it's rendered on a min gtx980 versus a voodoo 2.
Such leaps in bounds on rendering for something that actually has nothing to do with the rendering.
Expensive view finders with motion trackers indeed and they'll stay that way until someone figures out not to.
Most of you who do endorse these products in their current mediocre yet expensive state just want to full dive in mmorpg's. Project your anxiety onto your parents or something. I think this tech right here is bullshit tech.
It's as important as google glass. Anyone remember that shit?
Remember how epic it was.
Someone mentioned AR and I agree. AR is the way things will go. I can alread gps tag a site to have a billboard for say PEPSI in AR. AR has more applications than "Vr" could.
Keep up that marketing passion!
http://www.amazon.com/Oculus-Rift/dp/B00VF0IXEY?ie=UTF8&keywords=oculus rift&qid=1465322804&ref_=sr_1_1&sr=8-1
Plus you can find a lot of them used on sites like craigslist. It's not hard to find them. I could go buy one today if I wanted to.... waste my money that is.
And as far as other proof? More sets being given away for free from Samsung... Dozens of RIFTs BNIB for sale locally and also used. Poor earnings reports across the board regarding VR... lets see what VR titles E3 holds... I'm sure the only ones, if any of them, are worth the purchase they will be one of the purported 60 titles launching with PSVR
critics however get literally ONE STORY and title it 'more' 'proof'...really? seriously?
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
VR is not massively successful.. it is not moderately successful.. at this stage.. it is struggling. I didn't state specifically.. that VR as a whole is a failure.. I didn't say "Oh, HTC Vives aren't doing well " which would also be true... I stated simply that with the HTC Vive failing to do particularly well, its just another instance we can point to where Home VR is struggling.
I mean if home VR was doing SO WELL in the mobile space, Samsung probably wouldn't be giving away hundreds of thousands to millions of sets that are sitting on shelves or being resold on the used market. Whether it was 1 story.. or 10 stories.. it wouldn't matter.
On top of that, I'm not even stating that VR in the commercial market isn't gaining traction.. this is strictly for home use.
Good so you are either a brazen liar or not full of hot air.. i can respect either.
Here is the thing... When was the last time you involuntary tried to step around a very much not real... what ever it is called... fotpall while pressing your face to the screen.
When was the last time you tried to reach out and flick switches while watching Apollo 13....
There is a big step between what i said and the rather taffy examples you pulled out.
Yes we are hardwired to react to jump-scares and to clench during stress... But as i said, i have seen people trying to lean on a virtual counter top. As in put their weight on a object they know is not there because their brain and eyes tells them that "sure buddy... that thing is there"... If that is not virtual (as in made up.. not real) reality... Then i do not know what is.
Not saying it is the penultimate VR experience or that this is revolutionary in it self... The revolution is that the tech is at a consumer level, a utter luxuary product still (disregarding the gearVR since it is at best a toy) but consumer level none the less.
But it is VR, it is working and it is here to stay in one shape or another.
This have been a good conversation
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Also, with 3DTV, you can still see your reality around you which breaks immersion. For instance, while wearing 3D glasses, if you turn away from the TV or screen, you will still see the rest of the room. With VR/HMD, you are literally immersed inside another "room", zone, world, etc.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I know everyone wants to pretend that people have to try it.. that this is some sort of revolution. People argued with me about that when I was first skeptical about VR.. until I DID try it... conceptually it's as simple to understand as we all make it.
It really is just a screen on your face. I've said it a million times.. strap a screen to your head... play your favorite MMO and when you swivel your head to the left, use the mouse to swivel the camera to the left.. it's VIRTUALLY indistinguishable from 90% of current home VR experiences.
To push one more point.. about 6 months before VR was even a big deal.. Ford released an ad for the ford explorer that used your cell phone as a viewfinder with 360 degree views. You held it up to see the windshield.. if you were looking down at your phone you'd see the floor. I'ts a cool GIMMICK so you feel like you're in the drivers seat.. and no headset was needed to accomplish this.
VR in it's current iteration isn't somehow better than games in their traditional iterations. It's substantially more restrictive., and despite the push for gaming.. it's more useful for Video Entertainment. This is based on MY first hand experience with VR in both the Gear VR and Oculus Rift versions.
The difference, between a monitor and a VR headset, is that your vision is locked within the world until you take off the headset. The outside world is blocked out, and everything within the world is around you.
With a monitor (or 3D glasses), your vision still sees surrounding objects within your reality. They are not blocked out.
Just wait for Augmented Reality though. You will be within your reality, but it will be augmented. This is probably what people expected with VR. You'll be able to transform people and objects around you (much like the holo-deck). Augmented photoshop, design software, games, fashion, etc, in real time. It's going to be very interesting.
AR is something I'm personally excited for.. but with healthy skepticism. Hololens is a ways away and magic leap... I know it's supposed to be on the cusp of some kind of developmental release but I don't see it being feasible.. I mean.. what they're purporting that AR can do .. it's .. unfathomable at this point despite the current demos they've released.
Regardless, people often think I'm against VR.. and I'm not... I'm not into buying into the VR gaming hype in its current state.... I do believe VR will have it's purpose.. but not to the extent people believe. I will use my Gear VR set as content releases that I believe is worth it... but I doubt most people will think of it the same way.. at least not for a number of years.
The actual History of VR: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4361984/
USC MedVR Lab is devoted to the study and advancement of uses of virtual reality (VR) simulation technology for clinical purposes.
ZSpace is a medical VR retailer: http://zspace.com/medical
Stanford University https://vhil.stanford.edu/ :
Hospitals are using VR to train staff: http://fortune.com/2015/08/17/virtual-reality-hospitals/
Penn State Health: http://www.pennstatehershey.org/web/simulation/home/available/vrs
Duke University School of Medicine: http://psychiatry.duke.edu/divisions/general-psychiatry/virtual-reality-therapy-phobias
VR for military uses: http://www.vrs.org.uk/virtual-reality-military/
US Army demonstrates their proprietary Dismounted Soldier Training System (DSTS), a wearable VR system used to teach troops tactics and teamwork inside a virtual environment.
http://www.roadtovr.com/the-gulf-between-high-end-military-vr-and-consumer-vr-is-rapidly-shrinking/
This is just a few examples where VR is advancing different sciences and military training. VR will be advanced and get better even if gaming fails to contribute. I hope it makes the crossover to gaming in a big way, because I think the technology if done right will revolutionize how we play games and have fun in the future.
In other news, I have no idea why people think smartphones will be a succes. Clearly the palmtop isn't catching on beyond it's tiny niche of insecure business men. People just aren't ready for it. And it looks silly. No one takes you seriously with a pocketsized computer in your hand. It doesn't matter if you can also call with it, people want comfort, not all the technology that you can already get on your desktop crammed into your phone.
Just look at Nokia. Their communicator smartphone model hardly sells everyone wants their comfertable tiny models that fit in every pocket.
Microsoft chairman Steve Ballmer was so right when he laughed at the notion that the Iphone could be a succes. And that Nokia chairman was so right when he said that for the foreseeable future smartphones will remain a niche. Apple and Andriod are just fads.
When you consider that the iPod touch was already a success prior to the iPhone being released with a commanding marketshare at that point you'd see that nobody questioned the success of an iPhone.
When you stop to look at how current VR companies are handling the current crop of VR you can easily see why home VR is struggling, and why, like the OP states, HTC with all of their technological advancements over the Rift and Gear VR, is falling far shorter than anticipated.
Everyone is making predictions now, and many of them depict marketshares based on an untested market. Development scale was supposed to actually increase for the Vive over the Rift 45% to 30% within the next 3 years. That same article mentions not to expect VR to reach mainstream adoption by 2025, and that PSVR although the dominant headset by 2018 will also have decreased support in comparison to the Vive.
These predictions were made in April, but I bet the same predictions would be quite different had the article been written today.
Those same predictions depicted 3D TV's to be a 22Billion dollar business by next year.
It's called falling for hype, and people do it all the time. Meanwhile companies are literally giving away headsets so maybe they can make something on the VIRTUALLY nonexistent unpopular software.
VR is still before it's time.. there is no real support here. They've learned nothing from their past failures.
Not like we've seen this happening many times before, right?
It is easier for me to buy a GTX 1080 right now then it is for me to buy an Oculus Rift. The biggest fanboy of VR on these forums hasnt been able to even buy one yet.
Maybe..just maybe, we should wait until you can walk into a store and buy one before making a choice here on success or failure? crazy idea I know
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This fan boy has NEVER..I repeat NEVER...said there is 'proof' nor have I EVER..I repeat NEVER said that VR is a smashing success. I have ONLY..I repeat ONLY said that it APPEARS as if VR is not a failure.
HUGE difference between 'VR appears to not be a failure' and 'Proof that VR is a failure'
HUGE difference
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
the entire family had to drag my father into Sears with great resistance on his part and literally beg him to buy a VCR when they first came out.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me