I am just trying to make a distinction here that by no means is 3rd person view a universally accepted game play.
As to its success a lot of that has to do with some history. Decades ago (around the time of DOOM) 1st person view was not only popular it was the majority of the option. why it gradually switched to the 3rd to a point where people who grew up on 3rd person struggle with 1st person is something I dont even have a speculation on, its hard for me to understand.
Safe to say however some people play to play a game..other play to get lost inside a world. For those (like myself) who want to go to another reality VR is very attractive for those who just want to play a game its a different set of requirements for them.
Oh .. i have no problem with that. Surely you can like whatever perspective and play a game for whatever reasons.
I am just pointing out that an expensive piece of gaming equipment needs to justify its existence by more than "this is new and neat", at least for me.
ANd yes, i just want to play games. Worlds in the way of games are not that fun for me.
for people like myself VR is far from 'new and neat' and I might remind you that the linage of game perspective was this
2d
first person view
3rd person view
3rd person view was a new and neat idea that came AFTER 1st person was popular and kind of like smart phones it took off.
I think some people can extroplate as to what might happen in the future, others can not and for them if it doesnt fit nicely into the world they are currently living in they discard it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am just trying to make a distinction here that by no means is 3rd person view a universally accepted game play.
As to its success a lot of that has to do with some history. Decades ago (around the time of DOOM) 1st person view was not only popular it was the majority of the option. why it gradually switched to the 3rd to a point where people who grew up on 3rd person struggle with 1st person is something I dont even have a speculation on, its hard for me to understand.
Safe to say however some people play to play a game..other play to get lost inside a world. For those (like myself) who want to go to another reality VR is very attractive for those who just want to play a game its a different set of requirements for them.
Oh .. i have no problem with that. Surely you can like whatever perspective and play a game for whatever reasons.
I am just pointing out that an expensive piece of gaming equipment needs to justify its existence by more than "this is new and neat", at least for me.
ANd yes, i just want to play games. Worlds in the way of games are not that fun for me.
for people like myself VR is far from 'new and neat' and I might remind you that the linage of game perspective was this
2d
first person view
3rd person view
3rd person view was a new and neat idea that came AFTER 1st person was popular and kind of like smart phones it took off.
I think some people can extroplate as to what might happen in the future, others can not and for them if it doesnt fit nicely into the world they are currently living in they discard it.
My take is that (personal preferences aside) success are driven by what is fun ... not what is realistic. While fun is subjective, i generally see games that are more focused, with better control on the experiences fare better (with few exceptions like Minecraft).
I am not saying VR cannot result in great games. I am saying that if a dev want my money (or even just time), he needs to convince me. I am not convinced yet.
Will MMOs be ready for it? Are you going to get all the peripheral that will like come with it like devices that detect hand motion and hand game interaction?
Merged with Facebook,that is a HUGE NO THANKS,there is enough of a monopoly going with everyone tying into FB including the FBI using it to fill their database with information on you.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I am just trying to make a distinction here that by no means is 3rd person view a universally accepted game play.
As to its success a lot of that has to do with some history. Decades ago (around the time of DOOM) 1st person view was not only popular it was the majority of the option. why it gradually switched to the 3rd to a point where people who grew up on 3rd person struggle with 1st person is something I dont even have a speculation on, its hard for me to understand.
Safe to say however some people play to play a game..other play to get lost inside a world. For those (like myself) who want to go to another reality VR is very attractive for those who just want to play a game its a different set of requirements for them.
Oh .. i have no problem with that. Surely you can like whatever perspective and play a game for whatever reasons.
I am just pointing out that an expensive piece of gaming equipment needs to justify its existence by more than "this is new and neat", at least for me.
ANd yes, i just want to play games. Worlds in the way of games are not that fun for me.
for people like myself VR is far from 'new and neat' and I might remind you that the linage of game perspective was this
2d
first person view
3rd person view
3rd person view was a new and neat idea that came AFTER 1st person was popular and kind of like smart phones it took off.
I think some people can extroplate as to what might happen in the future, others can not and for them if it doesnt fit nicely into the world they are currently living in they discard it.
My take is that (personal preferences aside) success are driven by what is fun ... not what is realistic. While fun is subjective, i generally see games that are more focused, with better control on the experiences fare better (with few exceptions like Minecraft).
I am not saying VR cannot result in great games. I am saying that if a dev want my money (or even just time), he needs to convince me. I am not convinced yet.
jumping from a plane is fun, driving a motorcycle is fun, hand gliding is fun, bunge jumping is fun, speed boating is fun.
They know from studies that VR has very close to the same effect on the brain and experience as the real counterpart.
(please dont ask me to post a link for proof I dont keep a link to every article I read or every documentry I watch and I dont like it when people imply that I am liying)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
jumping from a plane is fun, driving a motorcycle is fun, hand gliding is fun, bunge jumping is fun, speed boating is fun.
They know from studies that VR has very close to the same effect on the brain and experience as the real counterpart.
The question is whether they can get 90% of the effect by doing it on a flat screen. It is not whether it is fun in absolute terms, but how much MORE fun it can add to the existing games.
Just like, i am not buying a 4K tv. It has great pictures but the improvement over a standard HD tv is small, unless you have the eyes of an eagle.
And we are not even talking about negative side effects (remember the dizzyness stuff from the 3DS?).
jumping from a plane is fun, driving a motorcycle is fun, hand gliding is fun, bunge jumping is fun, speed boating is fun.
They know from studies that VR has very close to the same effect on the brain and experience as the real counterpart.
The question is whether they can get 90% of the effect by doing it on a flat screen. It is not whether it is fun in absolute terms, but how much MORE fun it can add to the existing games.
Just like, i am not buying a 4K tv. It has great pictures but the improvement over a standard HD tv is small, unless you have the eyes of an eagle.
And we are not even talking about negative side effects (remember the dizzyness stuff from the 3DS?).
speaking from direct personal experience I can say I got more 'fun' and effect from a VR device that costs less than my monitor.
I dont know what else to tell you
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am just trying to make a distinction here that by no means is 3rd person view a universally accepted game play.
As to its success a lot of that has to do with some history. Decades ago (around the time of DOOM) 1st person view was not only popular it was the majority of the option. why it gradually switched to the 3rd to a point where people who grew up on 3rd person struggle with 1st person is something I dont even have a speculation on, its hard for me to understand.
Safe to say however some people play to play a game..other play to get lost inside a world. For those (like myself) who want to go to another reality VR is very attractive for those who just want to play a game its a different set of requirements for them.
Oh .. i have no problem with that. Surely you can like whatever perspective and play a game for whatever reasons.
I am just pointing out that an expensive piece of gaming equipment needs to justify its existence by more than "this is new and neat", at least for me.
ANd yes, i just want to play games. Worlds in the way of games are not that fun for me.
for people like myself VR is far from 'new and neat' and I might remind you that the linage of game perspective was this
2d
first person view
3rd person view
3rd person view was a new and neat idea that came AFTER 1st person was popular and kind of like smart phones it took off.
I think some people can extroplate as to what might happen in the future, others can not and for them if it doesnt fit nicely into the world they are currently living in they discard it.
My take is that (personal preferences aside) success are driven by what is fun ... not what is realistic. While fun is subjective, i generally see games that are more focused, with better control on the experiences fare better (with few exceptions like Minecraft).
I am not saying VR cannot result in great games. I am saying that if a dev want my money (or even just time), he needs to convince me. I am not convinced yet.
jumping from a plane is fun, driving a motorcycle is fun, hand gliding is fun, bunge jumping is fun, speed boating is fun.
They know from studies that VR has very close to the same effect on the brain and experience as the real counterpart.
(please dont ask me to post a link for proof I dont keep a link to every article I read or every documentry I watch and I dont like it when people imply that I am liying)
Oh don't worry I took your advice and googled...found nothing of what you are stating but that's not new....I did find this lovely article though.
The amplification of physical vigor and the minimizing of discomfort is more fantasy than reality. It doesn't live up to the definition of "virtual." People who WANT the exertion, the thumping heart, the sweat, the feel of the branches in their grip, will be disappointed. It ain't nuthin like the real thing, baby.
The term, unfortunately, can be a bit misleading. It implies that VR is an attempt to exactly recreate the world as we consciously experience it with our eyes, ears, skin, body. This, indeed, is one of the two paths of VR. But there's another path. VR also strives to create new environments that are purely imaginary - fantasy realms that feel "real" but have no direct correlate in the actual world. Let's take a look at these two paths of virtual reality and see where, in the future, they may take us.
AND THE WINNER IS!!
Science still has no answer to these questions. Nevertheless, science fiction has had a field day with the possibility of brain stimulated experiences. In movies like "The Matrix" and "Total Recall," futuristic computer technology stimulates the cerebral cortex to create true-to-life worlds, down to every touch of the fingertips and the faintest whiff of perfume. The virtual scene all takes place inside one's head. In most science fiction stories, you have to wear a headset in order for the computer to work inside your skull. Exactly how the headset selectively stimulates the billions of neural pathways that comprise the gray matter - and how one goes about writing software that not only encodes the almost infinite sensory complexities of the real world but also translates that code into the control of the headset - well, that's really science FICTION!
I am just trying to make a distinction here that by no means is 3rd person view a universally accepted game play.As to its success a lot of that has to do with some history. Decades ago (around the time of DOOM) 1st person view was not only popular it was the majority of the option. why it gradually switched to the 3rd to a point where people who grew up on 3rd person struggle with 1st person is something I dont even have a speculation on, its hard for me to understand.Safe to say however some people play to play a game..other play to get lost inside a world. For those (like myself) who want to go to another reality VR is very attractive for those who just want to play a game its a different set of requirements for them.
Oh .. i have no problem with that. Surely you can like whatever perspective and play a game for whatever reasons.I am just pointing out that an expensive piece of gaming equipment needs to justify its existence by more than "this is new and neat", at least for me.ANd yes, i just want to play games. Worlds in the way of games are not that fun for me.
for people like myself VR is far from 'new and neat' and I might remind you that the linage of game perspective was this2dfirst person view3rd person view3rd person view was a new and neat idea that came AFTER 1st person was popular and kind of like smart phones it took off.I think some people can extroplate as to what might happen in the future, others can not and for them if it doesnt fit nicely into the world they are currently living in they discard it.
My take is that (personal preferences aside) success are driven by what is fun ... not what is realistic. While fun is subjective, i generally see games that are more focused, with better control on the experiences fare better (with few exceptions like Minecraft).I am not saying VR cannot result in great games. I am saying that if a dev want my money (or even just time), he needs to convince me. I am not convinced yet.
jumping from a plane is fun, driving a motorcycle is fun, hand gliding is fun, bunge jumping is fun, speed boating is fun.They know from studies that VR has very close to the same effect on the brain and experience as the real counterpart.(please dont ask me to post a link for proof I dont keep a link to every article I read or every documentry I watch and I dont like it when people imply that I am liying)
Oh don't worry I took your advice and googled...found nothing of what you are stating but that's not new....I did find this lovely article though.http://www.psicopolis.com/psicopedia/Psychology of Cyberspace/psycyber/vrpaths.htmla couple highlights The amplification of physical vigor and the minimizing of discomfort is more fantasy than reality. It doesn't live up to the definition of "virtual." People who WANT the exertion, the thumping heart, the sweat, the feel of the branches in their grip, will be disappointed. It ain't nuthin like the real thing, baby.The term, unfortunately, can be a bit misleading. It implies that VR is an attempt to exactly recreate the world as we consciously experience it with our eyes, ears, skin, body. This, indeed, is one of the two paths of VR. But there's another path. VR also strives to create new environments that are purely imaginary - fantasy realms that feel "real" but have no direct correlate in the actual world. Let's take a look at these two paths of virtual reality and see where, in the future, they may take us.AND THE WINNER IS!!Science still has no answer to these questions. Nevertheless, science fiction has had a field day with the possibility of brain stimulated experiences. In movies like "The Matrix" and "Total Recall," futuristic computer technology stimulates the cerebral cortex to create true-to-life worlds, down to every touch of the fingertips and the faintest whiff of perfume. The virtual scene all takes place inside one's head. In most science fiction stories, you have to wear a headset in order for the computer to work inside your skull. Exactly how the headset selectively stimulates the billions of neural pathways that comprise the gray matter - and how one goes about writing software that not only encodes the almost infinite sensory complexities of the real world but also translates that code into the control of the headset - well, that's really science FICTION!
I saw it on a documentry on the subject of Virtual Reality. The segmant was from work being done at MIT I think it was and it was about a decade old/
Look this debate is cute and all and its a nice diversion if you are not intrested then just dont worry about it and stick to whatever device you use now.
I for one have tried it and I can clearly see the radical difference in potential.
people tend to believe what they want to believe in things they have not experienced myself included. You clearly do not seem to be interested so I suggest dont try.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I am just trying to make a distinction here that by no means is 3rd person view a universally accepted game play.As to its success a lot of that has to do with some history. Decades ago (around the time of DOOM) 1st person view was not only popular it was the majority of the option. why it gradually switched to the 3rd to a point where people who grew up on 3rd person struggle with 1st person is something I dont even have a speculation on, its hard for me to understand.Safe to say however some people play to play a game..other play to get lost inside a world. For those (like myself) who want to go to another reality VR is very attractive for those who just want to play a game its a different set of requirements for them.
Oh .. i have no problem with that. Surely you can like whatever perspective and play a game for whatever reasons.I am just pointing out that an expensive piece of gaming equipment needs to justify its existence by more than "this is new and neat", at least for me.ANd yes, i just want to play games. Worlds in the way of games are not that fun for me.
for people like myself VR is far from 'new and neat' and I might remind you that the linage of game perspective was this2dfirst person view3rd person view3rd person view was a new and neat idea that came AFTER 1st person was popular and kind of like smart phones it took off.I think some people can extroplate as to what might happen in the future, others can not and for them if it doesnt fit nicely into the world they are currently living in they discard it.
My take is that (personal preferences aside) success are driven by what is fun ... not what is realistic. While fun is subjective, i generally see games that are more focused, with better control on the experiences fare better (with few exceptions like Minecraft).I am not saying VR cannot result in great games. I am saying that if a dev want my money (or even just time), he needs to convince me. I am not convinced yet.
jumping from a plane is fun, driving a motorcycle is fun, hand gliding is fun, bunge jumping is fun, speed boating is fun.They know from studies that VR has very close to the same effect on the brain and experience as the real counterpart.(please dont ask me to post a link for proof I dont keep a link to every article I read or every documentry I watch and I dont like it when people imply that I am liying)
Oh don't worry I took your advice and googled...found nothing of what you are stating but that's not new....I did find this lovely article though.http://www.psicopolis.com/psicopedia/Psychology of Cyberspace/psycyber/vrpaths.htmla couple highlights The amplification of physical vigor and the minimizing of discomfort is more fantasy than reality. It doesn't live up to the definition of "virtual." People who WANT the exertion, the thumping heart, the sweat, the feel of the branches in their grip, will be disappointed. It ain't nuthin like the real thing, baby.The term, unfortunately, can be a bit misleading. It implies that VR is an attempt to exactly recreate the world as we consciously experience it with our eyes, ears, skin, body. This, indeed, is one of the two paths of VR. But there's another path. VR also strives to create new environments that are purely imaginary - fantasy realms that feel "real" but have no direct correlate in the actual world. Let's take a look at these two paths of virtual reality and see where, in the future, they may take us.AND THE WINNER IS!!Science still has no answer to these questions. Nevertheless, science fiction has had a field day with the possibility of brain stimulated experiences. In movies like "The Matrix" and "Total Recall," futuristic computer technology stimulates the cerebral cortex to create true-to-life worlds, down to every touch of the fingertips and the faintest whiff of perfume. The virtual scene all takes place inside one's head. In most science fiction stories, you have to wear a headset in order for the computer to work inside your skull. Exactly how the headset selectively stimulates the billions of neural pathways that comprise the gray matter - and how one goes about writing software that not only encodes the almost infinite sensory complexities of the real world but also translates that code into the control of the headset - well, that's really science FICTION!
I saw it on a documentry on the subject of Virtual Reality. Not cyberspace or gaming...virtual reality
Look this debate is cute and all and its a nice diversion if you are not intrested then just dont worry about it and stick to whatever device you use now.
I for one have tried it and I can clearly see the radical difference in potential.
people tend to believe what they want to believe in things they have not experienced myself included. You clearly do not seem to be interested so I suggest dont try.
This isn't about what I like or what you like. This is about you stating "facts" or things you think are facts without an ounce of information or evidence to back it up. Sorry if you don't like me posting links to prove what you say as wrong then stop making wild baseless claims. A little tip most on sites like this have been around long enough to know BS when they see it.
Now if you want to claim "studies have shown VR has a close effect on the brain" well buddy that is something you will need to prove with a link to your source. Because I would assume not a single person on this site or any other game site will believe you just because you said so and that goes for every little "fact" you post without actual links or sources to back it up. As I posted a link that completly disproves your supposed thing you read/watch but not sure where you read/watch it .
This isn't about what I like or what you like. This is about you stating "facts" or things you think are facts without an ounce of information or evidence to back it up. Sorry if you don't like me posting links to prove what you say as wrong then stop making wild baseless claims. A little tip most on sites like this have been around long enough to know BS when they see it.
Now if you want to claim "studies have shown VR has a close effect on the brain" well buddy that is something you will need to prove with a link to your source. Because I would assume not a single person on this site or any other game site will believe you just because you said so and that goes for every little "fact" you post without actual links or sources to back it up. As I posted a link that completly disproves your supposed thing you read/watch but not sure where you read/watch it .
I thought twice about saying anything whatsoever about any 'study' because any time I do someone wants to go out and find a study that shows that study to be in question or imply I am a liar or both and then troll the conversation completely away from the topic or point that was at hand. That is called a strawman.
Your question is this.
Is a $750 monitor and keyboard better than a $300 VR headset and I am trying to tell you from personal experience that it is not and many titans in industy agree with me.
Sorry you see it differently but please try to focus on the point here and not get lost in the noise.
You also seem to think body tracking of movement isnt all that big of a deal which is bizzare to me but that is fine, move on as someone who is not interested please
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
This isn't about what I like or what you like. This is about you stating "facts" or things you think are facts without an ounce of information or evidence to back it up. Sorry if you don't like me posting links to prove what you say as wrong then stop making wild baseless claims. A little tip most on sites like this have been around long enough to know BS when they see it.
Now if you want to claim "studies have shown VR has a close effect on the brain" well buddy that is something you will need to prove with a link to your source. Because I would assume not a single person on this site or any other game site will believe you just because you said so and that goes for every little "fact" you post without actual links or sources to back it up. As I posted a link that completly disproves your supposed thing you read/watch but not sure where you read/watch it .
I thought twice about saying anything whatsoever about any 'study' because any time I do someone wants to go out and find a study that shows that study to be in question or imply I am a liar or both and then troll the conversation completely away from the topic or point that was at hand. That is called a strawman.
Your question is this.
Is a $750 monitor and keyboard better than a $300 VR headset and I am trying to tell you from personal experience that it is not and many titans in industy agree with me.
Sorry you see it differently but please try to focus on the point here and not get lost in the noise.
You also seem to think body tracking of movement isnt all that big of a deal which is bizzare to me but that is fine, move on as someone who is not interested please
Ok I wasn't going to ask this because I know the answer but here it goes....
Any chance you have link that states "many titans in industry agree the $300 rift is better then a $700 monitor and keyboard"
also so a side note the new dev kit is $350 not $300 and pretty sure you can get a quality monitor and keyboard for $350. But go on with your source.
This isn't about what I like or what you like. This is about you stating "facts" or things you think are facts without an ounce of information or evidence to back it up. Sorry if you don't like me posting links to prove what you say as wrong then stop making wild baseless claims. A little tip most on sites like this have been around long enough to know BS when they see it.
Now if you want to claim "studies have shown VR has a close effect on the brain" well buddy that is something you will need to prove with a link to your source. Because I would assume not a single person on this site or any other game site will believe you just because you said so and that goes for every little "fact" you post without actual links or sources to back it up. As I posted a link that completly disproves your supposed thing you read/watch but not sure where you read/watch it .
I thought twice about saying anything whatsoever about any 'study' because any time I do someone wants to go out and find a study that shows that study to be in question or imply I am a liar or both and then troll the conversation completely away from the topic or point that was at hand. That is called a strawman.
Your question is this.
Is a $750 monitor and keyboard better than a $300 VR headset and I am trying to tell you from personal experience that it is not and many titans in industy agree with me.
Sorry you see it differently but please try to focus on the point here and not get lost in the noise.
You also seem to think body tracking of movement isnt all that big of a deal which is bizzare to me but that is fine, move on as someone who is not interested please
Ok I wasn't going to ask this because I know the answer but here it goes....
Any chance you have link that states "many titans in industry agree the $300 rift is better then a $700 monitor and keyboard"
also so a side note the new dev kit is $350 not $300 and pretty sure you can get a quality monitor and keyboard for $350. But go on with your source.
1. no I am not going to link because it would be a lot of links but dont you think Facebook might be a good one start with?
or do you want to troll some more on who is or is not titans of industry like John Carmak or something? can we focus a bit on the point here. You dont think its interesting or going to take off. I get it done, thanks for your input move on.
2. I have a $200 monitor and a $750 monitor both the same size. Yes the $750 monitor is better and it does increase my gaming experience. Just like moving from a VGA monitor to an HD era improved my gaming then.
3. the $350 for the NEW dev kit includes a body motion camera. fucking shit!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I totally get that some people are into gaming for function. I get that, they could play on an old VGA monitor and be fine as long as they had access to the game. I totally understand that.
However, I do not think that is the majority of people, if it was we would all still be on VGA monitors
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
jumping from a plane is fun, driving a motorcycle is fun, hand gliding is fun, bunge jumping is fun, speed boating is fun.
They know from studies that VR has very close to the same effect on the brain and experience as the real counterpart.
The question is whether they can get 90% of the effect by doing it on a flat screen. It is not whether it is fun in absolute terms, but how much MORE fun it can add to the existing games.
Just like, i am not buying a 4K tv. It has great pictures but the improvement over a standard HD tv is small, unless you have the eyes of an eagle.
And we are not even talking about negative side effects (remember the dizzyness stuff from the 3DS?).
speaking from direct personal experience I can say I got more 'fun' and effect from a VR device that costs less than my monitor.
I dont know what else to tell you
I suppose i will try it out when a demo unit is available. The point is ... i need to be convinced to spend any amount of money on this.
Is a monitor, mouse and keyboard actually better? Because the cost is about the same.
My take away is not its not the BETTER chocie.
Wrong question.
Unless you buy your computer to do nothing but to play VR games, a monitor, mouse and keyboard are necessarily for the computer to function and so the VR unit is an ADDITIONAL cost.
Furthermore, i do all my computing (and gaming) on my laptop. If you buy a laptop, you already pay for the "monitor" and keyboard. Only the mouse is additional.
Is a monitor, mouse and keyboard actually better? Because the cost is about the same.
My take away is not its not the BETTER chocie.
Wrong question.
Unless you buy your computer to do nothing but to play VR games, a monitor, mouse and keyboard are necessarily for the computer to function and so the VR unit is an ADDITIONAL cost.
Furthermore, i do all my computing (and gaming) on my laptop. If you buy a laptop, you already pay for the "monitor" and keyboard. Only the mouse is additional.
well anyway you shake it in my view $350 is cheap in my mind for a VR device. I thought one of this quality was going to be more in the thousands to be frank.
I have two monitors. I dont need two monitors but I have them. I dont need a $750 monitor but I bought one because i want one and it improves my experience.
I am sorry you disagree and I dont think there is anything I can do to help you understand so I think its best you just move on as an unintrested party.
If it makes you feel any better I think you won the debate.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I predict that Oculus Rift is just the beginning of what may someday be a fully visual and fully sensory virtual gaming experience. Imagine wearing a suit that could let you feel cold and heat (to non-injurious degrees, of course). Imagine running in place to cause your character to run across a fantasy landscape, and the Wii-type movements to engage in combat.
Imagine playing an MMORPG experience all day long and having it be the equivalent of a day spent working out at the gym!!! A win-win of all worlds, I say.
Some cute girl approaches, touches your rippling biceps and says, "You're really buff. You must play games."
Haha you are better off creating a program to create a girl (weird science) then have an actual girl say you are buff you must play video games...
Now I think the VR will be a successful niche product. It doesn't have the appeal that a certain poster thinks it does no matter how many pretend facts he post. It's clear this site the VR craze has not hit there is only one poster who ever creates post about the VR and his last one...well that got all the way through without a single reply, now if the pattern follows he will bump it in a day or two and try to pitch his product again but like all the other it will be full of opinions pretend facts and information with Zero evidence or links to back it up.
I predict that Oculus Rift is just the beginning of what may someday be a fully visual and fully sensory virtual gaming experience. Imagine wearing a suit that could let you feel cold and heat (to non-injurious degrees, of course). Imagine running in place to cause your character to run across a fantasy landscape, and the Wii-type movements to engage in combat.
Imagine playing an MMORPG experience all day long and having it be the equivalent of a day spent working out at the gym!!! A win-win of all worlds, I say.
Some cute girl approaches, touches your rippling biceps and says, "You're really buff. You must play games."
Lol ....
Nah ... real gamers would probably put in a mod so you can "walk" without moving a muscle. VR does not mean physical work. You can control it with fingers .. or may be even your mind.
jumping from a plane is fun, driving a motorcycle is fun, hand gliding is fun, bunge jumping is fun, speed boating is fun.
They know from studies that VR has very close to the same effect on the brain and experience as the real counterpart.
The question is whether they can get 90% of the effect by doing it on a flat screen. It is not whether it is fun in absolute terms, but how much MORE fun it can add to the existing games.
Just like, i am not buying a 4K tv. It has great pictures but the improvement over a standard HD tv is small, unless you have the eyes of an eagle.
And we are not even talking about negative side effects (remember the dizzyness stuff from the 3DS?).
speaking from direct personal experience I can say I got more 'fun' and effect from a VR device that costs less than my monitor.
I dont know what else to tell you
I suppose i will try it out when a demo unit is available. The point is ... i need to be convinced to spend any amount of money on this.
well I am sure they will have some retail demos the closer we get to fall of next year.
good luck
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Anyway, the glasses aren't new. They are fairly cheap at $350.00. I have no idea if they are battery powered. There are lots of others. Sony's glasses come to mind.
They are inefficient at playing games due to the keyboard mouse interface being the best and a game controller second. Motion effects are a distant third.
The reason they're removing skills off the bar is so you can play them with game controllers. Among, I suppose also, players being stupid.
These would be decent at playing first person shooters, with a game controller.
A 960 x 1080 screen? 100 degree field of view?
The screens would likely still smear even at 2ms, but that, in my case, would be OK. But they would likely still produce headaches and motion sickness in some people.
They're very ugly, but that is OK at this point.
They don't say how much they weigh.
Without anyway to hear, you'd likely either need earphones or a stereo.
Anyway, the glasses aren't new. They are fairly cheap at $350.00. I have no idea if they are battery powered. There are lots of others. Sony's glasses come to mind.
They are inefficient at playing games due to the keyboard mouse interface being the best and a game controller second. Motion effects are a distant third.
The reason they're removing skills off the bar is so you can play them with game controllers. Among, I suppose also, players being stupid.
These would be decent at playing first person shooters, with a game controller.
A 960 x 1080 screen? 100 degree field of view?
The screens would likely still smear even at 2ms, but that, in my case, would be OK. But they would likely still produce headaches and motion sickness in some people.
They're very ugly, but that is OK at this point.
They don't say how much they weigh.
Without anyway to hear, you'd likely either need earphones or a stereo.
despite it being in the news and some articles written about it I have noticed that Jouranlists havent done a very good job at putting context to it.
Basically the forumla is this
Consumer edition > DK2 > DK1
not in theory but in planned implementation.
It has been said by Lucky that the Consumer Edition will have a lower latency and higher resolution and I think wider angle of view then DK2. DK2 is more in resolution and latency then DK1.
So doing an evaulation of DK1 to what we will be getting next year is known to be innacurate.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
It has a damn good track record of "convincing" everyone who bothers to try it. Hopefully, the people who have this weird VR-phobia will do that at some point.
Anyway, as for MMOs being "ready", I wish they would be, but I think it'll be one of the last genres to adapt to VR, for a few reasons:
MMOs tend to lag behind other genres in general, for understandable reasons. Doing anything new in MMO design is just much higher-risk than in other genres, and as such, I think MMO developers will be more cautious than any others about VR.
MMO standards are currently some of the worst-suited to VR of any genre. Big, bloated 2D interfaces floating in front of your face, obscuring the 3D world, are much more obnoxious in VR than on a monitor. So are all the crazy particle effects, superhuman speeds, constant jumping, invisible walls, and camera clipping. Even if, like me, you're someone who doesn't experience motion sickness, this kind of stuff is just monumentally annoying when you feel so much more present in the world. MMOs are visual clusterfucks.
MMOs take a long damn time to develop. I think it's clear that the best experiences in VR will be indie games for a good long while because they're able to jump in on-the-fly compared to AAA titles, while obeying the Best Practices.
Favorites: EQ, EVE | Playing: None. Mostly VR and strategy | Anticipating: CU, Pantheon
Comments
for people like myself VR is far from 'new and neat' and I might remind you that the linage of game perspective was this
2d
first person view
3rd person view
3rd person view was a new and neat idea that came AFTER 1st person was popular and kind of like smart phones it took off.
I think some people can extroplate as to what might happen in the future, others can not and for them if it doesnt fit nicely into the world they are currently living in they discard it.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
My take is that (personal preferences aside) success are driven by what is fun ... not what is realistic. While fun is subjective, i generally see games that are more focused, with better control on the experiences fare better (with few exceptions like Minecraft).
I am not saying VR cannot result in great games. I am saying that if a dev want my money (or even just time), he needs to convince me. I am not convinced yet.
Merged with Facebook,that is a HUGE NO THANKS,there is enough of a monopoly going with everyone tying into FB including the FBI using it to fill their database with information on you.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
jumping from a plane is fun, driving a motorcycle is fun, hand gliding is fun, bunge jumping is fun, speed boating is fun.
They know from studies that VR has very close to the same effect on the brain and experience as the real counterpart.
(please dont ask me to post a link for proof I dont keep a link to every article I read or every documentry I watch and I dont like it when people imply that I am liying)
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
The question is whether they can get 90% of the effect by doing it on a flat screen. It is not whether it is fun in absolute terms, but how much MORE fun it can add to the existing games.
Just like, i am not buying a 4K tv. It has great pictures but the improvement over a standard HD tv is small, unless you have the eyes of an eagle.
And we are not even talking about negative side effects (remember the dizzyness stuff from the 3DS?).
speaking from direct personal experience I can say I got more 'fun' and effect from a VR device that costs less than my monitor.
I dont know what else to tell you
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Oh don't worry I took your advice and googled...found nothing of what you are stating but that's not new....I did find this lovely article though.
http://www.psicopolis.com/psicopedia/Psychology of Cyberspace/psycyber/vrpaths.html
a couple highlights
The amplification of physical vigor and the minimizing of discomfort is more fantasy than reality. It doesn't live up to the definition of "virtual." People who WANT the exertion, the thumping heart, the sweat, the feel of the branches in their grip, will be disappointed. It ain't nuthin like the real thing, baby.
The term, unfortunately, can be a bit misleading. It implies that VR is an attempt to exactly recreate the world as we consciously experience it with our eyes, ears, skin, body. This, indeed, is one of the two paths of VR. But there's another path. VR also strives to create new environments that are purely imaginary - fantasy realms that feel "real" but have no direct correlate in the actual world. Let's take a look at these two paths of virtual reality and see where, in the future, they may take us.
AND THE WINNER IS!!
Science still has no answer to these questions. Nevertheless, science fiction has had a field day with the possibility of brain stimulated experiences. In movies like "The Matrix" and "Total Recall," futuristic computer technology stimulates the cerebral cortex to create true-to-life worlds, down to every touch of the fingertips and the faintest whiff of perfume. The virtual scene all takes place inside one's head. In most science fiction stories, you have to wear a headset in order for the computer to work inside your skull. Exactly how the headset selectively stimulates the billions of neural pathways that comprise the gray matter - and how one goes about writing software that not only encodes the almost infinite sensory complexities of the real world but also translates that code into the control of the headset - well, that's really science FICTION!
I saw it on a documentry on the subject of Virtual Reality. The segmant was from work being done at MIT I think it was and it was about a decade old/Look this debate is cute and all and its a nice diversion if you are not intrested then just dont worry about it and stick to whatever device you use now.
I for one have tried it and I can clearly see the radical difference in potential.
people tend to believe what they want to believe in things they have not experienced myself included. You clearly do not seem to be interested so I suggest dont try.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I think the real take away is this.
Is a monitor, mouse and keyboard actually better? Because the cost is about the same.
My take away is not its not the BETTER chocie.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
This isn't about what I like or what you like. This is about you stating "facts" or things you think are facts without an ounce of information or evidence to back it up. Sorry if you don't like me posting links to prove what you say as wrong then stop making wild baseless claims. A little tip most on sites like this have been around long enough to know BS when they see it.
Now if you want to claim "studies have shown VR has a close effect on the brain" well buddy that is something you will need to prove with a link to your source. Because I would assume not a single person on this site or any other game site will believe you just because you said so and that goes for every little "fact" you post without actual links or sources to back it up. As I posted a link that completly disproves your supposed thing you read/watch but not sure where you read/watch it .
I thought twice about saying anything whatsoever about any 'study' because any time I do someone wants to go out and find a study that shows that study to be in question or imply I am a liar or both and then troll the conversation completely away from the topic or point that was at hand. That is called a strawman.
Your question is this.
Is a $750 monitor and keyboard better than a $300 VR headset and I am trying to tell you from personal experience that it is not and many titans in industy agree with me.
Sorry you see it differently but please try to focus on the point here and not get lost in the noise.
You also seem to think body tracking of movement isnt all that big of a deal which is bizzare to me but that is fine, move on as someone who is not interested please
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Ok I wasn't going to ask this because I know the answer but here it goes....
Any chance you have link that states "many titans in industry agree the $300 rift is better then a $700 monitor and keyboard"
also so a side note the new dev kit is $350 not $300 and pretty sure you can get a quality monitor and keyboard for $350. But go on with your source.
1. no I am not going to link because it would be a lot of links but dont you think Facebook might be a good one start with?
or do you want to troll some more on who is or is not titans of industry like John Carmak or something? can we focus a bit on the point here. You dont think its interesting or going to take off. I get it done, thanks for your input move on.
2. I have a $200 monitor and a $750 monitor both the same size. Yes the $750 monitor is better and it does increase my gaming experience. Just like moving from a VGA monitor to an HD era improved my gaming then.
3. the $350 for the NEW dev kit includes a body motion camera. fucking shit!
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
also..
I totally get that some people are into gaming for function. I get that, they could play on an old VGA monitor and be fine as long as they had access to the game. I totally understand that.
However, I do not think that is the majority of people, if it was we would all still be on VGA monitors
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I suppose i will try it out when a demo unit is available. The point is ... i need to be convinced to spend any amount of money on this.
Wrong question.
Unless you buy your computer to do nothing but to play VR games, a monitor, mouse and keyboard are necessarily for the computer to function and so the VR unit is an ADDITIONAL cost.
Furthermore, i do all my computing (and gaming) on my laptop. If you buy a laptop, you already pay for the "monitor" and keyboard. Only the mouse is additional.
Most MMOs are 3rd person so I don't really see the Rift being a big asset for them.
well anyway you shake it in my view $350 is cheap in my mind for a VR device. I thought one of this quality was going to be more in the thousands to be frank.
I have two monitors. I dont need two monitors but I have them. I dont need a $750 monitor but I bought one because i want one and it improves my experience.
I am sorry you disagree and I dont think there is anything I can do to help you understand so I think its best you just move on as an unintrested party.
If it makes you feel any better I think you won the debate.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Dat weight-lifting MMO.
Haha you are better off creating a program to create a girl (weird science) then have an actual girl say you are buff you must play video games...
Now I think the VR will be a successful niche product. It doesn't have the appeal that a certain poster thinks it does no matter how many pretend facts he post. It's clear this site the VR craze has not hit there is only one poster who ever creates post about the VR and his last one...well that got all the way through without a single reply, now if the pattern follows he will bump it in a day or two and try to pitch his product again but like all the other it will be full of opinions pretend facts and information with Zero evidence or links to back it up.
Lol ....
Nah ... real gamers would probably put in a mod so you can "walk" without moving a muscle. VR does not mean physical work. You can control it with fingers .. or may be even your mind.
well I am sure they will have some retail demos the closer we get to fall of next year.
good luck
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Well, it ate my prior reply. *sigh*
These forums suck ass.
Anyway, the glasses aren't new. They are fairly cheap at $350.00. I have no idea if they are battery powered. There are lots of others. Sony's glasses come to mind.
They are inefficient at playing games due to the keyboard mouse interface being the best and a game controller second. Motion effects are a distant third.
The reason they're removing skills off the bar is so you can play them with game controllers. Among, I suppose also, players being stupid.
These would be decent at playing first person shooters, with a game controller.
A 960 x 1080 screen? 100 degree field of view?
The screens would likely still smear even at 2ms, but that, in my case, would be OK. But they would likely still produce headaches and motion sickness in some people.
They're very ugly, but that is OK at this point.
They don't say how much they weigh.
Without anyway to hear, you'd likely either need earphones or a stereo.
Oh yeah. The link to some info: http://www.oculusvr.com/dk2/
despite it being in the news and some articles written about it I have noticed that Jouranlists havent done a very good job at putting context to it.
Basically the forumla is this
Consumer edition > DK2 > DK1
not in theory but in planned implementation.
It has been said by Lucky that the Consumer Edition will have a lower latency and higher resolution and I think wider angle of view then DK2. DK2 is more in resolution and latency then DK1.
So doing an evaulation of DK1 to what we will be getting next year is known to be innacurate.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
It has a damn good track record of "convincing" everyone who bothers to try it. Hopefully, the people who have this weird VR-phobia will do that at some point.
Anyway, as for MMOs being "ready", I wish they would be, but I think it'll be one of the last genres to adapt to VR, for a few reasons: