icemann on 16/9/2015 at 06:48
Totally agree
Thirith on 16/9/2015 at 06:57
I could imagine it having a fairly big, diverse niche - beyond games, there's great potential for education, art, science, design etc. - and having VR on the consoles increases its chances of going more mainstream, because of the simple plug-and-play potential. At the same time, it's obviously naive to think that this could, or is even intended to, replace gaming as we know it, in front of monitors and TVs. Both the critics and proponents who think that this could be a huge game-changer for the medium as a whole strike me as somewhat deluded.
My gut feeling is that after earlier attempts at VR that were simply way too clunky and not particularly fun beyond the initial wow factor, this time VR might actually establish itself in some way. It won't be perfect yet, but it'll be feasible, and that's a big difference to the VR attempts of the past.
icemann on 16/9/2015 at 06:59
If they can remove the eye strain and nausea factor that would be good.
EvaUnit02 on 16/9/2015 at 07:02
AR is more likely to take off than VR if anything. The fact that a headset is required will always be roadblock, it's probably one of the big reasons that 3D keeps failing.
Thirith on 16/9/2015 at 07:08
Quote Posted by icemann
If they can remove the eye strain and nausea factor that would be good.
Apparently that's already much diminished, especially the latter, due to higher framerates and lower latency.
faetal on 16/9/2015 at 08:13
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
Elite playing "dad gamers"
Hey fuck you man.
*empties pipe and shakes fist*
faetal on 16/9/2015 at 08:15
Quote Posted by EvaUnit02
AR is more likely to take off than VR if anything. The fact that a headset is required will always be roadblock, it's probably one of the big reasons that 3D keeps failing.
The thing which gets me is the loss of being able to see anything other than the screen. Fine if you're using a gamepad I guess, but I don't actually understand how anyone plays Elite with one on, what with the sheer variety of controls required.
IMO, this tech will live and die by whether or not someone manages to create a game or genre which absolutely locks right into it and makes playing the games without VR a greatly inferior option. Else it just feels a bit too niche.
demagogue on 16/9/2015 at 08:55
The promising AR system I saw (if it lives up to its promise) were the glasses that use fiber optics to project an image directly into your eyes, so the glasses aren't bulky and you don't get eye strain from near-focusing. And the glass goes opaque exactly where the image is, so you get the illusion that the images are in the real world. And if everything goes opaque it effectively becomes VR, so it's an all in one system. That's the one I see winning the device race in the end.
The thing is, I don't see that catering centrally to gaming. If it becomes tied into social/real-world networking, that'll cement it, and then the most common gaming for it is just going to hang on that like cellphone games today, I think. (Not that it's going to be like cellphone games. It'll be a different beast. But it'll hang on the realworld/social aspect like cellphone games do, i.e., something you play on your commute, or socially with friends, casual, etc.) That's where I see the scene going.
As for console VR... I mean, I think the reason console VR flopped the first time around wasn't only because it was bulky, glitchy, queezy, but also because it doesn't really fit the mold except, like you guys are saying, as rather gimmicky.
henke on 16/9/2015 at 11:02
Quote Posted by demagogue
The promising AR system I saw (if it lives up to its promise) were the glasses that use fiber optics to project an image directly into your eyes
Was that the Magic Leap? Where did you see it?
Quote Posted by demagogue
As for console VR... I mean, I think the reason console VR flopped the first time around wasn't
only because it was bulky, glitchy, queezy, but also because it doesn't really fit the mold except, like you guys are saying, as rather gimmicky.
I'm sorta leaning the same way. Playstation VR kinda feels like Sony simply wanting a BIG THING for this console generation. Last gen it was motion controls, this one it's VR. Oculus and Vive feel like more sincere attempt at VR.
Then again Sports Champions on PS Move was a lot of fun, so even if it
is just a gimmick that doesn't mean it couldn't produce some really fun games.
demagogue on 16/9/2015 at 11:52
Yes (edit: to your first question), though reading back on it, it's raising red flags just by the sheer diversity of things they want to do for one system, which is usually a sign of feature creep gone amuck. (They hired one of the Irrational writers incidentally.) But I can see how raising a half billion dollars would expand a team's ambition.
Edit2: For the record, I'm looking forward to some VR gaming too, and PS is one to do it since they have more imaginative games ... Red Dead, Journey, Last of Us, et al.
I'm looking forward to VR most for an IL-2 sequel and the next Elder Scrolls game though.
