Manwe on 17/3/2016 at 13:47
Quote Posted by Abysmal
I'm guessing most future headsets will be driven by chips built directly into the headset (as they should be) and people with rifts will look like chumps tripping over multiple wires and wasting all their gpu power driving those soon-to-be-ancient things.
With the AMD announcement it's easy to imagine that all-in-one headsets will probably replace the next generation of consoles altogether. I'm calling it now, we're in for a new console war, with all the bullshit exclusivity that comes with it (heck we already have half a dozen different threads dedicated to VR in here). All the big players are already in the race, only Microsoft is conspicuously absent. And well, Nintendo. If they're clever, that's what they've been working on for their new console, if not they're as good as finished.
Also we used to whine about games getting dumbed down. Wait till they all revolve around standing still and flailing your arms about. I mean from what I gather movement in VR makes people sick, unless it's in a cockpit. So yeah, there are only so many genres you can add a cockpit to... So no FPSs, TPSs or any fast paced action games for that matter, not even walking simulators. So what, staring simulators? That's all these things seem good for.
All of a sudden I'm a lot less excited by the idea of VR...
Thirith on 17/3/2016 at 14:05
I cannot imagine all-in-one headsets replacing the next generation of consoles in any way. A lot of living room gaming is social in one way or another, like watching TV. To be honest, while I'm massively excited about the upcoming wave of VR, I don't find any of the scenarios credible that have it replacing regular gaming.
Your information on motion sickness is also not entirely accurate, from what I've read (and I've read a lot on the topic, though I don't have any first-hand experience, so I may prove to be entirely wrong). The main problem is first-person view, because it comes with a number of real-life expectations: you turn physically in a certain direction, you walk. Combining two input methods - the direction you're looking in and gamepad or keyboard - for movement is a nut they haven't yet cracked; it doesn't automatically make everyone sick, but there's a disconnect there that's uncomfortable. This seems to be much less of a problem with third-person views, because your eyes don't tell you that you're an actual person that moves like a human being and is limited like a human being in what movement is possible and/or comfortable: you're a floating camera, which removes the disconnect you have with first-person view.
Developers are looking into alternative ways of handling movement and turning in first-person view. Just because the old methods don't necessarily work as well as we expect doesn't mean that there aren't alternative methods.
To be honest, I think it's naive for people to think that we'll immediately have a solution to all the problems that come with new tech and a new way of experiencing games. We won't immediately have brilliant, fantastic, amazing games that use all the potential of VR. There will be teething troubles. A lot of the early games will be Wii-type gimmicks or the sort of games that, five years later, we'll find embarrassing, like the glut of early CD-ROM games that were absolute shit. VR may or may not fail, for a variety of reasons, but most of what people bring up at this point is the sort of general criticism of anything new that was true for tech that's now fully established.
Renault on 17/3/2016 at 15:05
I was too busy watching that chick's navel to notice her reactions to the VR.
I can't see why VR would ever replace consoles, mainly because it doesn't have to. Yes, I'm sure eventually all the major players will have a VR component, but it's way too niche to make it the primary element of the console. Plus, some games just don't lend themselves to VR, so it wouldn't work anyway. I agree with Thirth though, part of console gaming is hanging out with the boys, playing Madden or Super Smash Bros, and you're probably not going to have 4 dudes sitting around a living room with headsets on. That won't be the norm, at least.
Thirith on 17/3/2016 at 15:18
One thing I'd find cool, at least briefly: a VR spectator mode for sports games, that lets you sit in the audience - or into the head of a player or the ref, or indeed the ball. I'm thinking there's potential for cool VR elements in more conventional games, like a VR tourism mode in Assassin's Creed (yes, Henke, you're in Déjà Vu Land!).
Malf on 17/3/2016 at 17:10
VR replacing the console?
Nah.
AR on the other hand...
One of the headsets that consistently flies under the radar, but is progressing apace is (
http://castar.com/news/) CastAR, which can flick between AR & VR modes.
That's got some really cool ideas and could be the next evolution of social gaming if they play it right. I love their example of a live, animated D&D tabletop session.
I also love that it's very much something different, based around a cool trick noticed by a very talented engineer.
TannisRoot on 17/3/2016 at 18:28
Everything I've read has me unconvinced. They seem egregiously limited due to 'simulation sickness'. As stated above, the fix is to give the player a static frame of reference like a cockpit or the driver's seat of a car. That seems like a huge limitation.
Thirith on 18/3/2016 at 07:37
Quote Posted by Brethren
I was too busy watching that chick's navel to notice her reactions to the VR.
It's not bad, as far as navels go, right? Now imagine watching it...
in VR!henke on 18/3/2016 at 09:33
Navelgazing VR
Thirith on 18/3/2016 at 09:43
"... for when you gaze long at the navel, the navel gazes also at you."
derfy on 18/3/2016 at 10:17
So, due to two surgeries done on my eyes when I was young, I lack stereoscopic vision. Will VR work for me?
I'd hate to sink $500 into a product that doesn't work for me.
